Body

I couldn't tell you the plot of this movie. Actually, I don't know if this movie had a plot. What I do know is that Madonna is in it and boy or boy, is she ever. Another courtroom drama without the drama, the only reason one will watch this movie is Madonna. The passion between Dafoe and Madonna is the only thing worth watching. That and the nudity and strong sexual acts, Body of Evidence is a left over movie stolen from the Basic Instinct genre. The courtroom and crime scenes is just background to what the movie is, Madonna in the bedroom.

Who cares if 'Body of Evidence' is a so-called 'Basic Instincts' rip-off, and the plot is a bit bogus? It's escapism, so I say to all the critics just chill a bit and lay off this movie. Madonna is simply stunning in it and as an enormous fan of hers [practically in anything she endeavours], I cannot believe it took me until 2001 to watch this movie. I guess I was sucked in to believe it was worst than it actually turned out to be. I can say that, whilst this movie is not Oscar-material, it was enjoyable, sexy and intriguing. Why people take it so seriously is beyond me. I firmly believe it was too harshly criticised. I was pleasently surprised. Sure, Madonna has a long way to go before she is considered a serious actress and perfects her craft, but she fit perfectly into this femme-fatal role and is very convincing. She is a better actress than people give her credit for!

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)

Not that there is a TV version.

We could also call this 'Madonna on top' or 'Madonna in charge' or maybe 'She can show you the power you can have from the prone position.' The one thing about Madonna, other than having no shame (and I admire her for that) is that she can crawl and not feel the slightest bit reduced.

She's not especially bad in this mediocre thriller, nor especially good. The script is ridiculous and the treatment without a hint of nuance or subtlety. William Dafoe and Joe Mantegna seemed to be acting on rote and Anne Archer was a wash. The problem is the movie is so obviously fake that it's like watching bad TV. There's no point other than kinky sex. I'm not sure why Madonna agreed to do this. I can't believe she needed the money, nor can I believe she didn't care about her reputation as a performing artist. I think her appearance here exposes her weakness: simply put, she has bad taste because this could not in any way further her career.

On the plus side I saw the unrated version and she was very sexy.

Certainly not a great film, but not as bad as it has been made out to be. Madonna's acting is OK, and I suspect the "woodenness" of her performance was largely what the director wanted. Her character's passion was limited to the bedroom (and elevator, and stairs, and parking garage, etc.) and never extended to her daily life. And, by the way, I had forgotten how pretty she could be back then. Anne Archer looked awfully good as well, even while being weepy and not completely hinged. The rest of the cast put in good work, with a special commendation for Julianne Moore. Frank Langella was suitably creepy, and Joe Mantegna suitably industrious. Some of the dialog didn't completely work, but if you watch this without preconceptions, you'll find it OK.

What a Movie! Leaves u begging for more... and in my opinion equally as good (if not better than) Basic Instinct. Madonna is at her sexiest and the movie prevails great suspense and surprises. Why was this movie so rejected? its not as bad as some i have seen that have got much more praise. and for one i don't understand why people don't like Madonna as an actress, that's the possible irritation to this movie for people... which is stupid... she is excellent and nowhere near out of place.. give this movie the benefit of a doubt. Its Erotic, Sexy, Sleak, Fun, and.... oh why was this movie put down again....?