Basic Instinct 2

Take away everything that made the first Basic Instinct engaging, original, unpredictable, exciting and sexy, and you have Basic Instinct 2. The opening credits are provocative, but David Morrissey kills any potential for any other sex in the film, and there is VERY little of it and it is VERY brief. And the other actors aren’t much better – it would be difficult to find another film so debased by its casting. It can’t be salvaged even by Sharon Stone, whose aged hand obscures her heavily made-up face every time she takes a drag on her cigarette. The screenplay hopelessly parasitizes on the ideas from the first film. The result is a below-average thriller in the style of Color of Night. Basic Instinct 2 is primed to sweep the Golden Raspberry Awards. (05.04.2006)

This is almost painful to watch. Sharon Stone is more like a caricature of her character from the first film, and she doesn't have anyone worthy of mention to go against. The problem is that the screenplay tries to be basically an English copy of the previous film, but neither the screenplay nor the direction have the right touch and can't create any tension. It can't really be said that it is erotic. (17.03.2015)

The disappointment of the year. This sequel doesn't offer anything new and mostly just descends into a cheap and ordinary replica of the first part. The actors are tragic, with Sharon Stone being a chapter of her own in her age. On the one hand, I admire her courage to take on such a project, but on the other, not even the stunning makeup can save her. The script is a blatant imitation of the first part, and the ending is so stupid that it can’t possibly have been meant seriously. The setting of London is boring, just like the ordinary conversations between the patient (Stone) and the therapist (David Morrissey). There is very little sex (I don't know how much was cut out, maybe the DVD will tell us), and when it does happen, there is hardly any boldness to speak of. Everything follows the standard Hollywood formula, and that's essentially the whole film. A needless sequel, better forget about it or watch the first part instead. (13.04.2006)

I was curious about this film, mainly because of the significantly negative feedback surrounding it. After watching it, I must say that it is not nearly as bad. However, I'm not claiming that it's a good film. Nevertheless, a fan of the genre and still respectable charms of Stone can give it a second star. The problem is that the fading star Stone was supposed to be the main draw of this film. Unlike other models who drifted from the runway to the camera, she is capable of delivering a certain acting performance and where she can rely on a good director and quality co-stars, she can even surpass herself, as she proved in Casino or in Muse. Otherwise, she is just an average actress who excels in self-presentation. In Czech terms, she can be compared to Kateřina Brožová, and in this comparison, Brožová would probably come out victorious, as she, after all, performs in the theater (I really wouldn't believe Sharon on the theatrical stage). Because the sequel brought together a run-of-the-mill director with run-of-the-mill actors and an average screenplay, the result is a run-of-the-mill industrial product suitable for broadcast on any commercial television station anytime after midnight for insomniacs. Overall impression: 20%. (19.07.2006)

I haven't seen something this unexpectedly bad in a long time. The first hour of the film dragged on so that it felt like two hours, the second for three, Sharon Stone was almost cheaply awkward and the sexist innuendos she made in every other sentence were boring. I prefer not to even mention the unsympathetic dummy, who was her equal in terms of non-acting. Unfortunately, Michael Caton-Jones couldn't save this spectacular mess, and John Murphy wouldn't have gotten laid without Goldsmith's motif. A totally unnecessary film. (07.10.2012)