Please watch it before you vote for it

   Hi - my first post to the forum - but I just had to do it.
I just watched Basic Instinct 2, out of curiosity. I was expecting it to be godawful. It actually is not THAT bad. 
It's been slashed by the critics, and it has its faults, but it's not as awful as many are making out. In case anyone here is thinking of nominating the film without actually seeing it, could I suggest you watch it first. A quick look at the posts on this discussion forum and I see many of you were ripping it to shreds as soon as you saw the trailer, before even seeing the film. 
It won't kill you to watch it. I mean, what are people expecting from a sequel to Basic Instinct 1, fourteen years on? Citizen bloody Kane? It tells a story, it keeps you guessing, Sharon Stone is still sexy, and Morrissey is good in the role too. OK the script at times is poor, but I'm a scriptwriter and I'm overpicky about these things.
It's not a great film, but it's not as bad as everyone makes out - and from the poor box-office takings, most of those probably didn't actually see it in the first place. Like me, I didn't bother because I heard it was so bad. I'm glad I took 2 hours out of my life to bother with it.

Author	Message Share Topic Printable Version Delicious Digg Facebook Furl Google Boomarks Google Buzz MySpace Newsvine reddit StumbleUpon Translate Twitter Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic
TristanWhite Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Berry New Comer Joined: January 06 2007 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 1	Post Options Post Reply Quote TristanWhite Report Post Quote Reply Topic: Please watch it before you vote for it Posted: January 06 2007 at 1:59pm
	Hi - my first post to the forum - but I just had to do it. I just watched Basic Instinct 2, out of curiosity. I was expecting it to be godawful. It actually is not THAT bad. It's been slashed by the critics, and it has its faults, but it's not as awful as many are making out. In case anyone here is thinking of nominating the film without actually seeing it, could I suggest you watch it first. A quick look at the posts on this discussion forum and I see many of you were ripping it to shreds as soon as you saw the trailer, before even seeing the film. It won't kill you to watch it. I mean, what are people expecting from a sequel to Basic Instinct 1, fourteen years on? Citizen bloody Kane? It tells a story, it keeps you guessing, Sharon Stone is still sexy, and Morrissey is good in the role too. OK the script at times is poor, but I'm a scriptwriter and I'm overpicky about these things. It's not a great film, but it's not as bad as everyone makes out - and from the poor box-office takings, most of those probably didn't actually see it in the first place. Like me, I didn't bother because I heard it was so bad. I'm glad I took 2 hours out of my life to bother with it.

FilmCricket Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Berry New Comer Joined: January 30 2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 6	Post Options Post Reply Quote FilmCricket Report Post Quote Reply Posted: January 12 2007 at 5:16pm
	I agree. It's a competent movie worth watching for kitsch value at least once if you liked the original. Nobody in the movie seems to be taking it too seriously, which is a plus given how stupid the plot is, but at least you can follow it. It should win "worst performing sequel compared to the original", but not worst picture, and anybody who votes for it should see that it doesn't have that contempt for the audience that a movie like Bloodrayne has. If anything Stone is in her element playing Catherine and that's like nominating Stallone for playing Rocky: you do it because you just assume that nothing good can come out of anything the actor does. That's more of a stereotype than anything else. I'd nominate Stallone for worst actor for just about anything he's done since 1983, but the two exceptions are "Cop Land" (where he let himself be out-acted and he came across as a better man for it) and "Rocky Balboa." Stallone and Stone are the kind of actors that inspire outrageous caricatures from comedians (on SNL for example), and because of that a lot of geeks just automatically dump on everything they do. Ah-nuld is a good example of an actor who never took himself too seriously and took the right parts in sci-fi action movies because he knew he couldn't hang with anyone as good as De Niro or Pacino. I think that's why most geeks don't speak of The Governator with the same derision as they mention Stallone. I can't remember Stone being in anything good in the past decade. I mean, in Casino she was out-classed by Don Rickles. As a Scorsese junkie I wish she hadn't taken that part because her scenes are always the ones I fast-forward. She just can't hang with the big boys no matter how hard she tries. She ruined Casino for me and I think she deserved a Razzie for that rather than for a character like Catherine Trammell that fits her like a glove. It's just too easy to give actors Razzies for characters they don't really have to act to play. It's more challenging to find a performance in an otherwise good movie that has you reaching for the fast-forward button every time.