As we know, Basic Instinct was one of the most influential and controversial films of the early '90s. From the moment it begins, this wastes no time establishing what's in store, unveiling the bloody murder scene prefaced by some very arousing sex. I had to fight the urge to throw quarters at the screen to bounce off that perfectly rounded female backside. Anyway, this movie ultimately catered to our own "basic instincts" of inherent carnal and savage behaviors ( I'd say the female audience experienced a sensation of dominance while watching this film but that might get me in trouble) - thus the quintessential adaptation of the risqué and trashy material found only in paperback was born.
So it's now 2006 and the long awaited sequel has finally been released. Just browsing the background facts this went through to be produced is a bit astonishing. One of the most interesting facts is David Cronenberg was considered to direct this but how about Pierce Brosnan stepping down because of distasteful elements? I guess The Matador was okay because it didn't actually show him having unlawful relations with minors or playing "hide the weenie" with members of the same sex. There certainly was enough dialogue to suggest his character was into that (not saying it was a bad movie, just trying to understand the logic).
Moving on, it seemed these confusing issues over the years were influencing the final production getting seriously trashed. After personally viewing the film, my initial suspicions have been confirmed. Objectivity is the least element to be found in most of the reviews I've read. I know, it's all about freedom of speech and everybody is entitled to their opinion. With that said, here is my two cents regarding what could be considered a controversial film for the wrong reasons: Basic Instinct 2.
Let's start with Sharon Stone since she seems to be the source of all the commotion (how fitting- just like the movie!) . This of course has nothing to do with that unreasonable lawsuit filed against the producers (even I was shaking my head). No doubt she's still in great shape on for a woman who is almost 50 with some very revealing shots confirming this. However, there were some visible signs of aging that Botox or makeup couldn't conceal- her face was not the problem at all, the glossy lipstick is a personal favorite touch. I noticed some freckling and other various skin blemishes on her chest, back and legs that were rather unappealing. I'm talking about a particular sequence in Glass' office when they are first introduced. The lighting and close-up filming techniques captured everything- maybe too much. I think nylons would have been the solution here, there wasn't a muff shot anyway. At least during the sex scenes, the dim lighting and distance made this unnoticeable.
As for her acting, I really didn't have any complaints. I'd actually say her performance was even better than the first one coming across more enigmatic and sassy instead of slightly dingy. There was a part at the end that was pretty funny when she goes over the top that evoked a good chuckle from yours truly. She seemed to have good chemistry with David Morrisey who was better than I thought he would be (I did get a Liam Neeson vibe from his voice at times). That was important because he had quite a bit more screen time than Stone.
Unlike Douglas (whose character's integrity was laughable), he played a strong and serious character who enjoyed being in charge. The magnetism between the two was very evident and she could sense the vulnerability beneath his hardened exterior (pardon the pun). A part that stood out was when she was released from custody, Glass was watching her on a nearby television. She kept glancing at the camera like she was looking directly at him. One of the many effective techniques she used to reach his damaged emotional core for the provocative manipulation games (I believe Washburn had another term for this). I should mention Morrisey also had an over the top moment that paralleled the infamous "NOOO!!" in Star Wars: ROTS toward the end of the film....It actually makes sense why later, but it still sounded ridiculous being about 5 seconds too long.
Two more pleasant surprises were Charlotte Rampling (loved Swimming Pool) and David Thewlis (loved Kingdom of Heaven) who were both excellent.
Now the story really doesn't change a whole lot from the first one. There were a few references to Shooter (Douglas) and the murders but this honestly felt like a remake (some familiar notes in the score were pretty cool). The big difference being it was not as sexually or violently graphic as the first.
The benefits of course not trying to avoid visual contact of Michael Douglas' orange bum all the time (although this one had it's share of man arse and not enough luscious female gee maximus- Stone's was completely absent). Another benefit was the quality of film-making was far superior in this one. The changes made were the right ones making it more reserved yet kept it compelling- not just a campy shock fest. However, I must admit I'm hoping for a spicier extended version on DVD because there are plenty of opportunities.
