Basic Instinct 2: Neues Spiel für Catherine Tramell

Vergessen Sie alles, was aus Basic Instinct einen interessanten, originellen, unvorhersehbaren, spannenden und sexy Film gemacht hat. Das, was bleibt, ist Basic Instinct 2: Neues Spiel für Catherine Tramell. Der Vorspann ist aufregend. Das Potenzial der anderen Sexszenen, von denen es in dem Film SEHR wenig gibt und die SEHR verkürzt sind, macht David Morrissey kaputt. Bei den anderen sieht es ähnlich aus – es ist schwer, einen anderen Film zu nennen, bei dem das Casting so misslungen ist. Sharon Stone kann den Film auch nicht retten. Jedes Mal, wenn Sie an einer Zigarette zieht, sieht man ihre alte Hand, die ihr Gesicht mit einer dicken Make-up-Schicht in den Hintergrund drängt. Das Drehbuch nutzt die Ideen aus dem ersten Film und mündet in einen unterdurchschnittlichen Thriller im Stil von Color of Night. Dieser Film wird bestimmt Goldene Himbeeren ernten. (05.04.2006)

I was curious about this film due to the overwhelmingly negative reviews it received. After watching it, I must say it's not nearly as bad as it's made out to be. However, that doesn't mean it's a good film either. Nonetheless, fans of the genre and those who still appreciate Sharon Stone's remaining charm might give it a second star. The problem is that the main draw of this film was supposed to be the fading star, Stone. Unlike other models who have strayed from the runway to the screen, she is capable of delivering a certain level of acting performance. When supported by a good director and quality co-stars, she can even surpass herself, as she demonstrated in Casino or The Muse. Otherwise, she is a completely average actress who excels at self-presentation. Since this sequel brought together a mediocre director with mediocre actors and a mediocre script, the result is a mediocre industrial product suitable for airing on any commercial TV station any time after midnight for chronic insomniacs. Overall impression: 20%. (19.07.2006)

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)

So einen unerwartet schlechten Film habe ich schon lange nicht mehr gesehen. Die erste Stunde kam mir wie zwei Stunden vor, die zweite wie drei. Sharon Stone war billig und peinlich. Ihre sexistischen Anspielungen in jedem zweiten Satz waren langweilig. Ganz zu schweigen von dem unsympathischen Schauspieler, der für sie – was die schlechte Schauspielleistung betrifft – ein ebenbürtiger Partner war. Michael Caton-Jones ist es leider nicht gelungen, diese großartige Katastrophe irgendwie zu retten. Und John Murphy wäre ohne Goldsmiths Motiv ganz verloren gewesen. Ein völlig überflüssiger Film. (07.10.2012)

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)