Instinto Selvagem 2

Hey, Basic Instinct 2 feels like a Agatha Christie novel written for a sexy protagonist and a modern setting. But there is no Miss Marple involved, for she is at the same time the woman who gets away, the author and the "gärningskvinna" or perpetrator. The word in quotes is Swedish, not German, though it looks like "Götterdammerung".

Everybody and his cousin has chided Sharon Stone for being such a wooden actress cast in this role for the second time, but put your hand on your heart: Could someone else have pulled off the part (which is provocative and implausible from the beginning) any better? Would Keira Knightley, Gwyneth Paltrow or Lena Olin have portrayed a better Catherine Tramell? My verdict is no, therefore, she gets a vindication of sorts. You see, this role doesn't require a perfect body but rather someone who almost has it with brains, conceit and assuredness on top of that. Also, this sequel is good in the sense that it has made me want to see the first part which I missed to see at the time.

It seems that it is becoming fashionable to rip "Basic Instinct 2," to the point that a significant part of the audience (including critics) found it terrible even before it was released. It seems even more fashionable to trash Sharon Stone who—like all of us—is now fourteen years older, and—unlike most of us—still looks wonderful. First comments on this movie were so vicious that I had to see for myself. In my opinion, this sequel is not nearly as good as the original film, but is not as bad as most comments pretend. Michael Caton-Jones is not Paul Verhoeven, neither Henry Bean and Leora Barish are Joe Eszterhas. "Basic Instinct 2" is just an entertaining, average thriller, and besides the addition of Jerry Goldsmith original score, keeps little resemblance to its predecessor. Even Stone gives her character a different dimension, creating a lustful, devilish Catherine Trimell, who can perfectly well rank among other monsters like Hannibal Lecter. She is an intelligent actress who is not afraid of taking risks and can play with camp at her leisure. Unfortunately, she seems to be the main target for those who enjoy trashing this flick. She became too successful, too much of a main icon, and like all those actors who have reached that level, her time has arrived and she is now bound to be destroyed by Hollywood audiences.

The rest of the cast is outstanding, giving performances that are far better than the material deserves. David Morrissey is a much better actor and by far more interesting than Michael Douglas: his acting is flawless, giving a dense, complex dimension to an otherwise one dimensional character. Since he has more screen time and is the axis of the movie, he can keep your attention from beginning to end.

I am not recommending "Basic Instinct 2" as a great movie; I am just expressing my disagreement with most of the comments on this site and my conviction that agendas other than the movie itself are shaping the opinion of most spectators.

Sharon Stone has had a very chequered career, spanning performances that have garnered Golden Globes and Oscar nominations, as well as Razzies. Her performance in Casino convinced skeptics of her acting ability and yet it is for her portrayal of the sexily sinister author Catherine Tramell - in Basic Instinct - that she is perhaps most remembered. Basic Instinct II revives the role – a dangerous undertaking and one that many critics have panned (possibly without even watching it). Yet the character is an interesting one and deserves not to be dismissed so lightly, especially in this well-written sequel.

The enigma of Tramell is whether, in researching her novels, she just gets very close to actual murders, or whether she actually commits them. In Basic Instinct II we become aware of a third possibility – that she manipulates people into creating interesting story lines, even if it means pushing them over the edge mentally and emotionally so they perhaps commit crimes they would not otherwise have committed. Following in the footsteps of twisted real-life authors recently depicted on screen such as Capote, such a possibility does not seem so preposterous.

Where Basic Instinct II fails, is in capturing a suitable target audience. The original Basic Instinct, however good a thriller, is linked in the public imagination with a particularly explicit scene involving Stone uncrossing and crossing her legs during a police interview. Given the raunchy nature of Tramell's personal life, to which the film gave ample reign, the movie drew adult audiences hoping to be shocked. This creates a number of problems for Basic Instinct II. Firstly, the public taste for sexual explicitness seems to have ebbed. Sex scenes are more likely to kill a blockbuster than boost attendances. The independent and European films featuring explicit sexuality tend not to get multiplex coverage – and the limits are now so broad that most mainstream actresses are unlikely to want to push the envelope with such explicitness unless it is to test the limits of art – and Basic Instinct II, like its forerunner, is a thriller not an art house movie.