To top it off, it was set in London so almost everyone except Stone spoke in a British accent (Sounded like Thewlis had a touch of Irish in his delivery - well, he was the detective after all. Oh, and the German with the bad wig- yet even more comedy) providing a paradoxical sense of elegance in such a maniacal situation.
So it's now 2006 and the long awaited sequel has finally been released. Just browsing the background facts this went through to be produced is a bit astonishing. One of the most interesting facts is David Cronenberg was considered to direct this but how about Pierce Brosnan stepping down because of distasteful elements? I guess The Matador was okay because it didn't actually show him having unlawful relations with minors or playing "hide the weenie" with members of the same sex. There certainly was enough dialogue to suggest his character was into that (not saying it was a bad movie, just trying to understand the logic).
Moving on, it seemed these confusing issues over the years were influencing the final production getting seriously trashed. After personally viewing the film, my initial suspicions have been confirmed. Objectivity is the least element to be found in most of the reviews I've read. I know, it's all about freedom of speech and everybody is entitled to their opinion. With that said, here is my two cents regarding what could be considered a controversial film for the wrong reasons: Basic Instinct 2.
Let's start with Sharon Stone since she seems to be the source of all the commotion (how fitting- just like the movie!) . This of course has nothing to do with that unreasonable lawsuit filed against the producers (even I was shaking my head). No doubt she's still in great shape on for a woman who is almost 50 with some very revealing shots confirming this. However, there were some visible signs of aging that Botox or makeup couldn't conceal- her face was not the problem at all, the glossy lipstick is a personal favorite touch. I noticed some freckling and other various skin blemishes on her chest, back and legs that were rather unappealing. I'm talking about a particular sequence in Glass' office when they are first introduced. The lighting and close-up filming techniques captured everything- maybe too much. I think nylons would have been the solution here, there wasn't a muff shot anyway. At least during the sex scenes, the dim lighting and distance made this unnoticeable.
As for her acting, I really didn't have any complaints. I'd actually say her performance was even better than the first one coming across more enigmatic and sassy instead of slightly dingy. There was a part at the end that was pretty funny when she goes over the top that evoked a good chuckle from yours truly. She seemed to have good chemistry with David Morrisey who was better than I thought he would be (I did get a Liam Neeson vibe from his voice at times). That was important because he had quite a bit more screen time than Stone.
Unlike Douglas (whose character's integrity was laughable), he played a strong and serious character who enjoyed being in charge. The magnetism between the two was very evident and she could sense the vulnerability beneath his hardened exterior (pardon the pun). A part that stood out was when she was released from custody, Glass was watching her on a nearby television. She kept glancing at the camera like she was looking directly at him. One of the many effective techniques she used to reach his damaged emotional core for the provocative manipulation games (I believe Washburn had another term for this). I should mention Morrisey also had an over the top moment that paralleled the infamous "NOOO!!" in Star Wars: ROTS toward the end of the film....It actually makes sense why later, but it still sounded ridiculous being about 5 seconds too long.
Two more pleasant surprises were Charlotte Rampling (loved Swimming Pool) and David Thewlis (loved Kingdom of Heaven) who were both excellent.
Now the story really doesn't change a whole lot from the first one. There were a few references to Shooter (Douglas) and the murders but this honestly felt like a remake (some familiar notes in the score were pretty cool). The big difference being it was not as sexually or violently graphic as the first.
The benefits of course not trying to avoid visual contact of Michael Douglas' orange bum all the time (although this one had it's share of man arse and not enough luscious female gee maximus- Stone's was completely absent). Another benefit was the quality of film-making was far superior in this one. The changes made were the right ones making it more reserved yet kept it compelling- not just a campy shock fest. However, I must admit I'm hoping for a spicier extended version on DVD because there are plenty of opportunities.
To top it off, it was set in London so almost everyone except Stone spoke in a British accent (Sounded like Thewlis had a touch of Irish in his delivery - well, he was the detective after all. Oh, and the German with the bad wig- yet even more comedy) providing a paradoxical sense of elegance in such a maniacal situation.