Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Jeff A Carlson I'm a longtime fan of slow burn thrillers, Noir and Neo Noir. These genres are apparently a niche audience anymore, and it seems most of these type movies made anymore, are low budget, made for TV and video productions. This is OK with me, as long as they're done well, big budgets don't usually equal good movies, and the type of movie in question has a long B production history. This movie to me is well acted,and brings back some of the original BI films Hitchcock vibe, with probably a medium budget. An element in the 1992 film that I loved was the Northern Cal scenery, and I would of liked to have had that again. Going that route probably would of made it too much like the first film. This movie is taken place in London, which isn't too bad of grounds for noir in it's own write! Stone in the 1st movie, her character's personality to me plays out like Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lechtor. She was a little too much of a bad girl for my personal taste, so I was less attracted to her than many viewers. IMO much of the over the top aspects have been tapered back for this movie, the sex scenes are there, but they're shorter, and to me it doesn't look like they tried to carry the film on it as with the first. The plot is confusing, but no more than in the original film. The California aspect was a huge factor in my liking of the 1st film, and a younger Stone could sell that sexual/abrasive character better. That said, to me the newer version shows her a little less over the top, sex is not as quite over sold. You don't have the heavy hitter that Mike Douglass was in 1992, but there are some very good British actors in this film.If you're a fan of Noir and twisted Neo noir thrillers, don't let the bad reviews hold you back from watching this as I did

Leofwine_draca Dull, derivative and distinctly boring, BASIC INSTINCT 2 is one of the worst studio films I've sat through in the past couple of months. Fans of Paul Verhoeven's steamy original will find their patience truly tested with this routine, out-to-make-money-and-money-alone sequel in which almost everything goes wrong from the very beginning. Things kick off in an unintentionally hilarious fashion as writer Catherine Tramell (played by the only original star to return, Sharon Stone) and real-life premiership footballer Stan Collymore are having some fun in a speeding car until it crashes and the footballer drowns. Soon afterwards, Tramell goes to see some shrink who attempts to get inside her head, while all the while a serious of sadomasochistic murders are being played out around them. Yep, it's a retread of the first film's plot, but with none of the genuine 'whodunit' atmosphere that that film evoked. Here, even a monkey could figure out the blindingly obvious 'twist' that comes up in the final reel, exposing the identity of a killer in a plot revelation that's so clichéd that it's frankly unbelievable.For some reason this film was relocated to London, and despite a fair bit of location work, the city just doesn't gel with the story. I blame director Michael Caton-Jones, whose drab camera-work saps life from the surroundings. Truly, this guy is a pedestrian when it comes to direction and he saps the life from what was a poor script to begin with. In these situations, the actors have little chance of making an impact. A miscast David Morrissey is wooden and uncomfortable as the psychologist who gets out of his depth, but he's of Olivier quality when compared to a bloody awful Sharon Stone. Stone, looking to have had a ton of surgery since the first movie, frankly stinks. Her attempts at being sultry are laughable and it's no wonder why she's not seen on our screens anymore. She's lost it.The supporting cast fare no better, aside from the reliable David Thewlis, the only actor to come out of this with his dignity intact. Somehow, he manages to salvage his poor dialogue and become the film's most interesting character. There's actually a good cast in this film, with the likes of Hugh Dancy and Charlotte Rampling popping up in minor roles, but you wouldn't know it as they're all mired down in sub-par scriptwriting and unbelievable dialogue that sounds trite. The death scenes are uninteresting and the mind game and cat and mouse stuff between the two leads is just boring. The overlong running time means that this is a real chore to sit through – a definite shame, as I thought the first film wasn't half bad.

fuadkhan2002 In all honesty, I found this sequel to have much more substance and brains than the sleazy original pop cult classic. Where the first Basic Instinct was loud, brash, gaudy and gratuitous, this one is subtle, dark, intellectual, imaginative and cerebral. The plot, storyline, and Sharon Stone herself, have all matured for the better. Gone is the bad 90s psycho nympho girl called Catherine Tramell and in comes the highly intelligent, manipulative, calm and confident older Tramell. She plays a deadly cat and mouse game with her male psychiatrist to the point where he is unable to differentiate between fact and fantasy. Her acting has matured considerably over the years and she exhibits a highly understated, subtle acting style and exudes just the right mix of seduction and threat, the perfect femme fatale. David Morrissey does great with his British accent and sensibility as the psychiatrist contrasted with Michael Douglas' boorish Nick Curran. Stone has maintained her enviable figure over the years and only looks better physically and psychologically to play the role. I highly recommend this movie to all the fans of the erotic thriller genre that was so chic in the 90s.

neighborlee First off, I did not see BI1, nor do I 'need' to, because either a movie movies me, or it does not. THis did, to the extent that I kept watching, though I was getting tired as it was after midnight.When I saw the very LOW score of 4 or such from some reviewers here, and also saw that they didn't 'get' the ending, I knew I had to chime in immediately.The ending , which I won't divulge, may not have the twisting involvement of a Sherlock Holmes, but it's intriguing enough to have made me wish for #3 to see about getting This scheming, cold , but brilliant writer her just rewards . That's how great of a job Sharon Stone did in this, and the supporting cast and crew while new to me, I felt did a completely adequate job of sinking my attention further and further into the tawdry, deceptive and thrilling plot's development.When we talk about a thriller, we can't help but give respect to Alfred HitchCock's 'The Birds', and while BI2 did most certainly not rise to that occasion ( in part due to the content/script) and there was a lot to rise TO,- it most certainly brought it right to the BRINK of it, with great character allure and thought provoking twists and turns throughout it.If you are looking for something to watch late at night and be on edge for those few hours, wondering if a murderer would go free, victims would be saved and who really did it and why, then this movie is certainly worth your time.