| Why was this film
made? Why did Sharon Stone subject herself to another massive
flop? Why, once 'greenlit', did this film not push the
envelope in the same way as the 1992 cult classic. Why does it
look like Sharon has undergone some dodgy surgery? Why is the
dialogue in this film so dreadful that it overshoots even the lowly
goal of 'so bad that it is actually good'. Why are the other
women in this film rather unattractive? Why is the lead actor
the most lifeless human being in the world? DUDE!!! You
have boobs in your mouth... SMILE DAMN IT!!! This hideous movie
mimics the original in initial set-up. It switches the locale,
but retains the basic structure of murder mystery with a vampish
Catherine Tramell and a stoic male lead who cannot resist her
dangerous teasing. This time, instead of Michael Douglas as a
cop, David Morrissey commits career suicide as the psychiatrist who
declares that Catherine has an addiction to risk and then irresponsibly
takes her on as a case study.
I think there are different versions of this film depending
on which country you see it in. I am not sure about that, so
don't quote me. Frankly, this film is so inconsequential that I
didn't feel the need to research that fact in any detail. Let me
just say, without incriminating myself too much, that I think I saw the
"European" edit of this film... an edit that contains some extra
footage deemed too sexual for American eyes. Rumor has it that the US version had
to avoid the dreaded NC17 curse by making some severe cuts to appease
the infantile MPAA.
However, even the sexy scenes in this film fail to deliver the
'partial-wood' that you'd expect. In fact, they are so
laboriously silly that they chop down wood faster than a Monty Python
lumberjack. Every aspect of these scenes reeks of cheese... You
will cringe with embarrassment for poor old Sharon when you have to
sit through them. It is frankly no better than the soft-core
porn films you see on Cinemax at 2am.
This is quite simply the enormous front-runner for next year's Razzie
Awards. I didn't buy the characters. Sharon is sexy as
hell for her age but is flatly unable to pull off this kind of role
anymore. You'd need an Angelina Jolie or a Scarlett Johansson or
a Keira Knightley to get away with this type of character. The
plot is a mirror of the original and the dialogue is only passable as
background noise to the gratuitous nudity. I highly recommend
that you skip this film in favor of watching the far superior 1992 effort
for the ninth time or browsing the naughty section of your DVD
store... either one will arouse an audience more effectively. |
