Basic Instinct 2 (2006)

Best movie ever!

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

The same wealthy, sexy and perverse woman from the first installment is accused of murdering her partner and as a result, she starts visiting and courting at the same time, a young psychologist with a troubled past of his own. He tries to understand her peculiar character but the more he gets involved, the more he seems attracted to her in a seduction game which is apparently out of his league. As more and more characters around them continue to die without any traces, he gets into a lot of trouble as the protagonist of the first movie, ending up in a very unexpected position.This movie tries to continue the first movie's story, using the same but much older woman antagonist but unfortunately is not able to be on par with it. Unlike its predecessor, this one does not feature as much action. On the contrary, it is slow paced and sometimes dull, focusing much more on the mystery than on the action. This is regrettable because it reduces the excitement this kind of movie could offer, making it less appealing. It's a good movie with good actors and a good plot but it falls behind in terms of action.

it is very easy and funny and cool to criticize this film. first support - the comparison with the original. than - the expectations. too high. in fact, it is a mistake to make a second part . but this mistake could be reduced if you ignore the original as standard. if you do, you have a thriller. not great but decent. chaotic and predictable but the presence of Sharon Stone and Charlotte Rampling are a reasonable compensation. so, it is an error to define it as trash. it is a decent thriller, not the best but far to be the worst, it is not Paul Verhoeven but a nice try to recreate his universe. so, Basic Instinct 2. and this is all.

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.

I didn't expect much from this movie given the reviews. A rating of 4 doesn't help my expectations however IMDb-ratings haven't got a reputation of being accurate all the time. The first let's say half hour didn't do much for me, but the rest of the movie was OK. OK, Sharon Stone is older now. I didn't see that one coming... . Acting was good, the story was good , kept me interested until the end. Conclusion must be this movie suffers from it being a sequel. When you aren't bothered by that it's a worthwhile watch. When you want to see the young and beautiful Sharon watch part 1. For the mature and still beautiful one watch this. For a nice movie you can safely watch both although the first is better.