Cheap Basic Instinct 2 (Unrated, Extended Cut) (DVD) (Michael Caton-Jones) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of Basic Instinct 2 (Unrated, Extended Cut)

Film of the Year
Like everybody else in the forum, I heard how rotten BASIC INSTINCT 2 was supposed to be when it hit the theaters last year, and acquiring the DVD seemed like an idiotic thing to do, though who could resist the premise? That haircut wasn't doing Sharon Stone any favors, though sometimes the asymetrical cut of her fringe was intriguing and when the hairdressers parted it down the middle, it was annoying because she could have looked so much better. Oh well, she still looked great except for some scenes, like the climax, in which she looked rough as ten miles of badly paved road and leaning her head against Charlotte Rampling's, she still looked like the older woman in too many ways to count. And yet, and yet, when all is said and done, what a surprise! In many ways BI2 has turned out to be the best movie of 2006, not the worst! And it's not only Sharon Stone who makes it good, although her brave, sizzling performance should have gotten her an Oscar nomination, not the Golden Raspberry or whatever it is. People who hate her just don't see the genius, I understand that much. Listen, I saw Meryl Streep in PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION and PRADA, and she should have been awarded a place in the Raspberry Hall of Fame. <
> <
>But enough about her, the point is that as Walter Pater told us, all art aspires to the condition of BASIC INSTINCT 2: RISK ADDICTION. We begin with the "inward world of thought and feeling, the whirlpool still more rapid, the flame more eager and devouring." As the scenario plays out, we see Stone and David Morrissey move from couch (not that modern therapists use couches all that often nowadays) to the Jacuzzi whirlpool where she offers herself to him and then performs an impromptu underwater ballet, her teeth angled upeward, her grin looming larger through the colored water's prism, as though in a magnifying glass, death illuminating her beauty and her macabre eyes and stretched out skin. This seems to turn him on more and more. "There it is, no longer the gradual darkening of the eye, the gradual fading of colour from the wall -- movements of the shore-side, where the water flows down indeed, though in apparent rest -- but the race of the mid-stream, a drift of momentary acts of sight and passion," just as Pater predicted when, in the 1860s, he had his strange dream vision of The Renaissance that managed to suggest the "hard gemlike flame" with which the eternally lovely and scary Sharon Stone would be burning in the present day. <
> <
>I wouldn't kick David Morrissey out of bed either! How dare other reviewers suggest judge him inferior to Michael Douglas in any way under the sun, much less in beauty and in the magnificent force of his thrusting assextensions? I have seen a sight unrivalled in present day cinema and, to top everything off, I was well and thoroughly gobsmacked by the surprise ending to the film. OK, BASIC INSTINCT part one had Dorothy Malone, but I have it on good authority that she, like Bela Lugosi in PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, was then so out of it that she literally did not know she was being filmed and the footage to be used in a movie. Did anyone else hear that? <
> <
>Finally, for the first time ever in DVD history, the deleted scenes actually contain something worth watching, the scenes in which Catherine Tramell reminisces about a hammock in Napa. <
> <
>Also what's great is the way the makeup people have costumed and pomaded and teased the red hair of David Thewlis to make him exactly resemble our favorite British poet, the one and only Tom Raworth.

---

Diarrhetic Pyschological Thriller
Basic Instinct 2 is directed by Michael Caton-Jones (This Boy's Life, Rob Roy). The original film was in my eyes a lot better than most even gave it credit for, but that movie was handled by hit or miss Director Paul Verhoeven. History suggests that Caton-Jones has consistently directed more quality films than Verhoeven. So the sequel, on the surface anyway, doesn't seem like such a bad idea despite it happening so many years later. There was something incredibly inviting about Sharon Stone's Catherine Trammel in the first movie. It was edgy and well done, which is a sum combination superior to the individual strengths. Many have suggested that this is the worst film of 2006 and I try hard to approach a viewing indifferent to such assertions. After all, people hailed Crash as the best film of 2005 and I didn't buy into that hype. I'm going with the sheep here though. Basic Instinct 2 is the worst film of 2006. <
> <
>In a nutshell, we reconvene in London with Catherine Trammel as the film's protagonist. Catherine is suspected of playing some role in the death of her boyfriend who was apparently drugged before a fatal car crash into the ocean. After being released from the authorities she decides to hook up with a psychiatrist named Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey). The mind games, sexual tension and murder ensue. <
> <
>The most important reason this film failed critically and only lasted about two weeks in American theaters is because of Sharon Stone's performance. It really pains me to say that. It is easy to target her age her but that is a slightly misguided criticism. Sharon looks great for her late 40s in my opinion but her performance suggests a lack of confidence in her own ability to be as sexual as Trammel was in 1992. First of all, it's not an easy task to duplicate that performance in the first place, but Stone's failure might expose her as a one-dimensional actress recycling a role she is no longer capable of delivering. It's not her looks that are not sexy; it's her attitude and her paper thin performance that lacks the confidence to be even remotely compelling. I would even propose that her performance affected the confidence of everyone working this film. It's entirely possible that the success of the movie depended on Sharon Stone almost exclusively. Being a huge fan of the first movie, I sincerely wanted her to pull it off. To Stone's credit, the task at hand was a difficult one. <
> <
>Basic Instinct 2 also doesn't contain nearly the edge that the first film did. That isn't to say it was necessary to do so. In fact, some aspects of the first film could certainly be deemed gratuitous and this sequel is notably missing the copious amounts of nudity that the first film contained, for better or worse. Perhaps there was a conscious effort to be less gratuitous and there is of course some merit to that attempt. But they failed in not being gratuitous as well because the dialogue in this sequel is at times unnecessarily filthy. In fact, it seemed like someone intentional added sexual references to the end of some sentences just for the hell of it. The dialogue was also laughably bad at times and the actors of course struggled in delivering some lines convincingly. <
> <
>The other big flaw is the story in general. It's not horrible, it's just too convoluted and the movie really dragged at times. To be blunt, it was really boring for the most part and just didn't hook me in. I love to recognize notoriously bad films that hook me in just for being so poor; like Mac and Me, Dungeons and Dragons, Plan 9 From Outer Space or Manos, but Basic Instinct 2 isn't even as memorable. It's bad like Gigli or Death to Smoochy was bad. It is forgetfully bad. I almost had to take notes just to recall some key points for this review.

