Basic Instinct 2

[aroseyglow 3]

This is one of the worst movie sequels ever made. The absence of Michael Douglas definitely sealed the deal on the failure of this sequel. This movie is full of some of the worst dialogue, "plot twists", and an aged woman clinging to youth than I have seen in a long time. It is worth a good laugh and head scratch.

[Alex Murphy 10]

Seconded. To be fair, the original doesn't hold up well at all. The dialogue is terrible and Douglas' character may be the dumbest male lead in movie history - he's like the male Nomi Malone. At least Verhoeven brought some style to it, and it's still fun in a sleazy way.

The sequel, however, doubles down on the stupidity. That opening? The cheapo production? David Morrisey's lack of charisma? David Thewlis trying to save face? The DUMBEST resolution in movie history? This HAS to go on the podcast.

[carbonbased 1]

Oh hell yes. It's worth it for the hilarious "orgy" scene alone!

[Pope13 0]

There is a literally a list of the best of hollywood who have walked away from this movie. Add on top of this the legal battle with Sharon Stone over a number of years. With a score of 7% from Rotten Tomato, this is a worthy movie for HDTGM.

[EarBear 460]

Interesting suggestion - this one is currently free to stream on Crackle.

[Themovieguy12345 9]

This movie so crazy ,yet so good. It needs to be on the podcast

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430912/

[Nasher 29]

Was damned from the start wasn't it.. but after the surprise hit of the original they couldn't not do it really.. but how do you top one of the most infamous scenes of all time... well you just ignore it and smatter the plot with smut that lacks an ounce of sophistication, if that's the word, of the original.

[Themovieguy12345 9]

Well actually, It was much more tame then the first one. You could cut most of the R rated stuff and still have the story. Which while crazy, really work. I think people should view the film as a stand alone and they would enjoy it more

[MarkSherman 0]

I cannot recommend this movie enough. it's sheer ridiculousness.

 

I work at a small, independent theatre which does a series where we get interesting local personalities to present a movie, unannounced to the public, that they feel has gotten a raw deal and ask them to defend it after the screening.

 

Well, this was tonight's mystery film, and it was utter dreck. If for nothing else it is worth watching to count the number of times Sharon Stone says "cum." It is vile.

[sillstaw 414]

I work at a small, independent theatre which does a series where we get interesting local personalities to present a movie, unannounced to the public, that they feel has gotten a raw deal and ask them to defend it after the screening.

 

Well, this was tonight's mystery film, and it was utter dreck.

 

... How did the presenter try to defend it? I'm just really curious.

 

I've read the plot summary for this movie on Wikipedia 3 times (over the span of 5 years, but still), and I'm still confused by it. The ending either makes no sense, or whoever wrote/edited the summary is an idiot. I'm leaning towards the movie just making no sense.

 

I'm also amused by Roger Ebert's review. A choice paragraph:

 

Dr. Glass is played by David Morrissey as a subdued, repressed basket case who listens to Tramell with a stony expression on his face. This is because he is either (a) suppressing his desire to ravage her in lustful abandon, or (b ) suppressing delirious laughter. I'll bet there are outtakes of Stone and Morrissey cracking up. How else to respond to dialogue such as, "Don't take it so hard -- even Oedipus didn't see his mother coming."

 

Egad. This might actually be a hilarious movie. I can't tell anymore!

[MarkSherman 0]

clearly, I'm no good at responding in a timely fashion...

 

anyway, his primary case for defense was a chart he made where he broke down all the reviews in to broad categories such as not like the original, characters do dumb things, too much psychobabble, don't like london, Sharon Stone is too old, and my personal favorite, "liked it, but gave low marks because others would make fun of them." the Ebert review fell in to the latter category. so he used this chart and breakdown to dismiss all of these criticisms as if none of them had any merit. let's just say I wasn't swayed.

 

as for the plot, I would say that in the end I guess it makes sense, it's just beyond convoluted. by and large all the characters are college educated professionals (at the least), and yet they all make wild assumptions, rash decisions, and break their ethical codes on a regular basis without any thought of consequence. it's like they all live in a bubble where no one ever warned them about the dangers of getting involved with someone who drove a sports car off a bridge at a hundred miles an hour while on drugs and getting finger blasted by a soccer player. while in heels. I don't expect these characters to have an Abed level of genre awareness, but a little common sense couldn't hurt.

 

I have never sighed so long and so often in frustration while watching any movie as I did while trying to make it through this massive piece of shit.

[SlidePocket 707]

This film, along with Catwoman a few years earlier, helped derail Sharon Stone's career even further.

 

Also, her co-star from Catwoman, Benjamin Bratt, was considered for the male lead, but was rejected because apparently Stone thought he wasn't a good enough actor for the role. Imagine a Catwoman reunion that would have been!