Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction
114 minutes,
Germany/Spain/UK/USA (2006), 18
Sharon Stone returns as thrill-seeking novelist Catherine Tramell in this sequel to the 1992 erotic drama. Michael Caton-Jones directs, David Morrissey and David Thewlis also star
Director:
Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction Review
Sharon Stone returns as thrill-seeking novelist Catherine Tramell in this sequel to the 1992 erotic drama. Michael Caton-Jones directs, David Morrissey and David Thewlis also star
The film opens with Stan Collymore and our Sharon, speeding through the London night in a sports car, doing improper things to each other and driving quite irresponsibly. The only thing missing is the scene where they get stuck on the Chiswick roundabout and can't work out how to turn off again.
There are the usual visual signifiers to remind you you're watching an American film set in London. But, in the name of modernity, Big Ben (oo err) is replaced by Sir Norman Foster's 'Gherkin' (phwoargh, eh?). In case the subtlety of the imagery escapes you, in the opening scenes of the film, Sharon gamely fingers a novelty lighter in the shape of Big Ben. When that gets trodden on, it is swiftly replaced by a novelty 'Gherkin' lighter. Which she fingers gamely for the rest of the film. Do you see?
When the aforementioned ex-footballer is found dead at the bottom of the Thames in Catherine's car, she is called in for questioning by comedy Welsh detective Roy Washburn (Thewlis). He gets all the best lines - nearly every single one of them's a comedy belter. He in turn calls on eminent psychologist Michael Glass (Morrissey) to assess Catherine, in the hope of getting her banged up.
The first meeting between Catherine and Glass is underwhelming to say the least. There's lots of eyebrow waggling and single entendres. "So is this where we're going to do it?" Tramell drawls as she shimmies past the mental health professional. Their relationship for the rest of the movie is supposed to be a subtle seesaw of power, sexual tension and control. What it boils down to is a total lack of chemistry and a series of comic set-pieces where Stone tries to smoulder and so does Morrissey. They are both smouldering so hard at each other, they forget to actually flesh out their characters or make them even slightly believable. She is supposed to be an arch manipulator. The dialogue makes her sound unendingly dim. He is supposed to be baffled by her impenetrable exterior. He just looks constipated.
There are the usual visual signifiers to remind you you're watching an American film set in London. But, in the name of modernity, Big Ben (oo err) is replaced by Sir Norman Foster's 'Gherkin' (phwoargh, eh?). In case the subtlety of the imagery escapes you, in the opening scenes of the film, Sharon gamely fingers a novelty lighter in the shape of Big Ben. When that gets trodden on, it is swiftly replaced by a novelty 'Gherkin' lighter. Which she fingers gamely for the rest of the film. Do you see?
When the aforementioned ex-footballer is found dead at the bottom of the Thames in Catherine's car, she is called in for questioning by comedy Welsh detective Roy Washburn (Thewlis). He gets all the best lines - nearly every single one of them's a comedy belter. He in turn calls on eminent psychologist Michael Glass (Morrissey) to assess Catherine, in the hope of getting her banged up.
The first meeting between Catherine and Glass is underwhelming to say the least. There's lots of eyebrow waggling and single entendres. "So is this where we're going to do it?" Tramell drawls as she shimmies past the mental health professional. Their relationship for the rest of the movie is supposed to be a subtle seesaw of power, sexual tension and control. What it boils down to is a total lack of chemistry and a series of comic set-pieces where Stone tries to smoulder and so does Morrissey. They are both smouldering so hard at each other, they forget to actually flesh out their characters or make them even slightly believable. She is supposed to be an arch manipulator. The dialogue makes her sound unendingly dim. He is supposed to be baffled by her impenetrable exterior. He just looks constipated.
"The ridiculous sub-plot revolves around Hugh Dancy's journalist"
Continue reading
Agree or differ with this review? Write your reviews


