I just wonder how on earth no less than 900 people could give this crap a 10!!! Of course I am aware that tastes differ, but com'on, '10' is supposed to be a reference and this flick isn't even a reference for failure ... it's just a completely uninspired run-of-the mill 'who dunnit'-type movie ... the camera is fine, as it is in any halfway decent advertisement shot ...
*** out of 10 ....
I gave it a 10 and here's part of why I did so. This is an exerpt from my review.
"SPOILER ALERT: As the movie progresses, we are presented with three theories of what is going on: 1) Sharon Stone's character is killing all these people because she's crazy (Risk Addicted); 2) David Thewlis' crooked cop is killing these people in order to frame Sharon Stone's character; 3) David Morrissey's analyst is killing these people for revenge. What upsets most people about the movie seems to be that none of these theories are ever explicated as the "real" story. (Although the analyst is in a psychiatric care facility for killing the cop; the only killing that occurs on screen.)"
I thought this movie was the perfect continuation of the first movie. The tension between the three theories is never resolved. This is more realistic than most movies that are neatly wrapped up at the end. Was Catherine Tramell responsible for all this mayhem? Don't ask me!