Monday, October 03, 2005

Hollywood doesn't get it, Part #389723498723497...

The Oct 10th issue of Time Magazine has a very brief "First Look" at Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction. The subtitle must be referring to the producers. Really, this is up there in the Obvious Bad Idea department with that atrocious looking Steve Martin Pink Panther remake.

Basic Instinct was a (as people often forget) pretty decent, if sleazy, movie made by a director, Paul Verhoeven, just starting to slightly slack off his prime of RoboCop and Total Recall. After the cataclysmic Showgirls, he failed to rebound with Starship Troopers and Hollow Man, and just now is filming his first film in six years.

Aside from Verhoeven, BI boasted Michael Douglas at the peak of his star power, and more importantly the first mass media glimpse of a celebrity hoo-haw. However, thanks to the Internet, celebrity hoo-haws are now all over the place. Plus, Ms. Stone is now 47, and while it is for some reason considered by many to be retrograde to say so, the number of horny viewers hoping for a good look at a (admittedly well-preserved) 47 year-old woman is probably limited. Meanwhile, a number of Brit co-stars have been brought in, presumably to class up the joint, which in itself is pretty hilarious. In any case, I doubt if male lead David Morrissey will prove an able fill-in for Douglas.

Then there's the fact that the Erotic Thriller genre, as a theatrical movement, all but died after the huge success of Fatal Attraction and Basic Instinct. (Although it launched a seeming thousand Shannon Whirrey DTV movies.) Madonna's hilarious Body of Evidence is only the most obvious example. However, it's instructive to note that even the 'appeal' of seeing an America's Sweetheart like Meg Ryan do the naked nasty wasn't enough to rouse any interest in 2003's In the Cut.

This is clearly why Hollywood's can barely be effectively parodied, the making of a sequel to a 12 year old erotic thriller starring a nobody and a woman eight years away from getting her AARP card.

6 Comments:

At 12:32 PM, Blogger baby copernicus said...

Rick Addiction? That's the best they could do?

I must be missing something. Who's Rick?

 
At 12:34 PM, Blogger baby copernicus said...

Oops, typo. My mistake.

Unless they got Rick Springfield to replace Michael Douglas.

Which, for the record, would be AWE-some!

 
At 12:53 PM, Anonymous TV's Grady said...

*braces self for the inevitable "Dick Addiction" jokes*

 
At 1:01 PM, Blogger Ken Begg said...

Oopsie. As you can see, the title is properly, "Risk Addiction".

Which is *much* better. (Rolls eyes.)

 
At 1:04 PM, Anonymous Terrahawk said...

Sorry Ken, but BI is anything but a decent flick. The whole setup was so convoluted as to be completely impossible. Had it had a decent mystery behind it, then maybe. However, it really was just sex and violence tacked onto a pathetic plot. In other words, it was typical Verhoeven fair.

 
At 1:42 PM, Blogger Ken Begg said...

I don't know. It was energenic and slick enough to draw my attention away from the (admittedly severe) plot holes. It's not a great movie, but it pretty much delivers what it promised. I wish I could say that enough films did that so it wasn't a distinction.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home