Basic Instinct (1992) User Reviews

Murder All Around Her

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 9 February 2013]

Although most reviewers have concentrated on the leads, Basic Instinct has some other fine performances in it. Still Michael Douglas as the sex obsessed cop and Sharon Stone as the amoral, multi-sexual woman who seems to have murder all around her give some iconic performances.

A couple of SFPD detectives who played TV detectives, Michael Douglas in Streets Of San Francisco and George Dzundza in Law And Order, get assigned to the homicide of a former rockstar icon. The man had as the story tells us the 'coital moment of the century' before he died and as Michael Douglas finds out with Sharon Stone his prime suspect.

It's not like Douglas hasn't any issues himself, he's seeing the SFPD shrink Jeanne Tripplehorn. One of those issues apparently is professional detachment as gets involved with both Tripplehorn and Stone. Far worse with Stone as she is a suspect.

Murders in the past and murders in the present seem to pop up whenever Stone is around. She's an heiress to a fortune, a psychology major from college and licensed and an author of lurid novels. She knows how to press the buttons of both sexes and soon enough Douglas is in her world.

The only one keeping a professional detachment is Dzundza who is not thinking with his male member. Even when an Internal Affairs cop who is investigating Douglas is murdered, Dzundza sticks by his partner. See what it gets him.

In fact Dzundza and Tripplehorn don't get near enough credit for their work here. I think most know Tripplehorn as I do for playing Tom Cruise's wife in The Firm. She too is a woman with a lot of issues. As for George Dzundza as the only one in the film actually who seems to be normal, the others all seem to play off him.

Still Sharon Stone's career was launched with what she did in Basic Instinct. This woman will wind up President of the USA or on death row, no middle ground for her. And you can believe she's every man and woman's coital moment of a lifetime.

I don't know how successful or how good Basic Instinct 2 was, but seeing this has given me an incentive to see the sequel.

Graphic Verhoeven showcase is one of the best of the psycho-thriller genre

[Leofwine_draca · 9/10 · 16 October 2015]

For fans of Paul Verhoeven's sci-fi actioners such as ROBOCOP and TOTAL RECALL, this is the same but not the same. For instead of having explicit violence to carry things along, Verhoeven goes along with explicit sex for the thrills here (a formula he repeated later in his flop SHOWGIRLS before going back to the violence with STARSHIP TROOPERS). Of course with a film like this there was a big fuss when it was first released and it achieved a certain notoriety for the infamous leg-crossing scene. Sadly when most people mention this they tend to forget that aside from the sex there is also a pretty good thriller plot to enjoy.

The makers of this film tried to give it a film-noir style, perhaps even going for a Hitchcockian influence. What they did do is succeed in making a powerful, intense whodunit which keeps you guessing as to the identity of the murderess right up until the end - and even then, a final twists means that it's all still ambiguous. As well as all the sex that's going on, Verhoeven still finds the opportunity to put in some of his trademark graphic violence in the shape of a pair of icepick murders which see blood flying everywhere in an extremely grisly fashion.

Michael Douglas is well-suited for the role of the cop on the edge, with slicked-back hair to make him look younger. I know that his nudity in this film is a basis for a lot of people to make fun of him, but when I think of other male actors around at the time I can't really imagine anybody else in the role. While Douglas has the fairly straight and unexciting role, Sharon Stone on the other hand is a revelation: extruding an icy cold air and totally in control of herself and just about everybody else, her seductive siren instantly made Stone a star - and put her into the mainstream eye, away from the bit parts she had previously had in the likes of NICO: ABOVE THE LAW. It's safe to say that this film contains Stone's best performance and that she's never lived up to it since, except maybe in her believable portrayal of a drug addicted wife in Scorcese's CASINO.

In support, George Dzundza is good as a comic relief cop while Jeanne Tripplehorn also gives an excellent performance as Douglas' psychiatrist. BASIC INSTINCT is well worth a watch, and not just because of the obvious reasons. Fans of thrillers should check it out.

Great Thriller

[Michael_Elliott · 29 February 2008]

Basic Instinct (1992)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

While I didn't love it as much as before, I still think this is a very well made erotic thriller that delivers on every aspect that it set out to do. The film is highly erotic, the mystery keeps you on the edge of your seat and it also has enough campy trash for plenty of laughs. I first saw this at the age of 12 after a couple months of trying to get in (the theater owner wouldn't let me in) and I remember all the controversy as if it were yesterday. That crap behind, even at the time I felt the performances from Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone were being overlooked because I felt then and still feel now that both of them are terrific with Stone coming on as one of the greatest femme fatales in film history. The direction is tight, the cinematography wonderful and the music score is great as well. There are a few too many campy moments, especially the scene with Douglas pretty much turning into a animal with his old flame, but this just adds to the fun. Back in 1992 I was really wanting a sequel but I never thought we'd have to wait 14 years. We shall see how that one is later....

