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 321 found boring (22.11%)

One-line Reviews (283)

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!

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

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


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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

(Still predictable, though.

yawn .

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

Sad and bad sequel to an entertaining first movie .

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

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

Then boring for about an hour.

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

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.

Save your money..Horrible!!. .

This was an abominable waste of time and money.

It was entertaining and suspenseful.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Very enjoyable .

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

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.

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

Worth watching .

This is one of the worst movies ever made.

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!

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

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

entertaining too...

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Basic Instinct 2: Worth Watching?.

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

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

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

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

The plot goes from uninspired cheese to predictable cliché.

film noir with a confusing cleavage .

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

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!

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

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.

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

this movie is worth watching; a cold dark thriller with some good plot twists and cookie characters too boot.

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

He moved the film at a slow pace.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

A police investigation is much more exciting.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

don't waste your time .

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

Sharon Stone looks absolutely stunning.

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

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

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

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.

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

Hugely entertaining .

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

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

A rehash, but an entertaining rehash .

Casting for the most part was bland and characterless.

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

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

Even then, they're more confusing than shocking.

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.

Intense - Twisty - Great.

Don't waste your money.

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

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.

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

For entertainment value alone it is well worth watching.

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

BI2 is just as enjoyable as the first movie.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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

It is entertaining as well as artistic.

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

What a positively boring sequel to one of the better sultry thrillers of the 90s.

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

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

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.

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.

Worth watching?

all of us enjoyed it a lot.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

Great Movie and Very Entertaining and Engaging .

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.

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.

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

An enjoyable watch for Stone Fans alike.

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

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.

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

*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.

Erotic and exciting .

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.

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 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.

Boring--cigarette advertisement and porn .

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Inexplicably dull .

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

The movie was extremely entertaining.

Surprisingly dull sequel .

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

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.

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

Horrible, terrible, and boring .

Everything was so contrived nothing mattered.

Great, funny, intense, dramatic movie.

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

I enjoyed it even more the second time around.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

I really enjoyed it.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Sharon Stone puts on a brilliant and intense performance.

The film is pretty confusing and ludicrous.

Enjoyed it a lot....

Whole movie - enjoyable.

Catherine Trammell remains an exciting and fascinating heroine and I'm sure a lot of people would like that have seen what she was up to these days.

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

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?

That's how boring the script is.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Thoroughly Enjoyable movie .

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

" 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…

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.

Too Flip and Contrived .

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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).

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

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

" 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.

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

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

Worst Movie I've Seen in Years .

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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!!

but it is so entertaining.

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!

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

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

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

The story line is tight, daring, and suspenseful.

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

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

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

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.

Then boring.

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

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

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.

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

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


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.

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.

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

It was extremely entertaining.

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

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

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).

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

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

I found it enjoyable.

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

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

The sex in this movie was needless, pointless.

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

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