Basic Instinct 2... Instinct says run
Added 10/18/2009
Basic Instinct 2: 4 out of 10: I understand the urge of some to declare this a guilty pleasure. After all, the entire movie is fascinatingly ridiculous. Sharon Stone's character from the first film has turned into a tour de force caricature. Yes she is too old to play the role, but as written I cannot think of any other actor who could play it either.
The idea that any of the characters would find her so appealing that they would jettison any shred of common sense out of the window iswell nuts. It is not so much the physical that is unappealing as it is the mental. Her character screams, look at me I am psychotic.
Now certainly some of us have been guilty of being seduced by a patently psychotic middle-aged nymphomaniac, but alcohol and late hours not to mention a dimly lit bar are usually involved. To be seduced by such a creature in the sober light of day is pure science fiction.
Indeed every character in the movie seems inexplicably smitten in one way or the other by Stone. I can buy one disturbed and naive character, such as the baby faced psychiatrist going nuts over her, but his ex-wife and her lover as well?
The movie has other faults as well. There really is not all that much sex and it does drag at times. In addition, while beautifully shot, there is a lack of cohesive story and the supposed twists are more yawn inducing than shocking.
Certainly, the film is worth a look just for Stone's over the top performance but don't be surprised if you check your watch while shaking your head in disbelief.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
"Who knows if I'll ever come again . . ."
Added 10/14/2009
Okay, I'll admit it, I greatly enjoyed this movie! I am a fan of Paul Verhoeven's original, which pushed the limits of sex, violence, and it created the definitive femme fatale in Catherine Trammel, once again played with scenery chewing gusto by Sharon Stone, looking fabulous and sexy at 47. The movie is like thinking-persons junkfood . . .sordid yet beautifully produced with a wonderful cast. Catherine begins the movie with having sex at 110 miles an hour in an Astin Martin . . .she writhes, laughs, and drives her car at full throttle into the Thames, leaving her young lover strapped into the vehicle, high out of his mind. This is just the first 10 minutes. The film is set in London, but not the doggy, overcast London of old, but rather bright, alive, and pinging with sexual energy and excess. Trammell is evaluated by Dr. Michael Glass (yes, a transparent ode to Michael Douglas), quite dashingly played by David Morrissey. Trammell has her new target and hijinks ensue as Glass becomes increasingly obsessed with her. Just as Douglas' Nick Curran in the 1992 original, Dr. Glass is both revolted and aroused by Trammell. His repression and slow burn anger at the box he must occupy both personally and professionally are brought over the edge by Trammell's complete relaxation with being off the leash. He takes her on as a patient, having diagnosed her with the Hitchcockian sounding "Risk Addiction", and the movie focuses on their subsequent affair as the bodies start piling up around Dr. Glass.
The movie revels in its over-the-top shenanigans. It displays a kind of ramped up reality full of beautiful people, all decked out in high couture. Stone has the best wardrobe here. David Thewlis, as a foul-mouthed detective and Charlotte Rampling, as Glass' warm and wise mentor and colleague, and Hugh Dancy (Evening) as a shady tabloid reporter, add much class to the proceedings. Director Michael Caton-Jones (Rob Roy) films London as a sexy, exciting town . . .full on danger and electricty. Caton-Jones knows the material is absurd (just as the original), but has a blast creating this alternate reality. The plot is easy to pull apart . . .example, even when Trammell is released for lack of evidence early on, wouldn't she still be charged with driving under the influence of narcotics? Vehicular manslaughter? It's never clear why the police are so convinced she intentionally killed her lover.
The best elements of the original are here . . . absudly beautiful locations . . .remember the huge, dramatically lit interrogation room? Dr. Glass' office, in the Gherkin Building, is so massive, I doubt 5 years salary would pay for a month! But it gives us beautiful locations, costumes, and people to look at. Stone is fantastic. It's a pleaure to see her vamp out again. The movie need sto be taken for what it is . . .Glossy, big budget entertainment. Hollywood doesn't produce thrillers like this anymore . . .it's a guilty pulp fiction pleasure. My big gripe is that the film bears the scars of re-editing. Several scenes from the trailer are absent. There's a lot of sex, but there should have been a lot more. I am hopeful there will be a more definitive "Uncut" edition. It's an easy rental or purchase right now, away from the hype. The DVD tarsnfer looks fantastic, although spare on special features. Give it a try . . .it's a fun movie of you go in ready to suspend disbelief.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A Complete Waste of Time and Money
Added 8/19/2009
Luckily I was able to return this DVD -- what a complete waste!! I know this sequel is meant as a "tongue in cheek" type of viewing, but it lacks the freshness, originality, and boldness of the extremely popular original that made Sharon Stone an Int'l Star, a status she has had trouble maintaining. It is bad movies like this that has put Stone's star on the wane. She should have never made this sequel.