Unforgettable scenes in unimpressive story

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 24 November 2013]

SFPD detective Nick Curran (Michael Douglas) investigates a murder that leads to mysterious crime novel writer Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone). She proves to be a manipulative woman. And Nick had some previous problems with IA. He was investigated by Dr. Beth Garner (Jeanne Tripplehorn) but is now having a sexual affair with her.

There is no denying that the team of director Paul Verhoeven and writer Joe Eszterhas has given the world iconic movie scenes. The interrogation scene will probably be around forever. And who can forget the ice pick. This movie has unforgettable moments.

But the moments don't add up to a suspenseful drama. The pace is grindingly slow. They are trying to film a soft core porn movie and pass it off as a Hitchcock mystery. The constant innuendos and sexual perversions gets very exhausting. In the end, trying to follow the investigation is a waste of time. The movie deserves a 5 but I'll add another point for the scene. Any scene that gets so much parody deserves the point.

revelation

[Kirpianuscus · 1 July 2017]

its success. its art to change the rules of thriller. the smart use of ambiguity and taboo. and Paul Verhoever. memorable scenes, Sharon Stone and Michael Douglas in one of essential points of career and the obsessive music. a film who escapes from definitions. and who makes history. its force of seduction remains the same. its magic and provocative sensuality and impeccable story. because it is one of models for a genre who escapes from old standards. and an experiment. from one of the most uncomfortable directors.

Controversy made at a curiosity. Time hasn't helped it.

[mark.waltz · 4/10 · 5 January 2022]

Certainly you can point a lot of things rosat who's to blame for this being a very disappointing and rather over-the-top psychological thriller, a modern film noir that unfortunately has characters which are completely unlikable and thus difficult to watch. It's perverse both sexually and psychologically because the games everybody plays with each other are just simply disgusting. Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone certainly do create heat together, but it's like cheering at your neighbors through binoculars watching them, and if you happen to witness a murder, it's not one you want to become involved in an investigation of.

The character of Catherine Trannell is certainly legendary as modern femme fatales are concerned, but she's certainly no Matty Walker (Kathleen Turner in "Body Heat"), and not someone I would ever want to know professionally or socially. Stone's performance is way too overconfident, and that makes the impact truly unsubtle as you try to figure out if she is indeed guilty of these ice pick murders. Douglas too is a fool (once again) for getting involved with a dangerous woman, and it's obvious that she's a definite fatal attraction that would have the opposite result of the infamous 1987 movie with Glenn Close.

Human relationships are complex enough without making people scared of becoming involved with someone like Trannell who has absolutely no redeeming values that I can see. Douglas doesn't either, but he's lead around by his libido and she's lead around by a vampire like lust that doesn't have a preference of gender when she can get something that she wants out of it. Film noir like films of the 1980's have a subtlety to them at this lacks, and I found this to be overlong and just plain unlikable, no matter how riveted I was at times. It's one of those modern classics I consider totally overrated and could never watch again let alone recommend.

Still Magnificent After Almost Thirty Years

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 16 December 2020]

In Los Angeles, the retired rock star Johnny Boz (Bill Cable) is stabbed by an ice pick and murdered tied to his bed during an intercourse. Detective Nick Curran (Michael Douglas) and his partner Gus Moran (George Dzundza) are assigned to the case. They head to the beach house of the psychologist and writer Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone), who was Boz's girlfriend, to interview her. They find a cynical and intelligent woman and soon Nick suspects her of the crime. Det. Curran has recently killed two tourists in a shooting and his wife that committed suicide and is forced to visit the police psychologist Dr. Beth Garner (Jeanne Tripplehorn), with whom he has a love affair. He continues his investigation and soon he has a sexual involvement with Tramell. He is sure that she is the killer when other evidences shifts him to another direction.

