|Page 5 of 8:||       |
|Index||78 reviews in total|
I was probably one of the 6 people in the country who went to the theater (God knows why) in 1993 to see this film. Well, I was in Grad. School and loved, still love, anything Madonna does, so I had to see it! I saw it with 2 friends who were also as skeptical as ever-after all, we had seen "Shanghai Surprise" and "Who's That Girl," so who could blame us! I think my friend Stacy summed it all up quite frankly and bluntly after the lights came up at the end of the movie, "She can't act and this movie just proves it!" Terrible script, acting and no sensuality for me at all! And, "Wilem Dafoe?" He's some sort of sexy leading man? Please! That man is frickin' ugly! A fun idea for a "bad movie night" might be to rent this, the aforementioned 2 films and "Swept Away" and try and see in which movie she's the worst!
How can so many great actors make such a worthless movie? Nobody's performance is worth a dime here. Willem Dafoe, Joe Mantegna, Julienne Moore, Anne Archer, Juergen Prochnow and Frank Langella are all wasted. I never thought I'd see Julienne Moore not acting well... yet here it is! Is it the director's fault? Probably, although the storyline doesn't help. Madonna is great because she's Madonna and because we all know she doesn't act, so we don't expect her to. She's the only one in the entire cast who is excusable because she isn't an actress. The only thing that can be rescued from this film are the sex scenes, plenty of them to choose from. How much did they have to pay Madonna and Julienne? Makes you wonder.
Legend has it that German director Uri Edel spoke only in his native tongue during production, saying the confusion in understanding his direction would lend to the bizarre atmosphere he was seeking to create. Nah, just kidding, it just seems like thats what happened here. But i think you probably have to point the finger at the screenwriter not the director in this case. The dialogue is pretty bad, but the situations are totally absurd. Almost parody level. The acting is decent Madonna included, and the rest of the cast is a solid lineup who all do their best with the really immature script. Reminds me of those inane movies from the 40s that make absolutely no sense, or better still the famous Three Stooges courtroom short. The courtroom scenes truly are that awful. The topper is the judge, the lady who plays a judge in a number of films and television shows. Trust me you've seen her. She's always terrible at it, but here she outdoes herself with her clearing the courtroom and canned admonitions, its really embarassing to watch. But...and you know what the but it is...Madonna takes her clothes off and gets jiggy with it, so therein lies the films only value. From that standpoint, not bad, not bad at all.
i have to wonder if people just don't like this movie because they're so used to putting madonna down for any movie she does. i mean, if you look at any other comments from her other movies, all it basically says are negative things. people should like a movie for what it is and not who's in it...and i'm not saying this just because i'm madonna's #1 fan! this story doesn't have the best acting in the world, but it has a good storyline and believable characters. it also raises a very original question: can a person's body be used as a lethal weapon? this is an excellent movie with a really good twist at the end!
Body Of Evidence was released during the time when Madonna found need to
express herself in a certain way that not many people liked. Premiered a
months after the released of the Sex Book and the Erotica album. The Sex
Book was a major hit and sold over 1 and half million copies. ( pretty
for a 70 dollar book). The Erotica album was a hit but did not sell as
as Madonna previous albums ( 6 million copies world-wide) and then came
movie Body Of Evidence which did not do so good at the box - office and
critics panned it.
The film is decent. The acting is allright except maybe for Madonna who perhaps thought that she was in a different movie but the other actors tried the best they could while trying to deal with that their screenplay was so flawed it wasnt even funny.
The film looks a bit like a tv movie or a b-movie for that matter. About half of the film happens in a court room which often feels like a circus because the judge is always fighting with the lawyers and Madonna looking like she´s thinking more on the lines does my hair look good instead of am I going to prison.
The sex scenes are pretty good and are sometimes steamy but I think the director was pretty much on the rush making them because while Madonna and Dafoe are going at it for the first time you can see that they are not having sex.( you can see his willy while Madonna has jumping on him supposedly getting an orgazm). Though I am not saying that they should have real sex while shooting but look as they are having sex.
There is also a sex scene between William Defoe and Julianne Moore who probably would like to forget that she ever was in this film. ( I don´t blame her.).
I don´t think Madonna was very smart making this film. She was in the press a lot and wanted attention and got it but recieved alot of backlash which often she deserved. To this date Madonna has not learned from it that she should quit acting. She is a bad actress and this film is not good but it isn´t terrible . I give it 4/10.
After promising performances in DICK TRACY and A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN,
Madonna's part in this erotic thrilller must have been a disappointment
her fans worldwide.
