So, I really love a good horror movie, who doesn’t – a murder mystery way cool too; I dislike those bimbos running aimlessly through some woods with their fake tatas swinging left to right, oh please. Well, you can tell I have a different mindset, so for my first review I’ve chosen this controversial movie of then and likely if released now cause an outrage for different reasons. Face it, it’s got a suave Michael Douglas, I remember him so many classic films Fatal Attraction; The Game; and a total crazy badass in Falling Down, then the sultry and seductive Sharon Stone, who’s character has the intelligence eluding from her. Oh, before I really get into this review, I think I should mention I like going and getting deep perhaps than just reviewing more of analysis, but I promise to make it enticing; though maybe not too gentle; but I think you can handle it… can’t you?

For me, to become involved in a story there needs to have deep character development to pull the story together and comes from the portrayal of the actors and actress, under the control of a director, assisted by screenwriters. This brings up the first part of this film Joe Eszterhas, who took inspiration from music, namely The Rolling Stones (a fav of mine) but he grinded out a script in 10-days, and generated a buzz in Hollywood world soon finding Paul Verhoeven attach to the picture who wanted to resurrected the notorious Hitchcockian style however to the emphasis on ‘erecting’ cause sex and sexual would be the hard-driven aspects for the film’s motivation empowerment submitted under the mystery of murder.  Let me say honestly on a budget of $50-million aiding by all the free press due to the controversial homosexual references it made over $350 million, that fatten many wallets, purses, and bank accounts. This past March of 2022 marked the 30-year anniversary for a movie filled with passion, strong acting, smart characters none of it has lessened in any manner countless years later. When released the film caught protestors attention mainly for the depiction of homosexual characters as it carried over from previous decades in cinema dating way back to Dracula’s Daughter [1936], labeling wrongful as damaged, but the heterosexual character fared no better as they too are offensive and destructive morals, but it’s the double standard that exists, and not clearly represented in critic’s reviews and the film itself.

The opening scene begins with a sexual encounter that some found very objectionable, though frankly I feel that comes a prudish narrow-mindless, I’ll explain. A former rock star Johnny Boz (Bill Cable) is intensely engaged in a sexual indulgence with a beautiful blonde woman, and we the audience don’t see her face; and the only penetration actually witness is (spoiler) an ice pick plunging vigorously into him. Now sex is often considered a conquest, another notch on the fantasize scoreboard and herein the woman is on-top hence she’s the dominant one, in control, of everything, she has the power – to take and give. In other words, in this position to some they feel their masculinity is heavily challenged, but essence it’s a mutually exquisite, as there’s the element of animalistic entanglement, and then it turns ‘kinky.’ Then we have cut to Michael Douglas’ character Det. Nick Curran and his partner Det. Gus Moran (George Dzundza), who incidentally appeared in the TV Series series The Streets of San Francisco, I mention this because we get many picturesque shots of the city, anyway the attitude is overwhelmingly of confident men, on the prowl and true manly men. They and others tell inappropriate jokes noting the lack of control of the sexual conquest, how the victim is related to his sometime Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone), the style hints of that North By Northwest [1959], namely Cary Grant’s nonchalant determination, mirror by Nick, they entered into the lair of this targeted woman, but find the manly instincts eroding as they meet Roxy (Leilani Sarelle) who has a tough-mannered stride, and is misidentified, but she’s clearly sizing up her opposition.

They travel quickly to Catherine’s beach house, arriving there we see the two exotic sportscars, black and white, a Ying and Yang of balance, with slight nod to sexual prowess perched on a back balcony, the ocean of turmoil crashing into the shore, hence a mixture of two earth signs, as she fences intelligentially with the smug detectives in a witchy sensibility. The detectives now attempt to recover from their lacking answers in what will become known as the preliminary interrogation.

