Basic Instinct 2 Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x800 | 4454.06 MiB | 1080p | |
|
720x392 | 1282.47 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x324 | 732.37 MiB | divx | |
|
320x176 | 291.72 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Sometimes Obsession Can Be Murder
Everything interesting begins in the mind.
The decadent life of novelist Catherine Trammell (Sharon Stone) continues int his sequel that finds her in the opening sequence speeding through the streets of London using the hand of her obviously under-the-influence soccer star boy friend to masturbate herself. After the car goes out of control, she manages to escape but he drowns leading to an investigation of whether she had in fact murdered him with an implication that he was already dead before the car even entered the water. Officials bring in a police psychologist (David Morrissey) to determine her mental state. Obsession sets in and the psychiatrist is drawn into her manipulations and dangerous world. As deaths occur around the pair involving acquaintances of both parties, including the psychiatrist's ex-wife, the story twists (and doesn't answer) to make you wonder who is committing the crimes. David Thewlis also co-stars as a perhaps corrupt police inspector and Charlotte Rampling appears as a colleague of the psychiatrist. Contains frequent nudity, depiction of orgies and graphic sexual encounters, constant profanity and violence that is mostly committed off-camera.
| Sharon Stone | Catherine Tramell |
| David Morrissey | Dr. Michael Glass |
| Charlotte Rampling | Milena Gardosh |
| David Thewlis | Roy Washburn |
| Hugh Dancy | Michael Tower |
| Anne Caillon | Laney Ward |
| Iain Robertson | Peter Ristedes |
| Stan Collymore | Kevin Franks |
| Andre Schneider | Young Policeman |
| Michael Caton-Jones |
3.70 out of 10 (8163 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Not very thrilling, intrigueing, nor sexy.
posted on 18 Aug 2009OK so I just saw Basic Instinct the US rated-R version. From what I've heard is the heavily edited version. The movie for me wasn't very thrilling. The twists are just devices that make no sense, and their explanations are weak.The acting was OK not great, The British actors do better than Stone though.I did like the first one it was sexy and kept you wondering "Is she the Killer?" This one made me think man when is this movie going to be over?If you going to see this movie hoping for a good thriller don't bother. If you live in the US and hope for a movie that is sexy, don't bother. If you want to waste a couple or hours and some money then go ahead and see the movie.
Good parts of it
posted on 14 Aug 2009Well, for one thing, after the opening scenes, once the psychiatrist was introduced, the film was shot entirely from his perspective, which was appropriate given the ending. And Sharon Stone looked gorgeous, no question, and the sex was good, and her clothes were beloved by all the women. 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 set designs were vary good, London is always a great place to film. Of course, the thing was ful l of deus ex machina and nonsequiturs and random events, but what the heck, we knew that's what we were in for.
Truly, Truly AWFUL
posted on 14 Aug 2009When this picture was released originally I intended to go and see it but just never got round to it. After seeing it on satellite this week I am SO glad that I didn't part with good money at the cinema!!!!!! This film absolutely stinks. The totally plastic and scrawny old Sharon Stone just ISN'T sexy, her creaky attempts to BE sexy are quite sad. Appalling dialogue, an incoherent plot and dreadful acting make this a prize turkey. I'm not sure who carries off the honours for worst performance, but the ghastly David Thewliss must come close. This man is one of the most over rated actors in the UK and this example proves it. David Morrissey just isn't big screen material (he's fine on TV). As for Charlotte Rampling, what the hell were you thinking of girl - to take part in this garbage? I thoroughly enjoyed Basic Instinct 1, but every copy of this rubbish should be destroyed! Utter and total junk.
Very Good Sequel-original, entertaining and hot!!!
posted on 04 Aug 2009I read the reviews from the papers here in Los Angeles. And the only thing I have to say to critics is they need to start taking their thumbs out of their ass. BI2 was a very pleasant surprise. Granted its not an Oscar type film nor should it be reviewed as such but it sure delivers the punches. It was extremely entertaining. The storyline was very good and it made a very interesting thriller and whodonnit. Sharon Stone in her ripe age of 48?-50, looks exquisite and Davide Morissey...well let's say the sex scenes were very,very, very hot!!! I highly recommend this movie for its a very entertaining film. I saw this film at midnight when I usually fall asleep in films but this one was good. Yes, it may be corky here or there but overall I give it a ten. Don't listen to the critics and see this one for yourself!!! it is good. As a sequel, I found it to be very original and was able to stand on its own. It's not that BI1 was better, is that BI2 is just plain different. Same concept but different development. I look forwardt o see more of David Morrisey in other film because he is very talented.
