Major Cast | |
---|---|
Michael Douglas | as Detective Nick Curran |
Sharon Stone | as Catherine Tramell |
George Dzundza | as Gus |
Jeanne Triplehorn | as Dr. Beth Garner |
Dennis Arndt | as Lieutenant Walker |
Leilani Sarelle | as Roxy |
Bruce A. Young | as Andrews |
Chelcie Ross | as Captain Andrews |
Dorothy Malone | as Hazel Dobkins |
Wayne Knight | as John Correli |
Daniel von Bargen | as Lieutenant Nilson |
Stephen Tobolowsky | as Dr. Lamott |
Benjamin Mouton | as Harrigan |
Jack McGee | as Sheriff |
Bill Cable | as Johnny Boz |
Stephen Rowe | as Internal Affairs Investigator |
Mitch Pileggi | as Internal Affairs Investigator |
Mary Pat Gleason | as Juvenile Officer |
Freda Foh Shen | as Berkeley Registrar |
William Duff-Griffin | as Dr. Myron |
James Rebhorn | as Dr. McElwaine |
David Wells | as Polygraph Examiner |
Bradford English | as Campus Policeman |
Mary Ann Rodgers | as Nurse |
Adilah Barnes | as Nurse |
Irene Olga López | as Maid |
Juanita Jennings | as Receptionist |
Craig C. Lewis | as Bartender - Police Bar |
Michael David Lally | as Detective |
Peter Appel | as Detective |
Michael Halton | as Bartender - Country Western Bar |
Keith McDaniel | as Featured Dancer |
Eric Poppick | as Coroner's Guy |
Ron Cacas | as Policeman |
Kayla Blake | as Roxy's Friend |
Ken Liebenson | as Doo Wah Riders |
Lindy Rasmusson | as Doo Wah Riders |
Byron Berline | as Doo Wah Riders |
Eddie Dunbar | as Doo Wah Riders |
Tod McKibbin | as Doo Wah Riders |
Julie Bond | as Hand Puppet Model |
MPAA Rating: | R |
Production Companies: | Carolco Pictures Canal+ |
Distributors (US): | TriStar Pictures (theater) Artisan Entertainment (VHS) Carolco Home Video (VHS) Lionsgate Home Entertainment (digital media) Live Entertainment (DVD) Paramount Pictures (TV) Pioneer Entertainment (Laserdisc) Trifecta Entertainment and Media (TV) USA Network (TV) ViacomCBS Global Distribution Group (TV) Worldvision Enterprises (TV) |
Release Date (US): | 3/20/1992 |
Domestic Box Office: | $117,727,224 |
Worldwide Box Office: | $352,927,224 |
Production Budget: | $49,000,000 (Est.) |
Crew | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PRODUCED BY | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
DIRECTED BY: Paul Verhoeven | |||||||||
Writing Credits (WGA): | Joe Eszterhas | ||||||||
Original Music: | Jerry Goldsmith | ||||||||
Cinematography: | Jan De Bont | ||||||||
Film Editing: | Frank J. Urioste | ||||||||
Casting: | Howard Feuer | ||||||||
Production Design: | Terence Marsh | ||||||||
Costume Design: | Ellen Mirojnick |
A woman, in the course of an awesome act of love making, ties her male partner's arms to the bedstead with a white silk scarf and proceeds to murder him with an icepick.
SF police detectives are called in. The case is controversial because the victim was a sports figure who donated to the mayor. The team includes detective Nick Curran, who's been in trouble with the department for drinking, drugs, and anger management issues. He was accused of shooting two people unnecessarily, but acquited. He is being seen by the department psychologist, Dr. Beth Garner, with whom he previously had an affair. They meet in her office. He tells her everything is OK — no booze, no cocaine, no smoking — except his sex life since he stopped seeing her. He holds up his right hand. "Calluses," he says. "Sorry." He leans close, asks her if she will release him from scutiny. After a pause, "Yes," she says. As he leaves, she says, "I still miss you, Nick." He does not respond.
The prime suspect turns out to be Catherine Tramell, a wealthy woman who has written a novel in which the main character kills her male lover with an icepick. The detectives debate this conundrum: Either someone has read the book and seeks to frame the author, or the author has given herself what she thinks of as the perfect alibi. After a preliminary interview, they take her downtown for more extensive questioning. There, she distracts them by exposing her lack of underpants. She passes a lie detector test, after which she asks for a ride home. Nick volunteers. On the way, she taunts him again by offering him a cigarette. She seems to know a lot about his troubled record with the department.
