Examining Basic Instinct - A Video Essay | Starring Sharon Stone & Michael Douglas 

What I find fascinating is that after all these years and even though Sharon Stone has already admitted that Catherine is the killer, there are still a lot of people who don’t think she was the murderer … a sign that the movie has sort of stood the test of time.

Catherine Tramell is a puppet master. Although she deceives a lot, she ironically was telling the truth when she said she never killed anyone - the truth is that she gets other people to do it for her. You'll notice throughout the movie (if you look closely enough) that Beth, the psychiatrist and ex lover of the protagonist Nick, is an unstable person. She masks it well, but her instability reveals itself at certain moments. There's a moment where she impulsively loses her temper and attacks Nick, before quickly recomposing herself. There's another scene in a parking lot where she lovingly smiles at Nick, but when he's gone, the smile immediately disappears and a look of great turbulence comes over her face. I believe it was Beth who killed the rock star at the beginning, and it was likely she who killed Gus. Catherine merely gave the orders, and Beth followed them like a hopelessly obedient dog. Catherine gets involved with unstable people because she knows they're easy to manipulate - perfect pawns to murder for her. She's too smart to murder anyone herself. By getting unstable people to do her killing, she obviates herself of any guilt. How she does it? She knows she's smart, attractive and rich - and she knows how to flaunt those attributes to win over susceptible people. She also is good at analyzing those who are immune to her charms - those who could jeopardise her plans. It is those people she arranges to be killed. People like Gus. Why she does it? I think it's boredom. Like a typical psychopath, she has trouble feeling pretty much anything, including pleasure. Consequently she has to resort to extreme measures to arouse those feelings. Sadly those feelings dissipate just as quickly as they arise. I like to think there came a time when her illness got the better of her and she became sloppy, leading to her downfall. I anticipate that ultimately she would have been arrested, or murdered by one of her subjects. what would have been an interesting twist is if she crossed paths with another psychopath like Anton Chigurh - one who was as smart as her and as ruthless. It would make for an interesting face-off. There's a saying ''the only thing that can kill a monster is an even bigger monster''.

pretty hilarious that at one point in this movie detective curran is just watching hellraiser. it's those tiny on-the-nose moments that make me love verhoeven

this is the best Hitchcock movie that he never made.

Clara Bradbury-Rance is an absolutely brilliant analyzer. That part in the car where the rain reflects on them, is just amazing to suddenly recognize...when after many years we've been seeing the death-science technology of the reptiloids and anunnaki screeching through onto t.v. reporters and other interviewed people, which show zig-zag zebra patterns and a mish-mash of chaotic lines appear on their faces, but nowhere else on the screen. And so, when I heard her say this, I had to stop the screen at that part, to my total recognition now, yes, this is what is being represented. Brilliant. Thank you.

Michael Douglas is the GOAT

RoboCop, Total Recall, Basic Instinct, Starship Troopers. Paul Verhoeven made more classics in 10 years than most director's whole careers. Not quite John McTiernan levels of hot streak though...

Such a great film.

Why do you spoil Mulholland Drive? I didn't come here to hear about that, I came here to hear about Basic Instinct.

"What are you going to do, charge me with smoking?"

When men and women played their respective roles you could create insane fire on screen..

Sharon was F I N E

This is structured like an English essay! Reminds me of my college classes. So good!

Paul Verhoeven is the master of sexy thriller

The ice pick movie .this movie is master piece.one of the best movies of the 90s by far up there with usual suspects,enemy of the state,mask of Zorro,Die hard 2 & 3,Riggs & murtagh 3&4,L.A confidential,last boy scout,matrix,speed,point break,totall recall

Excellent textual analysis through the discipline of Film Studies reading.

I finally watched it last Halloween month. I decided to watch it high on edibles to try and make the experience more memorable. Throughout my viewing, I actively theorized that Catherine, Dr. Beth and Roxanne 'Roxy'(Catherine's girlfriend) were all working together in a secret plot to kill Det. Nick. Catherine was going to kill Nick but decided not to because she fell in love with him. Roxy wanted to help Catherine with her murder but become jealous of Nick once she saw Caths feeling were genuine and later dies in the car crash. Dr. Beth was indeed secretly obsessed with Catherine since College and wanted to grow closer to her by helping her kill Nick, but once she saw the same thing Roxy did she tried to begin framing her but Catherine was faster and framed her. In the last scene of the film, Catherine still has the urge to use the ice pick, but Nick pulls her in again. In the end the woman fell for the man. Whether or not he is right or wrong for her is up in the air.

Film nagi instynkt super film polecam

Absolute masterpiece. The last real noir.

Es un aprendizaje de polvo completo

For a Verhoeven movie, it was incredibly restrained. A bit like the victim, actually.

Lol Queer Theory has found its way into Studiocanal

02:14 Stunning and passionate look!!! Muse of beauty!!! 😍😍😍🌟🌟🌟

Catherine is the killer. The audience knows this because it shows her committing murder in the first 2 minutes of the movie. When the ice pick is revealed at the end, after a brief fade out, it's supposed to be a plot twist. Look! The ice pick, she is the killer! It's an anti twist ending. We know who the killer is. We see her at the start, murdering someone. Roxy and Beth are red herrings to pad the thin, nonsensical plot. The police are morons, and Douglas breaks the law by creating a conflict of interest. She's a suspect, and he has an affair with her. Why didn't they collect her DNA at the beginning of the film? She would have left ample evidence at the crime scene: Vaginal fluid, skin cells, hair, possibly blood, and definitely sweat and saliva. This should have been a ten minute movie. It's shot with bravura, bold cinematography, fast pace, and a blue steel tone, but it's ridiculous trash, with glaring plotholes. The only redeeming values it has are the slick veneer and Stone's performance. If anything good came out of it, it's that this movie made Sharon a star, while creating one of the all-time great villains. Too bad this character was wasted on a sloppy, poorly written story and script.

Can we have same more?please. 😭

GREAT MOVIE!!!!

Classic film for so many reasons but man the pot holes in the last 20 mins are tough to get by.

But I thought you said she couldn't have shot him in there apartment.

Como la verian ahora las feministas.jajaja

My favourite film ever

/spit