Biggest Basic Instinct fan sees Basic Instinct 2!!! (V.Mild spoilers)
posted on 31 Jul 2009Let's set two things straight first.1. I love Basic Instinct (I'd rate it 8 out of 10)! The character Catherine Trammel is as good as Hannibal Lectur (apart from Thomas Harris's detailed account of Hannibal in the novel 'Hannibal' which was very detailed and deep).2. I know a good film when I see one, whether I'm a Basic Instinct fan or not! My review will be fair.So I see the trailer... didn't like it at first. Catherine seemed too blunt. In BI 1 she was subtle. After watching the trailer a good few times I got into it... but still sensed 'something's not right'.I'm VERY picky when it comes to sequels. Sequels have the chance to either expand on an already good story or make up for a bad one. Unfortunately, as most sequels do, they can also tarnish the original. Look at Star Wars the original, amazing for it's time and respected even now. It's simple storyline defining who the goodies and baddie is, through colour and family connections. Then the prequels come along :oS (I didn't like Episode 3. It was diluted, giving us a lame montage of the end of the Jedi, and a weak reason of why Anakin chose to become a Sith... oh i could so go on...) At least Episode 1 (even though disappointing as a Star Wars film, had cinematic presence... when ever Darth Maul appeared... everyone was in awe.So back to Basic Instinct 2. Thank god they got rid of the sub-title. The opening scene was very impressive. I liked how the credits appeared (something that sets the mood and pace of a film I find). Something I wanted to see in BI 2 was an acknowledgement of how she was losing control in part 1 (caring for certain people). As the audience, I wanted to empathise for her at moments, which did happen, at the beginning of her therapy lessons. Then the weak moments seeped in. The character Adam Towers... I didn't care for this character at all as he had little screen time. Detective Washburn was good. The ending is quite lame. Won't say what happens, but NO WAY as stylish as BI 1... I found the first scene with Glass and Trammel wicked. Also the open legs scene/cancel therapy had great dialogue. Jaczzi scene revealed parts of BI 1 which, as a fan is enjoyable. P.S You do figure out whether Michael Douglas's character lived or died after BI 1. It's a very subtle message but it does tell you.Major flaw with this film was the cut scenes: Where was the following scenes??1. 3-some (including Catherine's girlfriend) scene 2. "This is all f****d up" (Glass) 3. Extended orgy scene 4. Office sex scene 5. "I don't know why I like you, but I do. I don't like myself for it" in therapy. (Catherine)Shooter novel seemed a better parallel story to BI 1 than The Analyst in BI 2. The sets for Glass were good. Catherine's flat didn't impress as her mansion and beach house did in part one. Then again, London prices are unreal :oPBasic Instinct 2 does tarnish the first slightly. I won't go on about the lame ending in BI 2 but it does ruin the movie. Catherine's plan all along in this movie is as smart as the first (slightly bonkers and complex) but it works. A shame about the feeling some important scenes were cut or just should have been explained more. This is not as bad as everyone's making out. It does disappoint slightly, but still entertaining and some funny and clever lines between Glass and Catherine character. Plus a real bonus seeing so much of my own London in the film!! I was walking down one of the streets in the film pretty much when walking of the cinema!!Positives: Catherine's f*****g ruthless in this one! Very, very nasty but not as stylish.
Can't understand the bad reviews
posted on 27 Jul 2009I saw Basic Instinct 2 in German last Friday because a friend wanted to see it. Normally I wouldn't be bothered with this kind of movie and can't remember ever seeing the whole of Basic Instinct 1. 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. I enjoyed it even more the second time around. It's a film with very strong visual images that really stay with you. The acting is first rate, Sharon Stone is in my opinion just divine to look at, and the development of the plot is slow enough for the characters to take on real flesh but without losing tension. The plot in itself is incredibly unlikely but who cares? The scene where Dr. Glass screws the waitress was missing in the English version, and possibly a few other short scenes too.
