Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: It's not like I have overwhelmingly fond memories of Verhoeven's original pants-down shocker - it always struck me as a glossy, well-made airport-novel-of-a-movie. Thrilling, sexy trash, but trash nonetheless. It was also a film that tapped into a certain sexual zeitgeist. After a decade of anti-sex AIDS-induced hysteria, a film about a wildly-sexual hotbod who thrill-kills to heighten her sexual pleasure was pretty enticing stuff. Basic Instinct 2 was always going to struggle to provide the same social relevance and immediacy, so the fact that it's desperate attempts at raunchiness are so lame can sort-of be overlooked. All it really had to provide was that thin veneer of titillation and a mildly engaging story and all would have been watchable. That it resoundingly fails on so many levels, and in such a way to be a career nadir for everyone involved, is really quite extraordinary to watch. Let's state the obvious for starters - Sharon Stone is too old for the part of sexual magnet Catherine Trammell. What was so photogenic thru Verhoeven's lens looks like mutton dressed as lamb in the hands of gun-for-hire Michael Caton-Jones, who's flat, drab colours and static camera render her undeniable beauty totally moot. I like Sharon Stone a lot, but if the first film launched her career, BI2 could kill it. She has no chemistry with stuffed-shirt David Morrissey - their only sex scene is embarrassing too watch. His dough-faced mamma's boy of a character made me yearn for the swaggering, orange-skin machismo of Michael Douglas. Supporting turns by David Thewlis and Charlotte Rampling waste these fine actors on talky exposition scenes and cliche-heavy posturing. And what of the much-touted sexual shenanigans? Poorly-lit, fleetingly-glimpsed, as utterly mainstream as an episode of Desperate Housewives - the European sensibilities that Verhoeven brought to the sexual content of the first film are sorely missed. Don't watch this film for carnal thrills - there are none and what there is is tragic. The film is, as a whole, convoluted to the point of utter confusion, boring and laughable. The last 40 minutes in particular, where you come to the realisation that the film is, in fact, not going to go anywhere of interest at all, are particularly gruelling and hilarious in equal measure. As a failed sequel, Basic Instinct 2 will come to occupy similar cinematic ground as Exorcist 2 The Heretic, Beyond The Poseidon Adventure and XXX2. As a vanity project, it rivals Battlefield Earth in its misconception. As a multi-million dollar piece of Hollywood film-making, it's a travesty that will be hard to top as the years worst.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Not that many films have truly exploited the fear of going to the dentist that many people have. Those in the profession have some genuinely intimidating looking instruments. Give writers Dennis Paoli, Stuart Gordon, and Charles Finch for deriving maximum make-you- squirm-in-your-seat shock value from their premise.

Corbin Bernsen, in a nicely nuanced performance, is Alan Feinstone, dedicated dentist whose train jumps off the tracks early on. An unbalanced obsessive-compulsive, he starts dwelling on thoughts of decay, even imagining it where there isn't any, and also equating decay with corruption of society in general. Having witnessed his unfaithful wife Brooke (Linda Hoffman) getting it on with their pool boy, he determines to punish her. At the same time, he's under pressure from a smarmy I.R.S. agent (Earl Boen, best known as Dr. Silberman from the "Terminator" franchise) to do a favor in exchange for the agent keeping his mouth shut about Feinstone's financial affairs. Feinstone starts to perceive everybody around him as decayed in one way or another, and he goes on a murder spree as police detective Gibbs (the always welcome Ken Foree) picks up his trail.

Director Brian Yuzna clearly has great fun with the script. It allows for some genuinely nasty and remarkably entertaining gore scenes that do just as well as creating sympathy for the victims as thrilling the audience. The script gives the Feinstone character some fine lines of dialog and is overall quite sly and amusing, with large doses of pitch-black humor (such as Feinstone ordering a victim to "get their tongue out of the way!"). Brooke and the I.R.S. agent figure in particularly effective torture scenes. The makeup effects are for the most part quite good. And the film does a fine job of maintaining its forward momentum, as Feinstone, with his relentless drive for perfection, switches from respected professional to unhinged killer in record time.

Foree, always cool and fun to watch, is rather wasted in a standard-issue detective role, but there's some enjoyment in watching Boen play his slimeball part to the hilt. Hoffman and Christa Sauls provide very appealing eye candy. And a pre-fame Mark Ruffalo can be seen in a small supporting role. But this is all very much Bernsen's show as he sinks his teeth (pardon me for using that expression) into his plum leading part with total conviction.

"The Dentist" ranks as one of the more original and interesting horror films to come out of the 1990's.

8/10

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Ouch, what a painfully BORING Sci-Fi movie! And that's especially saddening because the opening 15 minutes were so action-packed and full of potential! During the intro, we follow a bunch of nervous security officers and hired hit men as they chase a doctor who escaped from a mysterious laboratory with a briefcase full of top-secret files. As he's about to reveal the supposedly horrible & inhuman events that take place in the lab, he's executed. Figures From then on, the 'action' swifts back and forth between two locations, the aforementioned laboratory and the rural mansion of a corrupt senator (or something), and it quickly becomes clear that the experiments are actually the complete opposite of disturbing. More like dull, pointless and vague. Scientists selected four random persons without living relatives and it's really really really really important that they speak the truth even though a giant machine reads the content of their minds, anyway. They all hide dark secrets from their pasts and people suffer when get revealed; yet I fail to see how these tests could ever result in a humanity-threatening device. Perhaps I missed something, but I doubt it. The interactions between the patients and doctors are even less interesting to follow, as really none of them have personalities. So basically, "The Brain Machine" just handles about a bunch of lame people living in an awfully decorated room. The film also could have been half an hour shorter if it weren't for a THOUSAND stagnant shots of buildings! The relocations from the lab to the villa and vice versa are indicated EVERY SINGLE TIME by a five-second shot of the places. Either the makers really needed the padding or they just assumed that all Sci-Fi viewers are morons unable to notice a change of location by themselves. Staring at a forsaken pool with a mansion in the background for the tenth time in only five minutes becomes quite annoying, I assure you. James Best's performance as the reverend with mental issues is rather decent, but one man definitely can't save this thing from being an absolute waste of time. Avoid!

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
This film is a pure failure. I am a Steve Martin fan, but even he can't save the tired idea and swiss cheese script. Think "Police Academy 7" and apply it to a military parody. Yuck.

I DO NOT feel the other user comments reflected the poor rating this film received (and rightfully deserved!). It is extremely misleading. I have often seen this film marked down to $3.00 in the grocery store and now I certainly know why.

If only I could get my 90 minutes back...