Skip over navigation

Basic Instinct 2

Rated - 2 stars

Basic Instinct 2: Sharon Stone

The last time Sharon Stone uncrossed her legs there was a Bush in the White House. So controversial even screenwriter Joe Estzerhas condemned it, the first Basic Instinct remains the most maligned erotic thriller: like most of its ilk, it's glossy psycho porn at heart, but between them director Paul Verhoeven and star Sharon Stone made Catherine Trammell a femme fatale for our times, a Nietzschean hedonist who gets off on mind-games.

It's impossible to imagine what Katy did next - although we can assume that marriage to Detective Nick Curran (Michael Douglas) didn't figure in her long-term plans. Thirteen years later, she resurfaces in London, still a free woman, and still collecting corpses at every turn.

First: Stan Collymore contributes a comatose cameo, obliviously fingering la Trammell as she drives through the Docklands at 110mph before crashing into the Thames. It's a risible opening gambit (perhaps Catherine's seen Cronenberg's Crash too many times?*) but enough to bring her to the professional attentions of psychiatrist Dr Michael Glass (David Morrissey) and police inspector Roy Washburn (David Thewlis).

Dr Glass diagnoses her as risk addicted, predicting that only her own death will stop her, but the judge sees things differently and next thing you know she's making herself at home on his couch.

Basic Instinct: Sharon Stone

There's an onerous back story attached to Glass - something about a former patient who went on to kill his pregnant girlfriend, and maybe the doc should have shopped him it's almost too dull to relate here, and even more boring in the movie, which was still called 'Basic Instinct' last time I checked, not 'Guilty Pleasures'.

Glass is no match for Catherine - she can see right through him - but then who would be? Certainly not Hugh Dancy's tabloid muckraker, who ends up hoisted on his own petard. Nor Glass's ex wife, who makes a mess in the washroom of the Atlantic Grill. Even the redoubtable Charlotte Rampling - the ultimate eminence grise - seems to swallow American's bait.

Unfortunately the audience isn't likely to fall into the same trap. Neither the screenwriters (husband and wife team Henry Bean and Leora Barish are credited) nor Stone pay more than lip service to the admittedly far-fetched possibility that Catherine may be innocent, which makes Glass's actions seem positively cracked.

Basic Instinct 2 is not the complete clunker we all had every right to expect, but its competence is a kind of trial. Bean and Barish have concocted an implausibly convoluted mystery that another filmmaker might have been tempted to camp up. Not dour Michael Caton-Jones (whose Shooting Dogs is also on general release right now) who treats every twist and turn in deadly earnest. Only David Thewlis takes license to goose the material a little with his unfashionable moustache and unfathomable accent.

Cinematographer Gyula Pados (Kontroll) gives London a slick sheen you don't often associate with the dirty old town, and the filmmakers pump the Gherkin for all its phallic worth (Glass's office must be a floor below Jonathan Rhys Meyers' Match Point workplace), but the relentlessly eroticized atmosphere doesn't extend to Stone's scenes with Morrissey.

Basic Instinct 2: David Morrisey and Sharon Stone

It's not necessarily the actors' fault that they don't generate any charge together. Catherine is Stone's best role, and she plays it with tremendous poise and authority in the circumstances, but for all her carnal appetites this is not a flesh and blood character - she's a vamp, basically, and every scene entails more lurid self-exposure. Yes, Shazza looks fantastic for her age (or any other), but let's not forget that the first film's notorious interrogation scene wasn't just about showing some skin - it was about how that defiant gesture wormed under the skin of a roomful of salivating cops; in other words it was about power.

The erotic thriller never really topped that moment, and it wasn't for want of trying - but like Sliver, Jade and the rest, the flashpoints in Basic Instinct 2 don't feel sexy, liberating or empowering, they just feel degrading.

Tom Charity
tom.charity@lovefilm.com

* Cronenberg was once in talks to direct the sequel.

View Details

More information about Basic Instinct 2 »

Critics' Reviews

Entertainment Weekly

Stone successfully revives her performance as Catherine....It's a treat to see Stone rev her evil-vixen engine again...