It’s in the next major scene, Nick bursts through a door, unannounced, and with full brevity, it’s here the police headquarters where a sense of male emphasis and authority occurs without consequences and especially lacking any true discipline. It’s here when the audience learns more about his character’s back story, he has many vices, illegal activities and the police psychotherapist, Dr. Beth Garner (Jeanne Tripplehorn) is his ex-girlfriend. However, what happens in the scene, is very curious, he has a hidden fragile ego, as he tries regain his true self through recover, yet he struggles as he suffered some submission, from both Roxy and Catherine one two different engagement levels; and feels in a strange way that wound him perhaps to himself questioning whether he still has overindulgence of testosterone or is it all falseness. He tries to exude his authority over Beth, and see the title playing out before our eyes, Basic Instinct, primal sexual attraction, and enticement, between these two characters each battling for position is the thrust and reaction is dialogue, cleverly portrayed. The closeness in Beth’s face shows the desires to pivot of power using cunning and tact, or more precisely dominance and submission.

First, the detective meeting the details of the crime is revealed, but slightly turns to a macho chat with raised eyebrows and smirks with swirl voyeurism fueled imagery in their eyes. We, the audience, again learn about their main character Catherine, in what starts that her entire family died in a strange boating accident, remember we first saw her on a balcony staring out the ocean it’s calmness before crashing into the shoreline.; well inherited a massive fortune. In this discovery of her exceptional intelligence levels, scholarly, and various colorful and well-known dating history, some which surrounds death, i.e., sex and death, in regard to psychical, spiritual, and romantically. In fact, she is also the author of a best-selling pulp fiction novel about a dead rock star – which is cliché, I know. Wait, not done with some ridiculous, namely what I like to call a psycho-babble session, that has the commonplace “doctor” who presumably has all the answers on how to identify the killer; he’s sort of like the entire Criminal Minds’ BAU wrapped into one person, or better yet for the horror /sci-fi fans if you recall there’s that one doctor who has all the answers; but that the story doesn’t answer. Which is, does Catherine’s book layout a blueprint of how to kill or does it give her a perfect alibi, I’ve argued this point with my friend often, however the film Murder by Numbers [2002] uses the template of art influencing murderous behaviors, in that situation the band The Police’s song of the same name.

This is all leading up to the infamous interrogation scene, and perhaps the most controversary for a movie of the early 1990s mainstream and what drove the box office numbers. I love the characters and how the drive the story, after the previous scene mentioned above, Nick is becoming more self-aware, and hence drifting away for macho dominated police authority, he his different to them. Meanwhile the trap is set, as they arrive to escort Catherine to police headquarters, however a second question of contention comes how did she allow for Nick to witness her dressing without undergarments, highly taboo, or did he indulge his sexual curiosities and become a peeping tom, regardless she’s in full control a dominatrix. She expresses this by smoking in the car, remember its late eighties this distasteful act is exiting; however, her character is about going against the norms, being normal is to her boring, and life is an adventure, which includes her sexual desires, she gives these divine sexual hints and suggestions. She simply uses as tool to lure and cure what ails her at any given moment; Stone owns this character, convincingly selling the role to the audience and allowing men to learn something she and us, women know we are complex with multiple layers, but we each have our own indulgences, cravings and intelligence, however, most importantly never to underestimate us.

When in the actual interrogation room, a cool blue offset against her white outfit, portrayal of innocent, it becomes an iconic scene in cinema history, she’s calm collective her authority shows her empowerment and independence matching in some moments over them, is done with Stone’s acting abilities, and later aided by the editing and camera angles to enhance her position of domination by penetrating into their weakness, their confidence eroding due to her control. Each of the detectives regardless of rank and so-call positions of power, including the ADA Correli (Wayne Knight) begin to sweat, due to her pointed thrusts. Catherine plays with the so-called sexual conquests carefully, dealing with a society issue alive and well today, a man who has many lovers is a stud while a woman does that is a slut, and if the man is on the prowl he harkens back to his animalistic instincts, but when woman does it perceive as vile, disgusting and all I say it suggests that one of the sexes’ egos is frailer than the other. She uses her beauty to pull in their attention, by revealing herself, as she has them unsettled uses sadism carefully, heated questions while she remains calm. I often thought that the revelation which is either accidental to some or on purpose is to make the men scared, this region is that birth and life, it returns the men to boys which aligns to her subtle paganism and denying them the control. The entire scene is actually a delicate balancing act of Hitchcockian attributes first the men form work more independently upping their dominance both which are highly weakened and portrayed more as false machoism, while Catherine controls with the usage of her words, facial expressions, and other means done to challenge their secretive inadequateness beholden only to themselves.

