Movie Review: BASIC INSTINCT 2 Author: Jenn Bobbitt Monday, May 8, 2005 Dr. Glass eyed Catherine coolly. “Tell me something you are afraid of.” “Boredom,” Catherine answered wryly. The irony of this dialogue being placed within the first 15 minutes of this film is bafflingly ironic- that was exactly what I was afraid of when I took my seat in the theatre…boredom. I went to see Basic Instinct 2 on its third day in theatres, so the negative reviews had already started pouring in- and I was afraid, I was very afraid. Was I really going to waste a Sunday evening watching a movie that was currently being nationally lambasted when the Bellini’s at La Strada were calling my name? Sadly, yes (I just love Coke slurpees that much!). Such a wave of negativity surrounded the launch of this film that, by the time the lights dimmed on myself and the thirty other viewers in the theater (yes, there were just short of thirty five people there only three days after it opened), my expectations had been thoroughly lowered. So much so, in fact, that I was actually pleasantly surprised by its level of amusing mediocrity. To start, the movie is hot! The first scene set the tone- beautiful people, expensive toys, and gratuitous sexual activity. BI2 clarified it purpose from the start- a more overtly sexual (I didn’t think it was possible, but, wow, was I wrong) Basic Instinct. Never mind the fact that the writers simply transplanted the movie into another famous city but kept the same plot structure- It’s hot! And if that is what you are looking for, that is what you are going to get- a wildy sexy, albeit dodgy, movie set in a romanticized London. (I do feel it necessary to give a proverbial “shout out” at this point to Basic Instinct writer Joe Eszterhas who I now hold on a Vonnegut-equse level after seeing how poorly he truly could have written the original.) BI2 is virtually the same movie released in 1992, although the 2006 version possesses one dimensional plot development and remarkably flat characters given the collective talent of the cast. Sharon Stone reprises her role as Catharine Tramell, the acclaimed novelist obsessed with the seedier side of life. Although Ms. Stone is arguably more attractive in this film- age seems to have had no affect on her countenance, but has provided her with a stoic irreverency that only increases her beauty- her characterization of Catherine comes across as hollow. In her quest to come across as calculated and deviant, Ms. Stone cuts herself off from the viewer, missing the opportunity to be dissonantly identifiable by a long shot. David Morrissey who plays Dr. Michael Glass, Catherine’s psychologist and love interest, also lacks the depth and passion that movie-goers found so endearing in Michael Douglas’s characterization of Detective Nick Curran in 1992’s Basic Instinct. Charlotte Rampling, playing the quiet and contemplative Milena Gardosh, is the conclusive stand out in the film, providing a crumb of well developed humanitarian characterization amongst a sea of superfluous sex. Despite the shoddy characterization and the under developed plot, the film is mildly entertaining and serves to hold the viewers attention long enough to successfully bridge the gap between sex scenes. I left the theatre a bit sore from having missed my Sunday evening Bellini’s but slightly amused none the less. Jenn’s Grade: C Jenn Bobbitt is a contributor and reviewer for ON-FILM.NET.