Lotsa sizzle, but no steak
posted on 23 Jul 2009Let me start by saying that Sharon Stone is an exceptional actress. However she tries, her acting alone cannot rescue the disaster created by the director and the script writer.This is just a bad movie. There's nothing to hang onto in this film. The male actors are spineless unknowns that cannot counterbalance Sharon's performance -- she dominates the film, overwhelming it actually, and been given lines that just seem ridiculous.It's so sad the Basic Instinct 2 is such a disaster. There was SO much potential -- picture this...Catherine Tremell could have married the cop in basic instinct (who could be the now-promoted head of the San Francisco police force) who now writes about world leaders and gets swept into an international drama involving the UN and an underground crime ring with a sleeper cell in San Francisco. OR something else. But, this story is so misplaced that the whole movie doesn't make sense. Catherine Tremell, 14 years later, should be more socially integrated and respected, into politics, and able to see things that others can't.My vote: fire the director and the writer. Tell movie lovers that the whole film was a huge mistake, head back to the drawing board, and come back with something that works. I'd be ready and willing to give it a second chance as this story has incredible potential - the likes of being a series classic, like the 007 series. Don't blame Sharon Stone - she's going to take enough heat for this, even though it isn't her fault.
Wow, Sharon Stone.
posted on 15 Jul 2009Sharon Stone is super hot. She has 50 and I would still give it to her for the championship. She doesn't perform memorable scenes like the opening of the legs, but the sex scenes are truly amazing for those who like to see action and appealing women. ¿David Morrisey? Puhlease. He needs a serious acting coach. The storyline is, still again, random and lost. I liked the settings and how the dark corners are entraped in this film. The script, you ask? Worse than the adapation of "Narnia". No intelligent lines. I ask, why did they do this? The answer: to see Sharon Stone again, in her best moment. If you are a man; you should definitely spend 7.5 dollars to see this woman.
Falls short of part 1
posted on 11 Jul 2009When I saw the trailer for Basic Instinct I was immediately drawn in. I saw it 8 times. I even made an outfit like Sharon Stone's character. I wondered if part 2 would be able to capture the essence of the original and it failed miserably. I was in and out of sleep within the first 20 minutes of the film. Sharon tried too much to be vampy. The script was thin and the acting wanting. The original lasted about 2 months in Jamaica, which was even more homophobic and less tolerant of deviant behavior. This time around the cinemas were almost empty. I doubt part 2 will last more than 2 weeks. This script should have never made it to celluloid.
Watch something else
posted on 09 Jul 2009Unless you just want to watch the two minutes or so of steamy sex scenes choose another theater. I really enjoyed Basict Instinct, but they clearly should have stopped there. I would rival the acting in the film to an Angel Soft commercial (if you've never seen one - it's definitely not a compliment). Sharon Stone has taken overacting to a whole new level, maybe rivaling Jim Carey without a comedy. 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. Not the worst movie in the world, but maybe in the bottom 10. Watch something else - you'll thank me.
