--- title: "Basic Instinct 2" year: 2006 kind: "film" canonical: "https://film.one/film/basic-instinct-2" fi1m_score: 36 critics_score: 35 critics_reviews: 15 published: "2026-09-16T14:56:00.725703+00:00" updated: "2026-09-16T14:56:01.277300+00:00" region: "US" licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Basic Instinct 2 (2006) Directed by Michael Caton-Jones · 1h 56m · MPA R · Crime, Mystery, Thriller **Fi1m score: 36** · Critics 35 from 15 reviews *In a sentence:* Even Sharon Stone cannot make these conversations count as foreplay > Sharon Stone supplies occasional amusement, but Michael Caton-Jones’s erotic thriller is poor: talk-heavy, short of tension and unable to make its central attraction convincing. The London polish cannot disguise how little there is to enjoy. ## Synopsis Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is in London, with Michael Glass (David Morrissey) the focus of her manipulative attention. Their encounters mix sexual provocation with questions of trust, placing the relationship between them at the centre of a crime mystery. Milena Gardosh (Charlotte Rampling) and Roy Washburn (David Thewlis) are also part of the story, alongside Denise Glass (Indira Varma) and Adam Towers (Hugh Dancy). Catherine keeps the conversation suggestive as the possibility of danger complicates the attraction between her and Michael. ## Review *Basic Instinct 2* is a poor erotic thriller, sporadically amusing and much too pleased with its talk. Michael Caton-Jones directs as though sufficient polish will make the exchanges between Catherine Tramell and Michael Glass dangerous, but the attraction never becomes convincing. We are invited to enjoy Catherine’s manipulation and wonder how far she might go. The film gives those encounters plenty of attention, yet seldom makes us curious about the next thing either person will say. Sharon Stone is the main reason to keep watching. There is some pleasure in her deliberate delivery, the way she lets a provocative line sit there while everyone else has to deal with it. Her performance can tip into mannerism, and the effort to keep every exchange suggestive becomes tiring, but at least she seems interested in causing trouble. David Morrissey, as Michael, is more restrained, and that might have supplied a useful contrast. Instead, their scenes lack the mutual curiosity that would make the seduction worth watching. Henry Bean and Leora Barish give them plenty to say and too little reason for us to listen closely. The dialogue keeps making suggestions about sex and control, while the muddled mystery grows steadily less plausible. Its implausibilities might be enjoyable if the film took itself less seriously, but the conversations ask for patient scrutiny. We were bored by the exchanges between Stone and Morrissey, because neither the insinuations nor the supposed attraction gave us much to anticipate. Gyula Pados’s cinematography gives London a glossy finish, and Norman Garwood’s production design keeps the surroundings imposing. The city looks smart, cold and largely indifferent to the people in it. That coolness suits Catherine’s composure, though Caton-Jones lets it spread so thoroughly that the supposedly heated exchanges feel formal. There is care in the way this London has been presented, but we spend too much time admiring the setting when we ought to be watching the people. Editors John Scott and István Király leave the talk enough room to establish a mood, then rather more room than it needs. Once an exchange has made its point, the film often seems reluctant to move on, and the sparse bursts of sex and violence cannot sustain the intervening stretches. John Murphy’s music is a welcome source of tension, suggesting that something unsettling might yet happen. It gives the film some momentum, although the scenes themselves keep slowing it down. Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis bring welcome assurance as Milena Gardosh and Roy Washburn, and Thewlis gives the silliness a firmness it needs. There are also moments when Stone’s insistence on making every line suggestive begins to resemble a deliberate joke. That could have sustained a broader, less solemn film. Here, the surrounding performances and direction keep asking us to take the intrigue seriously, so the laughter offers only occasional relief. An erotic thriller can get away with preposterous plotting when the attraction makes us willing to follow it. Caton-Jones supplies neither enough sexual tension nor enough mischief to make these 116 minutes a satisfying example. Stone works hard to hold our attention, and sometimes succeeds, but she has to do too much alone. Her admirers may be curious; we would look elsewhere for suspense. *Fi1m score 36, published 16 September 2026.* ## What the critics say Most critics find Basic Instinct 2 a dull, implausible sequel that lacks the original’s wit, danger and sexual tension. Complaints centre on the muddled script, sluggish storytelling and a tame approach to material that promises excess. Praise is scattered rather than shared: some reviews value the British supporting cast, while a few find Sharon Stone compelling despite the writing. The prevailing disappointment is that the film offers so little excitement, even with such a preposterous premise. Stone is also a point of disagreement: RogerEbert.com finds her hypnotic, while Total Film praises David Morrissey and David Thewlis but faults her lead performance. The spread is wide, though heavily weighted towards negative verdicts. Sight and Sound supplies the clearest dissent, reading the film as a clever, funny parody of erotic thrillers. What most critics regard as silliness or exhausted camp, that review treats as knowing comedy. ### Reviews we read (15) - **Sight and Sound**, Linda Ruth Williams (90/100, inferred): The critic finds Basic Instinct 2 a fun, clever and hilarious postmodern parody of the erotic thriller genre, with a knowing script full of Lacanian quips and phallic symbols set against an anti-heritage view of London. [Read](http://old.