AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
4,6/10
17 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Um advogado defende uma mulher acusada de matar seu amante mais velho ao fazer sexo com ele.Um advogado defende uma mulher acusada de matar seu amante mais velho ao fazer sexo com ele.Um advogado defende uma mulher acusada de matar seu amante mais velho ao fazer sexo com ele.
- Direção
- Roteirista
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 1 vitória e 8 indicações no total
Avaliações em destaque
Really don't get why this film got such bad reviews. It's an okay thriller, nothing mind blowing but decent enough for a watch. And Madonna is hot af in it!
Remember this coming on late one night when I was flicking through the channels as a teenage boy, was like striking gold. So it gets an extra star for that 🌟 Personally I prefer it over Basic Instinct which it's often compared to. Just found it more interesting for some reason , and Madonna was a better seductress. Which is what the movies are mainly about really.
And the cast was actually better too. Frank Langella and Julian Moore in supporting roles!
Remember this coming on late one night when I was flicking through the channels as a teenage boy, was like striking gold. So it gets an extra star for that 🌟 Personally I prefer it over Basic Instinct which it's often compared to. Just found it more interesting for some reason , and Madonna was a better seductress. Which is what the movies are mainly about really.
And the cast was actually better too. Frank Langella and Julian Moore in supporting roles!
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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....?
Okay, I'm pleading guilty of being a guy but Madonna's bod alone is worth 5 stars. I've never been a fan but dee-YAMN, was she physically fit. Her acting was good too. It's her best effort other than 'Dangerous Game' where she showed she could really produce a great performance, if she got her ego out of way. I was really believing and sympathizing with her. There were no cringe worthy scenes that mark most of her acting career. This is major point since the movie revolves around her character. Willem Dafoe is good, as usual, in a rather unchallenging role as her defense attorney. The rest of cast is a who's who's of A list supporting actors who are always fun to watch.
The plot itself is a rather lame, 'Basic Instinct' knockoff, which was practically a sub-genre at that time but it was engaging enough. It seems the director's main goal was to see if he could get Madonna, Julianne Moore and Anne Archer (who was a major crush of mine at the time) to take off all their clothes. It seems he succeeded though there may have been a body double for A.A. (sad face emoji)
I can see how people of a more puritanical and/or snooty mindset could hate this movie but for it's unblinking and unapologetic trashiness, good performances and serviceable plot I found it entertaining. If you accept the movie for what it is, it's a very fun watch.
The plot itself is a rather lame, 'Basic Instinct' knockoff, which was practically a sub-genre at that time but it was engaging enough. It seems the director's main goal was to see if he could get Madonna, Julianne Moore and Anne Archer (who was a major crush of mine at the time) to take off all their clothes. It seems he succeeded though there may have been a body double for A.A. (sad face emoji)
I can see how people of a more puritanical and/or snooty mindset could hate this movie but for it's unblinking and unapologetic trashiness, good performances and serviceable plot I found it entertaining. If you accept the movie for what it is, it's a very fun watch.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesIn a radio interview with Sway Calloway, Willem Dafoe confirmed that the scene in the parking garage is genuine, no body doubles were used.
- Erros de gravaçãoA detective states that the reason the police called the District Attorney is because the victim, Andrew Marsh, was handcuffed at the time of death. However, in the opening scene it is obvious that the dead man is not handcuffed. Moreover, if he were, it would almost conclusively prove Rebecca's guilt - if she did not kill him, she would have untied him before leaving. And despite this supposedly being the sole reason for Rebecca's arrest and prosecution, whether the deceased was or wasn't handcuffed at the time of his death is never mentioned again, by anybody.
- Citações
Rebecca Carlson: All we did was make love.
Frank Dulaney: In handcuffs.
Rebecca Carlson: It was different, but it was still making love. Have you ever seen animals make love, Frank? It's intense. It's violent. But they never really hurt each other.
Frank Dulaney: We're not animals.
Rebecca Carlson: Yes, we are.
- Versões alternativasThree versions of this movie have been released: an R-rated theatrical version, a NC-17 version and an unrated video version. European release is the NC-17 cut.
- ConexõesFeatured in Siskel & Ebert & the Movies: Memo to the Academy - 1993 (1993)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Body of Evidence?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- Países de origem
- Central de atendimento oficial
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- El cuerpo del delito
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 30.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 13.273.595
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 7.365.429
- 18 de jan. de 1993
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 13.273.595
- Tempo de duração1 hora 39 minutos
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente