Basic Instinct 2 (2006) - Drama, Mystery, Thriller

Hohum Score



Novelist Catherine Tramell is once again in trouble with the law, and Scotland Yard appoints psychiatrist Dr. Michael Glass to evaluate her. Though, like Detective Nick Curran before him, Glass is entranced by Tramell and lured into a seductive game.

IMDB: 4.3
Director: Michael Caton-Jones
Stars: Sharon Stone, David Morrissey
Length: 114 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 71 out of 314 found boring (22.61%)

One-line Reviews (280)

The opening sequence could have triggered an intriguing set of plot developments using a considerably talented and able cast.

It is a bland late-night-cable erotic thriller dressed up as a "proper" film just because it has a few "proper" actors in it.

I highly recommend this movie for its a very entertaining film.

VERY entertaining, skillfully made, Sharon is right back into her character, she is excellent and the cast and location are hot!!

Then boring for about an hour.

After the film's stylish yet hilarious beginning, it comes as a relief that the remainder of the film is a more traditional thriller, which offers liberal servings of sex but more importantly, an intriguing (if incredibly unlikely) storyline.

This is just a run-of-the-mill follow up sequel that is as bland and boring as every other product that was churned out by studios at the time.

Anyway I found the new one very entertaining and went to see it again in English yesterday, Sunday, partly too because the plot needed a bit of checking out.

After a fairly intriguing opening, we catch back up with Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone).

The score is also suspenseful and much more effective than the one it was in the first movie with oriental mixes in it and a combination of the first movie's score.

The male lead is so bland that it makes you miss Michael Douglas and that's bad.

The movie is somewhat predictably unpredictable which is either a good or a bad thing.

film noir with a confusing cleavage .

I thinkit's worth watching though, I don't understand why it got such harsh reviews.

Basic Instinct 2 was downright boring and predictable from the start.

I found it to be hugely entertaining and a lot of fun.

The rest of the cast gives very ho hum boring performances and while the entire cast is believable as their characters there nearly expressionless faces just end up giving you the want for more Catherine Tramell.

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.

The movie is very slow moving and doesn't promise the kind of film the opening sequence leads it on to be.

Catherine might face jail time, because of the unexpected accident.

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!

Very enjoyable .

Quite possibly THE worst film of 2006, which also has to contend with some truly abysmal acting (including a cameo by controversial soccer ace Stan Collymore), a boring, meandering plot/script with no sense whatsoever of narrative structure or pace and even, God help it, some crap sex which fails to stimulate or arouse in any way.

Everything movie buffs want in a breathtaking, out-of-your-seat experience!

There is nothing remotely intense, sexy or interesting in BI2, only the promise that you will waste 110 minutes of your life that you'll never get back.

Casting for the most part was bland and characterless.

If the writer/writers had come up with a intense, dramatically compelling sequel in 1995 which wraps things up so that it wouldn't be a trilogy (Basic Instince 3 is no longer possible), then this movie would have been terrific.

Hugely entertaining .

When I walked into the theater and got my ticket I was expecting a fun, clever thriller, I got a boring sex-thriller-film that was supposed to make Stone a big Hollywood star again.

Alas, the plodding pace and dialog failed to keep my eyes open, or maybe it's just last night's festivities that hung a heavy cloud of somnolence over my viewing experience.

The second and third times I saw the movie with two different people, and they were totally surprised at how good the movie was and how much they really enjoyed it.

Watching her as Catherine is the only compelling aspect of "Basic Instincts 2".

No, this is not my favorite movie of all time, and not as good as the original (but really how many sequels really are), but I still enjoyed it as a guilty pleasure.

don't waste your time .

The journey from theaters to DVD has been an unsurprisingly fast one, and the disc includes Caton-Jones' rather bored commentary on an alternative track, and there are several deleted scenes all wisely excised.

