Basic Instinct 2

Karma

Heart Attack
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
7,430
Location
Outside of time and space
'Basic Instinct 2': Stoned Again
proxy.php

By Kurt Loder
proxy.php



Sharon Stone keeps the body count mounting in a long-delayed sequel.

Plus: The fantastic world of Daniel Johnston, and film noir goes to high school in 'Brick.' David Morrissey and Sharon Stone in "Basic Instinct 2" (Jaap Buitendijk) This movie rocks. It does so by boldly embracing the preposterousness at the core of its story right away, and then moving on to more important things like ultra-nasty sex, hyper-lurid dialogue and a species of over-the-top set design that hasn't been attempted with this much brio since the early Bond films, or maybe the gargantu-westerns of Sergio Leone. Everything in the movie is too much — and much more, too. Which is why, as I say, it rocks.

Sharon Stone is back as the murderously twisted erotic novelist Catherine Tramell — the role that made her a star in the original "Basic Instinct," back in 1992. This picture is ostensibly a "sequel" to that one, but there's no reason you need to have seen that one to be able to get down with this one. It stands — or sprawls lewdly — on its own.

The film takes off with a phenomenal rush. We see a sleek sports car tearing wildly through a London tunnel. Inside, at the wheel, is Catherine Tramell. In the seat beside her there lolls a big, good-looking black man, clearly a little out of it. Catherine is sucking on his fingers and, with her free hand, doing something else down below the steering wheel. The sequence builds to an orgasmic release as the car comes rocketing out of the tunnel and off a bridge and into the Thames, where it slowly begins to sink. Back with the two passengers again, we see water pouring in through every opening. As Catherine's companion, obviously immobilized, stares at her helplessly, we see her lower the window and maneuver her way out of the vehicle as more water comes gushing in. She watches as the car sinks like a stone toward the riverbed below, and then she slowly swims away.

At Scotland Yard the next day, Detective Superintendent Roy Washburn (David Thewlis) is very suspicious. The cops have found syringes in the recovered car containing a curare derivative that's known to paralyze the lungs. Catherine is unconcerned — she knows nothing about any syringes. In fact, she has a slick answer for every question. Washburn calls in his friend, Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey), a celebrated psychiatrist, to have a look at this cold-blooded specimen. Before Glass can even get started, though, Catherine begins running a speculative eye over him. "You look a little divorced," she purrs.

Glass is no match for Catherine, naturally. But he does deliver an analysis: "She vacillates between a feeling of Godlike omnipotence and a feeling that she doesn't exist," he says. She has "a risk addiction," and "I suspect the only thing that would stop her ... would be her own death."

He certainly has that right. Catherine likes to do first-hand research for all the sex bouts and brutal murders that fill her novels. As she tells Glass teasingly, she savors the freshness of a crime scene, when "the body's still warm, the watch is still ticking." If this were a run-of-the-mill ludicrous movie, the rest of it might consist only of bloody set pieces in which Catherine whacked every other main character, one by one. But the script, by the husband-and-wife writing team of Leora Barish and Henry Bean, is densely, head-hurtingly complex. So while it might seem that Catherine is being stalked by Glass and Washburne, and maybe a celebrity journalist named Adam Towers (Hugh Dancey), it is in fact she who is the stalker, carefully herding each of them into a web of suspicion and dark secrets from which they may never emerge. Along the way, she seduces both men and women (including Glass' girlfriend: "Denise was good in bed," she tells him), rips out somebody's throat, and — in perhaps the movie's most gloriously gaudy scene — pays a thug to attack her, drag her into an S&M bordello and have rough, sweaty sex with her. (Glass gets sweaty himself looking down on this through a skylight — until he realizes that Catherine is watching him back.)

The English director, Michael Caton-Jones, has set this story amid the up-market, go-go environs of the new London, a city the casual tourist might not often see. And so Glass's office — a vast expanse of expensive square-footage with two perfect leather armchairs amusingly situated at its center, like a pair of lost sheep, for doctor-patient consultations — is located in the pickle-shaped and delightfully phallic "Gherkin Tower," in the city's financial district. And Catherine's apartment — a huge, luxe cave of a place, with gleaming black stone floors and smooth gray walls hung here and there with paintings of a rather disturbing sort — seems a world away from the cramped, stuffy rooms with which most of us might associate the average English abode.

