Basic Instinct

Sure its dirty minded, and extremely violent, but underneath all of Paul Verhoevens trademark sleaze there is a great film noir thriller to be seen. The film has a sense of an old 40's or 50's film noir, but of course with the 90's boundaries in taste and graphic nudity. The story is quite involving and there are plenty of twists and turns and unresolved endings. Michael Douglas is good in his role and must have really enjoyed film shagging Jean Tripplehorn and Sharon Stone, while it is Stone who steals the show as the writer Catherine, whose books write about murders that are apparently being copied by a murdering female. Its very steamy but the cinematography and the score are all very good and the film is more clever than merely T&A. It is a film that has spawned many inferior clones, usually TV movies starring melon chested playboy queen Shannon Tweed. ****

Basic Instinct was an entry into the neo-noir genre of the 90's (The Last Seduction, Fatal Attraction etc ) that tried to update 40's/50's American film noir as well as bringing in elements of Hitchcock's Vertigo. On this level Basic Instinct is a brilliant conveyor of noir themes that portrays an unstable detective out of control in an intricate unfathomable plot with a femme fatale, Hollywood mansions, dark shadowy rooms, smart cynical dialogue and smoking. It is also flawed on this level with its unnatural characterisation. However, the artificiality of the plot, genre, characterisations and the look creates a distance between the viewer and the film. When you take this into account along with the constant references to watching in the film, outlined below, the film moves to a different level. It is no longer about whether Catherine Tramell is the killer but is more about the spectatorial process of watching a (Hollywood) film.

For example, Catherine Tramell(Sharon Stone) is a writer whose murder plots exactly follow the murders that occur in the film. Her coolness and openness about these killings gives her a sense of being in control of Nick Curran's(Michael Douglas) destiny. In this way, she is like cinema itself spinning a predetermined plot line that the audience represented by Douglas just follows.

Throughout the film, the detective seems resigned to his lack of control, totally in awe of Catherine Tramell ready to go along with her. This is similar to the way the audience submits itself inside the cinema to the control that the screen exerts. However just as we do, Curran attempts to predetermine the plot with his own expectations. He tells Tramell that he has his own idea how it will end - "The cop survives" - The final question of "What do we do now, Nick?" is met with "F*** like minxes, raise rug rats, live happily ever after." another idealistic expectation of the cinema audience. However the ambiguous final shot reminds us that Douglas/the audience may not get the ending he wants - only cinema decides whether that ice pick under the bed will be used.

Another parallel with the cinema experience is the way Nick Curran seems to identify with Tramell. At the start he is a recovered smoker and drinker and Tramell gets him to start again. Over the course of the film his attraction to Tramell's character makes him take on more and more of her traits - aggressive sexuality, risk taking, use of her dialogue and more and more leaps into fantasy. He is almost merging with her and this is reflected in his interrogation scene being shot identically to Tramell's earlier one. Again this development mirrors the way cinema audiences identify with the film narrative. The Hollywood ideal is that the viewer leaves his/her outside of the cinema in order to temporarily identify with the fantasy characters on screen.

Another main aspect of the cinema experience touched on here is the voyeuristic process of watching itself. Curran is constantly in a spectatorial position. It is most obvious where he watches Tramell through a window that looks like a cinema screen itself. Another scene where he is trying to find out about Tramell on a computer sees him reprimanded by a colleague for "jacking off to the screen". This likens Douglas to an audience member watching the film in a similarly voyeuristic way. This is the reason why Hitchcock is such a strong influence on this film - these are classic Hitchcockian themes.

My final comparison is the bi-directional aspect of cinema touched on in the film. The interrogation scene where Tramell manipulates the audience of detectives is the only time where Tramell has point of view, reminding us that cinema watches and manipulates us as well. Also the fact that throughout Tramell knows so much about Detective Curran's past is a similar device. Tramell uses what she knows about Curran to make her murder work, just as Hollywood exploits what it knows about our desires of movies in order to sell us their product. (And those desires may have been partly contrived by Hollywood).

The female murderers (who look like old film stars) that Tramell hangs around with represent other archetypal Hollywood stories - maybe these could have been other films that Nick Curran watched before when he took up smoking before.

Is it a coincidence that the words "cinema theatre" can be found in the name Catherine Tramell and the word "audience" can be found in "Detective Nick Curran" ?

Probably.

How does one begin a review of what is arguably the most controversial movie of the 90's? Perhaps I should start by saying that although Basic Instinct is complete trash with nothing residing beneath its glitzy surface(despite the claims of Camille Paglia there are NO subliminal meanings and the phallic symbolism of the ice pick is purely coincidental) it's also a riveting psychological thriller with Doublas and Stone providing an impressive double in a refreshingly gripping film.

I will not go deeply into plot detail, as the story is practically part of hollywood folklore, but in summary volatile cop Nick Curran(Michael Douglas) falls in love with murder suspect Catherine Trammell(Sharon Stone) who may,or may not, have brutally murdered her lover with an ice pick. If the plot sounds familiar its probably due to the fact that Basic Instinct is essentially a combination of writer Joe Eszthera's film 'Jagged Edge' and director Paul Verhoeven's film 'The Fourth Man', both of which had their fair share of sex and fashionable violence. Despite this Basic Instinct still is enjoyable and having seen either of those films will have no affect on the unpredictability of the film.