On the positive side, she looks stunning. Very blonde, very stylish, it seems to be a tribute to the Marlene Dietrich look of the forties and fifties. Actually BODY OF EVIDENCE has been compared with Dietrich's classic courtroom drama WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION. Both courtroom dramas, both starvehicles for so so actrices, the endresults couldn't be further apart. Marlene made the most of her juicy role and made a glorious comeback. Madonna, blinded by her desire make a movie to go with her Erotica album, agreed to her poorest script since SHANGHAI SURPRISE and was destined to fail from the first day of shooting.
The sex scenes are probably the best thing about this movie. It takes a lot of guts (to pretend) to get it on like this in front of a camera crew! Both Madonna and Willem Dafoe convince in these scenes (as they should, since these scenes are the reason why BODY OF EVIDENCE got made in the first place!) The movie as a whole is boring and often bad acted. Rent the DVD and make the most of scene selection, is my suggestion. And thank God for EVITA!
This movie could have been good, in fact it could have been great, but in
the end it really disappoints. The plot of the movie is Basic Instinct meets
court drama, and that could have worked. But it didn't.
It would be easy to comment on Madonna's and Willem Dafoe's acting, but in the end the problem is the movie itself. The court room scenes are boring and the characters are ultimately uninteresting. And those are really the two most important pieces in a movie like this, so when they don't work the excitement is gone. And while the sex scenes were probably meant to involve in the plot somehow, they become too long and seem to go on forever.
If you like thrillers of any kind then this movie might be worth watching, otherwise...
I just saw this film again for the first time in years, and it has not aged particularly well. In fact, I'd say it's pretty wretched. Any one who's ever seen a movie before should have no problem seeing where Brad Mirman's script is going. A perfunctory plot and some truly boring courtroom scenes grind one's interest to a nub. The only real interest, besides the sumptuous cinematography of Kubrick associate Douglas Milsome (Full Metal Jacket) is Madonna's hysterical enthusiasm for shedding her clothes. Almost worth watching strictly for that. Almost.
...As opposed to anywhere else when you watch this movie, which I just caught on TV. Not as bad as I expected, but its obvious watching it the producers were after another Basic Instinct. The mostly stellar cast are wasted, Madonna acts by numbers (and better in other movies), and the plot was pure camp - but I found the ending very satisfying considering what you have to sit through to get to it...
Well now, let's see..... It's about as crazy, dumb, and pointless as one
movie can get. Yet you can't take your eyes off of it because it's so awful
you keep wondering as the movie goes on, could it possibly get any worse?
And the answer is, it does, with each stupefyingly bad scene. Obviously
made with the success of BASIC INSTINCT in mind(itself a highly overrated
film), the film features shock queen Madonna as a sultry murder suspect who
is on trial for killing her rich, weak-hearted older lover with too much
rough sex(hey, it happens). Let's face it, folks. Madonna never does
anything because she believes in it. She only does it for the controversy.
But this time, the joke is on her. With this film, the shock queen becomes
the schlock queen. The pop rock singer's acting career has never been
anything to write home to mother about, but now there's even less reason to
brag. This was definitely Miss M's ultimate career low point. She evened up
the score a little a few years later with the wildly successful EVITA, but I
have a feeling she's going to take the embarrassment of this film with her
to her grave, and I can't help but feel she"ll turn over every time somebody
watches it. But, let's be fair. Not all of the blame can be put on her
slender little shoulders. In fact, with such an inane concept for a film,
this project was just destined for failure from the very start. Director Uli
Edel does little to ease the situation with his pretentious handling of the
already mindless material.
Amazingly, some very powerful and talented performers signed on for this
lurid piece of trash, including Joe Mantegna, Anne Archer, Frank Langella,
Julianne Moore, and Jurgen Prochnow. Willem Dafoe, also a good actor,
suffers the most from the horrible miscasting. He plays lady M's lawyer who
is drawn into his client's web of sado-sexual games. I respect Willem
greatly. He courageously takes on many diverse roles, but there is something
decidedly uncomfortable, not to mention thoroughly unnatural about seeing
him play the lead in a sex-thriller. But then again, I'm still trying to
figure out why casting directors chose Michael Douglas for the roles he
played in FATAL ATTRACTION, BASIC INSTINCT, and DISCLOSURE.
The sex scenes between Miss Madonna and Mr. Dafoe(which include hot candle wax, broken glass, and handcuffs), aren't sexy. They're not even kinky. They're just plain creepy, that is, aside from being thoroughly ridiculous. No doubt, they contribute greatly to the film's camp value. Whether or not this should be taken as any kind of entertainment I do not know. But one thing is certain, it's definitely not boring. It becomes so horrid in such a short time that it's compulsively watchable. Some argue that this is the worst of the post BASIC INSTINCT/sex & murder yarns. I personally vote for the 1994 Bruce Willis starrer COLOR OF NIGHT.
|Page 5 of 8:||       |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|