" She is daring and shameless in her teasing, temptations and commands… She never shows any remorse, and remains, one more time, one of the classic femme fatales…"Basic Instinct 2" is hardly unwatchable, because Stone is very winding, puzzling and intensely fascinating in the way she puts out of side issues through dialog that seems foolishly open and penetrating…

The first half is slow and a bit dull,the second half is much better.

Save your money and save your time.. this movie will take away 2 precious hours of your life.

Morissey was enjoyable as the male lead and held his own against Stone.

I should have walked out after the first scene, so shame on me.

We get more murk, more nukid Sharon (which is neither altogether bad nor altogether good at this age), and more confusion.

Seduction by the numbers in this uninteresting and flawed 'thriller'.

But, the movie loses this element once Trammell starts to try and manipulate her therapist (who is about as bland an actor as I have seen).

Don't waste you time they are a lot of better thrillers out there the only thing you gonna see is the decline of a great actress and a movie made it because of she ego.

Great Movie and Very Entertaining and Engaging .

It is a taut, thrilling extension of the character created in "Basic Instinct".

If you loved Basic Instinct 1, you don't really need to see this movie, because it's predictable.

Guessing from the title, Basic Instinct 2, I thought the film might be something hard to follow for those who hadn't seen the first one like myself.

It was entertaining and suspenseful.

Its just shocking how some people cannot distinguish between whats a good, gripping movie and what is not !

In fact, it is a highly entertaining and even intelligent film noir.

It was bland, dull and he put no emotion into the role.

Charlotte Rampling was pretty bland herself and her character had potential to be a lot more interesting.

The movie is fun, entertaining, true 'popcorn movie' and as good a sequel as any.

However, whereas in the early 90s Catherine Tramell wore sexy outfits, made even more exciting because it was obvious she didn't wear any underwear, she was still pretty elegantly dressed.

The death scenes are uninteresting and the mind game and cat and mouse stuff between the two leads is just boring.

In "Basic Instincts 2" Stone's smoldering swagger as the all devouring sexual predator Catherine is the only compelling aspect of the movie.

On the contrary, it is slow paced and sometimes dull, focusing much more on the mystery than on the action.

The plot is always interesting and twisty enough to keep you on the edge of your seat, and the story moves along at a cracking pace.

Caught in her web this time around is Stan Collymore, a boring psychologist whose life is influenced by equally uninteresting women: the sexually unsatisfied ex-wife, a mother figure and mentor and some kind of love interest.

It starts out with a super action packed sexy scene and ends with a dramatic triumphant ending.

This is one of the worst movies ever made.

Worth watching .

I'm a longtime fan of slow burn thrillers, Noir and Neo Noir.

Most of them were pretty bland and none of them broke out of their one dimensional personalities.

Relocated to London for reasons never fully explained and shifting the focus of Tramell's 'dangerous' obsession to a psychiatrist/doctor, Sharon Stone once again manages to both appal and bore us all in the same sitting.

Some won't get the layers of subtlety mixed with intensity, but maybe the more intense sex scenes will make up for that.

The score was so fascinating and effective especially when Morissey was following Stone on the streets,that was really great.

Horrible, terrible, and boring .

I blame director Michael Caton-Jones, whose drab camera-work saps life from the surroundings.

It's not a sassy mystery, but an overly drawn out soap opera; with overly dramatic close ups abundant.

Don't waste your money.

Sad and bad sequel to an entertaining first movie .

She (Stone) is no ordinary lady - she is very sexually aggressive, intense, incredibly brilliant and amazingly complex.

all of us enjoyed it a lot.

Sad really, because I have always found Sharon Stone entertaining.

Granted the original "Basic Instincts" was a somewhat predictable erotic thriller notorious for the crotch baring scene of Stone.

It's an erotic thriller that is both erotic and thrilling, and is a continuation of a brilliant character that we all love to hate.

It is a pity that such an intriguing concept, because of poor execution,will probably go to waste.

I suspect the cliché London setting and subsequent cast of unknown actors was done for financial reasons.

(Still predictable, though.

That's how boring the script is.

