Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 33 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 33
  2. Negative: 22 out of 33
  1. Basic Instinct 2 isn't bad, exactly, but it lacks the entertaining vulgarity of the first film; it's Basic Instinct redone with more ''class'' and less thrust.
  2. BI2 is packed with as much lust, nudity and sexual depravity as the first. So, why isn't it as much fun? What's lost in any sequel is the freshness of the first film, and was "BI1" ever fresh!
  3. The movie isn't boring, exactly. It's too nutty for that.
  4. Reviewed by: Dennis Harvey
    Those hoping for either a sizzling -- or an unintentionally hilarious -- good time will be disappointed by this inexplicably dull sequel.
  5. Like many sequels this is actually a remake, and it suffers from the law of diminishing returns.
  6. A few bodies pile up. Surprisingly little sex is had. And given that Catherine's true nature was revealed at the end of the first "Basic," the mystery seems superfluous.
  7. It's turned Stone's Catherine Tramell from a warning sign for the dangers of wanton sex into the last thing you'd figure - a bore.
  8. Morrissey gives a stiff, awkward performance, while Stone moves dangerously close to overplaying the femme fatale. There is little if any intrigue in the story or the characters. Even the murders don't even seem to matter much.
  9. Reviewed by: Stina Chyn
    Fails as a sequel because we’re not in the 90s anymore. Gone are the days when characters could answer questions with questions and hypothetical situations and still sound clever and cool.
  10. 40
    If you're trying to reinvigorate the art of the stylish thriller, the movie you come up with needs to be stylish and it needs to be thrilling. Basic Instinct 2, is neither.
  11. 40
    Basic Instinct 2 pushes diligently along in a murder-and-mayhem-stuffed effort to demonstrate that (a) a sillier and more hackneyed movie than "Basic Instinct" is possible and (b) that shrinks have ids too, by golly.
  12. 38
    It's a lot of things, but boring is not one of them. I cannot recommend the movie, but ... why the hell can't I? Just because it's godawful? What kind of reason is that for staying away from a movie? Godawful and boring, that would be a reason.
  13. Reviewed by: Michael Phillips
    Once the credits are done rolling it's a dour, enervated mystery, selling the old cat-and-mouse games.
  14. Basic Instinct 2 is supposed to help Stone show it's possible for a woman to be sexy in her late 40s. But it's Rampling - who is 60 - who comes off as the more provocative and alluring. Stone's purring, snarling, bedroom kink is embarrassing.
  15. 38
    For all the sex and slicing, the most shocking thing about it is how dreary it is.
  16. Basic Instinct 2 is double trouble -- the femme is to die for, the film is to die from.
  17. 30
    Not content simply to examine the relationship between sex and death, BI2 ponderously blurs the boundaries between art and life, and the plot, already mired in nonsensical backstory, collapses with the late-inning introduction of a tired metafictional device (not to mention a wildly lunging "Usual Suspects" twist).
  18. What we may very well be looking at here is another "Showgirls," a drag camp-fest for the "Baby Jane" crowd, fabulous fodder for future cabaret acts, and a pleasure probably best enjoyed in a crowd -- preferably a vocal one. Dead serious and stone idiotic, the only basic instinct in evidence here is desperation.
  19. Basic Instinct 2 is pretty awful. Rarely has a meaningless thriller had so many meaningful glances, or such arch acting by good actors who know better.
  20. Where is the suspense part? There is no suspense part. Suspense demands clarity of motive and action, and this screenplay never provides it.
  21. 25
    Few expected Basic Instinct 2 to be very good, but no one expected it to be this boring.
  22. The sequel is one big tease.
  23. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    The 1992 phenomenon was creepy, tense and sexually charged in a bold yet tawdry way. This sequel lacks even a shred of those elements.
  24. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    The accidental comedy sensation of the year to date.
  25. 25
    This film is unable to involve, entertain, or titillate. Basically, it stinks.
  26. In a better movie, this grand-dame performance might have been fun, but it's surrounded here by an impossibly dull and unsatisfying whodunit plot, unintentionally funny dialogue and such absurdities as having Catherine stay up late one night and whip out an entire novel.
  27. 25
    Fortunately, as a showcase for Sharon Stone's physique, Basic Instinct 2 is a rousing success. In every other respect, it's a colossal failure.
  28. Reviewed by: David Edelstein
    Stupefyingly lackluster.
  29. Reviewed by: Kyle Smith
    At this point, there are inflatable toys that are livelier than Stone, but how can you tell the difference? Basic Instinct 2 is not an erotic thriller. It's taxidermy.
  30. This script by the husband-and-wife team of Leora Barish and Henry Bean is hopelessly contrived and takes forever to get to the point. (I warn you: The film does not absolutely identify the killer.)
  31. A disaster of the highest or perhaps lowest order.
  32. 0
    The laughs to be had in this deliciously awful sequel are all unintentional. A bummer for film buffs, but a ball for fans of the misbegotten.
  33. 0
    Stone still dazzles the eye, but this wholly unwarranted sequel is so outrageously preposterous (and so very chockablock with quotable examples of the fine art of bad dialogue) that the end result achieves a basement grandeur of near-epic proportions.
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 61 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 23
  2. Negative: 7 out of 23
  1. TonyB.
    Jun 19, 2007
    Not nearly as bad as many critics hoped it would be, "Basic Instinct 2" moves along at a decent pace. Unfortunately, where it winds up is questionable. I would like an example of the"unintentionally hilarious dialog" that some say is to be found here. Full Review »
  2. AlexV.
    Jul 30, 2006
    I think the reviewers all jumped on the bandwagon, i.e. it's OK to trash Sharon Stone. And a sequel? Even more reason. This movie was not bad at all, I was expecting some flop of a movie. And Sharon's still got it, she looks great. No one does the mean, mind-warped female character like she does. I don't know why I was comparing to Match Point, maybe because it takes place in London, but this was better than Match Point. Full Review »
  3. AaronB.
    Jul 18, 2006
    This movie isn't horrible. Well, yes, it is. But listen . . . this might be a movie for you if you want to sit down and have a guilty pleasure. Sharon Stone works what she's got, and she's still got 'it'. She does what she can with the most laughable dialogue I have witnessed on screen in years. The supporting actors try to take themselves seriously, and do a decent job when all is said and done. This movie is bad, but it's not that bad. In fact, it is almost good. Well . . . almost. Full Review »