Instinto básico

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.

Paul Verhoeven is one of my favorite directors. His movies are so damn entertaining. They always, well I should say most of the time, have wit and intelligence [Forget 'Showgirls' and 'Hollow Man', any director can make mistakes] and have either graphic sex or violence or both. 'Basic Instinct' is in the latter category. It is so erotic and Stone and Douglas have so much sexual chemistry that when you look at an Adrian Lyne film, you see them for the crap they are.

Basic plotline has Stone's character, 'Catherine Tramell', accused of the vicious sex murder of a retired rock and roll star. Douglas's character has a strange attraction to her, which may not lead to good things..... Paul Verhoven has openly admitted that this film is a homage to Alfred Hitchcock's classic masterpiece 'Vertigo'. In fact, Stone wears, in sequence, the same wardrobe as Kim Novak did [which makes you wonder, was she wearing panties under her clothes]. That brings us to the interrogation scene, which is the best in the movie. Stone shamelessly flirts with the cops' libidos until the buildup of sexual tension is so great, Stone releases it by playing 'peek-a-boo' with the space in between her legs. Every male viewer cherishes that scene, simply because it is so sexy. That word can be used throughout the film, as Stone and Douglas do the mattress mumbo. At the time, the sex scenes were so realistic that the press went wild and debated whether or not viewers were witnessing un-simulated sex. The film is still quite sexually daring today and has an intriguing spider's web plot too. The plot's twists and turns manage to make the movie sexier as the viewer wonders whether Sharon is innocent or guilty..........

The film's only misstep occurs at the end, with an unsatisfactory ending that makes the whole film seem like some stupid, contrived game. But it's not. It keeps it's fascination and it's sexiness and its suspense right up till the end, which is what a good erotic thriller should. Actually, the ending for some will lead to a lot of discussion if you watch the film with someone, as the film toys with two of the film's characters innocence or guilt and does not give up all its secrets.....

The film is great Verhoeven. It has his usual, hilarious, seemingly inappropriate kinky humor and extreme sex and violence to match. The fact that Verhoeven is actually able to balance the film and make it funny and sexy is wonderful film-making. Well, have I said 'sexy' enough times? Then go rent it.........8/10

P.S. If you like this one, check out Verhoevens' Dutch film ''The Fourth Man''. It has a similar plot and even a similar character that resembles Catherine Tramell. If the ending of 'Basic Instinct' leaves you wanting, check that film out. It is even better than 'Basic' and is more 'arty'. It is also a little bit more daring erotically.

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.

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.

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.