Nick gets some predictable razzing for taking her home. But the real heat comes from the internal affairs guy, Lt. Nilson, who taunts him by calling him "shooter" — especially after he goes to a bar with his colleagues and orders bourbon. They almost come to blows, but Beth intervenes, throwing some heat of her own at Nilson. Nick takes her home, with her permission. He forces himself on her, after which she questions him about Catherine Trammel and then throws him out.
Matters quickly get more complicated. Nick becomes attracted to Catherine, who skillfully leads him on. Soon they are sharing her bed. He learns her life includes multiple partners of both sexes, including a woman named Roxy who becomes jealous of Nick and vows to kill him unless he leaves Catherine alone. He is not dissuaded. But Catherine tells him things only SFPD should know about him. He discovers Beth shared his file with Nilson, and has an altercation with him in Nilson's office. Nick is placed on leave. Later Nilson is found dead in his car, shot at close range. Nick is relieved of duty; he turns over his gun. Catherine turns up at his apartment, telling him she's heard what happened. Nick's friend Gus turns up at the apartment with a pizza and meets Catherine leaving. He berates Nick for seeing her, says she's messing with his mind. Later Nick finds Gus drunk in a bar, distraught over his friend's predicament. Nick get him some food and coffee to help him sober up. He offers to drive Gus home, but Gus isn't having it. As Nick walks to his own car, Catherine's car appears out of nowhere and tries to run him down. After a chase, it veers off an embankment and crashes. Roxy is found dead at the wheel.
Still more complications appear. They involve previous crimes committed by Catherine's older friend Hazel Dobson and by Roxy, and by the fact that Beth knew Catherine at UC Berkeley. Nick confronts Catherine about this. She tells him of a student named Lisa Holberman who was obsessed with her. Although officially off duty, Nick pursues this lead and finally the pieces come together into a surprising whole.
This film amounts to a gimmick picture, in which the scenes of spectacular sex with Catherine are both motivation for Nick and misdirection for the viewer. Sharon Stone's character is presented as the evil mastermind of the piece: confident her intelligence and her allure will protect her. Lacking evidence, the SFPD has already lost interest — but Nick still suspects her, and tells her so. She mockingly says he will instead fall in love with her. "I'm already in love with you," he declares. "But I'll nail you anyway." The tension the film creates over whether Catherine is truly a murderer, and whether her undeniable charms will induce Nick to defend her if she is, are what make it work so well.1 It's well-acted and well-plotted, with excellent cinematography.
Overall, though, I must say that it strains credulity. No real police department would behave like the SFPD we see in this film. And while Catherine is a writer working on a novel, with several previous novels to her credit, we never see her actually writing. But then, few crime thrillers put the emphasis on realism. This one should not be panned for failing to do so.
Some elements did strike me as over the top: most notably when Nick chases Catherine to Hazel Dobson's house, nearly colliding with oncoming vehicles on the two-lane road, loses her, but happens to spot her car as he cruises the town. There are few plot holes, but I can't figure out what tips Nick off as he waits in Gus's car while Gus goes to check out a tip supposedly from Catherine's first-year roommate at Berkeley. And why, in that scene, are we shown Gus watching the elevator doors open three times on the fourth floor, before we see the attack happen? There's another plot hole I might mention, but that would be a spoiler.
"Since most people will be attending "Basic Instinct" in less than a Politically Correct frame of mind, however, does the movie deliver? In a way, it does. It kept me interested, and guessing, right up until that final shot, which revealed that all of my efforts were pointless since the guilt or innocence of the characters was a flip of the coin, based on evidence that could be read both ways. The film is like a crossword puzzle. It keeps your interest until you solve it. Then it's just a worthless scrap with the spaces filled in." See Basic Instinct (Roger Ebert, 20 March 1992).
My Rating:
7 out of 10
Capsule review: Basic Instinct is a well-executed thriller which gives us a satisfying balance between action and character development and a plot that mostly holds together, but which overdoes the violence and the sex scenes.2
IMDB Rating: 7.0 | Raters: 181,610 |