Oi ... This instinct really stinks
Added 11/18/2009
I suppose that Sharon Stone agreed to do this because this was the role that made her a household name, if I were in her place I would have a special place in my heart for Catherine Trimmel, love her or hate her. I like Sharon Stone, as she's used her fame for good things outside of her acting career, which didn't pan out as successfully as one would have wanted with as much publicity as she has received, as her charity work and efforts speak volumes for her. But this movie was just plain bad.
It's 15 years later and Catherine has moved to London. Here she is up to her old tricks, and looking as buff and hard bodied as ever at age 47. She and a football player were in a strange car accident, she survived but the player drowned when the car they were in launched off a bridge and into the Thames. Catherine is being investigated by the police, and she sets her sights on her court appointed therapist, David Morrissey. It unfolds into a rather choppy story, as she continues to tease and mislead Morrissey. The adventures in San Francisco, her old stomping ground and setting for BII, are mentioned, but we never hear exactly what happened with her and Michael Douglas, which lingers in the back of viewers' minds. The bondage and S & M scenes are a bit on the comical side, and, quite honestly, there is little to nothing sexy about Morrissey. He's just lucky to be there. While the first time around we were rather fascinated by Catherine's sociopathic sex appeal, this time it's just not a novelty. She's evil, we've seen it before, it's just not going to work the second time around.
Maybe this movie would have been a good thing if it was recast and not named after the first movie. Otherwise, it's really, really lame. Watch it if you must, but don't expect miracles.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Does ANY issue of this DVD include ALL the NC 17 scenes?
Added 11/17/2009
I enjoyed this DVD...esp Stone's performance.....it's trash and that's EXACTLY why I watched it...HOME RUN! One reviewer mentioned that it omitted the Lesbian scene and part of the jacuzzi scene. My copy definately DID NOT have the LESBIAN/THREESOME scene. Does ANY issue of this film have these scenes?
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
come on , be intellectually honest , you know you like it
Added 11/14/2009
i figure a star per dollar ratio at the LOTS is a good reinvestment on this baby . perhaps as the man of the hour writes , it doesn't have all the goods . rent a porn . this film was a labor of lust as the editorial-a-new-one review suggests . i like it . i divested myself of it and now i've reaquired the modest nugget . i'm in it like the tar baby .
0 out of 0 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.
|
Oi ... This instinct really stinks
Added 11/18/2009
I suppose that Sharon Stone agreed to do this because this was the role that made her a household name, if I were in her place I would have a special place in my heart for Catherine Trimmel, love her or hate her. I like Sharon Stone, as she's used her fame for good things outside of her acting career, which didn't pan out as successfully as one would have wanted with as much publicity as she has received, as her charity work and efforts speak volumes for her. But this movie was just plain bad.
It's 15 years later and Catherine has moved to London. Here she is up to her old tricks, and looking as buff and hard bodied as ever at age 47. She and a football player were in a strange car accident, she survived but the player drowned when the car they were in launched off a bridge and into the Thames. Catherine is being investigated by the police, and she sets her sights on her court appointed therapist, David Morrissey. It unfolds into a rather choppy story, as she continues to tease and mislead Morrissey. The adventures in San Francisco, her old stomping ground and setting for BII, are mentioned, but we never hear exactly what happened with her and Michael Douglas, which lingers in the back of viewers' minds. The bondage and S & M scenes are a bit on the comical side, and, quite honestly, there is little to nothing sexy about Morrissey. He's just lucky to be there. While the first time around we were rather fascinated by Catherine's sociopathic sex appeal, this time it's just not a novelty. She's evil, we've seen it before, it's just not going to work the second time around.
Maybe this movie would have been a good thing if it was recast and not named after the first movie. Otherwise, it's really, really lame. Watch it if you must, but don't expect miracles.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Does ANY issue of this DVD include ALL the NC 17 scenes?
Added 11/17/2009
I enjoyed this DVD...esp Stone's performance.....it's trash and that's EXACTLY why I watched it...HOME RUN! One reviewer mentioned that it omitted the Lesbian scene and part of the jacuzzi scene. My copy definately DID NOT have the LESBIAN/THREESOME scene. Does ANY issue of this film have these scenes?
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
come on , be intellectually honest , you know you like it
Added 11/14/2009
i figure a star per dollar ratio at the LOTS is a good reinvestment on this baby . perhaps as the man of the hour writes , it doesn't have all the goods . rent a porn . this film was a labor of lust as the editorial-a-new-one review suggests . i like it . i divested myself of it and now i've reaquired the modest nugget . i'm in it like the tar baby .
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
