Basic Instinct 2 (2006) from Tuna and Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Tuna's notes

 

After realizing the expense of shooting in San Francisco, the producers of Basic Instinct 2 decided to create it in London, but focused on the new sections rather than the historical buildings. Swap a shrink for the Michael Douglas detective, then add a possibly crooked cop, et voila! As the film opens, Stone dries her car into the Thames at the moment of orgasm, and her partner drowns. She is arrested for murder, and a shrink (David Morrissey) is appointed to examine her. It is just a matter of time before she seduces him. Meanwhile, people keep dying, and the obvious suspect is Sharon, no, it is the cop, no, it is Sharon, no ... you get the idea.

Some of you may remember that I did not like the original, but compared to this sequel it was a masterpiece. Prop your eyes open and I dare you to stay awake unless you subject yourself to the full Ludovico Treatment. Sharon is much older this time, and has supposedly gotten more skillful at her mind-fuck game, but Basic Instinct 2, like the original, is really not about Sharon Stone's mind, but her cunt, except that she doesn't show it this time. In fact, the film doesn't even have that much nudity at all.
 

DVD INFO

  • Widescreen anamorphic transfer
  • Commentary by director Michael Caton-Jones
  • "Between the Sheets" featurette
  • 10 deleted scenes with optional director commentary
  • Alternate ending
    •

NUDITY REPORT

  • Sharon Stone - breasts and VERY brief frontal flash in near darkness. The "Unrated Extended Cut" DVD also has one deleted scene with a wet blouse see-through, and a lot of non-naked junk that deserved to be cut.

  • Flora Montgomery - breasts and buns

  • David Morrissey - bum

Scoop's notes

There have been many nasty words written about this film, and I don't feel motivated to add to them. The fans' and critics' ratings enumerated below speak for themselves.

Instead of addressing the film in detail, I want to vent some spleen about "unrated" DVDs. Lor' Almighty, is this becoming a scam. I don't know how many lame DVDs I have sat through because the words "unrated" or "director's cut" have lured me into a false hope that there might be some really raunchy stuff on the disk. So let's clear the air a bit on the term "unrated." It simply means that it has not been submitted to the MPAA for a rating. It could be tamer than the theatrical version. It could even be G-rated material without the formal G certification. More often than not, it would have received an R rating if it had been submitted, but can be called "unrated" because the term is literally true. One could theoretically snip one frame from an R-rated edition and bill it as "unrated" without going afoul of the authorities. An even more cynical marketer could ADD one frame and call it "unrated and expanded." It is advertising that is completely true in denotation, but false in connotation because the potential buyers are expecting something nastier in an "unrated" edition.

Such a situation occurs with the DVD for Basic Instinct 2. The "unrated" edition would have no trouble getting an R rating. There is also a separate DVD of the R-rated theatrical version, but I have not looked at it, so I don't know what differences exist between the two, but I do know that the "unrated" version is not even a hard R. It is far tamer than the theatrical version of the original Basic Instinct from the 1980s. Not only are we denied Sharon Stone's infamous beaver, but we don't even get a glimpse of any pubic hair.

What makes matters even worse is that the deleted scenes - oh, how we movie freaks savor the possibilities inherent in deleted material - do not include any additional nudity at all, except a non-sexual scene in which Sharon Stone gets caught in a downpour, thus turning her blouse transparent and providing some pseudo-nudity.

What makes matters worst of all is that we know for a fact that there is much more deleted footage available, but this simply did not make it into the unrated DVD, nither in the film nor the deleted scenes. We know this because we saw the footage many months earlier on the internet, and it does include some naughtier stuff, including a hot ménage a trois.

So we have an unrated DVD which is actually soft R-level material, deleted scenes which could probably qualify for a PG-13, and the sure knowledge that the DVD specifically excludes some raunchy material which we know for a fact to exist.

Bah, humbug.

As for the movie itself, it is a failure, but possibly not for the reasons you might suspect. It is not an incompetent movie. It's a boring one, as Tuna noted above. It might have been entertaining if it had gone in one of two directions: either toward a gloriously campy masterpiece with Sharon Stone operating in the ultrabitch mode, or toward flat-out taboo-challenging tacky erotica. The moviemakers chose neither of those options. Instead they tried to make it a convoluted whodunit with stylish production values and just a soupcon of bitchiness in the Joan Collins manner. It reaches for class instead of crass.

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Wrong answer.

The Critics Vote ...

  • Super-panel consensus:  one out of four stars. James Berardinelli 1/4, Roger Ebert 1.5/4.

  • British consensus:  one star out of four. Mail 0/10, Telegraph 2/10, Independent 2/10, Guardian 2/10, Times 4/10, Sun 2/10, Express 2/10, Mirror 2/10, FT 2/10, BBC 2/5.

The People Vote ...

  • Box Office Mojo.  It only returned $5.85M in domestic gross on its $70M budget, but did gross $32 million overseas.
The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

Our own guideline:

  • A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre.
  • B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. In order to rate at least a B-, a film should be both a critical and commercial success. Exceptions: (1) We will occasionally rate a film B- with good popular acceptance and bad reviews, if we believe the critics have severely underrated a film. (2) We may also assign a B- or better to a well-reviewed film which did not do well at the box office if we feel that the fault lay in the marketing of the film, and that the film might have been a hit if people had known about it. (Like, for example, The Waterdance.)
  • C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by people who enjoy this kind of movie. If this is your kind of movie, a C+ and an A are indistinguishable to you.
  • C means it is competent, but uninspired genre fare. People who like this kind of movie will think it satisfactory. Others probably will not.
  • C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie, but genre addicts find it watchable. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film, but films with this rating should be approached with caution by mainstream audiences, who may find them incompetent or repulsive or both. If this is NOT your kind of movie, a C- and an E are indistinguishable to you.
  • D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-. Films rated below C- generally have both bad reviews and poor popular acceptance.
  • E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre.
  • F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

 

Based on this description, this film is a D+. Elegant production values wasted on a movie which is both listless and unerotic.

Return to the Movie House home page