Body of Evidence

Body of Evidence: 7 out of 10: A woman is on trial for seducing men to death. Will her lawyer get her off? Will she get him off? Stay tuned for the drama both inside and outside of the courtroom.

The case for the Prosecution:

Exhibit A: The courtroom scenes: AKA half the bloody movie. Body of Evidence is often considered an erotic thriller. However, it spends an amazing amount of time in the courtroom. Now courtroom scenes can work in thrillers (see 1990's Presumed Innocent), but they should be to the point and thrilling. The scenes here are pointless with half a dozen side characters introduced and then forgotten. It never feels like a real trial. The judge allows so many shenanigans that she makes Judge Ito look like Judge Judy.

Exhibit B: William Defoe: I genuinely like William Defoe. But as the lead character in an erotic thriller? As Weird Al Yankovic wrote about Mr. Defoe in his song "Ode To A Superhero"

And he's ridin' around on that glider thing And he's throwin' that weird pumpkin bomb Yes, he's wearin' that dumb Power Rangers mask But he's scarier without it on

Now If William Defoe switched roles with Joe Mantegna as the prosecutor that might have worked a lot better. Both are wonderful charismatic actors but nobody wants to see William Defoe's O face.

Exhibit C: Madonna: Madonna makes bad movies. This is a Madonna movie. Hence this is a bad movie. Prosecution rests.

The prosecution is feeling a bit overconfident there and rested their case without mentioning Anne Archer's performance or the horrifying screenplay.

The Defense:

Exhibit A: Madonna: In 1992 naked Madonna was everywhere. People were buying $50 coffee books that consisted if nothing but pictures of her naked while hitchhiking. (This is true ask your cool aunt). As Rosie O'Donnell said to her in A League of Their Own. "You think there are men in this country who ain't seen your bosoms?" What a difference twenty-six years makes. We are not inundated with Madonna nowadays (naked or otherwise) so she seems fresh again. Also, she really isn't bad in this movie considering the lines she is given. She certainly gives a better performance than Anne Archer.

Exhibit B: Erotic Thrillers: Erotic thrillers enjoyed a moment between Basic Instinct and Showgirls. We really don't see them like these anymore and haven't for a long time. There were a lot of them in that time period (Heck there were two with Billy Baldwin for God's sake) So we often will revisit the lesser known ones for some nostalgia much like future generations will watch Ant-Man and muse how they don't make Superhero movies anymore.

Exhibit C: That one scene you forgot was in the movie: The defense is wheeling out a TV and DVD player. Looks like they are going to show a clip. The overconfident prosecution doesn't object. Is that a young naked Julianne Moore? Wow, that sex scene is so intense. Where did that come from and how did Madonna allow herself to be upstaged.

The Verdict: In 2018 the defense wins. Time has been kind to this movie. I certainly understand the panning this received when it hit the local cineplex in 1992. For one thing, Madonna and Julianne Moore fighting over William Defoe sounds like a mental patient's fan fiction. For another, this is a Netflix and chill movie, not something you want to see in a theater filled with suburban housewives and Paul Reubens. It is both as bad as you remember it but somehow endlessly entertaining.

(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.

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!

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....?