I must note that Stone has stated she did know that notorious scene would show what it did, it is equally true, she knew what she wasn’t going wear beforehand; I think it’s likely the camera angles weren’t revealed (no pun intended), however she still made the seated adjustments which had the intended response from the other actors. As the scene transitions from the interrogation to the lie detector, there is strange but intriguing shot of her almost as a psychic vampire as she uses her cool demeaner and eyes, to convey past the detectives and transcend to the us, the audience. The eyes especially as we women know can and easy do seduce, manipulate, dazzle and a few more precious powers.

Power of the Eyes

Water on Wndshield

It is after this point in the film that we enter into the deeper plot, to perhaps the new story starts, as the water splashed on the windshield is to suggest awash with new twists, but not a clean slate, as fresh filth is uncovered. I think the character of Nick, is sort like a Van Helsing, and wants Catherine to lower her guard, by engaging in her game, but she’s more of than a mere Vampire, she’s a sociopath playing 10-chess matches at once while Nick is the victim on multiple levels professionally to mentally and of course sexually. It’s a wise decision of both screenplay and director, not to rush allows Nick to escape her clutches, however he’s drain physically and emotionally (though as a man he won’t accept that) rather he ventures to a local bar to meet with other detectives to refuel his fragile ego, which expresses primarily through rage, loudness, physical forcefulness. However, he’s saved, not the best perhaps rescued by his former lover Beth, how and why she’s arrives is not clearly informed. As with Hitchcock, himself, and those movies inspired by his technique, of a traumatic situation breaking a story into main parts (think of Psycho [1960] the killing of Marion, it’s a clean break) we have the first violent and controversial scene since the opening shot though now in the form of suggestable date rape.

In this scene, it’s the rise of Basic Instinct, primal and animalistic, with either Beth giving into Nick’s lusts and dominance of sexual strength or accepting the situation with willful submission to prevent harm. Beth is no Catherine; she presents with a false ability to stand against her former lover.

It in the third act, Nick has taken the same position that Catherine did in the interrogation room, the same chair, same lighting, even he recalls her remarks about smoking. The detectives are issuing probing questions, and not directly penetrating, while Nick returns with pointed retorts. Nick finds himself now as a lone wolf, absent of buddies on the job, returning home, his sole new groupie, Catherine; he tries to protect himself. But once again in his apartment it is void of much detail, as if he has reached the end of the line and finds it all a bottomless pit. Baron was kind enough to point out, as I wasn’t aware of it, that this next scene shown below, is a homage shot to Hitchcock, known as the Vertigo shot; the spiral-like stairs, the reinforces the pulling of Nick further into her world, next book, and a new game.

That new game takes place in the nightclub, where the set design presents a backlash to conservative mindset, for it appears as a gothic cathedral a place that held archaic rules created solely by men, to rule overall, especially women, sounds familiar. Although now it is enjoying the rhythmic liberated world, where the freedom exists to be who you are and love whomever, its merely provocative and less of showing meaningless stereotypes. Of course, we have the seductress Catherine and her protective lover Roxy, who’s annoyed with Nick’s bias intrusion; where he shows his sexual aggression to Catherine who enjoys it, while provoking Roxy and attracting her watchful eye. We have transitioned to the final engagement of Catherine and Nock in her bedroom, its highly erotic and tantalizing choregraphed scene, which was edited down (censored) for the American audiences. The actions of actors are incredible, but cinematography is divine, especially giving the audience a delicious tease when coming up from behind the bed with the suggestion that a violent bloodshed about to be unleashed repeating from the opening shot. Nevertheless, we get a shot of mirror on the ceiling and writhing lustful bodies, with the representation to the audience of Catherine’s vanity. The overall longevity of the scene is unheard of in today’s mainstream cinema, as it transforms from sensual to carnal to suggestively obscene to a few, as if he enters in bondage, Nick’s fear mixes with his pleasure, with Catherine restoring her control, as the Vampire sucking his lifeforce to intense satisfaction. This sets in motion the final confrontation, with (everyone’s correct guess – and spoiler) Roxy, who as the lesbian must be vanquished, as it deems even in the 80s as improper and immoral, one needs to allow the righteous to have supreme victory, even with flawed character.

