|
© DR - BASIC INSTINCT de Paul Verhoeven (1992) p8
04/01/2012 19:43
| Index |
134 matching reviews (281 reviews in total) |
*
*
Great thriller which constantly gets reduced to it's nude scenes
The title says it all, this is one great thriller which I rate higher than "Se7en" or similar apparently top notch films in this category. It has loads of suspense, high tension, catchy and memorable dialogues, great actors, fabulous music score and an excellent director who didn't get scared off by protesters and other hypocrites. And yes, they are hypocrites in my mind, people who watch this movie are meant to be mature, thus denying sex is either hypocritical or prudish. If that's not your thing okay, then don't watch it but don't rate it low just because you can't handle it.
Because the sex scenes are really just a few minutes long (I'm European and they're really aren't that strong) but make up a large part of Catherine's character and are a fundamental part of the plot. The film would be unthinkable without them but shouldn't be reduced to them either. Naturally don't watch it with your kids, but if you're not scared of some nudity and like thrillers you'll love this one since it keeps one on the edge right until the end.
 Author: mariafan from Tampa, FL
30 March 2007
Basic Instinct seemed like a big deal 15 years ago, since there was so much nudity and sex. Unfortunately, once you get past that, there's not much else here. The plot is so convoluted that even Joe Esterhaz, the guy who wrote it, wasn't sure who the killer was or what happened. The film did make Sharon Stone a star, but did not help her in the long run. Aside from Casino, has she made one good movie since Basic Instinct?
In a way, it did for her what Dracula had done for Bela Lugosi 61 years earlier. Yes, the roles made them famous and immortal, but also typecast them leading to careers in generally inferior films. The gay protesters who objected to the film's negative portrayals of lesbians missed the mark. What they should have objected to is that all of the characters are unlikable or unsympathetic. It's all flash and no substance (pun unavoidable.)
 Author: Old Joe from Hamilton, Australia
31 January 2002
The 90's was a decade that was blessed with many great movies, yet there are none greater than that of Basic Instinct. It is a truly great film. With Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone heading a wonderful cast, this was one of the great thriller movies I can remember watching. It had everything a movie could want, a bit of mystery, sex, intrigue and murder. There will need to be a pretty good movie to replace this classic from the top as one of the greatest all-time thrillers.
Nick Curran is a disgraced San Francisco police detective who helps investigate the murder of a prominent city official. Curran has a history of alcoholism and drug abuse although he is clean now. Catherine Tramell, the chief suspect, a spoiled rich girl with a background in psychology is toying with Curran's mind. When Curran is taken off the case, he enters into a dangerous relationship with Tramell, which could have bad implications. Soon everyone Curran comes into contact with turns into a suspect.
Undoubtedly, this movie is most famous for it's high level sex scenes that it contains. While I did enjoy them, they are overrated just a fraction. I must admit Sharon Stone has an incredible body and she certainly knows all the moves. These scenes also turned Michael Douglas into a sex manic of sorts and partially ruined his first marriage to Diandra Luker. Yet they create quite a mood for this film and are the main reason why it was the success it was.
The cast was great in this too. Michael Douglas is a Hollywood legend and this film only made him even more popular. His role as a the down and out cop was great. Douglas has some great films to his credit. These include Romancing the Stone, Fatal Attraction (not to similar to Basic Instinct), A Perfect Murder, and of recent Traffic (alongside his second wife Catherine Zeta Jones) and Don't say a word. Then what do you say about Sharon Stone? Before this film she was virtually an unknown, then she stormed on to our screens, without letting audiences take a breathe. Her film credits include The quick and the dead, Total Recall and The Specialist.
Other cast members include Jeanne Tripplehorn, who played Curran's ex-wife and Psychologist Dr Elizabeth Garner. Her role made me feel very anxious to realise what was going to happen. The sex scene involving her was a little hard to take. Then you have the good guy of the film, Gus, played by George Dzundza, but the way we see him go is also too much to handle. One other actress I did recognise, was Leilani Saralle, who played one of Catherine Tramell's gay lover's, Roxy.
Basic Instinct had a very good director, that being Paul Verhoven. He made this film extremely well and any other director might have got it wrong. He has made some other good films including Robo Cop, Starship Troopers and Total Recall. He did do one big flop, that being Showgirls. He commented on that film by saying `I think it was bad too'. I am sorry Paul, but you were right. Basic Intinct's script was pretty good in how it left you dangling. It was like you were in a big game of cat and mouse. I can understand that some people might not like it for that reason, but I thought it was good. The movie also had a great musical score attached to it, giving the movie a chilling feel to it.