So, with low expectations, I was surprised to find how much I enjoyed it.

it has a dark, thrilling, sexy and gritty look, strong performances, and you never felt bored!

It looked sexy, stylish and suspenseful and I eagerly was looking forward to seeing Catherine Tramell back on the big screen.

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.

The story line is tight, daring, and suspenseful.

Whole movie - enjoyable.

Even then, they're more confusing than shocking.

Basic Instinct 2: Worth Watching?.

Thoroughly Enjoyable movie .

However, with sloppy dialogue and the inferior pairing with Morrissey, BI2 just comes off pointless.

The plot goes from uninspired cheese to predictable cliché.

Of course, a movie like this is much better when it is subject to no scrutiny at all, and if you can suspend disbelief and/or judgment, "Basic Instinct 2" has the potential to be a marginally enjoyable (if totally unnecessary) film; anyone who cannot is advised to skip this one.

Alas, unintentional comedy was not what I was treated to, rather just one long, boring, seemingly never ending piece of pointless, cheap, exploitative, tacky artless crap.

Worth watching?

I don't know what Sharon Stone is trying to prove in doing this cheesy thriller because she's always been stunning and she still good great today.

The screenplay is bland and the movie is void of anything remotely shocking, except for the wealth of talent wasted on this project and the wastefulness of shooting such an unfocused, lurching, boring screenplay.

Unfortunately the plot is very weak and predictable - with a climactic scene which is simply not believable.

If it's an exciting crime story you're looking for, better go watch one of the other erotic thrillers Basic Instinct paved the way for, like Body of Evidence, Disclosure or Sliver.

One way or another Stone looks great but otherwise the film is a drab affair that is full of lacklustre performances, unimaginative writing and very little else.

At the beginning you get this very pulp noir film but soon it just turns to a film about psychiatry with boring lighting and boring visual effects.

I like it a lot, there's a lot of fowl language, and some pretty risqué scenes, and all the psycho sexual mind boggling is awesome!

In the end, "Basic Instinct 2" is overlong, and it tries to surprise the audience so much that it gets ridiculously boring.

It was impossible for me to get past those two major issues, but for the sake of this review here is an attempt: The movie is entertaining, it has a solid though not original plot, and a creative though unsatisfying ending.

I found the story more dark than the first, intense and very sexy.

Save your money..Horrible!!. .

The movie was very engaging when dealing with Stone's "risk addiction" and all the scenes that mix Tramel's two favorite subjects, sex and death.

The film is, as a whole, convoluted to the point of utter confusion, boring and laughable.

For anyone who likes thrillers and some suspenseful entertainment I recommend this movie.

Even the sex scenes are quite dull, although I've heard that some of them were trimmed for the theatrical release.

A rehash, but an entertaining rehash .

This reached its climax at the final shot; where his expression was sure the most pointless and stupid expression I have ever seen in my life !

We all know what they say about sequels and this movie is a prime example of the saying "You cant have a sequel half as good as the First One" and this case lets face it- the original though entertaining had its flaws as well.

A police investigation is much more exciting.

She remains as powerful and bewitching as ever, but this time, she manages to wander into a mire of banal and polluted talent.

Aside from that,the film follows a confusing story that has somewhat turned from implausible which is highlighted by a ludicrous ending.

about movie yes he's little bit boring,but when you haven't any kind expectations about this movie{even if you heard bad rumors}you may like it,as some kind of pointless movie exercise.

This sequel is the exact opposite, it cannot possibly get worse, bad acting and a lame script, combined with totally inept direction, this is really bad, boring, annoying.

If they had only matched the screenwriter's pay to her plastic surgery bill this might have been a mildly entertaining film.

Charlotte Rampling's rôle was too small as she too is an actress fascinating to watch; all three took big chances in their rôle playing and I was entertained from start to finish.

Forget about the bad press and enjoy this film for what it is - an entertaining thriller, spiced with liberal doses of sex and nudity.