Watching the erotic thriller "Basic Instinct" again after almost thirty years is still magnificent. The story has not aged, and it is great to see the cast younger and younger. Sharon Stone seems to be more beautiful and hotter than never in the role of the amoral Catherine Tramell. The Unrated Director's Cut on DVD is really an exciting experience. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Instinto Selvagem" ("Savage Instinct")

An exploitative erotic thriller is still just that no matter how much money you throw at it

[bob the moo · 18 January 2004]

When an ex-rock star is found stabbed during a night of passion, all clues point to his girlfriend, Catherine Tramell. Tramell wrote a book over a year ago that has a murder in it that is identical to the one that Detective Nick Curran is now put on to investigate. Despite everything, Nick is slowly seduced by Tramell and is sucked into her world of sexuality and manipulation. However did she do the murder or was it someone else? And can Nick ever really be sure?

Looking back on it now, I can't help but wonder why this film was so successful. Clearly it was to do with the media sensation around it being the first mainstream `flash of gash' and the type of stuff usually reserved for late night cable tv. Sadly, this is the problem here - it isn't any better than the usual rubbish that is peppered with sex and titillation. It may be less obvious but not by much. The thriller plot has a bit of spit and polish but it is still just an excuse for nudity and playful sexual scenes. The plot is nonsense of course and is just made to feel important because this is a film with higher values than the usual tat - but it is still pretty thin.

The sex is average. I wasn't watching this to get aroused but I didn't find it erotic anyway. The whole lesbian-teasing thing was pretty hot in it's day, but now it is very mainstream with pop stars doing it on stage, right down to girls in clubs trying to attract men (still sexy though). The sex scenes are all pretty short and, if that's why you're watching, then I suggest either real porn or cable films that don't have lofty aspirations.

The cast is famous and are part of the film being more professional that the usual erotic thriller tat. However the thing that I couldn't get out of my head was the question, how did so many big names agree to do this? Stone is sexy and, sadly, this is her best role to date. Her career has stalled because she should have gone down the road of cheap erotic thrillers rather than thinking a flash makes her an actress! Douglas is too old for this stuff and looks very out of place during the erotic stuff - although he does help the thriller side of things. Sexy support from Sarelle and Tripplehorn is OK but obvious, while faces such as Dzundza, Tololowsky, Knight and von Bargen only seem to be there to make it feel more expensive and legitimate.

Overall this is just a glossy erotic thriller - I don't waste my time on those when they are on TV because I know they are cheap nudity and no plot, however I gave this a chance due to the expensive names and such connected to it. However this is just a cheap tart wearing an expensive suit and all the weaknesses of the genre come with it - poor plot and exploitative nudity. If you want a thriller then there are much better, if you just want a w*nk then there's much easier ways to have one! This film will be remembered as a hyped movie that featured some famous nudity. But we will increasingly wonder what all the fuss was about and why it was so successful.

Love or Sex?

[kosmasp · 9/10 · 28 July 2021]

Or is it murder? Well while the US (censors) do not mind violence too much - they are quite leniant when it comes to the degree that they allow - when it comes to sex and nudity ... well they are quite prude. Which when it happens, does backfire on the actresses - like it apparently did on Sharon Stone. She was marked one might say. And misstreated because people could not tell the difference between her and the character she played.

On the other hand no one forced her to play the role ... a second time. And while I can't judge the sequel (would have to watch it first), I think it's safe to say that it was not nearly as good as the first one. The shock factor was gone too - well shock for the Americans that is. Who only got an R-rated cut anyway.

But whatever version you watched (and I would say go for the uncut one), it is the pulp story that works its wonders. The mystery ... even if at the end you say, I knew it all along. But did you? Or rather do you? Is it that conclusive? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.

One thing that I could tell, even before I listend to the audio commentary and watched a few behind the scenes interviews, was the fact that the first time we see Sharon Stones character talk (to detectives), she seemed out of it ... like she was not the confident character the lines where suggesting. It felt like she didn't feel the role ... that struggle gave her performance something though - maybe something good or something bad, depending on how you feel about it. Especially now that I mention it and the stories tell us, what I felt: she wasn't in her role ... she didn't feel the character yet. Verhoven helped her though and everything went smoothly after that.

Well almost everything ... because there is that one scene ... I mean there are a lot of scenes (the forceful sex which some can't stomache because of the borderline rape inclinations it brings up, to name just one other), but the leg crossing interrogation scene ... well, there is something to cherish (or not). Now Stone says she couldn't tell back then how that scene would look like on the big screen and what would be visible. I did not pause or freeze frame or even zoom - but it is obvious you can see something. And Verhoven being a European (Dutch) director, does not have issues with nudity (it is being said that he got naked on the Starship Troopers set, because some actors felt uncomfortable doing the shower scene) ... so the backlash might have been quite bad, but you can't really blame the director in this case too much.