At the centre of the film is Stone's performance which is actually quite superb(though in the long run this film's been more of a curse than a blessing to her film career)as although she's easily the least probable femme fatale ever to grace(or poison to be more accurate) the silver screen, Stone plays her with such zeal that we can't take our eyes off her. That said it should also be pointed out that she becomes rather less intriguing after the first 40 minutes when she becomes involved with Michael Douglas, as her character loses a great deal of her mystique and her personality has less bite. Then of course is the infamous scene (which practically every other reviewer has mentioned and I am going to be no exception) where Tramell is being interrogated by the police and coolly turns the tables on them by exploiting their libidos and reducing them to drooling idiots, totally ridiculous but easily the film's best scene and certainly one that is not going to be soon forgotten (no doubt to the chagrin of Sharon Stone).

The rest of the cast are fine, with Michael Douglas doing the character he does best(the rather thuggish white male who constantly gets involved with the wrong kind of woman), Jeanne Tripplehorn doing an adequate job as Nick's pyschologist and George Dzunda manages to be the only half-way likable character in the movie as Curran's best(and only)friend. Unfortunately Leilani Sarelle is under-used as Catherine Trammell's enigmatic girlfriend(I forgot to mention Catherine's Bi-sexual).

The film is, of course, not without flaws. No-one (not even the director) could deny that Basic Instinct has such big plot holes you could park a car in them as for some of the events in the film to make sense characters would need to be either clairvoyant or in possession of other-worldly powers. The endings also a bit of a cop out (no I WON'T reveal it) as it was clearly engineered so that it could be easily changed with a single edit if preview audiences were unsatisfied with it.

It is also impossible to ignore the huge controversey that surrounded the films release with a particulair furor being caused by feminists and lesbians over their portrayal in the film. In truth the jury's still out on wether Basic Instinct is homophobic, but I personally don't think it is as the characters' sexuality is never really an issue although in fairness it is used as a somewhat cheap plot device to titillate the audience. The case made by feminists is much stronger as all the women in the film are portrayed as dubious and potentially dangerous. The main defence against all this is that, frankly, all the characters are unpleasent and devious , with perhaps one exception, and no discrimination is given in any way. The other issue was, of course, the sex scenes which ,although explicit, are really rather passé these days.

The film is stylishly filmed, expertly paced, brilliantly directed and has a superb music score from Jerrry Goldsmith. I'll give it a high score(by my standards) of 8 out of 10

This is one of my favorite films, even though it has some problems.

The film caused controversy with some of the gay crowd (who didn't like the negative press) and for the graphic sex (with bedroom violence). It became a box office winner, that made Sharon Stone a star, and yet was basically p****d on by the critics! The word is the film is better than your average B movie skin flick, only by the quality of the actors, and Verhoeven's ability. I feel the film is still not given the respect it's due.

I first saw the R-rated version, which is very good, but now you can get the even better Unrated Director's Cut, which has even more graphic content! If you don't like erotic-thrillers, then don't see it. But anyone with taste will enjoy the thrill ride of events that take place in Basic Instinct. The script by Joe Eszterhas was highly thought of in Hollywood, and if not for the graphic nudity, a top star like Michelle Pfeiffer would have taken the role made famous by Sharon stone.

Does the script go too far at times? Yes, but that's part of the films charm, and after all, the now 'classic film moment' of Sharon Stone's leg spread interrogation, likely would have been dropped in a conventional film. Still though, I wouldn't have minded seeing a few less people getting killed off, to keep even more suspense and realism.

The score is also beautiful, and fans of Hitchcock's great "Vertigo" can appreciate the homage that Paul Verhoeven has included. The film has a lot of eye candy, but Jeanne Tripplehorn deserves special mention for her impressive supporting role (sadly she hasn't done much of note since). Michael Douglas does a solid job also, but I can't help wondering if a better actor like Clint Eastwood could have brought more to the table. The dialogue is not up to the level of "Pulp Fiction", but it's still interesting and fun.

I highly recommend this film for fans of adult mystery.

There is so much here that is unresolved that it leaves an empty, unfulfilled feeling that the viewer has been suckered. Endless nude and sex scenes intrude on the mystery plot and in the end it is all for not much.

Infamous for its explicit exploitation of said sex and nudity and forever frustrating for that's pretty much all there is. The soft-porn aside it can be a somewhat sultry, trashy ride with enough intrigue to keep the interest but not enough to make it a totally engaging entertainment.

The biggest problem is the ambiguity about most of what unfolds. There are dangling plot elements and shallow, confusing side shows. In all, it is a murky, muddy, and thin piece of Pulp that has modern machinations and push the envelope displays of Crime Fiction laced with so much pomp that it's rendered impotent.

The Movie has enough sizzle to attract viewers but cannot justify all the indulgence and will most likely be an unsatisfactory guilty pleasure. It is quite an overrated Film whose appeal comes from the most lowbrow lexicons of entertainment. But hey, someone once said...there's one born every minute. That's a lot of ticket buyers.