Ezmae Chang
This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.
Zlatica
One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.
Guillelmina
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
lonely-chaotic-soul
How did I get the impression this film is the most modern classic film I've seen? The unnecessary dramatic music, the choice of an old male with a young female, and the unrealistic depiction of a femme fatale. It looks like it was made for a different age.
willcarter-56155
Basic Instinct was a huge hit and a cultural phenomenon when it was released and it is easy to see why. The sex scenes are raw and just a few steps away from being a legitimate pornographic film. The violence- although not often- is quite brutal and the blood flows like water. But the film is quite good as a detective story. Michael Douglas was in top form back when this came out and Sharon Stone finally hit the big leagues after playing the famous Catherine Tramell character. Featuring great noir-ish overtone and gorgeous locations Basic Instinct is a winner
marieltrokan
It's the wrong identity that creates death, and it's the right identity that creates life. The consequence of this, is that death is right and life is wrong.An actuality, is a falsehood that mirrors the sameness. The sameness is correct, but, it's the illness of the sameness to harbour a false version of itself. What this means is that perfection is the equivalent of being in the possession of danger.To be perfect, is to possess danger. Perfection isn't the danger itself, perfection is to "possess" the danger. The resulting implication, is that danger is the equivalent of not possessing perfection, as opposed to just being the fact of non-possession.The basic fact, of non-possession, is an implied inferiority. This would then mean that the non-possession of perfection isn't an implied inferiority. As further consequence, perfection means to possess something which isn't an implied inferiority, ergo, it means to possess something which has the power to be an implied superiority. The balance is then as such: perfection is the state of being shut off from the freedom to improve, and the freedom to improve is the state of being at risk of danger. Perfection is the safety of no progress - the lack of perfection is the risk of progress. Perfection is the boredom of stability - the lack of perfection is the excitement of progress that's dangerous.The lack of perfection is risk; risk is the boredom of stability, and it's the lack of risk that's the excitement of progress that's dangerous. When a living being experiences stability, they are at risk. When a living being experiences dangerous progress, they are safe. Progress is change, so safety is when a living being experiences dangerous change. Conversely, risk is when a living being experiences no change. Danger is no change - safety is dangerous change.Danger is stability. Stability is dangerous change - danger is dangerous change. The very fact of danger is the equivalent to the change of itself. Danger is the same as the experience of itself being changed.The juxtaposition to this, is that safety is the same as the experience of itself being the same - safety is no change, and therefore no change is the same as the experience of no change being no change. No change is no change living no change. Change is change living change. No change is no change differing no change. Change is change differing change: no change changes no change, and change changes change.The same must change itself, and the different must change itself. The balance to this is that the same can't change itself without difference, and the different can't change itself without offending the meaning of change. The different has to be the same, in order to honour protocol. The protocol has to be the protocol, in order to let the different honour the protocol.The standard wants to deviate, but can't, because the deviant is dependent on respecting the standard. The deviant therefore is the real standard, and the standard was always the real deviant: the standard can't be excited, because it's respecting the standard that's the true source of excitement.The origin of life, or, the origin of the universe is the most exciting thing in reality. The tragic truth though - and it "is" a tragic truth - is that in order for the origin of life to be the most exciting thing in life, the penalty is that the origin of life isn't aware of its own state. At the beginning of reality, there exists a single being who is the most exciting thing possible: what's deeply upsetting, and what's deeply tragic about this single being who exists at the beginning of the universe is that they are unable to know of themselves as the most exciting thing possible. This being can't know that they deserve to be worshipped, glorified and lusted over for all eternity.
sharky_55
Everyone and the audience in Basic Instinct has seen a noir, or a Hitchcock. That is, except for our lead detective protagonist, who walks right into danger's arms and willingly embraces it. The first half and hour or so of the film is full of furious winking at the viewer. We have to play along with what seems like parody. Stone's reveal is with a knowing smirk on her face, as if she knows what everyone knows, that she will curl him around her fingers and get him to do whatever she wants. She might as well have a big, blinking sign floating above her head reading 'FEMME FATALE'. There is a bespectacled therapist ripped straight out of The Big Sleep, and who isn't fooling anyone; she immediately takes the glasses off, and is revealed to be another sexy conquest of Nick's after they air their dirty laundry out in the open. Catherine's massive inherited mansion seems to be eternally lit with shadowy rays of light bouncing off the pool - a perfect noir storm. She opens the door in revealing clothing and then proceeds to flaunt her naked body anyway in full sight of the detectives. No wait, that's not obvious enough. Later on she tells Nick a couple of key facts: one, she's not wearing any underwear, two, he'll pick up the drink and cigarette again, three, she's very good at lying, and four, she's going to kill him. Nick's partner, a bumbling, heavyset oaf, is oblivious to the searing sexual tension in the car. They're basically having sex from the first time they lay eyes on each other, and the dialogue is the foreplay. It's a wonder the actors can wrest with lines this heavy with a straight face. Every word is twisted, double edged, laced with the suggestion of "we're gonna bang". 'Sex' is actually only used seven times in the whole script, but with Verhoeven's penchant to linger on their sultry stares for a second or five too long, it seems like hundreds. Yet one could never accuse Verhoeven films of being straightforward - look to those who missed the point of Starship Troopers. This one's a little tricky. If you know Verhoeven you have to give him some benefit of the doubt. The first half of the film plays like a B-movie noir parody - not just once, but twice, Stone has an excuse to get out the ice pick and get stabby stabby. Haven't these people ever heard of an ice tray? The movie world is where a degree in psychology means you can pull a man's mind apart with ease - she knows Nick's whole history, his vices, his temptations. Beth, the actual shrink, sort of flails around helplessly. So Verhoeven shows that he knows the genre inside out, and that he's self aware. But the second half takes itself far too seriously. Having shown all its cards, it doesn't know how to conclude, so it just shoves the pair back under the covers. And after two hours of suggesting that there is more than meets the eye to this girl, it goes back on its word. Oh, she was serious when she announced out loud that she was going to kill him? I thought she was supposed to be the smart one.