He handled everything in an open way and always talked about things. He even told every actor that auditioned about the amount of nudity - something that Douglas was not too fond of, him being the producer as well as the lead actor. And while his presence and some themes have been said to be sexist - the movie actually puts Sharons character on a pedastal. She triumphs over the men. She is in control most of the time (all the time?) ... while the men show a real ugly side.

So while she may act out of lust and boredom - things that can or have been attributed to males - she is quite pure in what she wants. And she knows exactly how to get it too. So in a wicked way she is quite empowered ... so not really anything like Fatal Attraction ... not at all I'd say.

A wicked movie, that might not see the light of production day ... today! Because everything has to be clean and non-offensive ... good thing we got this in and have something to talk about then, yes?

"You can put that in your book."

[classicsoncall · 8/10 · 11 May 2014]

If you're into steamy erotic thrillers and intriguing murder mysteries, look no further, but don't expect an ending short on ambiguity. Take it on faith that Catherine Trammell's (Sharon Stone) principal characters always end up dead, and Nick Curran (Michael Douglas) is a goner some time after the end credits roll. It's just that you don't get to see it.

"Basic Instinct" is high on adrenaline and a snort of cocaine or two, and Sharon Stone's interrogation scene will be talked about for years on end. It's the writing that keeps this thriller humming, and I can say for certain that I must have missed a nuance or two with the way the story developed, which means I'll have to catch it again at some point. The diversion with Jeanne Tripplehorn's character was an unexpected twist of sorts, and verges on being almost too coincidental to the other events going on, so it's not unusual to be left a little confused with the story's outcome. If it's all in the eye of the beholder, then this film has multiple interpretations and it's anyone's guess.

But as a classic film fan, you know what really blew me away? That was Dorothy Malone in the lineup as the family serial killer Hazel Dobkins. I first saw her opposite Bogey in that hoot of an Acme Bookshop scene in "The Big Sleep". A quick check of her IMDb bio shows she's still kicking, although this was her last film appearance. She still looked pretty classy playing a murderess, and with a little ingenuity, she could have been made a pretty good suspect here as well. Why not drive Michael Douglas just a wee bit crazier?

Get ready.

[lee_eisenberg · 10/10 · 12 March 2006]

"Basic Instinct" is one movie that truly blows your mind. You've probably heard about the interrogation scene, but there's of course more to the movie than that. As Det. Nick Curran, Michael Douglas seems to be channeling his character in "Fatal Attraction" somewhat, and preparing for his role in "The Game" a few years later. But it's Sharon Stone, as author Catherine Tramell, who really makes the movie what it is. Along with the interrogation scene, she's like a combination of every femme fatale throughout movie history.

But overall, I can't do this movie justice by trying to describe it. You have to see it to understand it. One of the reasons that it's so good is that you can never really tell who's on which side. As for all the sex (which probably takes up a quarter to a third of the movie)...well, that's part of what makes the movie so good. But I should remind you that this movie is very likely to completely blow you away. Also starring George Dzundza and Jeanne Tripplehorn.

Considering that Paul Verhoeven directed "Soldier of Orange" in his native Netherlands, then directed "Robocop" and "Basic Instinct" here (and even "Starship Troopers" was OK), why did he degenerate into "Hollow Man"?

Surprisingly Good

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 16 November 2015]

A police detective (Michael Douglas) is in charge of the investigation of a brutal murder, in which a beautiful and seductive woman could be involved.

I thought this was going to be a 1990s thriller, nothing too special, sort of a companion to "Fatal Attraction". I mean, come on, both have Michael Douglas getting attracted to the wrong sort of woman, with plenty of sexual activity and his butt freely exposed to the world.

But I actually think this was far more clever, almost even a satire of itself, if that is possible. The melodrama, the over-the-top nature, the fine line between thriller and horror with the nasty death scenes... this is a cut above the rest and may be something of a modern classic.