So, all in all Basic Instinct is a film that I will always remember. It was so controversial that where I come from, I remember people needed to show there ID to get into the local cinemas, because of its sexual and violent content. I don't blame the cinemas for doing so, because it is not suitable for young eyes to see. If you want to watch a great thriller, then sit down and watch Basic Instinct. Trust me its ‘nice'! Rating: 5 stars or 10/10
Oooo-eee. No thumbs up, but we gotta wave a big stinky finger at this one: Without question, it is one of the funniest movies of the 90s.You can pretty much boil it down to the legendary "Guy Who's Never Seen a Pussy Before" scene with Michael Douglas. Cutting to the chase: He deserved an Oscar for that scene alone. Acting, schmacting. He sweats, he palpitates, he looks like he's just about to jump out of his skin! I know what you're thinking: Michael Douglas frequently looks like he's about to jump out of his skin. But in this one, he tops it all by quivering moistly!!! (There's quite a bit of that in this movie.)
And kudos must go to the director. You think of the giants - Hawks, Hitchcock, Truffaut - who attempted "Guy Who's Never Seen a Pussy Before" scenes. Well, compared to "Basis Instinct," they all fell short. Nosirree, it took a true-born HACK like Paul Verhoeven to give it the glistening meatiness and pinkish texture it deserves.Folks,this isn't some throwaway Brillo patch. It's the real deal.Oh... and the music is truly great!
a thriller with an interesting twist on the old detective vs. a suspect who happens to be an irresistible babe as well as a hard as nails dame.
I gave this film a 10 in part because 12 years after seeing it for the first -- and only -- time, it still evokes a spontaneous "wow, it was great" whenever I think of it. The screenplay was truly excellent in its genre, leaving you guessing and revising your guess throughout the film. It should also be commended for daring to portray an "uber"- homosexual with no apology to either conservative homophobes or the zealously politically correct.Douglas merits praise for this performance, which was so good that I was able to put my intense dislike of him for personal reasons aside and worry about the safety of the character he portrayed in the film.
As for Sharon Stone, it only takes one performance like the one in this film to make an indelible mark. Superb. I had no idea who Sharon Stone was when I went to see this film and I left the theater as mesmerized by her screen presence as I had been by Faye Dunaway's in Bonnie and Clyde and Kristin Scott Thomas in Brideshead Revisited. The caliber of her breakthrough in this film matches that of Russell Crowe in L.A. Confidential and Angelina Jolie in Girl Interrupted.
In much the same way as Glenn Close set the standard for a certain character type in Fatal Attraction, Stone established the standard for another character type against which all subsequent interpretations should be measured. If it were only to see how beautiful Stone is in this film it would be well worth the rental. She leaves as unforgettably stylish and seductive an impression as Rita Hayworth's Gilda did in a role that might be thought of as the anti-Gilda.
Come on all! I really don't get it what all the great reviews are about! This was a horrible film, and I like Verhoeven! If you want a better take on this film, see "The Fourth Man", Verhoeven's earlier film with many of the similar elements, but creepier, gorier, and (darkly) funnier. Watching this film was pure torture, from watching Sharon Stone perform "necrophilia" (on Douglas), to Douglas' saggy bottom, to some stereotypical "gotcha"'s. As for performance, Sharon Stone was decent, but Oscar-worthy? No way! Michael Douglas gave his same middle aged, sex-driven role he has done in other films.
Jeanne Tripplehorn was also good as an actress, but wasted as it appeared the director had a hard time deciding what to do with her. As for the no-panty scene, just over-rated; this may have been big in the 90s, but with paparazzi getting these same shots out of current starlets, this is no big deal; it wasn't like there was this big vessel of awe in there--many other European movies have shown the same thing. Verhoeven is much better than this trash. Don't bother even renting for $1.
A man is viciously stabbed to death with an ice pick while having sex--by the way, that's the opening scene! Det. Nick Curran (Michael Douglas) and his partner (George Dzundzu) get involved with the case and its prime suspect--Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone). Then the story kicks into high gear with many twists and turns...One of the most talked about films of 1992. This movie REALLY pushed the R rating to its limits (a sex scene and killing were cut by a few seconds) and started controversy over supposedly being homophobic. I'll deal with that right away--I'm a openly gay man and proud of it. I found nothing homophobic about this film back in 1992 and I still don't. SPOILER!!!! Yes Stone's character is bisexual and she is a killer.