Basic Insinct 2: Improving With Age
posted on 07 Jul 2009As we know, Basic Instinct was one of the most influential and controversial films of the early '90s. From the moment it begins, this wastes no time establishing what's in store, unveiling the bloody murder scene prefaced by some very arousing sex. I had to fight the urge to throw quarters at the screen to bounce off that perfectly rounded female backside. Anyway, this movie ultimately catered to our own "basic instincts" of inherent carnal and savage behaviors ( I'd say the female audience experienced a sensation of dominance while watching this film but that might get me in trouble) - thus the quintessential adaptation of the risqué and trashy material found only in paperback was born.So it's now 2006 and the long awaited sequel has finally been released. Just browsing the background facts this went through to be produced is a bit astonishing. One of the most interesting facts is David Cronenberg was considered to direct this but how about Pierce Brosnan stepping down because of distasteful elements? I guess The Matador was okay because it didn't actually show him having unlawful relations with minors or playing "hide the weenie" with members of the same sex. There certainly was enough dialogue to suggest his character was into that (not saying it was a bad movie, just trying to understand the logic).Moving on, it seemed these confusing issues over the years were influencing the final production getting seriously trashed. After personally viewing the film, my initial suspicions have been confirmed. Objectivity is the least element to be found in most of the reviews I've read. I know, it's all about freedom of speech and everybody is entitled to their opinion. With that said, here is my two cents regarding what could be considered a controversial film for the wrong reasons: Basic Instinct 2.Let's start with Sharon Stone since she seems to be the source of all the commotion (how fitting- just like the movie!) . This of course has nothing to do with that unreasonable lawsuit filed against the producers (even I was shaking my head). No doubt she's still in great shape on for a woman who is almost 50 with some very revealing shots confirming this. However, there were some visible signs of aging that Botox or makeup couldn't conceal- her face was not the problem at all, the glossy lipstick is a personal favorite touch. I noticed some freckling and other various skin blemishes on her chest, back and legs that were rather unappealing. I'm talking about a particular sequence in Glass' office when they are first introduced. The lighting and close-up filming techniques captured everything- maybe too much. I think nylons would have been the solution here, there wasn't a muff shot anyway. At least during the sex scenes, the dim lighting and distance made this unnoticeable.As for her acting, I really didn't have any complaints. I'd actually say her performance was even better than the first one coming across more enigmatic and sassy instead of slightly dingy. There was a part at the end that was pretty funny when she goes over the top that evoked a good chuckle from yours truly. She seemed to have good chemistry with David Morrisey who was better than I thought he would be (I did get a Liam Neeson vibe from his voice at times). That was important because he had quite a bit more screen time than Stone.Unlike Douglas (whose character's integrity was laughable), he played a strong and serious character who enjoyed being in charge. The magnetism between the two was very evident and she could sense the vulnerability beneath his hardened exterior (pardon the pun). A part that stood out was when she was released from custody, Glass was watching her on a nearby television. She kept glancing at the camera like she was looking directly at him. One of the many effective techniques she used to reach his damaged emotional core for the provocative manipulation games (I believe Washburn had another term for this). I should mention Morrisey also had an over the top moment that paralleled the infamous "NOOO!!" in Star Wars: ROTS toward the end of the film....It actually makes sense why later, but it still sounded ridiculous being about 5 seconds too long.Two more pleasant surprises were Charlotte Rampling (loved Swimming Pool) and David Thewlis (loved Kingdom of Heaven) who were both excellent.Now the story really doesn't change a whole lot from the first one. There were a few references to Shooter (Douglas) and the murders but this honestly felt like a remake (some familiar notes in the score were pretty cool). The big difference being it was not as sexually or violently graphic as the first.The benefits of course not trying to avoid visual contact of Michael Douglas' orange bum all the time (although this one had it's share of man arse and not enough luscious female gee maximus- Stone's was completely absent). Another benefit was the quality of film-making was far superior in this one. The changes made were the right ones making it more reserved yet kept it compelling- not just a campy shock fest. However, I must admit I'm hoping for a spicier extended version on DVD because there are plenty of opportunities.To top it off, it was set in London so almost everyone except Stone spoke in a British accent (Sounded like Thewlis had a touch of Irish in his delivery - well, he was the detective after all. Oh, and the German with the bad wig- yet even more comedy) providing a paradoxical sense of elegance in such a maniacal situation.
Basic Instinct II
posted on 07 Jul 2009I have read some of the negative reviews. I went to the movie to see Sharon Stone. She is beautiful. I enjoyed the movie. It is not a three star one but it was entertaining. I thought Sharon did a great job playing a psychopath killer. I thought the movie revealed how vulnerable some men are to an attractive lady and how easily they can be manipulated by a beautiful lady. The movie theme is similar to the First Basic Instinct. The male lead was weak an unknown. I thought the detective did a good job of acting. I enjoyed the beginning of the movie and the ending. If you have high expectations for this movie you will be disappointed. If you like Sharon Stone,you will likely enjoy it. My friend and I agreed that it was not a great movie but we have seen worst.