Nick first is required to sit down a departmental psychological evaluation session with three doctors, as he approaches with sarcastic attitude, attempting for briefest of comedic relief (highly unwarranted) especially when the questions from Dr. McElwaine (James Rebhorn) shift to his childhood, I find it petty and thoroughly misdirected as Nick’s handles it with sheer annoyance as anyone would in his situation. Meanwhile Beth who becomes both defensive and a rescuer and even a guardian to Nick, when their argument starts in the hallway. She doesn’t counter the other doctors, both men, in the therapy session. The suggestion that she believes her opinions not well-define or that she regulated to subservient role to them. However, Nick counters Beth’s accusation that Catherine’s able to play great psychological games, with she’s (Beth) an actual practicing doctor of psychologist; the heated exchange literally drives Nick to Catherine with a deep sense of remorse for his beliefs, guilt of other’s negative actions, he’s emotionally wounded. He finds Catherine in turmoil, true raw emotional breakdown, her lost lover Roxy, who she knew wanted to eliminate the supposed threat from him. It all provides how as a woman, we take things more deeply, the mere remembrance of smile or touch echoes in our minds, but for Nick and men in general of that era aggression and depression were enough on the sensitivity scale. For him he’s victorious in surviving a deadly encounter, and background a faint crash of the waves repeats once again, as for her everyone she cares about dies. As the scene ends, they are nestled together in warming afterglow of both lovemaking and the sizzling fire, assurances from both of bliss before she casually opens with a confession of sorts concerning a past love.

Herein, we dive into a subplot to some though I felt as if was more of puzzle pieces fitting together without understanding the full picture, as we learn of a previous lover of Catherine’s named Lisa, in other words Elisabeth and how each woman points to the other with obsession complexities, so reminiscent of Vertigo and how it was experimentation at college to dismiss the act. I found this, as many others to that convenient protective shield as not to be judge by society’s preconceived proper morals. An interesting aspect that carries throughout the film as an undertone is the man versus woman, where men were fearful of the opposite sex (because belief in biblical stories that Eve led Adam astray by womanly charms), but by the mid to late eighties, women become more assertive, challenge for those unattainable dominant positions. So how does this related back to the characters, that Nick is surrounded by more than one Succubus, using sex and power against and luring him further away from the fold of the other men, as he’s a lone wolf under departmental review, ostracized for his sexual involvement with the prime suspect, Catherine had a secretive affair with Beth, both who had their own fling, his position of power is again rests on false machoism. Nick finds himself on the horns of dilemma, the believability of both of the women’s stories is quite possible, but his tenacity keeps him engaged for searching for the truth in his new world of shadows and mounting self-doubts. Its great character development of a man struggling and of women using similar tactics but indifferent tones, waging their own war.

Once again there’s another repeat of previous scene, with Catherine acting as aggressor, where was Nick and Beth and the date rape scene, that now has Catherine, hinting her book his almost finished and the detective is nearly dead, as they make love, shown in the briefest manner, as known the audience is nearly exhausted from the marathon of sex displayed in the film. As Nick tries to separate it from truth involving these two women, he becomes disheartened when at Catherine’s and she dismisses him, in almost manly manner, of sarcasm send some flowers, he’s angered and humiliated for he’s toyed with as she leaves the room and gives a loving touch on Hazel (Dorothy Malone) implying a new mature lover. In all too convenient finale, Gus (George Dzundza) Nick’s partner believes he has the case solved, however Nick is wallowing in self pity and doubt, his breakup and letdown both have desponded, and isolated in his own thoughts; it leads him stay behind like little lost boy. The audience is treated to a teasing game of ‘what’s behind the door’ as the elevator slowly rides up, those cars always bring fear in much of cinema, after all they large coffins, dangling by steel cables made the cheapest bidder. Remember that the next time you ride in one. A vicious bloodshed occurs, by a ghoulish figure, like someone out of a horror movie, the brutality of the attack, rather slaughter, is manly, the rapid plunging of the ice pick in Gus’ neck is shocking, and Nick arrives too late, the gruesome sight of his friend lying in a pool of his blood, his lifeless legs sticking out of the car is all that keeps it in place. Nick with firearm in hand his manly power reestablished, discovers Beth, the woman versus man, their standoff in like an old west showdown, (which occurred a few previous times in the film already). He shouts in a condescending mannerism at her Beth shouting “Still like girls?” She’s exposed, a fear she expressed late in the film, recalling she was deathly afraid of male colleagues learning about interest or curiosity concerning lesbianism, and hence again inferring that dreaded ‘struggling’ rather allowance of acceptance for her true self or perhaps perfectly framed by a cold and calculated killer, it all leaves for great debate. The police in a combination of gullible mindsets and a willingness to believe in an abnormal hypersexualized woman who killed because of madness to confront herself, again the fear of the woman; they immediately discount Catherine far too quickly and easily as this final incident ties up everything to a pretty color little bow.