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/3208) - **Total Film** (50/100, inferred): The review finds the film preposterous but with a car-crash voyeur lure, noting that Caton-Jones is competent but the camp edge of the original is missing. It singles out strong turns from Morrissey and Thewlis for praise while criticizing Stone's lead performance. [Read](https://www.gamesradar.com/basic-instinct-2-review/) - **RogerEbert.com**, Roger Ebert (1.5/4): The critic finds the film godawful yet fascinating and not boring, praising Sharon Stone's hypnotic performance despite the preposterous plot. He singles out the dialogue and Stone's delivery for fascination while noting the movie's irrational appeal. [Read](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/basic-instinct-2-2006) - **Slant Magazine**, Ed Gonzalez (1.5/4): The critic finds the sequel a total downer that feels spayed without Sharon Stone on screen and desperate with her. They single out the film's color palette and lack of sizzle compared to the original. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/basic-instinct-2/) - **The AV Club**, Nathan Rabin (D): The critic calls the film a colossal failure in every respect beyond showcasing Stone's physique. They single out the miscasting of David Morrissey and the desperate, campy tone of Stone's performance. [Read](https://www.avclub.com/basic-instinct-2-1798201615) - **Empire**, Kim Newman (30/100, inferred): The critic calls the sequel a bland, silly play-by-play redo of the original without its Gothic over-the-top bravado. He singles out the lack of fresh ideas or memorable set pieces for complaint. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/basic-instinct-2-risk-addiction-review/) - **Screen Daily** (30/100, inferred): The critic deems the film never more than tragically mundane and a dreary affair, drained of the original's irony and riddled with implausibilities despite its commercial potential. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/basic-instinct-2/4026699.article) - **The Times**, Kim Newman (30/100, inferred): The critic finds the film surprisingly tame and dull despite the premise. He singles out the fine British supporting cast contrasted with Stone going through the motions. [Read](https://www.thetimes.com/travel/destinations/uk-travel/england/london-travel/basic-instinct-2-6vwbzdw0ljr) - **Time Out**, Joshua Rothkopf (30/100, inferred): The critic calls the sequel tiresome from its opening moments, faulting its lack of creativity, cynical commercialism and Sharon Stone's vampy performance as a MILF fantasy gone wrong. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/basic-instinct-2) - **Variety**, Dennis Harvey (30/100, inferred): The sequel is inexplicably dull, exchanging the original's robust vulgarity for a polite restraint at odds with expectations. Singles out the sluggish, talky narrative and limited sex and violence as failing to raise viewers' pulses. [Read](https://variety.com/2006/film/reviews/basic-instinct-2-2-1200517354/) - **Evening Standard**, Derek Malcolm (20/100, inferred): The critic dismisses the film as a silly farrago and film-making by numbers that adds nothing after years in development hell. He singles out the flashy but empty London visuals and one-dimensional acting for complaint. [Read](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/basic-is-the-word-7387029.html) - **The Guardian**, Peter Bradshaw (10/100, inferred): The critic finds the sequel an incredible comedown from the original and uproariously awful throughout. He singles out the muddled, silly script and lack of danger or mischief in Stone's jaded performance. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2006/mar/31/5) - **The New York Times**, Manohla Dargis (10/100, inferred): Calls the film a disaster and joyless calculation that possesses neither the original's sleek wit nor its madness. Singles out the degradation faced by the aging Hollywood actress as a prime example of the sequel's failings. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/movies/sharon-stone-returns-in-basic-instinct-2-an-older-femme-but-as.html) - **Eye for Film**, Gator MacReady (65/100, inferred): The critic finds the sequel competent but lacking standout set-pieces or action compared to the original, while defending it against overly harsh criticism. Stone's performance as the manipulative Catherine Tramell is singled out for praise, along with the score. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/basic-instinct-2-film-review-by-gator-macready) - **Collider**, Gabriela Silva (30/100, inferred): The critic finds the sequel a hollow echo of the original, with weak script, lackluster direction, and failure to update the erotic thriller genre, despite Sharon Stone's efforts. They single out the lack of chemistry and sexual tension between Stone and co-star David Morrissey as a key failing. [Read](https://collider.com/basic-instinct-2-buried-erotic-thrillers/) ## Details - **Director:** Michael Caton-Jones - **Director:** Michael Caton-Jones - **Writer:** Leora Barish, Henry Bean - **Cinematography:** Gyula Pados - **Editor:** István Király, John Scott - **Music:** John Murphy - **Production design:** Norman Garwood - **Costume design:** Beatrix Aruna Pasztor - **Producer:** Andrew G. Vajna, Joel B. Michaels, Aslan Nadery - **Cast:** Sharon Stone as Catherine Tramell; David Morrissey as Michael Glass; Charlotte Rampling as Milena Gardosh; David Thewlis as Roy Washburn; Stan Collymore as Kevin Franks; Indira Varma as Denise Glass; Heathcote Williams as Jakob Gerst; Hugh Dancy as Adam Towers - **Runtime:** 1h 56m - **Certificate (MPA):** R - **Release (the US):** 31 March 2006 - **Genres:** Crime, Mystery, Thriller - **Budget:** $70 million - **Box office:** $39 million ## Where to watch in the US Not streaming, renting or buying in the US at the last check. Also available in: AT, BE, BR, CH, CO, DE, FR, IT, MX, NL, UA. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country. ## If you liked this - *Belle de jour* (1967): For sexual uncertainty handled with patience, curiosity and a disquieting calm. - *Body Heat* (1981), Fi1m 83: Sex, bad judgement and criminal calculation, with the heat this sequel lacks. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/body-heat.md) - *The Last Seduction* (1994): A manipulative heroine whose intelligence makes the men around her worth watching. - *Swimming Pool* (2003): For sexual suspicion and uneasy conversations that reward closer attention. - *The Handmaiden* (2016), Fi1m 85: A more intricate erotic thriller, with convincing desire beneath the deception. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-handmaiden.md) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/basic-instinct-2