User reviews

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

Basic Instinct is a very stylish murder mystery, filled with attractive people and ambiguous clues that keep the viewer guessing until the final scene.

As has been mentioned, there are echoes of Hitchcock's Vertigo throughout the film, including the San Francisco setting, the attire of the female lead (Catherine, played by Sharon Stone), the styling of her hair, the background music, the shots of interior stairwells, and the lead character (Nick, played by Michael Douglas) following Catherine around the city in his car. The apartment of Beth (played by Jeanne Trippehorn) might also remind one of Rear Window.

Many of the characters have emotional/psychological problems like addiction, dependency, or worse. This makes it more difficult for the viewer to determine the motivations of the suspects. Nick--the filter through which we see all evidence--is flawed. We learn that he has had problems with cocaine and alcohol. Sexually, he is ripe for exploration and, maybe, manipulation.

The film walks a fine line between revelation and obfuscation. In the course of the story, murders are committed, and we are given just enough information to pull us deeper into the mystery, but not enough to reveal the truth. Even the ending leaves the future ambiguous.

This is an excellent mystery for the nineties. The acting is excellent, especially that of Sharon Stone who plays the rabbit we gladly follow down the rabbit hole where the rules of the game are confusing and constantly changing.

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.

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.

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.

Detective Nick Curran investigates a brutal and violent murder, his investigations lead him to the beautiful novelist Catherine Tremell, a writer of erotic novels, Curran quickly develops an infatuation for Tremell.

I always considered this to be a Hitchcock style film, but now that I'm working my way through his catalogue I'm not too sure, although it does put me in mind of the noir films from the 40's.

It's a super sexy thriller, and let's be honest, the infamous sex scenes have this film a lot more notoriety than it ultimately deserved, it's a good film, but in no way is it a classic.

It has a degree of suspense and tension, you are made to wait a long time to learn if she did or didn't, and the big reveal scene is worth the wait, and perhaps the film's best scene.

Douglas and Stone are both very good, and there's a definite chemistry between the pair, it is one very attractive cast, Stone is genuinely jaw dropping throughout.

It is hard to watch this movie without thinking of the many spoofs that followed, that infamous interview scene was sent up several times, and rightly so.

Considering it's now over thirty years old, I'd suggest it's held up rather well.

7/10.

Basic Instinct is a film that you have to see from beginning to end. No cheating by watching a muddle of free clips online. You need to show some respect to the artists - what you ought to be doing all the time - and immerse yourself in the performance, from its sensational and shocking opening scene right through to the final, woah! Image before the credits roll.

The movie is set in San Francisco, with a richly romantic, melodically menacing score by Jerry Goldsmith, and a crackerjack script from Joe Eszterhas that is lurid and lubricious and lascivious. We are in a kind of fusion of Hitchcockian suspense, film noir machination and permissive age eroticism. Basic Instinct is a hot cocktail chilled by stabbed blocks of ice, mixing kinky sex, murder, potboiler literature, psychopathy and manipulation, bi-curiousness, unethical behaviour and murky pasts brought into sharper focus.

Ok, maybe its more of a toxic punch than a cocktail, but the kick it gives you is simply yeeehaaa!

Only a European director would have had the stones to make a film like Basic Instinct in North America. Never has there been such a potent collision of bloody violence and explosive sex as in this movie, and although it spawned various imitators, a short-lived fad for erotic thrillers in the mainstream, none can compare to this one. I haven't seen Basic Instinct 2, made ages after after the original, but reportedly it's entertainingly excruciating.

This movie is the zenith of Sharon Stone's career. She did some so-so, some pretty good projects afterwards, but everything she had done up until 1992 was leading towards this, her signature role. And she is phenomenal in the part. There is a combustible sexual tension between her and Michael Douglas which no viewer can fail to recognise. They get excellent support from the other actors, but this movie is all about them, about two characters, dangerous people, who are fatefully drawn to one another. To see something as hot as this you would have to, yes, go over the water to Europe, and watch Almadóvar's movie Matador. The couple in Matador and the Basic Instinct principals could vacation together very cheerfully.

The movie was controversial in its day, which naturally only served to make it massively popular. Here's hoping nobody in Hollywoodland decides to remake it for a fragile 21st century mentality. Can you imagine what would transpire?

A dark drama of lust and devious, diabolical game-playing, one from which no-on escapes untouched. You'll never look at silk scarves the same way.

Initially, this pulpy erotic-thriller seems schlocky in a rather distracting sort of way, content with shocking its audience simply for the sake of it. However, as 'Basic Instinct (1992)' moves further and further into its twisty narrative, it starts to feel like a dollar-store paperback and it becomes oddly compelling in its own way. The dialogue isn't especially clever but, once everything has clicked together, it just sort of works. The mystery at the heart of the piece is, essentially, revealed very early on, but the movie does a good job of introducing doubt into the fray; its outcome isn't as obvious as it may initially appear. Unfortunately, the film is one shot too long. This final moment removes any sense of ambiguity, something that would have made the ending - and, even, the entire affair in retrospect - actually rather interesting. Still, the experience concludes in a fairly satisfying way. In the end, the picture is entertaining despite its flaws. 7/10

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.

This film had me laughing quite often. I really don't think I've ever seen a film in which the cops were portrayed like such complete morons. Realistic cops would have chewed up and spat out Sharon Stone's idiotic character in a second.

Unless you just have to see Sharon Stone nude, don't waste your time with this garbage. Go rent Fargo and see how an intelligent depiction of a murder investigation can be done.

Michael Douglas plays San Francisco detective Nick Curran, who is investigating the brutal icepick murder of rock star Johnny Boz, which leads him to his girlfriend, novelist Catherine Tramell(Sharon Stone, unforgettable) Nick, though suspicious of Catherine, is nonetheless attracted to her brazen sensuality, and they begin a torrid affair, even though more murders pile up, and Catherine proves to be quite manipulative and intelligent...is she guilty? Controversial film directed by Paul Verhoeven is never boring, though normally having no one in the story to root for would be a problem, film is so slickly made and in-your-face that it may be the epitome of the guilty pleasure; trashy yet enjoyable. Both lead actors are excellent though, even if the mystery is never satisfactorily resolved.

For those of you that were too young to see this when it first came out you must see this before you kick the bucket as they say. Keep in mind that this film is 50 percent nudity and 50 percent suspense. So don't watch it with your parents and definitely don't let your grandmother watch it. Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone make a great protagonist and antagonist respectively. It also helps that Sharon Stone looks her best. The movie is full of twists and suspense and a who done it all the way through to the end. This movie is twenty years old now and can still hold water to any thriller released today. I cant speak to the sequel "Basic Instinct 2," as I have yet to see it but I plan on checking it out in the near future.

At the time, Basic Instinct was considered shocking and new. In retrospect, in a world where much harder pornography is so commonplace, it's not got much sex appeal going for it. What I do like is the OTT game of cat and mouse between Stone and Douglas.

Catherine Tramell is a writer of sleazy novels who lives out her pulp trash after she's written it. This would be fine if she wrote about saving the children or building churches but Tramell writes about sex, murder and betrayal. She's accused of murdering her Rock-star boyfriend by icepicking his head 86-times during a massive shagathon. She feels no guilt and no sadness and Detective Nick Curran regards her with utmost suspicion even though she passed a lie-detector test.

Determined to find the truth among Catherine Tramell's web of pork-pies, Curran falls into her world of sin and seduction. Already a bad cop well on the way to cleaning up his act, all of his nasty habits come flooding back to him. The drinking, the snorting, the smoking...all because of a blonde. I would be impervious to this.

In fact, Jeanne Triplehorn, who plays Curran's psychiatrist, is a billion times more sexy than Sharon Stone. Especially when she wears her glasses. But that's just my thing.

One can accuse Basic Instinct of being contrived, overly-complicated and over-plotted but they'd be missing the point. I do feel that the irony of gutter-level fiction becoming real within gutter-level fiction would have been more appropriate and perhaps louder if Basic Instinct were a book, but as a movie it makes its point despite the high level tawdriness that most audiences are going think is all the film has to offer.

