From: underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe)
Subject: REVIEW: BASIC INSTINCT
Reply-To: underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe)
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:17:07 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01564
Keywords: author=Joe

			     BASIC INSTINCT
			     [**SPOILERS**]
		       A film review by Dwight Joe
			Copyright 1992 Dwight Joe

(By the way, if you find that the use of the word "fuck" is offensive,
then don't read this review of BASIC INSTINCT.  I use that word
liberally, because it proves to be effective for what I to say to the
rather contemporary audience that reads this newsgroup.  I think that
"fuck" is the key word for this movie; you'll agree if you've seen it.
8^) )

Spoilers:



     This review of BASIC INSTINCT departs from the traditional type of
review; I shall delve much more into the psyche of the movie.  The
entire movie is a ~100-minute mind game among three main characters who
are mind-fucking each other.  The sex fucks are only part of the story.


Nick
----
     He is the protagonist who's had something eating at him for years.
Earlier in his career, he had been consuming coke, which was ruining his
judgment as a police office.  His lapses in judgment caused him to shoot
4 tourists at a shopping mall.  His wife knew about his problem,
couldn't live with it, and committed suicide.

     Ever since, he has been like a man with a restless mind that cannot
pause for even a second.  The restlessness just eats him and eats him.
He wants to relax but can't.  The pressures don't destroy him or cause
him to "crack", but they eat at him and eat at him.  Whether by his
doing or by the circumstances of life, he's been fucked.


Katharine
---------
     She is the antagonist.  She enjoys playing mind games.  She enjoys
fucking people--men and women.  Her career is to get into people's
minds, manipulate people to obtain what she wants, and to spew it all
out into a novel.  The main mindgame in the movie was framing Elizabeth
with the murders.

     Yeah.  She's the antagonist, but she is just what Nick needs.
Somehow, her mindgames provide the kind of excitement that functions as
a valve to release all the pressures in Nick's mind.  In the sex scene
involving Elizabeth, Nick was trying like all "hell broke loose" to use
the sex with her to release his mental pressures, but he was not
successful.

     Don't you see?  It takes a little more than sex.  It takes
Katharine's mind games to make it work.  When Katharine fucks Nick's
mind, Nick will try to fuck her back.  Nick knows that even if he can't
fuck her back on her level, he'll get to fuck her using the old
standby--the sexual fuck.  He always has the last fuck, so he thinks
that he "wins" (the mindgame contest).  That provides the release for
all his mental pressures.

     The trouble with Elizabeth is that she just provided the "win."
Katharine provided the both the "game" (the mindgame) and the "win."


Elizabeth
---------
     Elizabeth was a tragic victim.  She was a bisexual, and so was
Katharine.  She wasn't really playing a full-blown mind game; she was
just lying to hide her background.  The obvious reason is that she would
lose her job as the resident police psychologist.

     (If I understood the movie correctly, Katharine framed Elizabeth.
Katharine planted the pictures and clippings in Elizabeth's home.  The
minor "give away" is the murder scene in the elevator, which matched
exactly the description in the final page of Katharine's latest book
about a flaky policeman.  The major "give away" is the final shot in the
movie with the ice pick at the bottom of Nick's bed, where Nick had just
done another "mental release" with Katharine.)


Final Comments
--------------
     I find it difficult to evaluate whether this movie is enjoyable in
the general sense.  The movie isn't very deep, and there is no general
theme to it.  It says nothing about society.  Some people will simply
not like this movie because of the lack of depth.  Does "mind-gaming"
demonstrate "depth"?  I'm not so sure.

     The type of person who would enjoy this movie might be (1) someone
who understands mindgames, (2) someone who resembles Nick 8^), (3)
someone who practices mindgames, etc.


Evaluation
----------
     So, what would I give this movie?

     Funny, I'm not even sure why, but ...

4 stars out of 5
2 thumbs up  (3 thumbs up for Sharon Stone  8^) )

(If I recollect correctly, Siskel and Ebert gave it 2 thumbs down.)

Responses?  If you have comments, then please (1) send e-mail or (2) send
e-mail and post what you e-mailed.  Thanks.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews