BASIC INSTINCT is a difficult movie to write about, for me. Those of you who have been kind enough to read my reviews in the past know that I have often complained about the treatment of gay people in Hollywood movies, which seldom depict us as other than victims or maniacs. Paul Verhoeven (ROBOCOP, TOTAL RECALL, SPETTERS, FLESH & BLOOD, THE FOURTH MAN) and his newest movie are under a very vocal, high profile attack by gay, bi, and women's groups. And I'm not at all sure where I want to come down in this dispute now that I've actually seen the film.
Basically, there isn't that much here to review and the importance of the film is far outweighed by the activities of its detractors, who unfortunately are going to sell a lot of tickets for TriStar by making BASIC INSTINCT a news story. The film is gripping and involving to a degree whilst one is actually watching it, but once out of the theater one is struck by how little there was to it, by the egregious holes and murkiness in the plot, and by the superficiality of the film. I don't feel that trash is important enough to make a cause celebre out of, and this is a very trashy divertisement.
It has its moments, no matter how fleeting. For the afficionado of the aging, flattening male butt, there's a nude scene involving Michael Douglas. There's a delightful guest appearance by Dorothy Malone, looking well groomed, if not a little craggy. And most importantly, there is Sharon Stone, who is kind of like a Madonna who can act. She's aggressively sexual, stylish, hip, mocking, and smart. Ironically, her character, one that is attracting a lot of the protest energy, is the best defense of the movie's intentions (as non-homophobic); her bisexuality is unapologetic, taken for granted, and celebrated as a strength.
Michael Douglas's character, a troubled San Francisco homicide detective, is not particularly attractive or a very compelling apologia for heterosexuality, by contrast. He pretty much rapes his ex-lover (Jeanne Tripplehorn, who makes an interesting performance herself); he makes a really sleazy, homophobic remark to the Stone character's lesbian lover; he's basically a loose cannon, a bad cop, and not a very nice person. Douglas does all this with his usual delivery. Indeed, he is largely repeating his role in FATAL ATTRACTION, right down to his I'm-so-hot-I-can't-be-denied, love-making attack.
BASIC INSTINCT is like cotton candy. Touch it and it melts. Try to make sense of the plot, you cannot. It works only as long as you're in the dark in its compulsive clutches. Oh, it looks very good; Jan de Bont, Verhoeven's cinematographer, delivers a very attractive look. And Jerry Goldsmith's music is fine. But it's all surfaces, a thriller that cannot stand the light of day.
I cannot recommend BASIC INSTINCT to you; not because its sexual politics are held to be controversial by some of my brothers and sisters, but because it is not a very good movie. If you must see it, to find out what all the hubbub is about, go to a cheap matinee.
By : Frank Maloney
Source: rec.art.movies.reviews newsgroup
Rating: 4
(By the way, if you find that the use of the word "fuck" is offensive, then don't read this review of BASIC INSTINCT. I use that word liberally, because it proves to be effective for what I to say to the rather contemporary audience that reads this newsgroup. I think that "fuck" is the key word for this movie; you'll agree if you've seen it. 8^) )
Spoilers: This review of BASIC INSTINCT departs from the traditional type of review; I shall delve much more into the psyche of the movie. The entire movie is a ~100-minute mind game among three main characters who are mind-fucking each other. The sex fucks are only part of the story.
Nick ---- He is the protagonist who's had something eating at him for years. Earlier in his career, he had been consuming coke, which was ruining his judgment as a police office. His lapses in judgment caused him to shoot 4 tourists at a shopping mall. His wife knew about his problem, couldn't live with it, and committed suicide.
Ever since, he has been like a man with a restless mind that cannot pause for even a second. The restlessness just eats him and eats him. He wants to relax but can't. The pressures don't destroy him or cause him to "crack", but they eat at him and eat at him. Whether by his doing or by the circumstances of life, he's been fucked.
Katharine --------- She is the antagonist. She enjoys playing mind games. She enjoys fucking people--men and women. Her career is to get into people's minds, manipulate people to obtain what she wants, and to spew it all out into a novel. The main mindgame in the movie was framing Elizabeth with the murders.
Yeah. She's the antagonist, but she is just what Nick needs. Somehow, her mindgames provide the kind of excitement that functions as a valve to release all the pressures in Nick's mind. In the sex scene involving Elizabeth, Nick was trying like all "hell broke loose" to use the sex with her to release his mental pressures, but he was not successful.
Don't you see? It takes a little more than sex. It takes Katharine's mind games to make it work. When Katharine fucks Nick's mind, Nick will try to fuck her back. Nick knows that even if he can't fuck her back on her level, he'll get to fuck her using the old standby--the sexual fuck. He always has the last fuck, so he thinks that he "wins" (the mindgame contest). That provides the release for all his mental pressures.
The trouble with Elizabeth is that she just provided the "win." Katharine provided the both the "game" (the mindgame) and the "win."
Elizabeth --------- Elizabeth was a tragic victim. She was a bisexual, and so was Katharine. She wasn't really playing a full-blown mind game; she was just lying to hide her background. The obvious reason is that she would lose her job as the resident police psychologist.
(If I understood the movie correctly, Katharine framed Elizabeth. Katharine planted the pictures and clippings in Elizabeth's home. The minor "give away" is the murder scene in the elevator, which matched exactly the description in the final page of Katharine's latest book about a flaky policeman. The major "give away" is the final shot in the movie with the ice pick at the bottom of Nick's bed, where Nick had just done another "mental release" with Katharine.)
Final Comments -------------- I find it difficult to evaluate whether this movie is enjoyable in the general sense. The movie isn't very deep, and there is no general theme to it. It says nothing about society. Some people will simply not like this movie because of the lack of depth. Does "mind-gaming" demonstrate "depth"? I'm not so sure.
The type of person who would enjoy this movie might be (1) someone who understands mindgames, (2) someone who resembles Nick 8^), (3) someone who practices mindgames, etc.
Evaluation ---------- So, what would I give this movie? Funny, I'm not even sure why, but ...
