NOTE IMDb
4,6/10
17 k
MA NOTE
Un avocat défend une femme accusée d'avoir tué son amant plus âgé en ayant des relations sexuelles avec lui.Un avocat défend une femme accusée d'avoir tué son amant plus âgé en ayant des relations sexuelles avec lui.Un avocat défend une femme accusée d'avoir tué son amant plus âgé en ayant des relations sexuelles avec lui.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 victoire et 8 nominations au total
Avis à la une
Body of Evidence: 7 out of 10: A woman is on trial for seducing men to death. Will her lawyer get her off? Will she get him off? Stay tuned for the drama both inside and outside of the courtroom.
The case for the Prosecution:
Exhibit A: The courtroom scenes: AKA half the bloody movie. Body of Evidence is often considered an erotic thriller. However, it spends an amazing amount of time in the courtroom. Now courtroom scenes can work in thrillers (see 1990's Presumed Innocent), but they should be to the point and thrilling. The scenes here are pointless with half a dozen side characters introduced and then forgotten. It never feels like a real trial. The judge allows so many shenanigans that she makes Judge Ito look like Judge Judy.
Exhibit B: William Defoe: I genuinely like William Defoe. But as the lead character in an erotic thriller? As Weird Al Yankovic wrote about Mr. Defoe in his song "Ode To A Superhero"
And he's ridin' around on that glider thing And he's throwin' that weird pumpkin bomb Yes, he's wearin' that dumb Power Rangers mask But he's scarier without it on
Now If William Defoe switched roles with Joe Mantegna as the prosecutor that might have worked a lot better. Both are wonderful charismatic actors but nobody wants to see William Defoe's O face.
Exhibit C: Madonna: Madonna makes bad movies. This is a Madonna movie. Hence this is a bad movie. Prosecution rests.
The prosecution is feeling a bit overconfident there and rested their case without mentioning Anne Archer's performance or the horrifying screenplay.
The Defense:
Exhibit A: Madonna: In 1992 naked Madonna was everywhere. People were buying $50 coffee books that consisted if nothing but pictures of her naked while hitchhiking. (This is true ask your cool aunt). As Rosie O'Donnell said to her in A League of Their Own. "You think there are men in this country who ain't seen your bosoms?" What a difference twenty-six years makes. We are not inundated with Madonna nowadays (naked or otherwise) so she seems fresh again. Also, she really isn't bad in this movie considering the lines she is given. She certainly gives a better performance than Anne Archer.
Exhibit B: Erotic Thrillers: Erotic thrillers enjoyed a moment between Basic Instinct and Showgirls. We really don't see them like these anymore and haven't for a long time. There were a lot of them in that time period (Heck there were two with Billy Baldwin for God's sake) So we often will revisit the lesser known ones for some nostalgia much like future generations will watch Ant-Man and muse how they don't make Superhero movies anymore.
Exhibit C: That one scene you forgot was in the movie: The defense is wheeling out a TV and DVD player. Looks like they are going to show a clip. The overconfident prosecution doesn't object. Is that a young naked Julianne Moore? Wow, that sex scene is so intense. Where did that come from and how did Madonna allow herself to be upstaged.
The Verdict: In 2018 the defense wins. Time has been kind to this movie. I certainly understand the panning this received when it hit the local cineplex in 1992. For one thing, Madonna and Julianne Moore fighting over William Defoe sounds like a mental patient's fan fiction. For another, this is a Netflix and chill movie, not something you want to see in a theater filled with suburban housewives and Paul Reubens. It is both as bad as you remember it but somehow endlessly entertaining.
The case for the Prosecution:
Exhibit A: The courtroom scenes: AKA half the bloody movie. Body of Evidence is often considered an erotic thriller. However, it spends an amazing amount of time in the courtroom. Now courtroom scenes can work in thrillers (see 1990's Presumed Innocent), but they should be to the point and thrilling. The scenes here are pointless with half a dozen side characters introduced and then forgotten. It never feels like a real trial. The judge allows so many shenanigans that she makes Judge Ito look like Judge Judy.
Exhibit B: William Defoe: I genuinely like William Defoe. But as the lead character in an erotic thriller? As Weird Al Yankovic wrote about Mr. Defoe in his song "Ode To A Superhero"
And he's ridin' around on that glider thing And he's throwin' that weird pumpkin bomb Yes, he's wearin' that dumb Power Rangers mask But he's scarier without it on
Now If William Defoe switched roles with Joe Mantegna as the prosecutor that might have worked a lot better. Both are wonderful charismatic actors but nobody wants to see William Defoe's O face.
Exhibit C: Madonna: Madonna makes bad movies. This is a Madonna movie. Hence this is a bad movie. Prosecution rests.
The prosecution is feeling a bit overconfident there and rested their case without mentioning Anne Archer's performance or the horrifying screenplay.
The Defense:
Exhibit A: Madonna: In 1992 naked Madonna was everywhere. People were buying $50 coffee books that consisted if nothing but pictures of her naked while hitchhiking. (This is true ask your cool aunt). As Rosie O'Donnell said to her in A League of Their Own. "You think there are men in this country who ain't seen your bosoms?" What a difference twenty-six years makes. We are not inundated with Madonna nowadays (naked or otherwise) so she seems fresh again. Also, she really isn't bad in this movie considering the lines she is given. She certainly gives a better performance than Anne Archer.
Exhibit B: Erotic Thrillers: Erotic thrillers enjoyed a moment between Basic Instinct and Showgirls. We really don't see them like these anymore and haven't for a long time. There were a lot of them in that time period (Heck there were two with Billy Baldwin for God's sake) So we often will revisit the lesser known ones for some nostalgia much like future generations will watch Ant-Man and muse how they don't make Superhero movies anymore.
Exhibit C: That one scene you forgot was in the movie: The defense is wheeling out a TV and DVD player. Looks like they are going to show a clip. The overconfident prosecution doesn't object. Is that a young naked Julianne Moore? Wow, that sex scene is so intense. Where did that come from and how did Madonna allow herself to be upstaged.
The Verdict: In 2018 the defense wins. Time has been kind to this movie. I certainly understand the panning this received when it hit the local cineplex in 1992. For one thing, Madonna and Julianne Moore fighting over William Defoe sounds like a mental patient's fan fiction. For another, this is a Netflix and chill movie, not something you want to see in a theater filled with suburban housewives and Paul Reubens. It is both as bad as you remember it but somehow endlessly entertaining.
Certainly not a great film, but not as bad as it has been made out to be. Madonna's acting is OK, and I suspect the "woodenness" of her performance was largely what the director wanted. Her character's passion was limited to the bedroom (and elevator, and stairs, and parking garage, etc.) and never extended to her daily life. And, by the way, I had forgotten how pretty she could be back then. Anne Archer looked awfully good as well, even while being weepy and not completely hinged. The rest of the cast put in good work, with a special commendation for Julianne Moore. Frank Langella was suitably creepy, and Joe Mantegna suitably industrious. Some of the dialog didn't completely work, but if you watch this without preconceptions, you'll find it OK.
I couldn't tell you the plot of this movie. Actually, I don't know if this movie had a plot. What I do know is that Madonna is in it and boy or boy, is she ever. Another courtroom drama without the drama, the only reason one will watch this movie is Madonna. The passion between Dafoe and Madonna is the only thing worth watching. That and the nudity and strong sexual acts, Body of Evidence is a left over movie stolen from the Basic Instinct genre. The courtroom and crime scenes is just background to what the movie is, Madonna in the bedroom.
Really don't get why this film got such bad reviews. It's an okay thriller, nothing mind blowing but decent enough for a watch. And Madonna is hot af in it!
Remember this coming on late one night when I was flicking through the channels as a teenage boy, was like striking gold. So it gets an extra star for that 🌟 Personally I prefer it over Basic Instinct which it's often compared to. Just found it more interesting for some reason , and Madonna was a better seductress. Which is what the movies are mainly about really.
And the cast was actually better too. Frank Langella and Julian Moore in supporting roles!
Remember this coming on late one night when I was flicking through the channels as a teenage boy, was like striking gold. So it gets an extra star for that 🌟 Personally I prefer it over Basic Instinct which it's often compared to. Just found it more interesting for some reason , and Madonna was a better seductress. Which is what the movies are mainly about really.
And the cast was actually better too. Frank Langella and Julian Moore in supporting roles!
Who cares if 'Body of Evidence' is a so-called 'Basic Instincts' rip-off, and the plot is a bit bogus? It's escapism, so I say to all the critics just chill a bit and lay off this movie. Madonna is simply stunning in it and as an enormous fan of hers [practically in anything she endeavours], I cannot believe it took me until 2001 to watch this movie. I guess I was sucked in to believe it was worst than it actually turned out to be. I can say that, whilst this movie is not Oscar-material, it was enjoyable, sexy and intriguing. Why people take it so seriously is beyond me. I firmly believe it was too harshly criticised. I was pleasently surprised. Sure, Madonna has a long way to go before she is considered a serious actress and perfects her craft, but she fit perfectly into this femme-fatal role and is very convincing. She is a better actress than people give her credit for!
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesIn a radio interview with Sway Calloway, Willem Dafoe confirmed that the scene in the parking garage is genuine, no body doubles were used.
- GaffesA detective states that the reason the police called the District Attorney is because the victim, Andrew Marsh, was handcuffed at the time of death. However, in the opening scene it is obvious that the dead man is not handcuffed. Moreover, if he were, it would almost conclusively prove Rebecca's guilt - if she did not kill him, she would have untied him before leaving. And despite this supposedly being the sole reason for Rebecca's arrest and prosecution, whether the deceased was or wasn't handcuffed at the time of his death is never mentioned again, by anybody.
- Citations
Rebecca Carlson: All we did was make love.
Frank Dulaney: In handcuffs.
Rebecca Carlson: It was different, but it was still making love. Have you ever seen animals make love, Frank? It's intense. It's violent. But they never really hurt each other.
Frank Dulaney: We're not animals.
Rebecca Carlson: Yes, we are.
- Versions alternativesThree versions of this movie have been released: an R-rated theatrical version, a NC-17 version and an unrated video version. European release is the NC-17 cut.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Siskel & Ebert & the Movies: Memo to the Academy - 1993 (1993)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Body of Evidence?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- El cuerpo del delito
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 30 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 13 273 595 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 7 365 429 $US
- 18 janv. 1993
- Montant brut mondial
- 13 273 595 $US
- Durée1 heure 39 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