All in all, this movie is entertaining and i recommend people who haven't seen it see it, because what the critics and box office say doesn't always count, see it for yourself, you never know, you might just enjoy it.

Despite what some reviews might indicate, this movie is definitely worth watching.

The movie starts off with a bang, a high speed sequence in a car, but after that its all sheer boredom.

I thought Sharon Stone gave a great performance and looked stunning and the cast of well known British actors also gave their usual high standard of performance.

I spot the highly criticized Basic instinct 2 and bored as I am deciding to give it a shot.

The sexual content was beyond boring.. One would need a real sense of humor or no sense at all to sit through this one.

The story line was neither so tight or suspenseful (not to mention confusing at places), nor filled with erotic tension as we have seen in BI 1.

The scenes and sets were stunningly dazzling, crisp, contemporary, breathtaking and sensitively contrasted.

doesn't quite stand up to the original,but still enjoyable .

Aside from a few instances of unnecessary trite dialogue, for which I deleted one point, the acting and story are uniformly well done.

What this actually is this time around is far more dark and far more twisted, without the massive, thrilling campery of the first instalment, there's a far more interesting story here.

I really enjoyed it.

Moving on, it seemed these confusing issues over the years were influencing the final production getting seriously trashed.

It is a credit to David Morrissey's skill as an actor that Michael transforms from a dull bore into something far more edgy.

Unfortunately, however charismatic a footballer he might have been, he looks drab and very ordinary opposite the sparkling seductress.

It may also appeal to people with professional interest in psychotherapy, not because of its accuracy, rather the opposite, but it is always entertaining to watch ones profession depicted on screen, regardless of the accuracy of realism (if nothing else it is good for a laugh).

I left the theater a little sad because Sharon Stone is a great actress and I admire her courage for trying to show that it's a shame that women over 35 suddenly become invisible nowadays.

Enjoyed it a lot....

In spite of all the undeserved Razzie Awards, I can only recommend "Basic Instinct 2", it is dark, hot and sexy, intense and when it is all over, you'll be left with a sweaty shirt and still be guessing on who did it.

What you have is a movie with over-the-top raunchy scenes, cheesier dialog, overboard drama, and an uninspiring cast, though Stone can still pull-off a cunning femme fatale portrayal.

Whereas the first one is thrilling, the second part has none of that chemistry.

The rest of the film involves more murders and another guessing game about whether Stone is the killer, someone else's front, or even a potential victim, while dredging up various devils and temptations of Dr. Dull.

Nevertheless, the story is engaging, and the cityscape of London in which it was filmed -- an interesting mix of old and new London -- is a welcome relief to what we Americans usually see of the city.

Very Good Sequel-original, entertaining and hot!!.

It is also dull, slow at times, appallingly badly constructed, badly acted, has no believable chemistry between the principals, and makes very little sense.

Erotic and exciting .

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.

And while beautifully shot the lack of cohesive story and supposed twists are more yawn inducing than shocking.

Jaczzi scene revealed parts of BI 1 which, as a fan is enjoyable.

The story and narrative are strange though, she destroys his life so she can write a book basically, but it seems a lot more confusing than that.

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.

Her constant monotone delivery did nothing to help the audience stay awake- and I noticed 3 movie goers dozing in my area within the first 45 minutes!

Like a number of people mentioned, the script was confusing and to be honest weak.

BI2 is just as enjoyable as the first movie.

Whereas Cahterine Tramell was the most intriguing figure in the first movie, she was surrounded by other equally well developed characters.

Sometimes the movie actually is exciting and compared with 300 which everyone seemed to love in the cold North I'm from, it is a freaking masterpiece!!

The changes made were the right ones making it more reserved yet kept it compelling- not just a campy shock fest.

entertaining too...

I was disappointed, and I thought that there were a lot of bondage scenes that I fell asleep through the first time I tried to watch this.

I think, it was very erotic and exciting, even though I did not really get the end.

It does disappoint slightly, but still entertaining and some funny and clever lines between Glass and Catherine character.

