Basic Instinct 2 Reviews

Page 1 of 108
Super Reviewer
½ July 27, 2006
This film slightly surprised me, I'd held out very little hope for the sequel, having heard nothing good or bad about it and so I'd assume it to be a complete flop. Now I'm not saying it's to the contrary, but I did feel it had it's moments.

I had enjoyed the original when it was released, even if more recent watches of it made it seem a little corny and cliche.

In the sequel we move on to England and whilst the plot is similar to the first, we do have some of Britain's favourite Drama Actors included, in fact had this not been Basic Instinct 2 and it was not starring Sharon Stone, it could have been an ok tv Drama. Stone, however was over the top and was surely the corniest thing about the movie.

Sort of hit and miss, easy watching, but forgettable.
Super Reviewer
July 8, 2009
you would think with a poster like that, Sharon Stone would show her snatch again but instead you get old 45-year old boobs in a hot tub. not that i wanted to see her snootch anyway. i mean, i haven't seen the first one, and if i did i wouldn't care for it anyway cause chicks over 30 are just putrid, soggy, pieces of petrified pilgrim wood to me. you also get to see stone sit in a chair with it turned the opposite way all sexily and shit. and see the wide spectrum of emotions drawn on the canvas of her poor, saturated face. the one she likes to use alot is desperation disguised as seduction, but if you have seen Basic Instinct 2, and you saw it because you sought out to see it because you liked the first one then you don't care about her ball-fattening performance. what you care about is her Amityville clock, vampire-bat winged, baseball gloved snizzy. and you won't get that.

P.S.... 911th review, motherfuckers! im doing it for the victims of that cold september day. im doing it for freedom. if you're reading this review, you're helping support the troops.
TheDudeLebowski65
Super Reviewer
June 15, 2011
I saw this sequel before seeing the original Basic Instinct and actually enjoyed it despite all the negativity the film received. After seeing the first one, I understand now why the film has received so much flack. This sequel is almost a copy of the first film, but with less trills, as we know how it will turn out. However Basic Instinct 2 is an entertaining film, not perfect, but awful either, I've worst films than this, and this film is far from the worst that I've seen. Sharon Stone reprises her role from the first film, and again she is the subject of a murder investigation. Basic Instinct 2 is basically the same film, but it slightly modified to make it "different". The film good for what it is, but it's not excellent, and is worth at least a rental. This is just an entertaining two hour film that presents a different angle on the material presented in the first film. The acting in the film is average at best, nothing special and if you've seen this film, then you've seen this film. The film manages to be to entertaining, but it navigates familiar waters and in the end, you know whats going to happen. As far as sequels are concerned, Basic Instinct 2 is not as bad as the mainstream critics have claimed it to be, I enjoyed it, but I also think it could've been better too.
TheGame90
Super Reviewer
February 1, 2011
It's pretty weak if you compare to the first one. But if you don't compare...It's a decent film. This lead guy can't hold a candle to Michael Douglas. But he is okay. And as for Sharon Stone...I don't think she is too old. But she has lost a lot of that Cold, cunning, mystiqal look in her face. (Although it can be seen in some scenes). And it's nice that they have the same music from the first one. But on the other hand...it's not good...Since the music is great....and this movie is not.
dietmountaindew
Super Reviewer
June 3, 2008
apparently "basic instint2" is far from its ancestor, a legend built by the trio of michael douglas, paul verhoeven and of course sharon stone. but in a way, it is slightly underrated. most people overlook one thing: it is a campy parody of the original basic instinct despite campiness is not what ambitious sharon stone expects from her cinematic comeback.

the story goes like this: catherine trammel (stone) is the criminal novelist who lives on verge of adrenal stimulations of blood-thirsty promiscuity. now she is accused of intentionally drowning a black sportsman inside the car while they're having sex. to rinse off her suspicious spot, she's got to consult a psychiatrist for her mental diagnosis. but now she is entrapping her psychiatrist into a snare of murders and jealousy. spoiler: she maliciously drives him into schizod insanity.

