Basic Instinct 2

[Casino Bride]

I didn't even like the first one.

[mrpancake]

Honestly. Has Sharon Stone ever been a bankable star? Or even been a bankable star in the past 8 or 9 years? Why on earth would they make this? Sometimes I wonder what goes on in the minds of Hollywood producers.

[GirlyGhoul]

Why in the world is this movie necessary in life? The only thing that would make it even mildly interesting is if they attached the words "Electric Boogaloo" to the title. Even then, I'd be more apt to plop my money down for SNAKES ON A PLANE!

[kafka]

Roger Ebert's review of the film. He almost seems to like Sharon Stone's performance, in a very back-handed compliment sort of way. But not the film. Definitely not the film.

"Basic Instinct 2" resembles its heroine: It gets off by living dangerously. Here is a movie so outrageous and preposterous it is either (a) suicidal or (b) throbbing with a horrible fascination. I lean toward (b). It's a lot of things, but boring is not one of them. I cannot recommend the movie, but ... why the hell can't I? Just because it's godawful? What kind of reason is that for staying away from a movie? Godawful and boring, that would be a reason.

Now for Sharon Stone. She may get some of the worst reviews in years, but she delivers the goods. Playing Catherine Tramell, a trashy novelist who toys with life, death and sex while doing "research" for her next best seller, Stone brings a hypnotic fascination to her performance. You don't believe it, but you can't tear your eyes away. She talks dirty better than anyone in the movies.

The Catherine Tramell role cannot be played well, but Sharon Stone can play it badly better than any other actress alive. The director, Michael Caton-Jones, alternates smoldering closeups with towering dominatrix poses, and there's an extended Jacuzzi sequence in which we get the much-advertised full frontal nudity -- which does not, somehow, manage to be full, frontal and nude all at the same time. First a little nude, then a little full, then a little frontal, driving us crazy trying to load her simultaneously onto our hard drive.

[india7]

The first one sucked - I have no high hopes for this one, and no plans to see it, rent it, etc.

[satellite]

I was really looking forward to this in a "Showgirls" so-bad-it's-good way. Now I might feel a bit embarassed going to the theatre. I might have to wait for the DVD.
If it's as bad as they say, I'm surprised it didn't go straight to video. That's the place for softcore crime thrillers, but then again Stone still considers herself a major star.

[Deleted]

Shouldn't this have wound up as a Showtime or Cinemax movie about, oh 6 years ago, with Linda Fiorentino or Joan Severance in a bad blonde dye job playing the role of Catherine?

[piscessiren]

roseprose said:

Shouldn't this have wound up as a Showtime or Cinemax movie about, oh 6 years ago, with Linda Fiorentino or Joan Severance in a bad blonde dye job playing the role of Catherine?

Exactly! It's like Sharon's stuck in a time warp with this character, she can't move on.

The reviewer in the NY Post kept posting her age as 77! ;D

[duskwolf]

I keep saying this, and I guess I have to say it here for consistency...the first movie would have NEVER been remembered but for the hoochie shot. And, oddly enough, it's one of the only things I remember in the movie at all. (The only other things are the opening scene and the closing scene...everything else is just a blur)

So...this is a movie that deserves a sequel? Up yours, Hollywood.

[berrybearie]

And not surprisingly the box office was terrible: #10 and a gross of 3.2mil.