I though this was half-decent, i saw it on TV and missed the first 15 minutes or so and I thought it was MUCH better than it was SUPPOSED to be, anyone else agree it was HIGHLY under-rated ? ? ? I mean, the ending sucked, but is the ending really all that matters in a movie?
And Catherine really was the killer right?
i agree. Highly under-rated. Not as sensational as the first, but not as bad as people say it is...this movie definetely deserves more credit.
and im pretty sure she was the killer, i dunno, it really lets you decide
I completely agree...the critical and viewer backlash this film got was undeserved. I do admit, if it had come out in 1996 instead of 2006 it may have been better received. But this movie is nowhere near the cesspool of unintentional laughs that everyone makes it out to be.
"Head Case" (4-Disc Limited Edition) - www.createspace.com/238911share
well i think alot of the reason it's so lowly rated is because it's not even close to the first film in overall quality if you ask me although i will say it's definitely better than it's current 3.8/10 average rating with 14,633 votes.
all in all i give it a 5/10 (maybe a 6/10 AT BEST) where as the first film i gave a 8/10... so i guess the film mainly gets blasted if your comparing to the first film but that aside it's not THAT BAD.
it's not that Stone was bad it's just the overall film as a whole just don't 'have it' like the first one did... plus Michael Douglas helped carry the first film (Douglas/Stone worked well in the first one together) where as this film lacks a strong male lead so it's completely left on Stone to carry the film.
p.s. but like someone said above if this film came out 10 years or so ago it might have been better received... but this film is sorta like how Speed 2 (1997) was to Speed (1994)... that film aint nearly as good as the first one either and i sorta think this film is similar in that sense as they both got blasted with there ratings because of that.... because Speed 2 would have been a 'decent film' had it not been compared to the first film.
---
My Vote History ... http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=11026826
---
It's not a bad movie, if you turn it off after the first thirty minutes.
shareI gave this movie a 6.5/10.
Sharon Stone was great!
Vote History:
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=41392738
In terms of quality, it's about the same as the first pic...cos that was below par too.
They are both VERY average thrillers and the only attraction is the nudity. Shame thy didn't write a better plot and script instead though.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.