Conference bookie::movies

RE                      <<< Note 92.0 by 25415::MAIEWSKI >>>

>the same actor that played the Butcher in "The Butcher's Wife". That actor also
>played a cop on the 1st couple seasons of the TV series "Law and Order". 
 
the always lovely George Dzundza :-)

    
    Didn't it star Michael Douglas?
    
    

  Basic Instincts, staring Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone, is a really good
film. It is a murder mystery with fine acting, tight direction, interesting
characters and plenty of excitement of both the action and emotional sort. 

  Duglas returns to the Streets of San Francisco to play a slightly different
type of cop then he played in the TV series as he tries to unravel a murder
while dealing with the "Internal Affairs" department who investigated him for a
shooting incident involving some tourists. 

  Sharon Stone gives a very good performance as the chief suspect while other
characters give very fine performances as well. Duglas' partner is played by
the same actor that played the Butcher in "The Butcher's Wife". That actor also
played a cop on the 1st couple seasons of the TV series "Law and Order". 

  Great movie for video but not recommended for the morally squeamish.

  ****,
  George 

    I can certainly understand how/why someone might enjoy this "film", but
    I have to differ with it being listed as "really good".  In fact, after
    sitting through this vacuous piece of hack crap, I was left with the
    impression that it was one of the worst movies I'd ever seen. Not "so
    bad it's good" even, just boring and utterly predictable.  And it had 
    nothing to do with morals -- take away the 14 minutes of Michael Douglas
    and Sharon thrashing around and you're left with a television movie of
    the week.  

re               <<< Note 92.5 by 6882::BEAUPRE "Duck and Cover" >>>

                                                          In fact, after
  >  sitting through this vacuous piece of hack crap, I was left with the
  >  impression that it was one of the worst movies I'd ever seen. Not "so
  >  bad it's good" even, just boring and utterly predictable. 

  So, does that mean you don't reccomend it ? :-)

  I'm curious about the predictable part. I'll use a spoiler because we are
discussing the end.

SPOILER



Ending Spoiler



  So who did it? Not only was it not predictable, I think it was a big vague
as to who was the real killer.

  I'm leaning toward the girlfriend psychologist, but I'm not 100% sure.

  George

    It wasn't an awful movie.  Granted, the Michael Douglas character was
    pretty damned stupid and there were some serious implausbilities, but
    overall, I rather liked it.  Certainly not as "shocking" as the hype
    would lead one to believe.
    
    **.5 out of ****
    
    Answer to George's question behind form feed:
    
    Spoiler warning:
    
    
    
    Sharon Stone's character did it.  The girlfriend psychologist has a
    rather distinctive nose.  Witness our brief and not very revealing
    glimpses of the person in the trenchcoat doing in the poor cop. 
    Witness her nose.  Not the little puggish nose of the girlfriend
    psychologist.  Nay, that were a Sharon Stone nose.
    
    Also, there was plenty of opportunity to frame the psychologist, who
    (as I've said in MOVIES I) was really, really stupid for a police
    psychologist.  If she treated Michael Douglas's character, that would
    explain his own inability to think logically. ;)
    
    kim

    
    Sharon Stone. *sigh*
    
    
    
    Chris
    
    

    About the ending, I think it would have been perfect if....
    
    
    (spoiler alert)
    
    
    At the end, when the camera focused on the icepick, if the picture
    suddenly went fuzzy in theforeground and there was a gun on Michael
    Douglas' side of the bed.....  <-- now that would have been a perfect
    ending!
    

  I disagree because 

SPOILER



SPOILER



  The woman that killed the guy at the beginning stabbed him with her right
hand. When Sharon Stone was busting up the ice, she used her left hand.

  Also, the woman that stabbed the guy had a habit of putting the ice pick
under the blanket on top of the mattress. Sharon Stone had her ice pick on
the floor.

  It would make sense that the killer also killed the Internal Affairs cop.
He was killed with the girl friend's .38.

  The material found in the girl friend's apartment confirmed the fact that
she was the one obsessed with Sharon Stone, not the other way around.

  It was obviously the girlfriend that was the killer,
  George

    Spoiler
    

    I agree that Mike would have had enough of a clue to place the weapon
    around for himself.  

    I thought the movie was pretty implausible, and the ending unbearable.

    As excited as the Douglas character was while in the building,
    screaming for the woman to show her hands, and for her to be 
    a psychiatrist, and keep her hands in her pocket *AND* pull out
    a stupid metal key chain was too stupid for me.

    I thought it had a chance, and just tried to be so much of a surprise
    that they had some serious character continuity problems in the end...

    spoiler
    
    spoiler 
    
    
    As far as I remember the dicussion in MOVIES V1 it was obvious
    that Sharon Stone was the killer, because she only saw the ending
    of the srcipt coming out of the printer. At definetely this ending
    happened then.
    But maybe I'm wrong.
    
