Reviewing the Reviews: 'Basic Instinct 2' |

News | PopWatch

Reviewing the Reviews: 'Basic Instinct 2'


16220__basicinstinct2_lFrankly, I’m disappointed. A true cinematic superfund site like Basic Instinct 2 deserves some truly inspired takedown headlines. But so far, they’re coming up short. I mean, really, Lawrence Journal-World: Stone murders ‘Instinct’ sequel

Puh-lease. This suggests that Sharon Stone vitiated what might have otherwise been a good movie. This doesn’t jibe with what I’ve heard. (No, I haven’t seen it yet. I think I need to get very, very soused first, so the fun must wait til Saturday – I’m not quite rock & roll enough for a weekday pickling of BI proportions.)

Let’s check in with our old friend New York Times: Sharon Stone Returns in ‘Basic Instinct 2,’ an Older Femme but as Fatale as Ever

Really? As fatale as ever? Does this headliner moonlight doing rewrites for Troma?

The San Jose Mercury News gets closer: She’s bad. Really bad. Really, really bad. First instinct should be to avoid this flick

Ah, our first “instinct” jibe. Not bad. But not exactly terra incognita, either. Everyone’s piling on that one: Trust your basic instinct and avoid the worst sequel since ‘Staying Alive’, crows Scott Craven from

For pure rage and some striking originality, try

Sharon Too Much: Stone has a dirty little secret: her new movie is a filthy piece of crap

Nice! “Filthy piece of crap” – that’s the kind of furiously redundant panning I like to see on the Internet.

But fie on thee, Christian Science Monitor, for: “Basically, it stinks”!

Normally, I’d applaud such hyperextended punnage. But I happen to know you lifted that from Mad Magazine, circa 1992! That was the title of their Basic Instinct parody, which seared itself on my young mind with its horrifically exaggerated caricatures of various Stone-Douglas couplings. Please, do the Christian thing and give credit (or blame) where due.

More from Our Partners