Pretty good, actually.

Stone was above average, as were supporting actors. Fun direction, but the story wasn't anything worth raving about.

A-

you gave it an A- for a medicore review?

C-/D+ for me.

This movie was already done, except with tounge in cheek, entertainment value and an actually engaging script and storyline. It was called Femme Fatale and it was a good fucking movie.

Stone overplays the character so much she undoes her femme fatale.
Rebecca Romijin's femme fatale was very 1950s film noir, and that is referenced and aknowledged by the movie in the opening scene, but Romijin is somewhat redeemable. You could get on her side.

Catherine Trammell in BI2 was a total and utter pure nasty evil bitch. But in an entertaining, Dynasty kind of way. In BI1 she actually had true, believable conflict and character. Here it seems like she has just become everything that people envision a nasty, superficial bitch to be.

BTW im sharon stone.

She looked good in this movie. there is something up with her left titty though, it was trying to head for the cinema exit in that hottub scene.

I was kidding. Satire wasn't working last nite, but I still hit submit. Do forgive.

With all the negative buzz surrounding this film, I didn't expect too much, but it turned out to be half decent. The film lacked what it's famous for and the film can get extremely boring at times, but the solid story and great ending made up for it.

Not a bad effort, overall.

C+

Way under-rated, this one.

I think the vast majority of people these days are just not into a pot-boiler like Basic Instinct 2. Plus, there seems to be a serious media grudge match against the senior actress - or should I say, between the market and the 35+ female actor...

It's definitely a mind ****.

And seriously - any opportunity to see David Thewlis (qv: The New World, Kingdom of Heaven, Harry Potter, Besieged, The Big Lebowski, Seven Years in Tibet, The Island of Dr. Moreau, James and the Giant Peach, & Naked) in a new movie simply should not be missed.

No, it's not a miracle of film-making - but it is a very satisfying psycho-sexual-melo-drama.

4 out of 5.

Is it better than The HILLS HAVE EYES Bradley??

I call's 'em as I see's 'em...

Pretty much what most everyone else said, its suprisingly not that bad. Sure it isn't great and a bit more polish could have made it infinately better. Also, I think the film could have been left as a separate film instead of a long delayed sequel to "Basic Instinct". Seeing as that during its long process to being filmed it was at one point simply called "Risk Addiction" it should have been left as that.

Overall though the film is good albeit as someone said earlier rather flat. It has intrigue, it has decent performances, but it is just missing something. It isn't very polished which is a shame as it had great potential to be a very sleek sort of film.

C+

I thought it was an extremely well made, fun thriller. Sharon Stone was surprisingly decent in it. It had some bad dialogue, but other than that, I had a blast watching it

7/10 (B-)

...bump... to spite them damn Razzies...