Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Celia A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Kirpianuscus it is very easy and funny and cool to criticize this film. first support - the comparison with the original. than - the expectations. too high. in fact, it is a mistake to make a second part . but this mistake could be reduced if you ignore the original as standard. if you do, you have a thriller. not great but decent. chaotic and predictable but the presence of Sharon Stone and Charlotte Rampling are a reasonable compensation. so, it is an error to define it as trash. it is a decent thriller, not the best but far to be the worst, it is not Paul Verhoeven but a nice try to recreate his universe. so, Basic Instinct 2. and this is all.

solun-1 Tonight, I watched the Basic Instinct and Basic Instinct 2 right after it. Both for the very first time.The first one got me excited as the actors were great and the story pretty cool. A great crime movie. I knew about the bad reputation the second installment has and expected a flop. But I did not get one. I got a movie full of honestly great actors, great environments and a great plot. The camera, sound, music, editing, actors, suspense... Everything is on top. I loved the movie and frankly have no idea why it is rated bad and why was it nominated for razzie awards. I guess you have to have a black sheep every year to point a finger at and unfortunately for the Basic Instinct 2 this movie was that black sheep in 2006.I rated Basic Instinct 9/10 because I was really entertained and I am rating the second one also 9/10 because I was entertained as well and even a bit more because the movie is more current to me as it was shot in 2006 and I am a younger person. Hats off to the makers of this movie and the actors. Highly recommended to anyone interested in crime movies or thrillers.

Jeff A Carlson I'm a longtime fan of slow burn thrillers, Noir and Neo Noir. These genres are apparently a niche audience anymore, and it seems most of these type movies made anymore, are low budget, made for TV and video productions. This is OK with me, as long as they're done well, big budgets don't usually equal good movies, and the type of movie in question has a long B production history. This movie to me is well acted,and brings back some of the original BI films Hitchcock vibe, with probably a medium budget. An element in the 1992 film that I loved was the Northern Cal scenery, and I would of liked to have had that again. Going that route probably would of made it too much like the first film. This movie is taken place in London, which isn't too bad of grounds for noir in it's own write! Stone in the 1st movie, her character's personality to me plays out like Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lechtor. She was a little too much of a bad girl for my personal taste, so I was less attracted to her than many viewers. IMO much of the over the top aspects have been tapered back for this movie, the sex scenes are there, but they're shorter, and to me it doesn't look like they tried to carry the film on it as with the first. The plot is confusing, but no more than in the original film. The California aspect was a huge factor in my liking of the 1st film, and a younger Stone could sell that sexual/abrasive character better. That said, to me the newer version shows her a little less over the top, sex is not as quite over sold. You don't have the heavy hitter that Mike Douglass was in 1992, but there are some very good British actors in this film.If you're a fan of Noir and twisted Neo noir thrillers, don't let the bad reviews hold you back from watching this as I did

OllieSuave-007 Released 14 years after the original, Novelist Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) returns in this sequel, and is caught within the law again, this time in London. Psychiatrist Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey) is assigned by the Scotland Yard to evaluate her, but lured into Tramell's seductive game.While the first film blends in sexually with mesmerizing mystery, thrills and suspense, Director Michael Caton-Jones gave this film more of a slick and sleazy soap-opera style story, leaving out much of the mystery, suspense and intrigue. What you have is a movie with over-the-top raunchy scenes, cheesier dialog, overboard drama, and an uninspiring cast, though Stone can still pull-off a cunning femme fatale portrayal.The plot goes at a pretty swift pace, but I've found the story and the acting weren't as simulating as in the first film.Grade D