"Basic Instinct 2" is just an entertaining, average thriller, and besides the addition of Jerry Goldsmith original score, keeps little resemblance to its predecessor.

In Michael Caton-Jones' "Basic Instinct 2," Sharon Stone tries desperately to prove she is still sexy and dangerous… To each uncrossing of legs, she supplies every type of attraction… And yes, she does get naked, but not as naked as before… teasing us only with a glimpse of her nethers… In every step of the way, every line of dialog, every gesture, makes her look absolutely stunning, even better than she did in the original erotic thriller back in 1992…Stone returns as novelist Catherine Tramell whose bestselling books match her deadly reality so perfectly making us wonder… This time the action moves from San Francisco to London, where she attracts the attention of the Scotland Yard… Soon a celebrated psychologist named Michael Glass is caught between her seductive powers… Glass knows all about homicidal impulse and identifies Catherine as having "risk addiction.

Just watch his soulless performance, with dull cadres, dull way to move the cast, dull cuts.. etc, to feel how he directed a rushed TV episode where he had no time to create, rather master, anything !

I found it enjoyable.

Stone, while her physique is absolutely stunning to look at (especially out of the clothes, which takes almost an hour before we see), just sounds too old for this role.

If you want to waste a couple or hours and some money then go ahead and see the movie.

The ending is a bit trite (and I won't spoil it here), but if you go into the movie just looking for an entertaining evening with some lovely eye candy, it can be an enjoyable experience for you.

It was extremely entertaining.


Bland dialogue is only the start, as the film struggles badly to build up suspense.

Second, the script seemed a bit disjointed - from itself and from the the first Basic Instinct.

She's too much of a cliché - she wears party dresses to her shrink!

For me this movie is so underrated and i saw much worst movies than this one and I will say if there will be the third movie soon, i will go out and see it!

Sharon Stone puts on a brilliant and intense performance.

At the very least it's entertaining and fun to look at it, and that's the movie's only intentions.

overall great suspenseful movie, with a lot of sexual energy,, ie.. the chair scene is classic.

Friday evening, i am bored trying to find something to do and I end up in the same TV-coach as always.

In whatever event, the intriguing character of Catherine Trammel that emerged in BI One is overcooked here.

He moved the film at a slow pace.

Everything about this story feels contrived, failing to create characters or a situation that stirs the emotions as the first one did.

This movie manages to be the one thing you least associated with the first "Basic Instinct": dull.

For entertainment value alone it is well worth watching.

You cant expect this to movie to be action packed or with a great murder plot.

The fact that a non-popular star was chosen, makes his performance all the more enjoyable because we as an audience have no background on him, just what we see him perform.

" question, which was a big part of the original's appeal, has been answered, so the plot this time is predictable.

The enjoyment of this movie is in the twisty plot and intense performances.

This isn't a sexy thriller, but a boring wann-a-be mystery.

but it is so entertaining.

Movie is actually pretty good, I let reviews scare me off for way too long .

It's dull, not erotic, not engaging and not a lot of fun either.

It is entertaining as well as artistic.

But then came along Basic Instinct, a film loved by male teens whose hormones were running amok, adults looking for an exciting thriller, or just curious what all the fuzz was about, and film critics alike.

Now I really enjoyed the first one, a classic thriller, great cinema (there are movies which everyone accepts that they are great, cause they cause no controversy and then there are movies which will divide the race, so to speak), very suspenseful and gripping.

It was very enjoyable to watch and there were plenty of twists in the story at the end.

I use the word "dated" only because we have not seen a certain film of the like in many years, and audiences have become adapted to the pointless, boring storytelling seen in other movies that actually make money, and the only reason they make such big numbers is because those films are family friendly.

Intense - Twisty - Great.

Countless shots of her in outré designer duds, spouting vulgarity or otherwise attempting to be stunning do not add up to much of anything.

The movie was extremely entertaining.

Everything was so contrived nothing mattered.