Basically, an instinctively worthy sequel - with style.
posted on 05 Jul 2009I approached this film with a wide-open mind, expecting the worst. I had read discouraging critiques when first released, and also the current "Painfully Bad" IMDb comment. I was prepared to cut and run if it was as bad as the ratings and comments purported, having, as I do, scant tolerance for crap and slush. So, with low expectations, I was surprised to find how much I enjoyed it. I am still bewildered at how badly it has been received.In preparation, the previous night, I refreshed my experience of its predecessor, Basic Instinct (1992). Of course we know it is a classic, and so time has in no way jaded its impact. As a sequel, however, Basic Instinct 2 squares off just fine. I loved the flash beginning - swept us right in in good style. Being British and knowing London well, I felt comfortably at home in the film's setting. That was a good start.The scenes and sets were stunningly dazzling, crisp, contemporary, breathtaking and sensitively contrasted. In that respect I think Michael Caton-Jones demonstrated great skill and maturity. The photography was superb, and never failed to surprise and, as it must and did, carried the story beautifully. The story itself was intricate and sufficiently puzzling to keep one guessing and involved, echoing the theme and complexities of its earlier version. I think Caton-Jones did an excellent job of mimicking, rather than merely regurgitating, the distinctive chilly demure and sultry, enigmatic combativeness of the dialog and interactions. While it was nice to be reminded of some of the original one-liners that gave BI1 its zip and humor, there was no point where it seemed cheap or glib. Though we certainly could anticipate many of them, they served more to reassure than disappoint. There was nothing stale in their repetition since they were entirely consistent with, and helped to restore our connection with, the protagonists who uttered them. At worst, they were tongue-in-cheek in their predictability.Sharon Stone carried her role with consummate aplomb, fresh as a daisy and looking not a day older. I never tired of watching her face, or her body for that matter. Only at the very last scene (which I felt was quite redundant) did I feel the slightest twinge of dissatisfaction. Her counterpart, in the shape of David Morrissey, resonated well with his stiff upper lip and fragile professional kudos. It was a clever shift in scenario to cast her new adversarial paramour in the guise of a forensic psychologist. I absolutely loved the character of Detective Ferguson (Neil Maskell) - I guess we were meant to - as a much subtler element in the plot than any of Nick Curran's shambolic sidekicks.The sex was tasteful, powerful, believable and.. sexy. It fitted well into the rhythm and unfolding of the story, as it did formerly, with nothing gratuitous or too ridiculous. My girlfriend, with whom I watched both films, however, found David Morrissey's face and physique very ugly. It didn't bother me at all, which just shows how very personal these things are. We agreed that the photo in the toilet though, was a wOw.So what's been turning everyone off and giving it such a low rating? Beats me. Is it because it is too British -- no guns (except once), explosions, car chases, mayhem, destruction and heavy-handedness? You'll just have to find out for yourself, which I thoroughly recommend you to do.I would give this a 7.5, but since I can't, I'll bump it up to 8. The ridiculous and incomprehensible 3.7 deserves some counterbalancing, for sure.
Sexpot Sharon is back for more sexy thrills!!! Hurrah!
posted on 23 Jun 2009Okay, so it was never going to win any Oscars, but is that really the point? The answer: NO. BASIC INSTINCT 2 never set out to be CITIZEN KANE. There was never any pretence that this was, like the the original, anything more than a fun, sexy, entertaining thriller with an intriguing female character at its core. It just seems like for the past few years, film critics have been expecting nothing less than Oscar winning, "issue" movies like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, CITY OF GOD or CRASH. Therefore, whenever a fun, brainless movie like B.I.2 comes out, aiming to do nothing more than entertain for a couple of hours, it get's automatically and unfairly trashed. Another reason I think B.I.2 was so reviled by critics is that, although they won't admit it, a lot of people are just plain jealous that Sharon Stone, at 48, still has the body and the confidence to do nudity and sexual scenes. Hollywood just seems to have something against older female actresses. I think when an actress hits 45 they autimatically expect her to only do parts where she's