Yes, her lesbian lover dies. But does anyone realize that Stone is the most likable character in the movie and that Douglas and Dzundzu are foul-mouthed jerks? Also Stones sexual inclination is never a specific plot point--she just happens to be bi--it's treated casually. And it's just a movie! I have many other gay friends who saw it and have no problem with it either. SPOILER END!!!!The plot is intricate with many turns you don't see coming--I had to see the film THREE times to figure it out completely. Here are a few random thoughts about this:
It has a great score by Jerry Goldsmith. Starts right out with a sex murder wasting no time! There's absolutely stunning cinematography by Jan de Bont. Well-directed by Paul Verhoeven. I love Stone's look when she heard about the first murder. The constant references to Hitchcock's "Vertigo" were numerous-check out Stone's outfits. Dorothy Malone pops up in a small part. The interrogation scene with Stone is just superb--and look close when she crosses her legs! The sex sequence between Douglas and Stone is VERY explicit. Douglas should think twice about ever doing a nude scene again (there were giggles when I saw it in a theatre).
Acting is great too. Douglas has played this part before and he's WAY too old but he pulls it off. He is very convincingly loosing it at the end when things start unraveling. Stone is just incredible as Tramell--sexy, frightening, just unbelievable. Her best performance so far. Jeanne Tripplehorn (in her first movie) lends strength in a strong supporting role. Not all of the cast likes this film. Stone has said it's a stupid film and Douglas still won't talk to Verhoeven or Stone and Tripplehorn won't talk about it at all. Also Joe Esztherhaus script is twisty but the dialogue is pretty laughable--it seems dumbed down so everybody will understand it.
Still this is a sexy, violent, strong thriller--one of the best ever done. Try to see the unrated version. Avoid (at all costs) the TV version.
Author: boxcar-2 from Davis CA
23 August 1999
Read a good book, take a walk, visit your local dairy farm to see how milk is produced...do anything else with your time other than subsidizing the careers of anyone remotely connected with this crime against culture. Between the competition among the principals to see who can overact most notably and the god-awful script (which reinforces the notion that Joe Esterhas did way too many drugs in the 70's and thinks he's Jim Thompson), I found myself gagging in the theater. I remember the controversy which surrounded the film's release...it had to do with the treatment of homosexual characters in the story. The controversy should have been how this script was green-lighted in the first place!If not the worst film of the 90's, then a close second to Waterworld
Best erotic thriller ever, period. I own the unrated DVD from Artisan. Very violent and sexual, it lives up to its reputation of being very controversial, even by today's standards. A female killer stabs a man to death, but who is it? that is the main focale point of this movie. gotta love the interrogation scene. Definitely not for children or those with a light stomach for violence or sex, both the R-rated and Director's Cut.Rated R: some strong violence, strong sexuality, and language.Unrated: some graphic bloody violence, very strong sexuality including rape, and language.
The DNA database has existed for criminal investigations since 1984, and DNA evidence alone was used to jail Colin Pitchfork for murder in 1988. This film was set in 1992, the year of its release, and completely ignores DNA. If Catherine had really killed Johnny Boz while they were having sex then her DNA would have been all over the bed. Since she was the last person seen with Boz before he was murdered, the police would have simply got the court to demand her DNA sample. If she had refused, then she would have been arrested and charged with obstruction of justice. DNA would have proved that Catherine was with Boz at the time of his death.This is just an overlong, badly written, trashily risible porn movie with Michael Douglas far too old to play Nick and Sharon Stone displaying plenty of skin but no acting ability. It's hardly surprising that her career did not take off after this, with "Total Recall" being her only other hit.
Stone never was an actress and she only became famous in her mid-30s by revealing her silicone implants and shaved crotch for the whole world to see. Aside from the terrible acting, vile dialogue and boring car chases this is just a stupid film with nothing to recommend it. Nobody would have gone to see it at all without the exploitive sex scenes.Douglas was clearly too old and ugly for a film like this. It is too far-fetched that a multi-millionairess would have fallen for a heavily-lined, 50-year-old chain smoking alcoholic drug addict. His sagging buttocks are simply too funny. Wearing tight jeans was a big mistake as his sagging behind is still very noticeable. A younger actor should have been cast as Nick.
A film like this would never be made now because the Internet has killed off sex and nudity in films. With so much real sex available for free online people don't need to pay to watch simulated sex in movies. "Showgirls", an even worse film, flopped at the cinema partly because porn was widely available on video by the mid-1990s.SPOILER: Perhaps if they wanted a mystery they should not have used Sharon Stone in the opening sequence?
0/10.
| |