Paul Verhoeven takes a Hitchcockian approach to the material as there are already a few connections to Vertigo. At one point in the film, Sharon Stone even dresses up in an outfit identical to Kim Novak (hairstyle and all). You can't help but notice the sleaze sometimes though. Like Michael Douglas walking around a nightclub in a horrible V-neck sweater or the 'infamous' leg-crossing scene with is only really notable for its unsubtlety.

There are also some parts of the film which kind of date it badly. The production design and fashion is sooo early 90s. It's not the kind of story that oozes class but the outdated look kinda distracts. But the one amazing thing Basic Instinct has going for it is Jerry Goldsmith's wonderfully haunting score. Truly one of his best in the latter part of his career.

Add it all up and Basic Instinct is wildly inconsistent in terms of quality but the sheer OTT nature of plot is enough to keep it afloat. And all these years later, when we have mostly become impervious to titillation, people still remember all the skanky publicity and the aroma of sleaze will never quite die away. See past all that and you'll find a clever thriller underneath.

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.

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. ****

This was an interesting film. A bold, and daring piece from a European's directorial perspective. Although there is an interesting, enticing and creative premise of a story that lies within this film, that does not go without saying that there was a bit too much sex. From the opening scene until the very end, we see naked breasts, buttocks, and even some female genitalia. It leaves you feeling a little dirty, being inside this character's world, seeing what she goes through, during the entirety of the film.

Sharon Stone and Michael Douglas star in 'Basic Instinct', which should tell you right away what their basic instincts are. A man is dead. He has been stabbed to death during intercourse with an ice pick. The culprit, a beautiful blonde, whom we suspect is Cathryn (Stone). However, throughout the entire film, we are never really sure or clear 'who done it'. The story is well-written, and keeps you guessing, wondering if it was Cathryn, or if we are just led to believe that.

I would say that since Michael Douglas, usually just stars in films, and never actually acts, this was a good role for him, because he just needed to show up for shooting. However, Sharon Stone, was excellent, and quite possibly the best role and work she's ever done in any film. The role really was made for her, and it shouldn't even need to be said, that she was absolutely stunning in the movie.

Jeannie Tripplehorn, was also in the film, and was the not only the most beautiful I've ever seen her, but also the most noteworthy. She, aside from Stone, was probably the best actress on set. It's a shame she hasn't become more popular than she has. She is a very talented woman, and should be noted on her work. Especially in this piece.

It's not the best movie I've ever seen, but it's good. It does keep you guessing, which is something I like about a movie, nothing too predictable. However, it can be slow at points, and is nothing compared to, 'Fatal Atrraction', which is the best Douglas film ever. However, if you like watching stars have sex throughout half the film, and like watching people get murdered, then you just might like it.

You know a movie achieves its objective when you think that a character is sexier than the person that plays her. That is exactly what Catherine Tremell does. She exudes sex and that is exactly her game. She knows that she can play with people's minds by using her beauty and her sex appeal. And she does it so well.

The epitome of this is the interrogation scene. Much has been made about nudity in film but this is one of those movies where every breast and every shot of someone's crotch is done so to further the plot. The famous scene that we have all witnessed now is a major part of Tremell's M.O. She knows there are a room full of men asking her questions and she uses that sexuality to play with them. And it works.

The cast and the script and the direction are top notch and the movie feels like it is one big game. And Catherine Tremell is the ultimate game master. I really loved this film and I rate it a perfect ten.

Let's face it, fellas (and, yes, lesbians, too) - Once you've watched Miss Sharon Stone's famous leg-crossing scene - Is there really any other reason for sitting through the remainder of this over-hyped and underwhelming mess of dirty laundry to the bitter end? Well, is there?

If you ask me - Basic Instinct is the sort of film that demands that the viewer believe that they are actually watching a intensely penetrating psychological-thriller, when, in reality, what they are seeing is a story that is about as shallow and predictable as you could possibly get.

Here are 2 things that really irked me right off about Basic Instinct - (1) The on-screen chemistry between Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone totally sucked, big-time. It really did! (2) The unbelievably annoying in-fighting that took place amongst the big-wigs of San Francisco's police department. Man, these guys and gals were at each other's throats, non-stop!

And, finally - I found Basic Instinct's 2-hour/10-minute running time to be almost unbearable to sit through. This film's budget was $50 million.