--- title: "Basic Instinct 2: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/basic-instinct-2/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/basic-instinct-2" critics_score: 35 critics_reviews: 15 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): what the critics said Critics' score 35 from 15 reviews: 1 positive, 2 mixed, 12 negative. 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. ## Sight and Sound — Linda Ruth Williams Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 1 May 2006. 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 the review](http://old.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/3208) ## Total Film Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 31 March 2006. 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 the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/basic-instinct-2-review/) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 1.5/4. 30 March 2006. 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 the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/basic-instinct-2-2006) ## Slant Magazine — Ed Gonzalez Rating 1.5/4. 31 March 2006. 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 the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/basic-instinct-2/) ## The AV Club — Nathan Rabin Rating D. 30 March 2006. 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 the review](https://www.avclub.com/basic-instinct-2-1798201615) ## Empire — Kim Newman Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 31 March 2006. 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 the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/basic-instinct-2-risk-addiction-review/) ## Screen Daily Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 30 March 2006. 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 the review](https://www.screendaily.com/basic-instinct-2/4026699.article) ## The Times — Kim Newman Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 1 April 2006. 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 the review](https://www.thetimes.com/travel/destinations/uk-travel/england/london-travel/basic-instinct-2-6vwbzdw0ljr) ## Time Out — Joshua Rothkopf Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 30 March 2006. 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 the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/basic-instinct-2) ## Variety — Dennis Harvey Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 29 March 2006. 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 the review](https://variety.com/2006/film/reviews/basic-instinct-2-2-1200517354/) ## Evening Standard — Derek Malcolm Fi1m's normalised score 20/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 2012. 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 the review](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/basic-is-the-word-7387029.html) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw Fi1m's normalised score 10/100 (inferred from the text). 31 March 2006. 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 the review](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2006/mar/31/5) ## The New York Times — Manohla Dargis Fi1m's normalised score 10/100 (inferred from the text). 31 March 2006. 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 the review](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 Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 1 April 2006. 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 the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/basic-instinct-2-film-review-by-gator-macready) ## Collider — Gabriela Silva Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 29 July 2025. 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 the review](https://collider.com/basic-instinct-2-buried-erotic-thrillers/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/basic-instinct-2.md