The Hungarian cinematographer Gyula Pados ("Control") captures this unfamiliar urban terrain in rich, beautifully muted colors, and with an inventive eye for unusual action perspectives; and John Murphy's somber score bathes the proceedings with thick, luscious strings. The movie is extraordinarily well-made, and the main players are all top-drawer British character actors. But it's Sharon Stone, an even lustier sex shark at age 47 than she was 14 years ago, who dominates the film with flamboyant abandon. Actually, she's completely shameless in what appears to be a headlong yen for a late-in-the-day career boost. Nevertheless, toward the end, when Glass realizes how evilly Catherine has manipulated him, and she says, "Don't take it so hard, even Oedipus didn't see his mother coming" — well, there's no denying how good she still is at being really, really bad.
 
This is the ONLY good review I've seen on this movie..but at any rate I'll have to make my own opinion..but I'm still quite skeptical.
Basic Instinct for my personal tastes had the greatest "villianess" I've ever seen on film. Plus Paul Verhoeven did a FANTASTIC job as director. We'll see how this pans out...
Plus, no Michael Douglas? They had great chemistry..IMO.
 
Harbinger
Harbinger
i totally agree on director Paul V. the sequel lacked his touch and it showed
people panned the original Basic Instinct because it appeals to those parts of us that are "morally" wrong. Yet it still debuted at number one on its oppening weekend and went on to become one of the highest grossing films of the year 1992. thats the same thing happening with this film....people are automatically dismissing it becase a) its a sequel that was long delayed and b) its a movie that flaunts sex, seduction and erotica.

YOUNG people are getting in on it though. sites like MTV and Vh1 have been raving about it and its been getting positive feedback on shows like Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood and even the Jon Stewart show.

One of the reasons it took so long to finish was because they couldnt find the right leading man. They had potentials like Pierce Brosnan, Kurt Russell and even Benjamin Bratt but Sharon Stone VETOED Benjamin saying he was a "bad actor" , Kurt Russell was uncomfortable doing nude scenes and Pierce thought the movie was in bad taste. Sharon almost didnt return when they didnt want to meet her "play/pay" demand (which means she would get paid even if the film had never completed production).

As someone who has seen the film (as of its opening weekend) I felt This movie was excellent. Sharon looks as good as she ever has..even BETTER actually. She is damn sexy in her role and the men are her hapless victims. The moments where her targets are finally claimed are always captivating.

We live in a country that is very uptight about erotica and sexuality..there's alot of hypocrasy when it comes to this. This movie is doing VERY well overseas right now because attitudes about sex, erotica and the whole "erotic thriller" genre in movies is far better received over seas than it is here.

And about Michael Douglas returning? well for one thing he's too old (and it SHOWS..he has not aged well at all) and while this movie IS a sequel, it follows "Catherine" and so it realy doesnt matter WHO is the leading man (as long as he has decent looks and could act lol)
 
Spellbinder said:
people panned the original Basic Instinct because it appeals to those parts of us that are "morally" wrong. Yet it still debuted at number one on its oppening weekend and went on to become one of the highest grossing films of the year 1992. thats the same thing happening with this film....people are automatically dismissing it becase a) its a sequel that was long delayed and b) its a movie that flaunts sex, seduction and erotica.

YOUNG people are getting in on it though. sites like MTV and Vh1 have been raving about it and its been getting positive feedback on shows like Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood and even the Jon Stewart show.

One of the reasons it took so long to finish was because they couldnt find the right leading man. They had potentials like Pierce Brosnan, Kurt Russell and even Benjamin Bratt but Sharon Stone VETOED Benjamin saying he was a "bad actor" , Kurt Russell was uncomfortable doing nude scenes and Pierce thought the movie was in bad taste. Sharon almost didnt return when they didnt want to meet her "play/pay" demand (which means she would get paid even if the film had never completed production).

As someone who has seen the film (as of its opening weekend) I felt This movie was excellent. Sharon looks as good as she ever has..even BETTER actually. She is damn sexy in her role and the men are her hapless victims. The moments where her targets are finally claimed are always captivating.

We live in a country that is very uptight about erotica and sexuality..there's alot of hypocrasy when it comes to this. This movie is doing VERY well overseas right now because attitudes about sex, erotica and the whole "erotic thriller" genre in movies is far better received over seas than it is here.