Basic Instinct

[jboothmillard · 6/10 · 8 July 2005]

I have seen many adult thrillers that both get your heart beating, and you get to see a lot of bits that you want, but this is one of the best ones I've seen. Not just for the sex and nudity, but it has a really good story, from director Paul Verhoeven (Total Recall, RoboCop). A man is brutally murdered and Detective Nick Curran (Michael Douglas) from FBI homicide is assigned to investigate. They question the man's ex-lover Catherine Tramell (Golden Globe nominated Sharon Stone), and "coincedently" she writes murder stories. Either someone was inspired, or the writer did it! Unfortunately, Douglas obviously falls for the suspect, bad move! The most memorable part is obviously Stone uncrossing her legs in front of Wayne Knight and Douglas, I know what I saw, and after saying one of my favourite lines, "Have you ever f***ed on cocaine, Nick?". It was nominated for the Oscars for Best Music for Jerry Goldsmith and Best Film Editing, and it was nominated the Golden Globe Best Original Score. Michael Douglas was number 100 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, Sharon Stone was number 60 on The 100 Greatest Sex Symbols, and the film was number 5 on The 100 Greatest Sexy Moments. Good!

A sleazy but enjoyable erotic noir

[Tweekums · 8/10 · 13 July 2017]

As this erotic thriller opens a blonde woman is seen having sex with a man; she ties his wrists to the bed then his pleasure turns to terror as she repeatedly stabs him with an ice-pick. Detective Nick Curran is in charge of the investigation and his only real suspect is the victim's girlfriend. She is Catherine Tramell, a bisexual crime writer whose latest book includes a murder that is identical to the one Nick is investigating. He is convinced that she is the killer but there is no actual proof and she is soon playing mind games with him. It turns out that many people who were close to her have died violently and she seems to be attracted to killers. This might include Nick as he had previously been investigated after the accidental fatal shooting of two tourists. As the story progresses Nick gets caught up in a relationship with Catherine; he is already in a relationship with the police psychiatrist who just happened to have known Tramell when they were both studying at Berkley. Nick later gets suspended from the case when an Internal Affairs officer is murdered shortly after confronting him.

There is no denying that this film is best known for one scene where Sharon Stone shows that she isn't wearing any knickers; this is a pity as the film is far more than that one 'blink and you miss it' scene. The story is enjoyably sleazy with plenty of twists and turns. As the story progresses the suspicion moves between three possible suspects. We are constantly wondering whether Tramell is an intelligent killer who is playing games with everybody around her or whether somebody else is targeting people around her. Michael Douglas does an impressive job as Detective Curran but it is Sharon Stone who dominates the film as the seductive Catherine Tramell; a character who is almost playing with the audience as much as she is playing with the other characters. The supporting cast are solid as well; most notable George Dzundza as Nick's Partner and Jeanne Tripplehorn as the police psychiatrist. Nobody will be surprised that there is a fair amount of sex and nudity in this film, there are also some moments of intense violence that may disturb some viewers. Overall this is a solid thriller that should keep the viewer guessing till the very end… and possibly one will still be wondering what really happened as the credits roll.

B Movie with Stars and Sex.

[rmax304823 · 9 July 2004]

If you've seen Huston's "The Maltese Falcon" (or read Hammet's novel; they're the same thing) you see Bogart as Sam Spade, a shamus involved with greedy liars and gunsels. They don't even tell Bogart their right names, let alone what they're after. But Bogart figures it all out. He does so by keeping his mouth shut, trusting no one, telling nothing but the truth but very little of that, listening and observing.

Bogart is to Michael Douglas as matter is to anti-matter. Douglas has got to be one of the dumbest cops ever put on film outside of a deliberate comedy. He believes everything that everyone tells him, no matter how suspicious or self contradictory the characters may be, and what he learns, he blabs to anybody who will listen. He runs into clues and ignores them.

Paul Verhoeven is a pretty well-known action director, or that's the impression I get. Here, he seems to have no more idea where the movie is going than Michael Douglas has. Everybody is at sea, including the viewer.

The plot's too confusing to bother with. Not that confusion per se is bad, just that here the confusion is unaccompanied by any kind of style. There is a bloody murder. Two and a half car chases, one and a half of them completely pointless except to zap up the pace of the film. A confusion of identities. Stupid moves on the part of everyone. Beautiful San Francisco locations. A score that sometimes sounds like Bernard Hermann, which is okay. Here's a really hoary device -- Douglas is tearing through some mailboxes in an empty foyer while the music begins to pound, then a hand reaches in from out of the frame and grabs his shoulder, and the score emits a shriek. I thought that one had been put to bed by 1954.

Douglas is okay as the confused detective. Dzundza is okay as his sidekick although we know immediately he's not going to last for the whole movie. The other characters kind of blend into one another except for Sharon Stone who demonstrates that she has a nice figure. It doesn't quite make up for her acting. She's as bad here as she was later to be good, in "Casino." One constant in her movie career is that when you see Sharon Stone coming, you know there will be trouble, only you can't be sure whether it will be slow and painful like prostate cancer or quick and thorough like cardiac arrest.

