BASIC INSTINCT
A film review by Ken Johnson
Copyright 1992 Ken Johnson
130 min., R, Mystery, 1992 Director: Paul Verhoeven Cast: Michael Douglas, Sharon Stone, Jeanne Tripplehorn, George Dzundza, Bruce A. Young, Stephen Tobolowsky
A retired rockstar is found dead, stabbed multiple times with an ice pick, after having sexual intercourse. The only suspect that the police can come up with is Sharon Stone, the rockstar's lover (not girlfriend). When the police bring her in for questioning her alibi is that about six months before she had published a book that described the killing exactly the way it happened. Cop Michael Douglas feels that Stone did the killing and is intent on proving it. He finds out right after he starts his investigation that Stone is writing another book, about a cop that falls for the wrong woman. As Douglas does his investigation, Stone starts playing with him and messing with his head.
For the most part BASIC INSTINCT is a very enjoyable film to watch. Because of a few problems that I will describe later, I only suggest that you go to see BASIC INSTINCT for matinee prices. BASIC INSTINCT keeps you guessing the entire time that you are watching the film. It introduces two characters that might have done the deed, and I found myself switching my suspicion back and forth as the film went on. On a scale of zero to five, I give BASIC INSTINCT a four. BASIC INSTINCT is rated R for female nudity, graphic violence, explicit language, adult situations, and adult humor.
Recently, some people have been slamming this film, but I don't think that it is really that bad. Sure, it has its problems, but while watching the film you don't realize most of them. The film runs along rather smoothly (except for the fact that the projectionist messed up and I ended up with a ten-minute intermission in the middle of the film while the mistake was being corrected) except for the very end. There the film almost falls apart and becomes muddled and confusing. For this reason that I suggest that you go to a matinee performance, and that way you won't feel cheated after seeing the end.
There are some plot problems as the film progresses, but for the most part they are minor ones. The problems really don't harm the viewing of the film. There are also a few things that I wish had been explained more thoroughly that were hinted at during the film, but that doesn't really hinder the film either. For the most part, unless you go to the theater expecting a cinematic marvel, you won't really end up being too disappointed with the final product.
A few of the characters introduced in the film don't really seem to serve a purpose. The character is introduced and then is mostly discarded. I feel that either these characters should have been left out or they should have been added to so that they fit into the film better. Others are introduced briefly, and then used quickly, and then discarded. These characters should have also been better written so that they fit into the film better. It would have made a much cleaner finished product.
Another plot problem is a lot of the incidents that happen in the film are too perfect. Too many things happen at exactly the right time, that in real life would have never happened that perfectly. This really should have been corrected to try to make the film more believable. I know that I have really been ragging on this film and it may sound like I really didn't enjoy the film too much. Actually, I did enjoy the film a lot and am not upset that I went and saw it. The acting in the film is wonderful. Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone don't have as much charisma as they could, but they make do. There are several unexpected twists in the plot that catch you off guard and most of the questions I came up with in the film were answered. For the most part I feel that Paul Verhoeven did a good job directing the film. For most of the scenes good camera angles were used to show you enough so that you know what is happening, but don't show you enough to give away so much that you can tell what is about to happen next.
Joe Eszterhaz wrote the screenplay and he did a rather good job. He could have left out a few of the liberal sex scenes that were scattered through the film and tightened up the ending a bit so that it made more sense. For the slow parts in the film Joe seemed to feel that a solution is a sex scene, which doesn't fix the problem. It just momentarily puts it off, but it comes back later. I feel that if he had smoothed out the screenplay so it wasn't quite as choppy, the film would have been much better. Maybe I am really being hard on the screenplay, but I feel that it is one of the most important parts of a film, so I feel that it should have half a decent effort put into it.
The score by Jerry Goldsmith is very well done. It really seemed to capture me and pull me a bit into the film. It isn't distracting and overpowering so as to pull your attention away from the film, but rather is used to focus you more intensely on some scenes and to prepare you for something to happen. The cinematography is well done in the film and helps make the film more enjoyable.
This is probably not a film that you will want to bring young children to. There is a considerable amount of gratuitous nudity throughout the film, some rather graphic deaths, and some rather coarse language. There has been a lot of controversy over the depiction of lesbians and bisexuals in this film, and I really don't see what all the fuss is about. They don't really put down lesbians or bisexuals. Neither do they state that they all become murderers. So I really don't think that it is worth all the bother that has been given to it.
There is some Hollywood stereotyping done through the film, which was a bit of a downfall for me. The males seem, somehow, superior to all the females in the film, and the females usually use their sex to get what they wanted. This was more of a problem for me than the lesbian part. In some parts of the film it almost totally puts down women by making it look like they have to use their bodies to get what they want. I really don't think that this is fair to women, and some women after seeing the film will be disgusted at the stereotyping.
This is the part that I feel was the biggest put-down in the film. Women have worked to get themselves above exploitation level and then something like this comes along and just puts them down. I really feel that someone should have seen the stereotyping in the film before it was released and had it written out for the most part. The stereotyping, I feel, is more of a degradation to women in general, not just lesbians or bisexuals, but to the entire female population.
So use your discretion on whether to go to a late night performance and pay more. I do think that the film is worth watching even though I came down on the film so hard. It is just that the film has flaws, like any film. And the flaws in this film are much more noticeable after you have seen the film, than in some that I have seen. Some of you might wait until the film comes to video before seeing it. There is nothing that would really be lost on a small screen so there is nothing wrong with this. You should definitely go to see this film though. Whether you see it on video or not is your choice, but it is definitely a good movie and definitely worth seeing.
Ken J. blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews