Mjeteconer Just perfect...

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

solun-1 Tonight, I watched the Basic Instinct and Basic Instinct 2 right after it. Both for the very first time.The first one got me excited as the actors were great and the story pretty cool. A great crime movie. I knew about the bad reputation the second installment has and expected a flop. But I did not get one. I got a movie full of honestly great actors, great environments and a great plot. The camera, sound, music, editing, actors, suspense... Everything is on top. I loved the movie and frankly have no idea why it is rated bad and why was it nominated for razzie awards. I guess you have to have a black sheep every year to point a finger at and unfortunately for the Basic Instinct 2 this movie was that black sheep in 2006.I rated Basic Instinct 9/10 because I was really entertained and I am rating the second one also 9/10 because I was entertained as well and even a bit more because the movie is more current to me as it was shot in 2006 and I am a younger person. Hats off to the makers of this movie and the actors. Highly recommended to anyone interested in crime movies or thrillers.

Jeff A Carlson I'm a longtime fan of slow burn thrillers, Noir and Neo Noir. These genres are apparently a niche audience anymore, and it seems most of these type movies made anymore, are low budget, made for TV and video productions. This is OK with me, as long as they're done well, big budgets don't usually equal good movies, and the type of movie in question has a long B production history. This movie to me is well acted,and brings back some of the original BI films Hitchcock vibe, with probably a medium budget. An element in the 1992 film that I loved was the Northern Cal scenery, and I would of liked to have had that again. Going that route probably would of made it too much like the first film. This movie is taken place in London, which isn't too bad of grounds for noir in it's own write! Stone in the 1st movie, her character's personality to me plays out like Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lechtor. She was a little too much of a bad girl for my personal taste, so I was less attracted to her than many viewers. IMO much of the over the top aspects have been tapered back for this movie, the sex scenes are there, but they're shorter, and to me it doesn't look like they tried to carry the film on it as with the first. The plot is confusing, but no more than in the original film. The California aspect was a huge factor in my liking of the 1st film, and a younger Stone could sell that sexual/abrasive character better. That said, to me the newer version shows her a little less over the top, sex is not as quite over sold. You don't have the heavy hitter that Mike Douglass was in 1992, but there are some very good British actors in this film.If you're a fan of Noir and twisted Neo noir thrillers, don't let the bad reviews hold you back from watching this as I did

dantonstl I tried to get into watching this before. 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 was semi excited to send this sucky film to an old person in the mail right away, whether it was to Tallahassee, seattle or even Orlando...but I realized that it was a long movie that basically catches the sick beauty in Sharon stones face. I don't think anyone would love to own this movie. and though other reviews tattle on the plain David morriseys position within this film, I think that he was hardly ever acting at all, and if anything might have been reacting and being set up as he was. The sex scenes were brief, and Michell Pfeiffer talks dirtier in the fabulous baker brothers...and as far as her sexy body, I did not get to see the the first girl this David morrisey was having sex with after he almost got intimate with Sharon at a dinner party. I hate this movie...

AaronCapenBanner Sharon Stone returns in her signature role as novelist Catherine Tramell, who is now living in London, and becomes the center of attention after being in a car with her football player boyfriend when it crashes into the river, drowning him. Police discover that he died of a drug overdose first, so Catherine is arrested and ordered to undergo therapy with Dr. Michael Glass(David Morrissey) who, like Nick Curran before him, is seduced by her brazen sexuality, and begins a torrid affair, despite warnings from his detective friend Roy Washburn(David Thewlis) and more murders piling up. Is Catherine guilty? Belated sequel, now directed by Michael Caton Jones, has Sharon Stone returning most convincingly as super-sexy Catherine Tramell, but otherwise this mystery is cold and unsatisfying, though not as dreadful as its reputation would lead you to believe. Still not as memorable as the first, which may be its biggest problem(along with the unexplained absence of Michael Douglas as Nick Curran).