Well, you do get sex in this movie. Nudity, including Douglas's buns if that's of any interest, and quite a bit of Sharone Stone. The simulated sex doesn't resemble sex as civilized people know it. Unless maybe I haven't been hanging around with civilized people lately. There isn't any particular REASON for the roughness. There are some ice pick murders and suggestions of bondage but that doesn't account for the feral quality of, say, Douglas's lovemaking techniques. Stone is a thorough fruitcake, true, but Douglas is supposed to be relatively normal, and so is Jeanne Tripplehorn as the shrink. I don't get it. Maybe there's nothing to get. Simulated sex has become so common on screen that if you want your sex scenes to stand out from the pack you need to introduce something new -- violence or something. Next time Verhoeven might try introducing an animal of some sort into the proceedings, a mule or something. I mean, where does it stop? How far is a director willing to go to draw in an audience?

This movie is worth seeing if only as a curiosity. And it does have nice locations in Monterey and Marin Counties.

However You Label It, It Does Get Your Attention!

[ccthemovieman-1 · 8/10 · 13 January 2007]

I've heard this movie labeled "soft porn" and perhaps that's correct. There are a number of sexy scenes in here including one famous one with Sharon Stone giving a glimpse of anatomy that usually isn't seen on mainline movies.

The general question of the story is regarding Stone's character "Catherine Trammell." Is "guity of a crime or not guilty? As viewers, we have to guess, and they don't make it easy.

Along with the sex, you get a healthy dose of profanity and gore, too. Needless to say, this is a pretty intense and gritty film. (Many call it sleazy.) To its credit, it's a movie not easily forgotten.

Michael Douglas co-stars as "Det. Nick Curran." In his prime film years, Douglas played in a lot of movies like this, with a lot of sexual stuff and intrigue.

Every character in here is a rough-edged one, which is typical of a Paul Verhoeven-directed film. It may be his best movie (but I don't think much of him).

It was interesting to see Dorthy Malone once again, even if it was just a cameo appearance. The 1950s movie star still looked pretty good to me!

Classic Verhoeven outrageousness.

[BA_Harrison · 8/10 · 30 September 2012]

Despite being built around the most 'basic' of plots, erotic thriller Basic Instinct remains director Paul Verhoeven's biggest commercial success, being one of the highest grossing titles of 1992. Unperturbed by the protestations of gay activists and uptight censor-happy moralists, who objected to the film's provocative cocktail of graphic sex and violence and its portrayal of bisexuals as crazed killers, the general public flocked to the cinema to revel in Verhoeven's heady concoction of wanton lust and cold-blooded violence.

Written by Joe Eszterhas of Flashdance fame, the script is slick Hollywood nonsense, a flashy, trashy, twisting, turning tale clearly inspired by Hitchcock and the film-noir genre. Frequently teetering on the brink of preposterousness, its is precisely the kind of far-fetched nonsense that only a true maverick like Verhoeven could do justice to—and boy, does he pull out all the stops here...

Never one to do things by halves, the Dutch director opens his film as he means to go on, with a brutal murder that takes place during intercourse, a physically flawless blonde viciously stabbing her lover to death with an ice-pick. Scorching sex combined with gut churning nastiness, it's a real shocker (use the freeze-frame check out the outrageous shot of the pick going through the victim's nose!!!) and a clear indicator that this is to be no run-of-the-mill Hollywood thriller.

The remainder of the film follows troubled detective Nick Curran (Michae Douglas) as he investigates the murder, stupidly becoming involved with his prime suspect, scorching hot, super intelligent, highly manipulative crime novelist Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone), who may or may not be lining him up as her latest victim. Cue plenty more raunchy, near the knuckle nookie (including some rough rumpy-pumpy with the very sexy Jeanne 'gives me the' Tripplehorn), a few more gruesome deaths, a smidgen of exciting, pulse-pounding action, and the film's infamous blink-and-you'll miss-it shot of Stone's kebab as she uncrosses her legs during a police interview, all of which adds up to a whole heap of unmissable, jaw-dropping, eye-opening, big budget fun the likes of which we might never see again (unless Verhoeven can get Hollywood to forget all about Showgirls).

"What are you gonna do? Charge me with smoking?" (charge her! charge her!)

