La novelista Catherine vuelve a tener problemas con la ley y Scotland nombra al psiquiatra Michael Glass para que la evalúe.La novelista Catherine vuelve a tener problemas con la ley y Scotland nombra al psiquiatra Michael Glass para que la evalúe.La novelista Catherine vuelve a tener problemas con la ley y Scotland nombra al psiquiatra Michael Glass para que la evalúe.
- Premios
- 8 premios ganados y 6 nominaciones en total
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Argumento
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaWhen the sequel was originally being planned in 2000 Michael Douglas declined to reprise his role as Nick Curran, admitting there were also issues regarding his age.
- Errores(at around 1h 35 mins) When Michael Glass gives Washburn Milena's street address in a telephone message, he clearly says 23. When Michael gets to her house, the number above the door is 14.
- Citas
Roy Washburn: What were you doing at 100 miles per hour?
Catherine Tramell: He was making me cum. And it was 110. We must've hit a pothole.
Roy Washburn: Kevin Franks died. You don't seem very worried.
Catherine Tramell: I'm devastated... I may never cum again.
- Versiones alternativasAs with the first film, the US version was cut in the sex scenes because the MPAA threatened the film with a NC-17 rating.
- ConexionesFeatured in Siskel & Ebert & the Movies: The Worst of 2006 (2007)
- Bandas sonorasTheme
From the Motion Picture Bajos instintos (1992)
Written by Jerry Goldsmith
Published by Le StudioCanal+ Music, Inc. (BMI)
Opinión destacada
There's really no way to pull off a sequel to the original classic, Basic Instinct. To do so would require much more than Sharon Stone who sizzles no matter what she is doing. She a fine actress, but surrounding her with unfamiliar actors in London, and handling a script that lacks everything witty and tight that Joe Eszterhas weaved in the original picture, is just disastrous.
Our story here has Ms. Tramell, notorious author from Basic Instinct at the epicenter of a death, accidental, or perhaps...intentional??? She is handled by Scotland yard in this one, a far cry from the San Fransisco PD and Detective Nick Curan, who is sorely absent. Rather than prance around with her sexuality tugging at the police, and seducing them blindly, she is more a bully here, and she pushes authoritative figures, especially Michael Glass the professional assigned to her case, into her game this time around.
Sharon Stone turns in a mostly witty and sharp (no pun intended) continuation of Catherine Tramell, Complete with incomparable physique, sexy sultry voice, and some more blonde poison. Her co-stars, however, do not measure up.U.K. veteran Charlotte Rampling is the only other cast member/character on Stones level. The rest of the cast are like fish out of water. I think it's part of why the film doesn't work. We have very stiff European authoritative figures, bent on the unraveling of the case, as well they should be, except it doesn't feel like Basic Instinct, and the good moments that are had, are reminders that it might have been better had they stuck with the original idea which was to have been set in NYC.
The production design and art direction are diabolical though (again, no pun intended), and it's a scene set greatly, if only the expectations were met. Ultimately I feel the writing was the biggest let down. It's as if Leora Barish and Henry Bean didn't know the character of Catherine, and thusly could not completely tell her story. Whatever they have for every one else is a more or less lacking shadow of what the original was.
Michael Caton-Jones is okay, but this flick, released in 2006, looks like EVERY other action thriller from that time period, and that's sad. The original was a cut (there I go again)above the rest of what was released back in 1992. It had so much style and charisma, and even charm, mixed with an extremely interwoven and complex, even abstract plot/story. This is just a run-of-the-mill follow up sequel that is as bland and boring as every other product that was churned out by studios at the time. It's all in your face at value, which is not very high. There is noting beyond the cheese & crackers. The cigar is just the cigar, and in this films case, it needed to be a highly intoxicating cigarette.
Our story here has Ms. Tramell, notorious author from Basic Instinct at the epicenter of a death, accidental, or perhaps...intentional??? She is handled by Scotland yard in this one, a far cry from the San Fransisco PD and Detective Nick Curan, who is sorely absent. Rather than prance around with her sexuality tugging at the police, and seducing them blindly, she is more a bully here, and she pushes authoritative figures, especially Michael Glass the professional assigned to her case, into her game this time around.
Sharon Stone turns in a mostly witty and sharp (no pun intended) continuation of Catherine Tramell, Complete with incomparable physique, sexy sultry voice, and some more blonde poison. Her co-stars, however, do not measure up.U.K. veteran Charlotte Rampling is the only other cast member/character on Stones level. The rest of the cast are like fish out of water. I think it's part of why the film doesn't work. We have very stiff European authoritative figures, bent on the unraveling of the case, as well they should be, except it doesn't feel like Basic Instinct, and the good moments that are had, are reminders that it might have been better had they stuck with the original idea which was to have been set in NYC.
The production design and art direction are diabolical though (again, no pun intended), and it's a scene set greatly, if only the expectations were met. Ultimately I feel the writing was the biggest let down. It's as if Leora Barish and Henry Bean didn't know the character of Catherine, and thusly could not completely tell her story. Whatever they have for every one else is a more or less lacking shadow of what the original was.
Michael Caton-Jones is okay, but this flick, released in 2006, looks like EVERY other action thriller from that time period, and that's sad. The original was a cut (there I go again)above the rest of what was released back in 1992. It had so much style and charisma, and even charm, mixed with an extremely interwoven and complex, even abstract plot/story. This is just a run-of-the-mill follow up sequel that is as bland and boring as every other product that was churned out by studios at the time. It's all in your face at value, which is not very high. There is noting beyond the cheese & crackers. The cigar is just the cigar, and in this films case, it needed to be a highly intoxicating cigarette.
- doorbomb62
- 30 jun 2015
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- Países de origen
- Sitios oficiales
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Basic Instinct 2
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 70,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 5,971,336
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 3,201,420
- 2 abr 2006
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 38,629,478
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 54 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta