Wonderful character development!

How sad is this?

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

The same wealthy, sexy and perverse woman from the first installment is accused of murdering her partner and as a result, she starts visiting and courting at the same time, a young psychologist with a troubled past of his own. He tries to understand her peculiar character but the more he gets involved, the more he seems attracted to her in a seduction game which is apparently out of his league. As more and more characters around them continue to die without any traces, he gets into a lot of trouble as the protagonist of the first movie, ending up in a very unexpected position.This movie tries to continue the first movie's story, using the same but much older woman antagonist but unfortunately is not able to be on par with it. Unlike its predecessor, this one does not feature as much action. On the contrary, it is slow paced and sometimes dull, focusing much more on the mystery than on the action. This is regrettable because it reduces the excitement this kind of movie could offer, making it less appealing. It's a good movie with good actors and a good plot but it falls behind in terms of action.

When you don't have the original protagonist,director,writer,producer and score maestro you know that the movie is going to sucks (to say least) and thats exactly what this movie is SUCKS!.You can't see that this movie was made because the huge ego of Sharon Stone simple like that.At least a couple of this kind of movies came out in the lapse of this movie and the original (14 years)and some of them was very good.But in the case of this movie this is not case Don't get me wrong the movie have a great cast (David Thewlis,Charlotte Rampling,David Morrisey)the simply don't have any surprises and in the begging of the second act you can guess how is going to end.Don't waste you time they are a lot of better thrillers out there the only thing you gonna see is the decline of a great actress and a movie made it because of she ego.

the basic sin of film is its existence. not because it is a bad movie but because it desires be only a clone of a high success. a film about nothing, using Sharon Stone and few pieces from first part for a confuse story. nothing realistic, nothing interesting. maybe, only the presence of Charlote Rampling. the absence of a good script can be an explanation for its quality. in same measure, the desire to resurrect a too good film universe with poor tools. but the problem is not the acting, story or the not inspired title.but Sharon Stone who gives a formal Catherine . the seduction of original is lost. and Stan Collymore - like a wood statue -, is far to be the best choice for his role.

..This is no cry of agony from my side, nope, this is what this movie cries in agony ! At first I said to myself, OK, this is a sex and violence crap. So why not? As long as I enjoy at least the first element. But Ohh, I discovered that it consists of Nos, lots and lots of Nos..(David Morrissey) is NO peer to Sharon Stone. He's deprived of charisma.(David Morrissey) has NO talent. He put the same one-note expression on his face during the whole time. And from what that expression looked you can't decide; was he angry ?, restrainedly horny ?, disturbed ?, or board ?! This reached its climax at the final shot; where his expression was sure the most pointless and stupid expression I have ever seen in my life ! (Sharon Stone) is NO sexy in this. In most of her scenes she seems like a drug addict has-been. Her face, along with her body, especially her – as the Razzie put it – lop-sided breasts, were old and pathetic (And by the way, her haircut SUCKED !). Simply, if you love the beautiful (Sharon Stone) of the 1980s and 1990s, then welcome to the ghost of her ! (Sharon Stone) gave NO good performance. All what she got to do was feeling like "I'm irresistibly HOT, I'm a ravenous TIGER, I'm unredeemably BAD!". The thing is, nothing of that got to us. So, with her lousy looks, she was more like a real sick woman, yet with the fake belief that she's femme fatal ! There is NO meaning out of shipping the events to England, even its places weren't used as fancy or mysterious backgrounds to the story. Speaking of the story; there is NO thrill. And what a shame to say that in a thriller. The movie is a sleepy slasher all along. There is NO style. (Michael Caton-Jones), who directed once highly good works like Doc Hollywood (1991) and Rob Roy (1995), makes here the lowest point in his career. Clearly he was uninterested in, if not hating, what he was doing. Just watch his soulless performance, with dull cadres, dull way to move the cast, dull cuts.. etc, to feel how he directed a rushed TV episode where he had no time to create, rather master, anything ! For your information; right after this movie, he couldn't find any work in cinema, and after 20 years of directing movies, he became a TV director (It's up to you; was that sad or fair ?).There is NO beauty, on any level. Even the end twist was there only to convince you that this movie has some brain to be wicked and manipulative. But they forgot to make something worthy before it !So, (Basic Instinct 2) is a sleepy slasher, the longest TV episode, and a strange convention which invited their members to leave their talents at the door ! And if you were in it for sex and violence; watch the first movie better. Actually, I was tortured by this movie's privation, it's more like a needy child that his parents stripped him from everything. In short : Movies like this created the Razzie award ! To be objective, one thing attracted my attention, in a positive way : the white trousers that (Stone) wore in the last scene; it was lovely and catchy.. like NO other thing in the movie !