And about Michael Douglas returning? well for one thing he's too old (and it SHOWS..he has not aged well at all) and while this movie IS a sequel, it follows "Catherine" and so it realy doesnt matter WHO is the leading man (as long as he has decent looks and could act lol)

Okay. I have to agree for the most part with you. After seeing the film last night, it was much better than I thought it would be. My only gripe is that the "twist" ending felt a little forced. I think it would have been a little more interesting had the "flash-backs" concerning the psychologist made the viewer say: "Oh wow, I missed that the first time! Now it makes sense"...along the lines of what the "6th Sense" or "Unbreakable" did for their respective conclusions....

And yes Sharon Stone was looking quite good. I loved her hair!
LOL
 
Okay, hello! I have so got to learn about this movie! Like what happens. I didn't get the chance to see it in the cinemas! I was so upset. I love Catherine Tramell. Does she die in this movie? Someone give me the 411 it is a must!
 
I saw the beginning and immediately it grabbed my attention. "I don't think I'll cum again." LMAO! I love this quote, Sharon reprises her role well.

I'll watch it later when I can enjoy it without being bothered by anyone. The sex scene was hot though LOL I like how he was yanking on the woman's hair, it reminded me of the first one. :D

I think so far this movie is better than the first. But, I've yet to watch the second entirely, which I will tonight and the first film. This movie is fabulous with Sharon that it doesn't even NEED Michael Douglass at all. Its yummy, I look forward to watching more of it later. :nod:
 
I finally saw this movie in entirely as well as the first film. I'll begin my critique first off by the introduction of the film.

I liked how the director pulled the audience into this film. You can visibly see a man who appears to be hurt or something. A nice display of Sharon driving the sports car and the adult - themed scene was also tantalizing. I hadn't expected this movie to be action - packed right off the bat.

Sharon reprised her role fabulously, and she looked just as stunning. I think she played Catherine with a bit more edge, which I thought was sexy. The wardrobe on Sharon was chosen nicely, especially fitting this deadly Black Widow character.

I enjoyed the change in scenery from San Francisco, California to London. It offers a nice contrast to the storyline and growth of Catherine. Michael Douglas was not needed in this film, but I did like the mention of him. The whole background of the first film lightly seasoned in this film without overpowering the plot.

The love scenes were just as animalistic, provocative, and artful. I liked how they kept this same element along with the psychological mind warps. Plenty of twists and turns to keep the audience guessing.

Its not until the very end you fully piece the puzzles together. I did enjoy this ending better than the first film. I felt like I had been left hanging in the original. This film's ending was far more solid.

I would hope there is a third installment. Catherine is the type of villain you love, somehow or someway you relate to. She's strong, sexy, clever, and dangerous. A bit of a fantasy for every man and woman out there.

The first film caused quite a bit of distress with the Gay and Lesbian community. Which I thought was ridiculous. They objected to the character Catherine and they felt the film was overly homophobic. Again, I thought the first film was brilliant with the dark - alluring colors especially in the Interview scene.

The second film didn't cause much of a stir only the fact that it was a sequel. I liked both films though, although I'm more in favorite of the second film. I was impressed by both films, and Sharon was outstanding once again.
 
I liked Sharon in this film and I'm glad that a follow up was made, but i think it took TOO LONG for it to come out and the audience that the first film captured has probably moved on.

I agree that Michael Douglas wasn't needed (as he doesnt look so good these days lol) but the fact that the director of the original film, Paul Verhoeven, was not involved i think is the reason why this sequel didnt have as much EDGE.

VISUAL stunts are one thing but when the film, the characters and the whole thing exudes erotica, darkness and "guilty pleasure"...thats a different story and you GOT THAT in the first film right from the shocking first scene.

Paul V is the same man behind "Showgirls" and even though that film was "panned" by many, the film itself was truly controversial and shocking. good or bad, it got people TALKING and the same thing happened with the first Basic Instinct..not so much with the sequel.

I like Basic Instinct 2 as well but it couldve been handled better. Sharon definately carried the film and made it worth watching but it could've been "MORE".

Basic Instinct comes from that whole "erotic thriller" genre of movies (Body of Evidence, Body Chemistry, Fatal Instinct etc) where you have your beautiful femme fatale and supposedly straight laced man who gets lured into the woman's web of erotica and dangerous games. the trend was HOT in the 90's but its definately not as popular now unfortunately.
 
Back
Top