Yet it suffers from the 'sex-movie' tag. Re-shot in black and white, with a shorter running time, and minimizing any nudity, Basic Instinct II could have been marketed as film noir. The difficulty of puzzling out the who-dunnit keeps the attention, but waiting for the next sex scene it just fizzles (as there's very little to wait for). With a running time of nearly two hours, some of the direction could have been tighter, but the overall feel of the movie almost creates a genre. Sharon Stone hones Tramell's character even better than in the original, and the final twist is difficult to anticipate. As a portrait of a genius writer that can run rings around police detectives and psycho-analysts, Basic Instinct delivers in spades. While Sharon Stone is a good-looking fortysomething, those watching it for sexy thrills may be disappointed.

The sequel of Basic Instinct won't be for sure a remarkable movie, as the original one, but we cannot say it's awful, because it isn't. In fact, I think it's quite good.

The main reason why so many people think this movie is so awful is because they compare this one, more than they should, to the original one! Beside that, the expectation for this sequel was very high (many people expected the sequel since 1992!), and when that happens it's very hard to have success. In most cases it's condemned to fail. But in my opinion, this movie didn't fail, especially because it's a powerful mind twist!

All the plot is a twisted labyrinth where lies and deceives mix together with killer instinct. It's a game to survive! Of course Sharon Stone is not so "hot" in this sequel as she was in the original, nor either exist any "unusual sexy scene" (cross legs' scene), but on the other hand I think she has refined her "killer instinct"! In the original, her character was provocative, seductive and manipulative, but it didn't have the coldness and the evilness on its sight, as it has now at the sequel! The way she manipulates the psychologist and the way she looks at him, is really cold, wicked, in a word: evil!

So, generally, I don't think this movie is brilliant - in fact, it's far away from that - but it's not as bad as some people told!

So, every year there is at least one movie, that hasn't got any chance of being a box office success, because from the moment of production, even before one simple shot is filmed, everybody's picking on this movie... There is a long list of these kind of movies, and in the end, some are really bad (Battlefield Earth (2000)), some may have their flaws but are quite enjoyable (Catwoman (2004), Elektra (2005)) and then there are a few, which actually are really great for what they are, but no one admits! I mean, my gosh, just because the wide crowd does have to have a victim each year they can pick on, not everybody has to join them. So yeaaah, maybe those movies aren't perfect, but c'mon, how many movies are? Not every movie is supposed to be a new The Lord of the Rings! Not everybody will enjoy these movies, but I bet there are more than who admit they do. Hudson Hawk (1991), who is just hysterical funny, Color of Night (1994), which may not be Oscar-worthy, but is definitely a not dumb at all thriller with some nice twists, Swept Away (2002), which I thought is a great mix of sick humor and a beautiful romance, Gigli (2003), which was great entertainment with some really memorable lines and not badly acted at all from the former "Bennifer"-Couple, and this year it's "Basic Instinct 2"! Well, when I heard the rumors of a sequel to one of my favorite movies I was very sceptically, and although I really love Sharon Stone I stayed sceptically until I've finally seen this movie. And really, I was very positively surprised! I can't understand why it gets such a bad press and such a bad voting here. It never simply copies the original, it has a quite clever story, has tension, action, humor and the absolutely stunning Sharon Stone reprising the role of her life! With 47 years when shooting the movie she looks hotter than many stars in their 20s, but it's more than her being beautiful, it's brilliantly acted, with all her looks, her famous smile, the way she speaks and moves... from the very first frame she's in you can't take your eyes off of her. It's simply a pleasure to watch her as Catherine Tramell, and all of the other actors deliver solid performances, too! So I really can't see what's wrong with this movie... it has a dark, thrilling, sexy and gritty look, strong performances, and you never felt bored! Maybe the story isn't Oscar-caliber, but it never even tries to be! It's an entertainment-movie, and by this standard it absolutely delivers in my opinion! So give it a try!