sitting knitting in a corner with a brown shawl over her shoulders! I for one think it's great to see a mainstream movie where the sexy heroine (or anti-heroine)is in her late 40's, and not some teen star like Lindsay Lohan or Hilary Duff. I think it sends out a good message to women of a certain age that they can still be sexy and confident. As for the criticism of the film itself, many critics just seemed to be ready to pour poison all over this movie before they had even sat down in the cinema. They probably started thinking up their lame put-downs the minute BASIC INSTINCT 2 was announced. They called it ludicrous, over the top and scathed Sharon Stones performance as leaden. In my opinion,both the movie and Sharon's performance were sorely misinterpreted by critics. For one, the filmmakers KNOW that the movie they are making is somewhat ridiculous - that's the point. It's clear from the outset that both BASIC INSTINCT movies have a sly sense of their own silliness, and are unashamed of it. They never set out to do anything other than offer up a slice of slick, sexy fun that can be both thrilling and quite amusingly camp. It is only an easy target for criticism because of it's unashamedly sexual content and its older female star who is only too happy to sit there with her legs open on a chair and say stuff like "Do you want to come in my mouth?"As for Sharon Stone's supposedly "lifeless" and "leaden" acting, well that too is intentional - DUH! Playing Catherine Tramell, one of movie history's most intriguing and original female characters, Stone is SUPPOSED to be acting this way. The character is a cool, calm and dangerous ice Queen - that's why she always seems to have an uncaring and frosty exterior. It's actually a very good performance on Sharon Stone's part, who if you ever happen to see being interviewed on TV is actually a very sweet, bubbly and funny woman, completely unlike Catherine. All I can say to sum up is that I'm a big fan of both BASIC INSTINCT movies, and no matter what anyone(especially film critics) may say, BASIC INSTINCT 2 is a very fun and enjoyable movie. So don't be put off by the harsh criticism, rent or buy it on DVD and check it out for yourself. I promise it's a real guilty pleasure that will have you feeling strangely aroused, intrigued and keep you guessing until the very unpredictable ending! I definitely plan to get it on DVD and proudly make it part of my collection.
Worths the watch only for the not-so hot sex sequences. Go figure...
posted on 17 Jun 2009We didn't need a Hollywoodesque Erotic Thriller! That's why we stick with the goodness of Skinemax! It's really nerving that Sharon Stone tried to do a sexy, hot sequel to the extremely successful early 90's hit.The plot couldn't be less interesting and dull. To be honest and realistic, Sharon Stone is the main and only reason to watch this poor attempt to storm the box office. Of course, it didn't have success or anything; in fact, it will be remembered as one of the most unnecessary sequels of all time.One positive point is the incorporation of the super hot Flora Montgomery. Her sex scene was the highlight of the movie for me! A very hot and steamy scene involving a Sharon Stone picture. That's it. I found the best thing about this feature: See, every soft core flick has something "good" about it. Some of them feature hot women, or a memorable sequence, and in small cases a decent plot. Here, we have hot women and that's it.Watch it only for the sex scenes which aren't too steamy but oh well, it's Hollywood.Otherwise, stay away from this. It's completely utter trash.
There is absolutely no chemistry between Stone and Morrissey !!!
posted on 05 Jun 2009I think what made this movie so goddamn bad - besides the hideous screenplay - is the reason that there was a total lack of chemistry between both of the leading actors. While in the first movie Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone gave a very interesting couple where you could even feel the passionate heat which was going on between them, in this movie Morrissey seems to be overexerted a lot with the charisma of Stone. I don't have any problems with watching middle aged people who are making love because sex is beautiful, but at least they should have casted an actor who would physically (and emotionally) fit to Sharon.Also, the sleazy atmosphere of the first part got lost because of the change of location. You just can't compare the mysterious vibe of San Francisco with bland and rather conservative London...If you don't want to waste your time or - even worse - get a disappointment as a movie lover don't watch this movie, instead re-watch the first part and fall in love with the way movies were made in the early 1990s!