Total Film

Thewlis manages to make you believe in his character and steals all of his scenes...

See all 2 Critics' Reviews »

Members' Reviews

Reviews Voted Most Helpful

Rated - 1 starBasic rubbish

pinoyto from Berkshire , 10/06/2006

Cheeses rice!

It realy hurt me when I watched this film, which I thought was impossible!

Fair enough you get to see miss stones saggy breasts but there is just no way of discribing how awful, bland & boring it was.

The most thrilling part of the movie was when I saw the credits. Lets just say me and my grandma can make a better film with a sock and a stick as main actors.

Very disappointing.

  33 out of 50 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Rated - 5 starsLoved it - does not deserve the criticism it got

TristanWhite [Highly rated reviewer] , 07/01/2007

The critics tore it apart unjustly. God knows why - it really isn't that bad. It must have just been fashionable to ridicule it.

The acting is good, London looks gorgeous as ever, and Sharon Stone is as sexy at 48 than she was in Basic Instinct 1 - possibly even sexier. Well, no, maybe that's stretching it a little far.

Morrissey (from 'Blackpool') is very good too, as is Thewliss. OK some of the script is a little cringey and was clearly not written by a Brit, but this is a minor point. As a whodunnit, it's perfect. Keeps you guessing throughout, in the same style as Basic Instinct 1. What more do you possibly want? Citizen bloody Kane? What do you expect from a sequel to Basic Instinct 1, fourteen years on? Well to be honest, I didn't expect anything nearly as good as this. I was pleasantly surprised, and if you have an open mind, so will you too.

Language can be a little fruity at times if that bothers you - but what film doesn't these days. Certainly didn't bother me, but I am sure it does some....

  10 out of 11 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Rated - 3 starsKind of campy fun!

CJ from Stratford, Warks , 18/05/2006

Was there ANYONE who really was eagerly awaiting this film? However, it was sort of fun if you didn't tatke it too seriously. Sharon Stone hams it up big time, and is very feen to show off how great her body still looks! The London setting is not bad actually, but most of the acst look rather out of their depth.

Trashy fun, and I'm wondering if that deleted bisexual threesome will be on the DVD! (Widely available online...)

  8 out of 10 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Rated - 4 starsAs good as the previous one

Carlos Annia from Scotland , 14/01/2007

I really don't understand why the critic was that hard with this movie. I liked very much the first part and this second part is very good. Sharon Stone is even prettier than in the first one; the plot is maintain and both movies are related and continuing the main idea with the same intrigue; the production is marvelous, every detail was carefully watch and finally the city of London is taken in its very best views. To those who enjoyed Basic Instinct 1 definitely I recommend to watch this sequence.I really don't understand why the critic was that hard with this movie. I liked very much the first part and this second part is very good. Sharon Stone is even prettier than in the first one; the plot is maintain and both movies are related and continuing the main idea with the same intrigue; the production is marvelous, every detail was carefully watch and finally the city of London is taken in its very best views. To those who enjoyed Basic Instinct 1 definitely I recommend to watch this sequence.

  7 out of 10 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Most Recent Reviews

Rated - 1 starDon't bother.

<>< from Bournemouth, England , 28/09/2006

This film is slow, unwitty and unbelievable. The characters are neither extraordinary nor sexy, but rather bland and unoriginal. It is a pity I wasted my time with this film, and I would suggest you look somewhere else if you are thinking about it.

  2 out of 3 people found this review helpful

Read all highest rated reviews

Rated - 1 starBasic rubbish

pinoyto from Berkshire , 10/06/2006

Cheeses rice!

It realy hurt me when I watched this film, which I thought was impossible!

Fair enough you get to see miss stones saggy breasts but there is just no way of discribing how awful, bland & boring it was.

The most thrilling part of the movie was when I saw the credits. Lets just say me and my grandma can make a better film with a sock and a stick as main actors.

Very disappointing.

  33 out of 50 people found this review helpful

Read all highest rated reviews