Well, "Basic Instinct 2" was certainly not a film I expected to be made, but it is here now and I must that I enjoyed it big time.

Overall a so so movie that is enjoyable because of Sharon Stone's performance.

You don't watch this as from a lusty caveman perspective, go watch Porn for that, this is a thrilling psycho-sexual ride, playing on the psychology of manipulations of lust and desire.

Becoming little more than a bored thrill seeker, Tramell manages to kill her first victim in her car after some frankly daft driving and then proceeds to drag the film along by taunting her victim Dr Michael Glass, played with little life by David Morrissey.

Sharon Stone and the writers of this movie deserve better than to be viewed as making one of the worst movies ever made.

Then I bought Basic Instinct 1, and I thought this was kind of boring.

I saw this movie months and months ago so I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, but I do remember being bored.

The opening scene is intense and the intensity stays with throughout.

Otherwise, this is a major waste of time and money that found practically no audience waiting for it at the theater.

There were several supporting actors who made this movie worth watching: Indira Varma, David Thewlis, Hugh Dancy, Heathcote Williams, Kata Dobó.

Boring, bad acting, bad sound, bad directing, bad quotations from the original.

i can't believe that basic instinct 2 was horrible, and it took too long to make another one even Sharon still looks great, i think she only did it for the paycheck and looks quite bored and tired.

Then boring.

Here, Sharon is still looking pretty foxy, but her male foil (David Morrissey) seems substantially more intelligent (if horrifically boring); that he would fall into her games seems completely illogical and silly.

Unfortunately we are treated to a 90 minute dissertation in the self-indulgent life of Catherine Tramell...

The quality of filming in some scenes is superior and the film takes a confusing path once again.

She eventually lures him into her own mind game 'out shrinking' the shrink and manipulates him into confusion about her guilt or innocence as the body count rises.

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.

You will not be missing anything if you pass on BI2, so save your money or see ANYTHING else.

Of course the acting wasn't any good, and the story line was boring because there was, basically no story line, no sequence, no hope or fear for the actors, no audience involvement, except for laughing at moments when the filmmakers didn't want you to laugh.

The production is excellent, and like someone mentioned before, the photograph of the buildings of London are beautiful, it makes you realize how uninteresting American cities really are.

Worst Movie I've Seen in Years .

Charlotte Rampling seems to be lost in that mess (why in the world did she accept such an uninteresting part?

The story is complicated so you have to concentrate to follow it, it's fast paced and action packed.

The exciting thing is also we see a London with a different angle of view, not some classic American look to it.

Supporting turns by David Thewlis and Charlotte Rampling waste these fine actors on talky exposition scenes and cliché-heavy posturing.

I'm sorry but my first thought after I left the theater was: "Why heaven't they made this movie earlier and with original talents behind the success of the first movie?

He introduced pointless characters and he didn't develop the central characters very well.

It's not as good as the original, but it does many intriguing and provocative things with the character of Catherine Trammell, portrayed in a performance of virtuoso cheek by Sharon Stone, the most underused actress in Hollywood.

The sex in this movie was needless, pointless.

Drug confusion was key in confusing moviegoers to now know who the killer.

I went to the theater expecting to see the worst movie ever made — a disaster, a train-wreck, a career-ending fiasco.

But here's the exciting new twist, now it's set in England.

Don't expect a masterpiece, or something thats gripping and soul touching, just allow yourself to get out of your life and get yourself involved in theirs.

yawn .

Great, funny, intense, dramatic movie.

The movie starts off with a famous soccer player getting killed while he's making love to Catherine in her car while she's doing 110 miles an hour in downtown London, which is immediately the most exciting sexual scene in the whole movie.

I enjoyed this film for what it was, an entertaining film.

I mean, this has to be one of the most pointless follow ups to have come out of Hollywood in some time.

The panoramic shots of London that knit the various scenes together are evocative but there are so many panoramic shots of London between the many scenes that they become rather a bore in the end.