[moonspinner55 · 5/10 · 4 June 2006]

Sharon Stone struggled in supporting roles in mostly unsatisfactory movies for years before she became an "overnight sensation" in director Paul Verhoeven's rather inelegant crime-drama. Contrived plot about a brazen, bisexual novelist who may have committed murder isn't particularly witty or clever or fresh, but it takes sexual matters head-on, and this managed to titillate a lot of viewers. Michael Douglas is the police detective who is drawn to Stone's writer despite or because of her scary straightforwardness, but we never get a sense of him as a character: is this hard-working guy (with an amazing amount of free time at his disposal) so benumbed by his profession that it takes a she-demon like Stone to turn him on? If so, wouldn't this affect his relationships with other women? (colleague Jeanne Tripplehorn seems not to notice). Stone's bisexuality is just window-dressing, as are the sex scenes themselves, mainly because the story itself isn't fully fleshed out (it resorts to the hoariest of clichés, like dragging out the protagonist's college graduation photos!). Verhoeven's direction is predictably wired but not especially tantalizing--the film plays like sub-Adrian Lyne--and the film's high budget doesn't account for the depressingly flat look of the picture, including pulpy-cartoon set-ups and lighting that seem to invite unwelcomed laughs. The whole film is a tacky titter. ** from ****

Unusually good psychological thriller, cop and author cat-N-mouse.

[TxMike · 31 July 2001]

Sept 2013 edit: Just saw it again, holds up well, excellent thriller!

June 2018 edit: Watched it again, sad to recall that Daniel Von Bargen died since my most prior viewing.

SPOILERS -- "Basic Instinct" is one of those films that stands the test of time. I saw it 9 years ago, and again last week, and even though I knew the outcome I still found the whole movie engrossing. Why? Because it is a study of the basic human nature that Quality guru Phil Crosby explained 30 years ago -- "People are not complex. They just want to achieve their personal definition of peace and quiet and to have their own sweet way. Their patterns of behavior are as repetitious as their conversations." (From "The Art of Getting Your Own Sweet Way", second edition, Philip B. Crosby, McGraw-Hill Book Company.)

Nick (Michael Douglas) is a good cop who has been in trouble, and has given up smoking and drinking to help and, along with his therapy, hopes to get back on the straight and narrow. But, under stress, he reverts to his old patterns of behavior. Daniel von Bargen plays Lt. Marty Nilsen, who razzes Nick, off-duty in the local bar, about to start drinking again with his "double Black Jack."

Catherine (Sharon Stone) is a bad person with a soft heart. She meticulously sets up her murders by writing about them, then doing the act. The book is the perfect alibi, "Why would I write a book, then commit a murder in the exact same way?" As in the opening scene, where the ice pick she pulls from under the mattress does in her tied up lover. What a surprise that she wrote that book 10 years earlier! Now, she is researching a book about a detective just like Nick, she even tells him she is using him as her "model."

So, we see the cat-and-mouse games the main characters play as the story unfolds. Does Catherine really have feelings for Nick, or is she just coldly setting him up for the next murder? Will Nick and his sidekick piece together all the pieces of the puzzle to indict and convict Catherine? Did she pass the lie-detector test because she is innocent, or because she is such a cold-blooded killer, having "her own sweet way", that she can lie about it with no emotions? The latter, we conclude.

The film ends with a love scene between Nick and Catherine, we see her put her hands on a murder weapon, then hesitate. We are left to figure out their fate. Interestingly, in a recent interview, Stone was asked about that. Her reply - Catherine has to kill Nick. It is in her nature, her "Basic Instinct." There is no other option. Her behavior patterns repeat themselves.

Sharon Stone gives something memorable

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 13 July 2000]

This is a film that had many boys in the early 90's (and probably still today) wondering during the film "where is the hand lotion". But seriously, this film gets a big boost by it's incredible sexuality by it's two female leads (Jeanne Tripplehorn and Sharon Stone) who help the mystery and passion in this thriller about a ice picck killer and the cop trying to track him (or her) down. Very suspensful, as Michael Douglas (who plays the cop) gives one of his best performances along with Sharon Stone's performance (not to mention something that will have everyone sweating even in 32 degree weather). Paul Verhoven brings some great fun, especially in the director's cut which shows a lot more nudity and plot. A

Basic Instinct: Go Back To Psychology 101 **1/2

[edwagreen · 4/10 · 2 July 2011]

The film begins to go down in quality as it becomes a psychological-thriller. This invariably leads to the guessing game phenomenon.

Kudos has to go to Sharon Stone for his outrageously wonderful performance as a sex starved woman who you really can't make out. As devious and obnoxious as they come, she is a teaser in every sense of the word.

