Weekly Review -- Sexy vs. quasi-erotic

Imagine Me & You (2005) -- Besides boasting the most creative poster I have seen in years, Ol Parker's romantic dramedy is one of the sweetest and most tender love stories of 2005. Rachel (Piper Perabo) and Hector (Matthew Goode) have just married. However, a chance encounter with florist Luce (Lena Headey) makes Rachel question her heart, setting in motion a series of sometimes funny and sometimes heartbreaking events. Right off the bat, I have to say I was impressed by the fact that the film never, ever makes an issue of the the same-sex aspect. The attraction between these two people is obvious; the spark is there; the gender is insignificant. It is how it should always be, but that is a whole other exposé. The chemistry between Perabo and Headey is undeniable. Perabo's wide-eyed confusion is perfectly complimented by Headey's passion; the scenes between these two characters are brimming with genuine emotion and affection. Matthew Goode does a good job as the oblivious husband, but does superbly in the last few scenes. Boo Jackson is a discovery as Henrietta (known as H), Rachel's inquisitive younger sister, while Celia Imrie and Anthony Head provide the occasional comic relief, but also bring deeper feelings to the table, as Rachel's parents. Special mention goes to Ben Davis's cinematography, which gives London a warm, loving glow; the autumn shots especially are a sight to behold. I would recommend this film to anyone and everyone. It shows what true love can do, as well as that it is not measured by society and convention, but by the heart's need for another.

9/10


Basic Instinct 2 (2006) -- I almost feel bad reviewing this poor excuse for a film after the previous gem. I also feel bad knowing that intelligent-sounding sites like FemaleFirst and Art.com have written about Basic Instinct 2. The film's representation of its female lead is despicable and the whole thing is as far from art as can be.

I consider Basic Instinct to be one of the best thrillers of the 1990's. Its portrayal of Catherine Tramell was incredible; I would go so far as to say that her character was revolutionary. Almost never has there been a cinematic female character as intelligent, as enigmatic and sexy as Joe Eszterhas's Tramell (who, if you ask me, should demand for his name to be removed from the credits of this unfortunate sequel). She enjoyed playing games with people's minds, while she herself was the human version of Rubik's Cube, practically impossible to solve. However, you could also tell that she had a heart under the icy demeanor. Manipulation was her middle name, but she was not a soulless sociopath. Sharon Stone was perfect for the part, relishing every moment and seducing everyone around her with a mere cool glance. The film was a hit, and rightfully so.

**POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD** (Still, can this travesty really be spoiled? I do not think so, but hey, I am a nice person.)

On to 2006 and this ridiculous attempt to cash in on the originality of the first film. Tramell has now relocated to London, and is a suspect in the drowning car crash death of a soccer star. The court has appointed Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey) to do a forensic analysis of Tramell. As the case unravels, certain backstories come to light, both from Glass and Tramell's past. Soon, Glass gets caught up in another psychological game, carefully orchestrated by Tramell. Who is guilty? Who is the killer? Does anyone care?

The film is full of forced and crude innuendos. Whereas in Basic Instinct Tramell's verbal come-ons were sexually charged, in this film the character reminded me of a robot programmed to spew out lines that were probably meant to be sensual, but instead are laughable. Transforming a true femme fatale into a female version of Hannibal Lecter did not help. Screenwriters Leora Barish and Henry Bean have succeeded in stripping the character of all her alluring qualities, turning Tramell into a psychotic nymphomaniac. Bad move.

There are huge plotholes. For example, how come the Czaslav case was never made public? Glass is obviously a prominent psychiatrist, and such a judgment lapse would have been sensational and made the news as soon as it occurred, particularly once Glass was supposed to do Tramell's analysis. There is also lots and lots of sex for the sake of sex, idiotic dialogues and supporting characters that have no purpose in the "story". The film tries to have a plot but, whenever it takes a step forward with a potentially interesting event, it takes two steps back with badly constructed twists. As for the acting, Stone is awful, Morrissey deserves a better film, and I have no idea why an actress of Charlotte Rampling's calibre even got involved with this thing.

In conclusion, I want these two hours of my life back and predict this movie will make Razzie history.

2/10
(for Morrissey and Rampling's efforts to make something out of nothing)