All in all a very erotic and exciting mystery with many surprising turns.

Sharon Stone looks absolutely stunning.

I say this because the film descends into a progression random and bizarre scenes; my favourite of which was when Glass followed Tramell to the red light district and watches her partake in an orgy – they stare at each other through the skylight in an odd and seemingly pointless exchange.

Surprisingly dull sequel .

" But when the people surrounding him start falling in graphic ways, Glass starts jeopardizing his profession to keep at distance the siren's notorious advances…With his soft brown eyes, bland haircut, and prominent chin, Morrissey's Dr. Glass is no match for a sultry, sexy and smart vixen like Sharon Stone… Stone completely embodies every aspect of Catherine's physical attribute, manipulating the hell out of the freshly divorced psychiatrist… Dr. Milena Gardosh (Charlotte Rampling) recognizes Glass is falling for Catherine and advises him to remove himself as her therapist…Stone seems to be a strong figure only composed of "capital sins.

The overly complicated screenplay by Leora Barish and Henry Bean is not the only culprit here, as Michael Caton-Jones' direction is pedestrian and plodding.

I expected an absolute disaster, and got something which is easily one of the most exciting films I have seen in a long time.

All in all, a very entertaining diversion and a sexy time at the movies.

The plot is suspenseful and well thought out, and leaves the ending in as much ambiguity as to who the true murderer is as in the first film.

What was so photogenic thru Verhoeven's lens looks like mutton dressed as lamb in the hands of gun-for-hire Michael Caton-Jones, who's flat, drab colours and static camera render her undeniable beauty totally moot.

When I actually did see it I wasn't all that impressed, and I left the theater feeling very confused as to what made sense.

Its an entertaining little guilty pleasure of mine with some super sexy scenes and a fun trashy little mystery.

Too Flip and Contrived .

I enjoyed it even more the second time around.

Sharon Stone was fascinating to watch in the film and still as desirable as ever.

The costumes are striking, the cinematography is gorgeous and the sets are often stunning.

*S P O I L E R A H E A D*At first I was wondering why they picked such an ordinary-looking (boring, really) guy like David Morrissey for the male lead.

In fact, the movie is done very well in many respects and is very entertaining.

I also thought this movie was quite suspenseful and dark which I liked.

So, if you are "in" to car-wreck movies, in every sense of the word, get a bottle (or 2, or 3) and settle back and let your left brain doze for two hours.

I am by no means saying this is a great film, but if your looking for something risky, sexual, raw, entertaining at times, and completely different than whats out there, then this is the movie to see.

This was an abominable waste of time and money.

I remember everything about the original, the steam, the romance, the sex, the interrogation, the music (by the master Jerry Goldsmith), and everything else from violence and murder, to intense confrontations of all kind!

But this one is really bad, and in addition to that, you can't find anything good for the movie, even the supposed sexy session is boring to death.

This film is an ambiguous, twisting, slightly thrilling, whodunit.

Boring--cigarette advertisement and porn .

The film is pretty confusing and ludicrous.

I like the first one, at least it is sexy and suspenseful to some extent.

The script is lousy, the acting is weak, the music is bland, the whole thing is a mess.

It's very seductive suspenseful and full of twists and turns.

If you take it as a totally different movie, without comparison, then it is quite entertaining, with Sharon Stone proving she looks amazing at the age of 47!


The plot is skin deep, and if it makes sense, predictable until a confusing ending that seems to lack any forethought as to a direction for the movie.

Sex seems to be main thing in this movie and then some murders just that it wouldn't get so boring.

So when the denouement comes at the end where everything is explained, it's a big yawn since it was all pretty obvious and not very plausible.

The original Basic Instinct was basically (yawn) a vehicle for Dutch director Paul Verhoeven to peddle his idea of what an adult whodunnit movie was supposed to be.

I used to think that Basic Instinct was a pretty empty movie, more famous for that one scene than anything else.

Why I liked the WORST movie of the year...