---

Not as good as the first one but worth a look
I've always had a special place in my heart for the first Basic <
>Instinct movie. Back in the early 90s, you didn't have instant internet <
>access like you have today. So the easiest way for adolescent males to <
>look at naked female bodies was to head over to your local video store <
>and rent any one of the broad selection of outdated low budget <
>movies that were available to you. Needless to say those films were not <
>exactly top of the line material. But then came along Basic Instinct, a <
>film loved by male teens whose hormones were running amok, adults <
>looking for an exciting thriller, or just curious what all the fuzz was <
>about, and film critics alike. Basic Instinct was special because it <
>was not only sexually provocative (remember the interrogation and <
>bondage scenes) but also had a strong cast, a good storyline, well <
>developed characters, beautiful photography, fast cars and a nice <
>setting. It was a violent police thriller in which the central <
>character and main draw was a pantiless femme fatale with a taste for <
>all things extreme and directed by the accomplished Paul Verhoeven, a <
>Dutchman famous for making harsh films with a touch of sexual <
>provocation. <
>Fast forward to Basic Instinct 2. Whereas Catherine Tramell was the most intriguing figure in the first movie, she was surrounded by other equally well developed characters. Nick Kurran was the borderline cop, played by Michael Douglas, who became obsessed with the beautiful and dangerous Tramell, Jeanne Tripplehorn portrayed the jealous co-worker and Leilani Sarelle was Sharon Stone's lesbian love interest, which was pretty revolutionary in early 90s mainstream cinema. <
>The sequel shows Catherine Tramell living in London and that's about <
>it. Caught in her web this time around is Kevin Franks, played by Stan Collymore, a boring psychologist whose life is influenced by equally uninteresting women: the sexually unsatisfied ex-wife, a mother figure and mentor and some kind of love interest. I suspect the cliché London setting and subsequent cast of unknown actors was done for financial reasons. There is not a whole lot to say about the story. The movie starts off with a famous soccer player getting killed while he's making love to Catherine, who is doing 110 miles an hour in downtown London. Tramell is the main suspect and is persued by an overzealous police officer and defended by psychologist Franks who becomes obsessed with his hot patient. <
>The opening scene is immediately the most exciting sexual scene in the whole movie. There is one other where Collymore has sex with his would-be girlfriend but that's a poor reproduction of Michael Douglas letting his <
>suppressed sexual appetites rage havoc on Jeane Tripplehorn. The other <
>erotic scenes are pretty lame, especially after such extreme opening credits and taking into consideration Catherine Tramell's sexy outfits. Why would anyone want to go see an erotic thriller whose love scenes are tamer than a Britney Spears concert? Stil, Sharon Stone does look as beautiful and seductive as she did in the first film. However, whereas in the early 90s Catherine Tramell wore sexy outfits, made even more exciting because it was obvious she didn't wear anything underneath them, she was still pretty elegantly dressed. Her clothes in the sequel are designed for the sole purpose of turning men on. So all in all, I conclude that director Michael Caton-Jones has pretty much exploited the sexually provocative aspect of the first movie (but not in a very good way, unless the unrated version features a lot of spicy cut scenes) and neglected all of the other aspects that made Paul Verhoeven's film so special. Is it any coincidence he's since gone on to direct the critically acclaimed Blackbook and Basic Instinct 2 was nominated for worst film of 2006? <
>So, if you were an adolescent male in the early 90s, whose sexual fantasies where forever influenced by Miss Tramell or if you just like Sharon Stone, who looks as good as ever, go check this film out, even if it's just for nostalgia's sake. If it's an exciting crime story you're looking for, better go watch one of the other erotic thrillers Basic Instinct paved the way for, like Body of Evidence, Disclosure or Sliver. <
>