"Even Oedipus didn't see his mother coming"
posted on 28 May 2009A recipient of much critical derision, Basic Instinct 2 is actually one of the best mainstream films of recent years. 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 plot echoes and extends the first film: Catherine is involved with a mysterious death - this time the drive in and drown demise of a celebrity footballer (played by the real-life caught-dogging soccer star Stan Collymore) - and is sent to a top psychiatrist for evaluation. The psych - played by British PM Gordon Brown-surrogate David Morrissey - is entrammelled into Catherine's world of pulp fiction, sent mad and bad and finally incarcerated in a mental home as a dangerous psychotic - his mind as blown as his dick.The psychiatrist and the cop investigating Catherine are both figures of establishment patriarchy with feet of clay. The psychiatrist is a control freak who spectacularly mismanaged a previous case; the cop (a very funny David Thewlis) is both sexist (his first line refers to Catherine as a "c*nt") and corrupt, given to planting evidence when he thinks someone is guilty. These interior faults bring them under the sway of Catherine, leading to their undoing and her final triumph.Who is Catherine Tramell? As in the first film, but here exaggerated to giddy extremes, she is a demiurge and mythic figure, described by one character as thinking "she is one moment omnipotent and the next has no existence at all." She is the basic life force itself (Shaw might have appreciated these films), making mockery of men's attempts to build a rational civilisation, and emerging victorious because rationality is itself full of fault-lines and fictions. The men in the film are inexorably led to their fates, like characters in Greek tragedy - as explicitly acknowledged in the film: Catherine turns to the psychiatrist and says "Don't take it so hard - even Oedipus didn't see his mother coming." Set in a post-modern London which stretches to extremes the Deleuzian notions of any-space-whatevers - "this could be anywhere, most likely could be any frontier, any hemisphere" - the film offers a vision of a phallic mankind bound to a (Catherine) wheel of destruction, in a city of the plain dominated by buildings shaped as cocks and a giant wheel.
As awful as it gets
posted on 18 May 2009I thought that BI2 could not be as bad as most reviews said it was. Well, it turns out that I was wrong. BI2 is indeed a serious piece of crap without any redeeming factor. The movie is disastrous and dismal on all levels. BI was a sexy thriller and in it, Sharon Stone was the epitome of the deadly seductress. 14 years after, Catherine Tramell has become a poor shade of her former self: she's as sexy as a lead pipe and about as dangerous as my mother's best friend. David Morrissey is ghastly beyond belief. Charlotte Rampling seems to be lost in that mess (why in the world did she accept such an uninteresting part? Taxes to pay, perhaps?). David Thewlis is the only one who actually seems to do his actor's job but it's a complete waste. The material is so terrible that not even Jack Nicholson could do anything with it. The script is the biggest load of codswallop I've seen in recent years. Did the writers actually think the ending was a good one? My take is that they thought that the audience is mostly made of imbecils who'll swallow anything hook, line and sinker provided it's labelled as a plot twist. To me, that kind of ending is just insulting to the audience. And don't expect anything raunchy in this movie; it simply isn't there. The so-called hot scenes are: Sharon Stone getting fingered offscreen while driving a car at 110MPH (she climaxes before the car falls down in the Thames), Sharon Stone going at it with a guy in some club and finally Sharon Stone displaying her breasts while getting in a jacuzzi. Believe me, it's way hotter when you write it than when you see it. It's not even softcore in my book. Lame stuff that's all. So don't bother renting this just for saucy stuff, you'll be very disappointed. 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. If you want a thriller, watch Hitchcock's "Vertigo". If you want nudity and sex, rent any good porn film, there are plenty out there and unlike BI2, they actually deliver the goods. Steer clear of that junk.
Trust your instincts and keep away
posted on 18 May 2009The mind can be a funny place sometimes. Our memories constantly play tricks on us and our feelings and logic can be twisted by any number of things. This seems to be the mantra of "Basic Instinct 2" which offers a more subtle psychological approach as opposed to the unrepentant controversy of the first film. But after so many years in between original and sequel, has Catherine Tramell lost the power to shock now that gratuitous sex scenes are much more common? Gee, let me think about that… Sharon Stone finally returns as cinema's most notorious femme fatale, the American crime writer whose novels have a curious habit of coming true. Whilst in London, she is involved in a car crash in which a popular footballer (ex-footballer Stan Collymore, of all people, who clearly hopes to become the new Vinnie Jones) is killed. Finding herself charged with murder, she is assessed by clinical psychologist Dr Michael Glass (David Morrissey) who becomes convinced that she is behind the crime but to his dismay, she is released after the case collapses. Finding himself drawn to