first of all, none of the characters in "basic instint 2" are realistic in flesh and blood, the most contrived charater is undoubtedly stone's catherine trammel who could survive from a high-speed automobile crash while she is having orgasm with a stoned black sportsman. and her mere comment to the police interrogation would be "oh! i'm so traumatized that i'm afraid i can't cum!" which is also an outrageous one-liner with the almighty witch attitude. second of all, the psychiatrist played by david morrissey is wimpish and easy to manipulate. let's put it this way, morrissey is no volcanically masculine michael douglas (when he was young) to emulate a burgeoning fresh-faced sharon stone (again, when she was young!) what's the fun to watch a gender guerilla when you're already aware who's gonna win? in the original, you cannot help but wonder if the dubious hard-boiled copper could tame this snobbish tramp in the end, and their sex looks thrilling with titilating animosity. but now morrissey's psychiatrist is a masturbator who peeks at trammel's picture while he's having intercourse. laughable? i guess so.

it is a dreadfully tiresome caricature of feminism, and it also reflects men's misogynism toward the self-conceited blonde who is mannishly castrative, destined to scatter doom upon men. and her victim is also the grotesque of such fatal attractions, broadcasting the cliche that the evil blonde woman is not to be trusted.

in the original, stone flashes her crotch for a second while her hair is combed behind with lofty poise under a white robe, lighting off a cigarette. that is a stylistically cool image of dominatrix. undeniably verhoeven chooses style over substance, but at least it's a sheer icy-cold style with higher class. now in its inferior sequel, stone's wardrobe seems like being inspired by samatha in "sex and the city", the urbanite sex-hungry tigress looks with the sluttish bang despite stone still remains physically attractive in her middle age. but the sexuality is rendered tastelessly blatant without a bit of subtlety that you could sense while she opens her crotch (again!) behind the chair, uttering crass lines like i know you wanna do me, and i may wanna do you, too.

eventually "basic instinct 2" also exploits the frequently devised plot gimmick in contemporary cinema when scriptors run out of ideas to write: schizophreniac. ignore its obivious flaws and appreciate them as the camp, "basic instinct 2" would be an entertaining trash novel you read to kill time in the airport, a classic CAMP.
Super Reviewer
October 7, 2008
It's hard to believe, after waiting 14 years, we wind up with this piece of cinematic garbage. The original was a high impact, dark thriller that achieved "cult" status demonstrating the fine art of cinema as directed by Paul Verhoeven. This film adds nothing, delivers nothing, and ultimately winds up in the big box of failed sequels.

The opening sequence could have triggered an intriguing set of plot developments using a considerably talented and able cast. Unfortunately we are treated to a 90 minute dissertation in the self-indulgent life of Catherine Tramell... or is it Sharon Stone. Possibly a copulation of both.

If the desire is too see a continuation of the sensually provocative stying of sex as in "B.S.1", forget it. You wind up with soft-porn boredom which ultimately upholds the old adage that a woman can be more alluring in clothes than out of them. It's interesting to note that the wonderful Charlotte Rampling was romping around in her skivvies, via the 1966 GEORGY GIRL, when Ms. Stone was only 8 years old. A very talented actress and quite adept at holding her own even here.