The 10 or so minutes left of the movie have a remorseful Nick venturing back to his apartment, having lost two partners, of one he killed because of his own fear a rushed judgement, he finds Catherine awaiting, almost like a haunting figure, they quickly find their passion once more, and in the throes of bliss we the audience get that uneasy feeling that death is lurking closely in shadows just waiting for the throes of passion to end. A few brief false endings, before an ominous reveal of an ice pick laying on the floor by Catherine’s side, leaving the film to end on a question, Has the killing stopped? Although, in true mystery form it goes deeper, did each of the three women, Beth; Catherine and Roxy take a hand in killing someone, that s left for one to argue with someone they love or love to hate.

There’s something unusual in the movie, the weapon of choice, when does one purchase an ‘ice pick’ along with the blocks of ice, both are linked to 1950s, where often the woman, is the homemaker, serving the man, unlike a knife which is timeless and the perfect phallic symbol the ice pick has strangely found itself lost in time. Its replacement comes from ice cube trays and automatic ice dispensers, with only perhaps sculptors using it anymore, because of its inherently dangerous and inability of a user to control it; wielding it with disregard and abandonment. The movie presents quite a bit of after movie discussion, some believe that Nick’s sexual aggressive appetite is more honed to the hardwire of the male predator mode that his dominance can ‘cure’ her of immorality returning her to a purer state, I firmly disagree, she is using sexuality and womanly charm to entice him; besides Nick has a heavy damaged psyche, and far from moral rescuer. In addition, I don’t think she needs to be ‘cure’ rather Nick does. The plot also seems to cut many scenes in in two opposing views, and even taking further by showcase a scene in one direction only to repeat later and penetrate deeper in another, for many viewers found it bothersome, I enjoyed that play of duality. Oh, stylish cinematography helps to overcome any pesky problems within the story, so don’t let that fret you, it works to capture both famous building structures and the colorful nature shots working to give both a slick and tasteful palette of scenes to entice the audience. The music is exquisitely divine reaching deeply within oneself to connect further with the movie.

Overall, the film drives more in the direction of sexual tension, control, and extremism as the science rather sheer logic, because basic instincts sometimes both reveal more and tell one’s true self much easier. The first anti-feminism hints, those really don’t exist, if anything there’s empowerment both in knowledge and strength which is shown in beauty and protection; for example, a rose is a beautiful flower, the rose petals so inviting the scent intoxicating but it’s the stem that offer strength and thorns of protection; secondly, the negativity to the lesbianism and bisexuality is still facing harsh criticism in today’s cinema once again. Some of the younger audience that see this film may not fully or clearly understand the negative backlash to be lesbian or bisexual of then, however it was consider in many workplaces, especially within the police force and government that was damning and frankly a death-blow to one’s career, the attitude was a real man can cure and save a woman of this abomination; yes total BS but that is what it was then. As is customary, on this site, I put in the link for the trailer.

~~ Vix

Let’s see Baron’s respond to this……

TAGLINES:

• A seductive suspect & a cop who can’t resist her.
• A brutal murder. A brilliant killer. A cop who can’t resist the danger.
• Flesh seduces. Passion kills.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103772/

IMDb Rating: 7.0/10

Vix’s Rating: 7.5/10