Many here have complained about the choice of leading man (David Morrissey) they picked to star opposite Sharon in this sequel. That is b/c according to Hollywood reports, the producers had a very hard time getting ANY decent leading man who would even consider let alone agree to be in this picture with Sharon Stone. All the leading men in Hollywood did not want to play second fiddle to Sharon Stone in this movie. Everyone knew about the hard time Michael Douglas had in the original -- all the temper tantrums and fights "La Diva Sharon" had on the movie set, so any smart guy in Hollywood would be wise to avoid "La Diva Stone" at all costs. That is why they ended up with David Morrissey, whose acting is no different than watching a piece of wood trying to come alive.
Sharon also is noticeably older in this movie, after all there is a 14-year difference between this and the first "Basic", so her Catherine Trammell Act gets very tired very quickly and plays like old worn-out socks with a very bad smell. If a much younger actress played the part, it would at least bring another perspective to the role. But since it is Stone who defined the Catherine role, there was no other choice. Unfortunately this time either due to a very bad script, bad directing, or bad acting -- probably ALL of the above -- this movie sunk faster than the Titanic. Another perfect example why Hollywood should leave certain successful movies alone and NOT make a sequel. Sharon reportedly has not had any movie offers since this sequel was released. The horrendous box office record and word of mouth plus her "La Diva" reputation have damaged her credibility in Hollywood. Hopefully there is a producer or director out there who is willing to give Sharon another chance. Or unless -- please help us -- they come out with a "Basic Instinct 3"!
Please save your money and time and avoid this DVD at all costs. Your wallet and pocketbook will thank you.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
It's not easy to take your eyes off Stone...
Added 1/26/2009
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." 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." 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...
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
A really prdeictable loser of a movie
Added 1/6/2009
Sharon Stone, as the psychotic Catherine Trammel, isn't even sexy. She looks and acts like a 900 sex-talk liar. The party with all the weirdo freak writers in which some of them didn't even recognize Sharon Stone's character, right after she's been on the news, was really stupid. Her psychiatrist, Dr. Michael Glass (David Morissey) was one sex-addicted, wimpy, weak-willed wanker (how's that for alliteration). Anyway, this is definitely one of those movies in which you've got to be pretty dumb not to figure out what's going to happen next. What a predictable flop.
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Basic Instinct 2... Instinct says run
Added 10/18/2009
Basic Instinct 2: 4 out of 10: I understand the urge of some to declare this a guilty pleasure. After all, the entire movie is fascinatingly ridiculous. Sharon Stone's character from the first film has turned into a tour de force caricature. Yes she is too old to play the role, but as written I cannot think of any other actor who could play it either.
The idea that any of the characters would find her so appealing that they would jettison any shred of common sense out of the window iswell nuts. It is not so much the physical that is unappealing as it is the mental. Her character screams, look at me I am psychotic.
Now certainly some of us have been guilty of being seduced by a patently psychotic middle-aged nymphomaniac, but alcohol and late hours not to mention a dimly lit bar are usually involved. To be seduced by such a creature in the sober light of day is pure science fiction.
Indeed every character in the movie seems inexplicably smitten in one way or the other by Stone. I can buy one disturbed and naive character, such as the baby faced psychiatrist going nuts over her, but his ex-wife and her lover as well?
The movie has other faults as well. There really is not all that much sex and it does drag at times. In addition, while beautifully shot, there is a lack of cohesive story and the supposed twists are more yawn inducing than shocking.
Certainly, the film is worth a look just for Stone's over the top performance but don't be surprised if you check your watch while shaking your head in disbelief.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
"Who knows if I'll ever come again . . ."