If you're a true cinema fan then you must see this film and judge it using your own rating system. If not, you might as well wait for the DVD release in the "rated" version, "unrated" version, "collectors" edition, or "ultimate" version, and perhaps in another 14 years we will be saturated with news of "Basic Instinct 3" at which point Ms. Stone will be 62 years old and nobody will really care.
Super Reviewer
July 4, 2007
Not a bad sequel considered it was torn apart by critics. Doesn't quite have the same steaminess of the original or quite as good a plot. However if you are a fan of thrillers you should enjoy the little twists in this. Also shows off some of London for a change.
Super Reviewer
½ June 3, 2008
Sharon Stone, can we NOT see your legs for more than one scene please ?
Super Reviewer
January 27, 2008
Nobody seems to like this film calling it simply embaressing is close but not quite the remark I think of when seeing this film. Its a decent censored thriller, but all over the place, easy to pick up on.
Super Reviewer
½ May 28, 2006
So bad I dont even consider it in the league as a Sci-Fi Original.
ajaymuthecooldevils
Super Reviewer
½ May 23, 2006
Great story... It's a brilliant murder story with a twist... The ending was great too... I still wondering who's the killer anyway?? Is it her? Or the doctor??
Super Reviewer
½ October 22, 2006
Unenjoyable, unerotic, I daresay unwatchable.
deano
Super Reviewer
½ August 27, 2006
Really dull suspense I ever watched. "Basic Instinct" is more exciting than the sequel as Sharon Stone who played novelist Catherine Tramell is still hotter and sexy.
Super Reviewer
½ May 30, 2006
If I had to guess I would say that some people either really needed some money, they were being blackmailed, or they had to choose either between this or an Uwe Bolle movie.
Super Reviewer
April 11, 2006
Complete trash but very entertaining and David Thewlis is unintentionally hilarious..could've done with seeing a bit more of Shazza's curves tho!!
Super Reviewer
April 25, 2013
Sharon Stone returns to the role that made her famous in Basic Instinct 2. Novelist Catherine Tramell is accused of murder once again, and faces off with a psychiatrist who believes that she has a risk addiction that drives her to commit murder. The plot is overly convoluted and tries too hard to be ambiguous and have clever twists. The writing is remarkably poor (especially for Stone's character), and has none of the seduction or intrigue that the original film had. An inferior sequel, Basic Instinct 2 is tasteless and uninspired.
Hawaiianguy2991
Super Reviewer
½ April 8, 2010
Basic Instinct 2 pretends to be an erotic thriller but is actually an R-rated porn with lots of sex scenes thrown in aimlessly to capitalize on male hormones and to boost aging Sharon Stone's career. She wants to use sexuality (not sensuality) to feel that she is still sexy at her age but she ends up degrading herself and tarnishing her star image. You start to think, boy is she that desperate to revive her sagging career?

This is a film that had decent potential but was executed horrendously. It starts out ok but spirals down quickly and becomes a drudgery to sit through the end. Not only that, it's quite predictable and anti-climatic. You go 'blah' in the end because it turns out be Hollywood trash.

Story: D
Acting: D-
Direction: F
Visuals: F
Overall: D-

1/2 out of 4 stars
LINDSEY DUNN
Super Reviewer
July 13, 2012
'Basic Instinct 2' shouldn't be approached with high expectations, but the desire to observe a sexy, trashy and erotic thriller. You do that, and you'll be fine.
Super Reviewer
September 14, 2012
There is a glimpse of what "Basic Instinct 2" could be in the first five minutes of the film, when Sharon Stone is speeding down the road in a hot car while touching herself. The film looks sleek and stylish, one-upping the original film's sexually intense opening. But after that, the film falls into a race against itself, trying to recreate the same moments from the original without giving us anything. Sharon Stone teetered on being evil in the original, but in the sequel, we know how the previous film ended and therefore know Stone's character for what she is, destroying the illusion. Stone is sexy as ever, still taking control of her scenes, but none of the other characters add up and the whodunit portion of the film falls flat and melodramatic.
Super Reviewer
August 6, 2009
You know, this had promise. Sharon Stone is still sexy, they roll out a plot, the shrink is an intriguing character and starts unraveling predictably.

Where this movie, and the first one, fall apart is with the crimes. They basically spend the whole film throwing a bunch of theories out there with no rhyme or reason. It could be her! But it could be him! No, it could be her! After about 90 minutes of this they just arbitrarily Pick One.

I will at least applaud them for making you wait for the inevitable sexual "payoff" between the main characters.
Page 1 of 108