Stone is equally matched by Michael Douglas, the frustrated cop, whose life becomes quite adversely affected when he gets to know Stone.

Jean Tripplehorn stars as a psychologist with her own private agenda.

As the bodies pile up, the film falls into a state of confusion. You need a good therapist for this one.

Michael Douglas Turns to Sharon Stone

[wes-connors · 6/10 · 22 July 2010]

Trigger-happy detective Michael Douglas (as Nick "Shooter" Curran) is assigned to investigate the ice pick murder of an ex-"Rock and Roll" star, then finds himself attracted to seductive prime suspect Sharon Stone (as Catherine Tramell). And, it's easy to see why. Introducing herself by slipping into something more comfortable, Ms. Stone likes to smoke while heating up the police station by letting interrogating detectives see she doesn't wear panties. This scene is early, but short, so have one of your hands on the "replay" and "pause" buttons. "Basis Instinct" is about sadomasochistic sexual desires, so expect violence with your intercourse.

While Stone is sexy, and keeps the movie going with her performance, the story itself is unsatisfying. It's best seen as a teen viewer's coming of age film. Mr. Douglas plays a recovering user of alcohol, cocaine, and tobacco. He seems to handle his vices well. At one point, Douglas gets hit by a car - twice - and shows absolutely no physical side effects. Douglas takes a licking and keeps on ticking. And, his hair looks great. Stone and the film's other women are super-bisexual, hot to trot, and like it rough. Jeanne Tripplehorn and Leilani Sarelle lend firm support. Sexy 1950s star and "Peyton Place" alumni Dorothy Malone has a nicely placed cameo.

****** Basic Instinct (3/20/92) Paul Verhoeven ~ Michael Douglas, Sharon Stone, George Dzundza, Jeanne Tripplehorn

Hot, erotic murder mystery.

[michaelRokeefe · 8/10 · 8 April 2000]

Michael Douglas plays a San Fransico cop investigating an ice-pick murder. The prime suspect is Sharon Stone, who plays a popular writer that has just written a novel describing a similar murder. The meeting of the two is combustible.

Douglas plays the part assuredly. But sly as a fox is the fox herself; Miss Stone steals every scene she is in. The famous interrogation scene teaches you how to use the reverse button and freeze frame.

Alfred Hitchcock would have been proud of this thriller.

Sensually creepy

[Calicodreamin · 7/10 · 8 October 2020]

Certainly a niche film genre, both sensual and creepy. The acting is superb, the storyline captivating, and with a definite wow factor (which can sometimes go either way).

I'd have to be pretty stupid to write a book about killing and then kill him the way I described in my book. I'd be announcing myself as the killer. I'm not stupid.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 12 December 2012]

Basic Instinct is directed by Paul Verhoeven and written by Joe Eszterhaz. It stars Michael Douglas, Sharon Stone, George Dzundza, Jeanne Tripplehorn, Denis Arndt and Leilani Sarelle. Music is scored by Jerry Goldsmith and cinematography by Jan de Bont.

Nick Curran (Douglas) of the SFPD is strung out and under investigation by Internal Affairs, last thing he needs is to be drawn into a dangerous relationship with a sex crazed blonde who may be a murderess...

Time hasn't been kind to Verhoeven's soft-core porn thriller, where once was shock and awe killings (the film opening with a brutal mini ice-pick murder), steamy love scenes and a famed and controversial crotch shot, now is ludicrous orgasms, iffy effects and Michael Douglas' unappetising ass! Hell there was even protests during the film's initial theatre run as the gay community went up in arms about the portrayal of bisexuals possibly being mad murderers?

Yet for all of its taming over the years, Basic Instinct can at least now been seen as the hugely efficient mystery thriller that it is, one that is propelled by some very good performances by the principal actors. The strength in the story is not in the sex or blood, but in the character arcs of Nick Curran and Catherine Tramell (Stone). Curran is a man perched on the edge of doom who is controlled totally by the women around him. He is by definition a quintessential film noir protagonist, in so deep he ultimately will be resigned to his fate. Catharine Tramell is a ultimate femme fatale, beautiful and seductive, she's always in control, leading all male characters where she wants them to go. There's a delicious kink to the narrative, with Verhoeven gleefully pulling the strings, a smirk no doubt etched onto his face.

This is very good story telling, with a plot of substantial twists and turns. True, it does carry some soft-core baggage that can steer the restless away from the character strengths within, but for the neo-noir crowd there is much to enjoy here. 7.5/10