Very Well Directed


No question this is one of the best-looking films of the 90’s. Every scene is surreally breathtaking.

What’s surprising is how effective it is. This should be trash, yet ... why can’t I look away? The scenes with Stone and Douglas in closeup are just mesmerizing. Sharon has an angelic face and a body to die for (as we learn), but you can’t possibly tell me that’s any more than a third of it. Hollywood always had scads of sexy starlets, but how many could hold our interest like this? I just checked out the director’s cut on Prime, intending to watch maybe ten minutes. Before I knew it the credits were rolling.

Fact is, this movie works. Every scene. In all those two-shots of our two leads, I want to know what they’re thinking and what they’ll do next. I love the back and forth. Screenwriter Ezterhas mastered this construct, not once but twice — the first being the even-better “Jagged Edge.” Certainly Michael Douglas does the most heavy lifting of the actors, but Stone is also fairly irreplaceable in her tricky and sexy turn.

But why does it all work so well?

The answer must be Verhoeven’s direction. He told them what to think, what to do and how to do it, from a clear and deep grasp of the screenplay’s central idea. Without a director of his ability this would not have worked.

reply

Agreed. Just other night I was channel hopping came across BI (which id not seen for years maybe a decade and never bothered to replace my long gone vhs copy with a dvd or blu..at least I don't think so but maybe I did pick it up cheap on dvd a few years back, id have to check some old boxes) and I chuckled in a 'oh man its basic instinct' way (I first saw it on VHS back in 93ish).. then I started watching (it was near the start nick and gus first meeting Catherine at her house) and next thing im like yknow i wanna watch this again (and in HD too) so watched the rest ..taking it all in all the little nuances, hints and tips of previous deaths which I don't think id ever paid much attention to in past viewings.. and just paid more attention to the performances of all the actors (everyone in the movie is great/utterly convincing), cinematography, San Fran shot beautifully, close ups of the actors faces, the utter fearlessness of Douglas and Stone (theres an interesting post in the boards about how it was Douglas who really put himself on the line with this film https://moviechat.org/tt0103772/Basic-Instinct/5ce061825be8c45bf5e3f06e/Michael-Douglas-Was-Actually-the-Sex-Star-in-This)

it really is just a great film.. a proper film (id always known it was a superior made film but this time it just totally holds up even now) .. obviously todays big films its all CGI whiz bang superheroes .. but this was a blockbuster that was an intricate intelligent adult (literally!) movie .. with strong (and obvious) elements of Hitchcock (it is pretty much a modern day Hitchcock thriller - theres the Herrmannian score, ice blonde femme fatale, severely flawed male lead, SF setting like Vertigo, the shocks/horror pushing the boundaries like Hitchcock did in Psycho, Vertigo etc)

and your right it feels like it should be trash (like most of the BI rip offs that came after including BI2 I guess) and i think it was kind of dismissed as such at the time (at least in the general media due to the graphic sex/violence.. but film scholars must surely have appreciated it) but of course its anything but.. Its really in the same league as Silence of the Lambs as an modern classic of the physiological serial killer genre (Catherine Tramell certainly became as iconic as Hannibal Lector) or even in the same league as the Hitchcock thrillers (at least like an grade A homage/update to his type of movies).

The reason as you said is Verhovan (look at the dull non Verhovan BI sequel in comparison).. the guy is a genius filmmaker that can truly elevate anything to classic status (I mean look at his SF trilogy of Robocop, Total Recall, Starship Troopers - all classics of the genre)

reply