her, Dr Glass's world begins to unravel as his obsession with Tramell grows ever deeper and puts his life and others in danger. His only hope is friend D.S. Washburn (David Thewlis) but as truth and fiction collide and merge, who does Glass trust?"Basic Instinct" was known for several things way back in 1992 – the infamous "leg crossing", the amount of risqué sex on screen and arguably the most predictable plot twist in cinema history. What it was not known for was being an authentic study on mental illness, which is precisely what "Basic Instinct 2" wants to be. It seems more concerned with analysing the first film without actually telling anything new this time around, referencing the first film so many times that I just didn't care any more. In a way, they shot themselves in the foot because the first film is so much better than this and I shouldn't really have been surprised. Given the amount of time they've spent on this belated sequel (fourteen years, people!), it's as if they simply washed their hands of the whole thing and given it to a bunch of media students to finish. The story gets tangled up in its own web of deceit, offering a frankly ridiculous ending. And while Morrissey has done his Hollywood career a world of good (his performance is probably the sole plus point, excluding his excruciating love scenes), Stone looks and feels too old to play the monstrous Tramell and the enthusiasm for the part in the first film is replaced with bored reluctance. But by far and away the worst actor is Thewlis, a character so annoyingly bad that you want to reach into the screen and throttle him yourself. Maybe it's the Welsh accent… So after all this effort and all the legal wrangles, it turns out that they really shouldn't have bothered. This lacks the panache and style of the first film, turning what might have been an interesting picture into a 109-minute tribute to the poor man's Hannibal Lector. Tramell is neither scary or threatening as a killer, just a blonde with a penchant for talking dirty and a habit for turning up all the time at the worst possible moment. This is a film dreamt up by men, for men – women will probably cheer for this unlikely feminist icon – but even those expecting non-stop nudity will be disappointed. In fact, there is nothing controversial or note-worthy about this film at all with the possible exception of Thewlis, who I hope I never see again on screen. "Basic Instinct 2" is an enormous let-down in every sense of the word – it's like sleeping with an ex before remembering why it was you dumped them in the first place.
Not THAT bad, but far from being great
posted on 28 Aug 2009It seems fashionable to hate this movie, put the blame on Sharon Stone and try everything to throw this movie into the "Bottom 100" slot. I will try my best to judge this movie decently.First of all, the question we all wanted this movie to answer: Is Sharon Stone still as hot as she was 14 years ago? The answer must be Yes. Stone still does look radiant, thanks to plastic surgery, good make-up artists, sexy dresses and -- in her (very few) sex scenes -- body doubles.Is Stone convincing in her part of Catherine Tramell? Sure she is. Stone is one of the best (and most underrated) actresses in Hollywood. She did great in part one, and she did a convincing job in the sequel. After 14 years of preparation, she knows Catherine Tramell inside out.What did I like about this movie? First of all, I was thrilled to see Charlotte Rampling again. She is one of the most beautiful women in the world (still!), and she does fine in her part. I pity that she hasn't got more scenes. There were several supporting actors who made this movie worth watching: Indira Varma, David Thewlis, Hugh Dancy, Heathcote Williams, Kata Dobó. Sad thing that each of them only has three scenes or even less. (If you look closely, you can briefly spot André Schneider from "Deed Poll" as an extra at the police station.) The movie looks cool and stylish, but after all this is a big budget movie, so I do expect good editing, fine photography and art direction. With a budget of about 80 million dollars, one CAN expect a good-looking movie, I think.The weakest spot of "Basic Instinct 2" is David Morrissey who has to carry the movie. (He's got more scenes than Stone, and the story is told from his point of view, after all.) He's an accomplished stage actor, and he's made some good movie appearances (i.e. in "Drowning by Numbers" or "The Suicide Club"), but this was certainly one of his bleakest ones. He just couldn't deal with the part, sometimes he's unintentionally funny, especially in the end when he's become crazy.The script. My oh my! The first draft was finished in the late 1990s, and they kept re-writing and re-writing it over and over and over. Michael Caton-Jones, who made "City by the Sea" and "Shooting Dogs", two little masterpieces, stated that he had to change it practically every day while they were already filming because it just didn't work. In the end, "Basic Instinct 2" is overlong, and it tries to surprise the audience so much that it gets ridiculously boring. In the end, you just don't care anymore whether Catherine did it or not. The script alone would have sufficed for a made-for-TV mystery, but...There are some things about Miss Stone's make-up. She IS hot. She has aged damn well. She's almost 50 and looks like 42. By trying to make her look like 25, they kind of made her face look like wax. Why?