stormhawk2021

What was the reason for the sequel!? The first was bad enough, but well scripted; for other hand, this sequel was abysmal, leaving gaping holes in the connected storyline from the first to this one, and the unlikely action scenes are unbelievably stupid, not to mention the kiddy style used by the bad guys. A spray that knocks you out is the kind of thing I'm talking about. What happened to Natalie Connors from the first film? Well, she is now replaced by Emily (ex-SClub7 member, Hannah Spearritt). The chemistry between Emily and Cody was poor: he is 18-year-old and still in high school, while she's 23 and in college. And Anthony Anderson as Cody's mentor was more distracting than funny. The end of this sequel was very bad: when Derek says goodbye to Cody, leaves an open ending for a possible third sequel that never happened. Way-too Hollywood. Come to think of it, way-too stupid as well. The fact that this sequel it is a film exclusive for kids is no excuse for it being so bad.

P. S.: If anyone thinks that Emily was better than Natalie because her actress has 23-year-old, go to prefer instead a better heroine of the same age: Kazumi Hoshikawa/Five Pink, from the Japanese TV show "Chikyu Sentai Fiveman" (1990). WARNING: This series was the worst in the Super Sentai franchise.

You may notice that so many of the sequels we've covered this week are past their expiration date. By that, I mean the time to make a sequel to Basic Instinct was a few years after that one came out in 1992, not in 2006. Maybe in 1995 or 1996 would have worked. You may also remember that so many of these movies are troubled production. "Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction" is no different. MGM had planned this movie to come out in 2000 - still late, but somewhat better - but then decided they had no interest in making the movie. That's when lead actress Sharon Stone filed a lawsuit claiming she was guaranteed at least $14 million for her commitment to the sequel, even if the movie never got made and as much as 15% of gross receipts if the film were released. By 2004, the lawsuit was settled and British director Michael Caton-Jones ("Doc Hollywood" (1991), "The Jackal" (1997), "Memphis Belle" (1990)) got the job and thus, the action had moved from New York to London. He was broke and needed to make a movie, but called making this movie a "poisoned chalice" and said that "It was horrible. And I knew before I started that it wasn't going to be a particularly good film. Which is a very, very painful thing." The movie starts with novelist and possible serial killer Catherine Tramell (Stone) who had moved from San Francisco to London, using the hand of Kevin Franks, a passed out soccer player, to get herself off while speeding through the streets, finally crashing into the Thames river. It was at this point that I began laughing uncontrollably as the athlete gazes upon Tramell like she's some kind of vision and then drowns while she swims away. It turns out that the soccer star was all pilled up and couldn't even move, but Scotland Yard is unable to make any charges stick. But she has to report to court ordered sessions with Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey), who she of courses beds and starts writing about for her new novel, a story in which real people all around them are being killed in both prose and real-life ways. Unlike the original movie, which seems to only hint at the fact that Tramell is a killer or can manipulate any man or woman into doing what she wants, in this one it's beyond obvious and there's even a square up reel at the end showing all the murders and how she talked Glass into it. I kind of love the reasons why no man was good enough for this movie. Michael Douglas? Too old. Robert Downey Jr.? Possession charges. Kurt Russell? Didn't want to strip down. Pierce Brosnan? Didn't like the sleaze. Bruce Greenwood? Potential actor strike. Rupert Everett? Calling a pervert who American audiences wouldn't accept by the MGM CEO. And Benjamin Bratt? Sharon Stone didn't think he was a good actor. Let that one set in. Remember when Nigel Tufnel confusingly asked, "What's wrong with being sexy?" I kept hearing that same question throughout this movie but it's just a cavalcade of shocking scenes that by 2006 were no longer shocking. This is the kind of movie that demanded to be made by someone demented, someone willing to tell Sharon Stone that she'd have to dress like a cat and urinate in a litter box on camera or fart into jars and sell them to people if she wanted to shock someone. Instead, her scene of knowingly looking into another man's eyes while engaging in an orgy is positively quaint. It's like finding out your mom's best friend is on Fetlife. You're not all that surprised and you really don't want to know the details or see any pictures, but you can be happy for her and wish her well. Speaking of that, Stone wanted to make a third one and even offered to direct, but I don't think she will because due to the failure of this movie, she (now in her sixties) works in TV series and low-budget films.

And finally, I will say to all the reviewers who liked this sequel (who were mostly teenagers in 2006): if BI1 was in San Francisco, BI2 was in the UK...where will be BI3 set? Italy? Russia? Japan? I bet it will be more of the same as the previous ones. And perhaps they can get Kristen Stewart for the role of Catherine Trammell to see if you like her. Bon appetit.

Director/actor Paul Verhoeven presents one of the most popular erotic thrillers of the 90s Michael Douglas, Wayne Knight, Jeanne Tripplehorn, and Sharon Stone. This was the movie that made Sharon Stone's career: a night of heated passion turns into a blood soaked nightmare when a blonde seductress kills her rock star lover by multiple stabbings. The authorities along with detective Nick Curran who's recently divorced and sober from drugs while also being investigated by Internal Affairs for a shooting find he was a member of the community making big donations. Catharine Tramell, a crime novelist is the prime suspect so how much is she telling the truth or just toying around? She has a reputation for being around ex-cons and delving into sex/drug-fueled experiences. She pulls Nick into a heated relationship but also testing his loyalty to the letter of the law while writing a new novel based on him. More deaths though keep piling up and are somewhat connected to Nick's psychologist Beth. So what's the connection? The film set off protests by members of the gay community when it was released; before it was preceded by months of controversy and hype, became the hot topic around water coolers and in newspaper editorials, and grossed an astonishing $352 million worldwide Heck it was even accused of misogyny and homophobia garnering an NC-17 rating for a brief period of time. Yet Stone is the very image of the 90s-femme fatale dressing up elegantly, smoking, and using her feminine wilds to throw off her male counterparts. There may be something in her childhood that ultimately set her off Douglas' character here is questionable with his methods to find the truth especially when he finds out this woman has a strange fixation on him. Aside from the dialogue being bad in many spots with the acting being stilted as well as a few plot threads Stone and Douglas have such ripe chemistry. This does have some rough edges but Jan de Bont has some good camerawork as well as mixing light and darkness together Jerry Goldsmith's score is unnerving matching those classic Hitchcock neo-noir flicks. No doubt this plot is lurid and problematic but Stone's performance is sizzling and radicalising the sexual politics of a subgenre more often associated with male privilege. Questionable morals yes but the women hold all the cards.