Added 10/14/2009
Okay, I'll admit it, I greatly enjoyed this movie! I am a fan of Paul Verhoeven's original, which pushed the limits of sex, violence, and it created the definitive femme fatale in Catherine Trammel, once again played with scenery chewing gusto by Sharon Stone, looking fabulous and sexy at 47. The movie is like thinking-persons junkfood . . .sordid yet beautifully produced with a wonderful cast. Catherine begins the movie with having sex at 110 miles an hour in an Astin Martin . . .she writhes, laughs, and drives her car at full throttle into the Thames, leaving her young lover strapped into the vehicle, high out of his mind. This is just the first 10 minutes. The film is set in London, but not the doggy, overcast London of old, but rather bright, alive, and pinging with sexual energy and excess. Trammell is evaluated by Dr. Michael Glass (yes, a transparent ode to Michael Douglas), quite dashingly played by David Morrissey. Trammell has her new target and hijinks ensue as Glass becomes increasingly obsessed with her. Just as Douglas' Nick Curran in the 1992 original, Dr. Glass is both revolted and aroused by Trammell. His repression and slow burn anger at the box he must occupy both personally and professionally are brought over the edge by Trammell's complete relaxation with being off the leash. He takes her on as a patient, having diagnosed her with the Hitchcockian sounding "Risk Addiction", and the movie focuses on their subsequent affair as the bodies start piling up around Dr. Glass.
The movie revels in its over-the-top shenanigans. It displays a kind of ramped up reality full of beautiful people, all decked out in high couture. Stone has the best wardrobe here. David Thewlis, as a foul-mouthed detective and Charlotte Rampling, as Glass' warm and wise mentor and colleague, and Hugh Dancy (Evening) as a shady tabloid reporter, add much class to the proceedings. Director Michael Caton-Jones (Rob Roy) films London as a sexy, exciting town . . .full on danger and electricty. Caton-Jones knows the material is absurd (just as the original), but has a blast creating this alternate reality. The plot is easy to pull apart . . .example, even when Trammell is released for lack of evidence early on, wouldn't she still be charged with driving under the influence of narcotics? Vehicular manslaughter? It's never clear why the police are so convinced she intentionally killed her lover.
The best elements of the original are here . . . absudly beautiful locations . . .remember the huge, dramatically lit interrogation room? Dr. Glass' office, in the Gherkin Building, is so massive, I doubt 5 years salary would pay for a month! But it gives us beautiful locations, costumes, and people to look at. Stone is fantastic. It's a pleaure to see her vamp out again. The movie need sto be taken for what it is . . .Glossy, big budget entertainment. Hollywood doesn't produce thrillers like this anymore . . .it's a guilty pulp fiction pleasure. My big gripe is that the film bears the scars of re-editing. Several scenes from the trailer are absent. There's a lot of sex, but there should have been a lot more. I am hopeful there will be a more definitive "Uncut" edition. It's an easy rental or purchase right now, away from the hype. The DVD tarsnfer looks fantastic, although spare on special features. Give it a try . . .it's a fun movie of you go in ready to suspend disbelief.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A Complete Waste of Time and Money
Added 8/19/2009
Luckily I was able to return this DVD -- what a complete waste!! I know this sequel is meant as a "tongue in cheek" type of viewing, but it lacks the freshness, originality, and boldness of the extremely popular original that made Sharon Stone an Int'l Star, a status she has had trouble maintaining. It is bad movies like this that has put Stone's star on the wane. She should have never made this sequel.
Many here have complained about the choice of leading man (David Morrissey) they picked to star opposite Sharon in this sequel. That is b/c according to Hollywood reports, the producers had a very hard time getting ANY decent leading man who would even consider let alone agree to be in this picture with Sharon Stone. All the leading men in Hollywood did not want to play second fiddle to Sharon Stone in this movie. Everyone knew about the hard time Michael Douglas had in the original -- all the temper tantrums and fights "La Diva Sharon" had on the movie set, so any smart guy in Hollywood would be wise to avoid "La Diva Stone" at all costs. That is why they ended up with David Morrissey, whose acting is no different than watching a piece of wood trying to come alive.
Sharon also is noticeably older in this movie, after all there is a 14-year difference between this and the first "Basic", so her Catherine Trammell Act gets very tired very quickly and plays like old worn-out socks with a very bad smell. If a much younger actress played the part, it would at least bring another perspective to the role. But since it is Stone who defined the Catherine role, there was no other choice. Unfortunately this time either due to a very bad script, bad directing, or bad acting -- probably ALL of the above -- this movie sunk faster than the Titanic. Another perfect example why Hollywood should leave certain successful movies alone and NOT make a sequel. Sharon reportedly has not had any movie offers since this sequel was released. The horrendous box office record and word of mouth plus her "La Diva" reputation have damaged her credibility in Hollywood. Hopefully there is a producer or director out there who is willing to give Sharon another chance. Or unless -- please help us -- they come out with a "Basic Instinct 3"!
Please save your money and time and avoid this DVD at all costs. Your wallet and pocketbook will thank you.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
