The implications of this film are horrendous in the extreme. Even for someone who has not entirely surrendered to the official terror ideology, the mind is hardly able to accommodate the perception of reality presented here. Footage of the collapse of the WTC buildings is relentlessly examined and re-examined in the light of expert analysis and eye- and ear-witness accounts. The systematic accumulation of evidence coordinated by director Sofia Shafquat tells a disconcerting story pointing to a conclusion only the most courageous and open-minded can hope to grapple with. If you enjoy unraveling a mystery, asking the awkward question, and investigating the niggling doubt, then this is a film for you. Be warned though, the answers you may get will spawn even more disturbing questions. Thanks to this documentary our appetite for Part 2 is well and truly whetted.
Reviews
2 Reviews
Basic Instinct 2
(2006)
Basically, an instinctively worthy sequel - with style.
2 March 2007
I approached this film with a wide-open mind, expecting the worst. I had read discouraging critiques when first released, and also the current "Painfully Bad" IMDb comment. I was prepared to cut and run if it was as bad as the ratings and comments purported, having, as I do, scant tolerance for crap and slush. So, with low expectations, I was surprised to find how much I enjoyed it. I am still bewildered at how badly it has been received.
In preparation, the previous night, I refreshed my experience of its predecessor, Basic Instinct (1992). Of course we know it is a classic, and so time has in no way jaded its impact. As a sequel, however, Basic Instinct 2 squares off just fine. I loved the flash beginning - swept us right in in good style. Being British and knowing London well, I felt comfortably at home in the film's setting. That was a good start.
The scenes and sets were stunningly dazzling, crisp, contemporary, breathtaking and sensitively contrasted. In that respect I think Michael Caton-Jones demonstrated great skill and maturity. The photography was superb, and never failed to surprise and, as it must and did, carried the story beautifully. The story itself was intricate and sufficiently puzzling to keep one guessing and involved, echoing the theme and complexities of its earlier version. I think Caton-Jones did an excellent job of mimicking, rather than merely regurgitating, the distinctive chilly demure and sultry, enigmatic combativeness of the dialog and interactions. While it was nice to be reminded of some of the original one-liners that gave BI1 its zip and humor, there was no point where it seemed cheap or glib. Though we certainly could anticipate many of them, they served more to reassure than disappoint. There was nothing stale in their repetition since they were entirely consistent with, and helped to restore our connection with, the protagonists who uttered them. At worst, they were tongue-in-cheek in their predictability.
Sharon Stone carried her role with consummate aplomb, fresh as a daisy and looking not a day older. I never tired of watching her face, or her body for that matter. Only at the very last scene (which I felt was quite redundant) did I feel the slightest twinge of dissatisfaction. Her counterpart, in the shape of David Morrissey, resonated well with his stiff upper lip and fragile professional kudos. It was a clever shift in scenario to cast her new adversarial paramour in the guise of a forensic psychologist. I absolutely loved the character of Detective Ferguson (Neil Maskell) - I guess we were meant to - as a much subtler element in the plot than any of Nick Curran's shambolic sidekicks.
The sex was tasteful, powerful, believable and.. sexy. It fitted well into the rhythm and unfolding of the story, as it did formerly, with nothing gratuitous or too ridiculous. My girlfriend, with whom I watched both films, however, found David Morrissey's face and physique very ugly. It didn't bother me at all, which just shows how very personal these things are. We agreed that the photo in the toilet though, was a wOw.
So what's been turning everyone off and giving it such a low rating? Beats me. Is it because it is too British -- no guns (except once), explosions, car chases, mayhem, destruction and heavy-handedness? You'll just have to find out for yourself, which I thoroughly recommend you to do.
I would give this a 7.5, but since I can't, I'll bump it up to 8. The ridiculous and incomprehensible 3.7 deserves some counterbalancing, for sure.
In preparation, the previous night, I refreshed my experience of its predecessor, Basic Instinct (1992). Of course we know it is a classic, and so time has in no way jaded its impact. As a sequel, however, Basic Instinct 2 squares off just fine. I loved the flash beginning - swept us right in in good style. Being British and knowing London well, I felt comfortably at home in the film's setting. That was a good start.
The scenes and sets were stunningly dazzling, crisp, contemporary, breathtaking and sensitively contrasted. In that respect I think Michael Caton-Jones demonstrated great skill and maturity. The photography was superb, and never failed to surprise and, as it must and did, carried the story beautifully. The story itself was intricate and sufficiently puzzling to keep one guessing and involved, echoing the theme and complexities of its earlier version. I think Caton-Jones did an excellent job of mimicking, rather than merely regurgitating, the distinctive chilly demure and sultry, enigmatic combativeness of the dialog and interactions. While it was nice to be reminded of some of the original one-liners that gave BI1 its zip and humor, there was no point where it seemed cheap or glib. Though we certainly could anticipate many of them, they served more to reassure than disappoint. There was nothing stale in their repetition since they were entirely consistent with, and helped to restore our connection with, the protagonists who uttered them. At worst, they were tongue-in-cheek in their predictability.
Sharon Stone carried her role with consummate aplomb, fresh as a daisy and looking not a day older. I never tired of watching her face, or her body for that matter. Only at the very last scene (which I felt was quite redundant) did I feel the slightest twinge of dissatisfaction. Her counterpart, in the shape of David Morrissey, resonated well with his stiff upper lip and fragile professional kudos. It was a clever shift in scenario to cast her new adversarial paramour in the guise of a forensic psychologist. I absolutely loved the character of Detective Ferguson (Neil Maskell) - I guess we were meant to - as a much subtler element in the plot than any of Nick Curran's shambolic sidekicks.
The sex was tasteful, powerful, believable and.. sexy. It fitted well into the rhythm and unfolding of the story, as it did formerly, with nothing gratuitous or too ridiculous. My girlfriend, with whom I watched both films, however, found David Morrissey's face and physique very ugly. It didn't bother me at all, which just shows how very personal these things are. We agreed that the photo in the toilet though, was a wOw.
So what's been turning everyone off and giving it such a low rating? Beats me. Is it because it is too British -- no guns (except once), explosions, car chases, mayhem, destruction and heavy-handedness? You'll just have to find out for yourself, which I thoroughly recommend you to do.
I would give this a 7.5, but since I can't, I'll bump it up to 8. The ridiculous and incomprehensible 3.7 deserves some counterbalancing, for sure.
Tell Your Friends