    Andrea
    Andrea

    re. George's reply
    
    Spoiler warning:
    
    
    
    the material found in the girlfriend's apartment didn't prove a thing.
    It was placed there so that the girlfriend would be framed.  Remember,
    early on, Michael Douglas VERY easily walked into the girlfriend's
    apartment and told her that he could come right in.
    
    She said something to the like that her lock was broken, she'd have to
    fix it sometime.  Hence, anyone trying to frame her would have an
    excruciatingly easy time doing it.  After all, they had easy access to
    her apartment and plus, she was dumb. 
    
    

  More debate about the end:

SPOILER



SPOILER



  Actually I was overstating a bit when I said I thought the girlfriend did it.
I should have said that I am leaning toward thinking that the girlfriend did
it. My mistake, sorry.

  In fact, from what we saw, there is not enough evidence to prove that any
of the characters did it.

  To me it's easier to believe that the girlfriend got a look at the script
than it is to believe that Stone's character planted all that stuff in the
apartment. Considering the volume of material, her finger prints would have to
have been on something and it would have taken a fair amount of work to get
that all planted. 

  Also, she had no way of knowing who had seen what in the girlfriend's
apartment. One person saying "hey, I was here visiting yesterday, she showed
me what was in that draw, this all looks different" and that would have blown
the whole thing. Stone's character would have been smart enough to realize
that risk.

  The other problem is that other than the Ice Pick in the last frame (which
was in the wrong place) there is almost no evidence at all linking Stone's
character to the murder. And finally, if she was the murderer, why didn't
she kill the cop when she had the chance? Why leave the Ice Pick on the floor?

  Most likely the ending was deliberately left vague, but just for yucks and
jollies, I'm still leaning toward the girlfriend because:

    - Stone's character was left handed, the killer right handed
    - Stone's character didn't kill the cop when she had the chance
    - The girlfriend had a motive to kill her 1st husband, Stone's
      character did not
    - The girlfriend had a motive to kill the Internal Affairs cop, Stone's
      character did not

  George

    
    RE: discussion
    
    spoiler
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I'm leaning towards George's side in this one. I'd think the killer was
    the girlfriend, before I'd think it was Sharon Stone.
    
>> character to the murder. And finally, if she was the murderer, why didn't
>> she kill the cop when she had the chance? Why leave the Ice Pick on the floor?
    
    	And not only that, didn't the killer actually stab while in the
    process of intercourse? If Stone was the killer, why didn't she ice
    pick him while they were... er... having sexual intercourse?
    
    
    

    
    
    
    
    My interpretation of the ending:
    
    Spoiler
    
    
    
    I thought the ending lead you to believe that Sharon Stone was
    going to kill Michael Douglas, but it was just a matter
    of time before it happened.  
    
    It made it a better ending I think, because you knew it was
    going to happen, but not this time.....
    
    Jeanne
     
    

  Or ...
    
  Spoiler
    
    
    
  ... you could say that had she been the real murderer, she would have killed
him right away, but because she wasn't the real murderer, she wasn't quite
sure what to do. Never having killed anyone with an ice pick, she wasn't
sure if she could pull it off, or even if she wanted to do it.

  George

    ... at least they left enough open to have a reason for part II..
    

I agree with .5, not a very good film at all. The production was decent with
an excellent Jerry Goldsmith score but the acting was mediocore to poor and
the script was terrible.










****SPOILER***********SPOILER**********



















It did seem obvious to me that Sharon Stone's character was the killer. The
detail of her having the icepick under the bed instead of the covers seems
inconsequential. Just because she hid it under the covers once means she
can never hide it anywhere else?



Randy

RE    <<< Note 92.21 by 28992::WSA038::SATTERFIELD "Close enough for jazz." >>>

  ... but


SPOILER



big time SPOILER



>It did seem obvious to me that Sharon Stone's character was the killer. The
>detail of her having the icepick under the bed instead of the covers seems
>inconsequential. Just because she hid it under the covers once means she
>can never hide it anywhere else?

  ... but that wasn't the only clue. There were others:

  - The killer was right handed, she was left handed.

  - It's not reasonable to think that she could have made all of those changes
    to the girlfriend's apartment without at least one of that woman's friends
    noticing the difference.

  - She had no motive to kill the IA officer, the girlfriend did (covering up
    the fact that she had given him the documents).

  - The girlfriend turned up at the murder of the partner, she didn't.

  - She had plenty of chances to kill the hero, but she let him go every time,
    even when she seemed to need him dead to make her novel work.

  By contrast, where is there any evidence that she was guilty? The ice pick
at the end was pretty weak.

  George

    
    
    
    
    
    I dunno why I'm bothering, but some more spoilers follow:  :)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
>It did seem obvious to me that Sharon Stone's character was the killer. The
>detail of her having the icepick under the bed instead of the covers seems
>inconsequential. Just because she hid it under the covers once means she
>can never hide it anywhere else?

  ... but that wasn't the only clue. There were others:

 >> - The killer was right handed, she was left handed.

    Well, I didn't notice this, but hey, it's valid, I guess.  (not more
    valid than the great difference in noses, since one can be ambidextrous
    but one can't usually change noses....  ;)
    
 > - It's not reasonable to think that she could have made all of those changes
 >   to the girlfriend's apartment without at least one of that woman's friends
 >   noticing the difference.

    What friends?  When people come over to your house, do you show them
    your junk drawer??  "And here's where I don't usually keep icepicks, so
    if you notice them, please be sure to tell the police someone planted
    them here...."  I don't think so.  It wasn't all those changes, it was
    minor changes.  
    
  >- She had no motive to kill the IA officer, the girlfriend did (covering up
  >  the fact that she had given him the documents).

    She did it to yank MD's chain.  The whole movie was about watching
    Michael Douglass's character fall (knowingly, but unable to stop
    himself) into this mire of lust and destruction.
    
 > - The girlfriend turned up at the murder of the partner, she didn't.

    Hey, if I had just killed someone, I wouldn't hang around for the cops
    either.  Especially if I was working to frame someone.
    
    
  >- She had plenty of chances to kill the hero, but she let him go every time,
  >  even when she seemed to need him dead to make her novel work.
    
    It's called mind games.  Why kill the poor bastard when you can really
    make him suffer?  He wasn't going to arrest her.  Ever.  He was caught,
    hook, line and sinker.
    

>>  By contrast, where is there any evidence that she was guilty? The ice pick
>>at the end was pretty weak.
    
    Weak as compared to what?  An obvious red herring like the girlfriend?
    
    But if you want the word from the horse's mouth, read on:
    
    Possible bigger spoiler (?):
    
    
    
    
    Interview with Paul Verhooven (sp), the director:  He was asked who did
    it.  He *said* Sharon Stone's character.  I believe this was in
    Entertainment Magazine.

    kim
    

RE    <<< Note 92.23 by 12035::RIVERS "may this vale be my silver lining." >>>

>    I dunno why I'm bothering, but some more spoilers follow:  :)

  Because like the rest of us, you enjoy the thrill of the debate.

    


Big time spoilers



>    Interview with Paul Verhooven (sp), the director:  He was asked who did
>    it.  He *said* Sharon Stone's character.  I believe this was in
>    Entertainment Magazine.

  If that's who he thought did it, then he did a bad job of making his point.
It seems that the director in a murder mystery has a responsibility to prove
that the guilty party did it. He proved almost nothing.

  Sure it's easy to poke holes in the girlfriend theory, but other than the Ice
Pick on the floor, I still don't see the hard evidence that Catherine (?) was
guilty. And the Ice Pick fit her thrill seeking tendencies perfectly. 

  Here's another one, during her interview with Barbara Walters, Sharon Stone
said that she did two nude scenes which took 10 days to film. Well, there
were three nude scenes, the two that were obviously done by Douglas and Stone
(one at her place and one at his) and the one at the beginning done by the
killer. 

  George

    
    Spoiler:
    
    
    
      spoiler:
    
    
    	The ice pick under the bed at the end of the movie was put there
    by the writer of the movie to make it clear to the viewer that Sharon
    Stone was the killer. It is the clincher.
    
    There is no other reason for it. If she were not the killer, it would
    not be shown there at the *end* of the movie - since there is no reason 
    for a red-herring at that point.
    
    It is there for you to think: "Oh, boy, Mike Douglas is in for some
    wild ride."
          

    re .25, exactly.  I agree with you.  It just seemed obvious to me.  
    
    I disagree with George's viewpoint.
    
    Didn't especially like the movie.  Nothing special.  Okay for what it
    was I guess, but it's not my taste.  (I saw it because I was with 2
    people who wanted to see it.)
    
    Lorna

  ... [your witness counselor]

  Slowly the defense attorney gets up and wanders over to cross examine yet
another witness for the prosecution ... 

Spoiler



last chance



  If the movie had ended with her reaching back and grabbing the Ice Pick from
under the covers as she had at the beginning, I would tend to agree. But on the
floor, it's not so clear. 

  Also, not only was the location of the Ice Pick different, but her behavior
with the Ice Pick was different. In the opening scene, the Ice pick was ready
and she grabbed it very decisively and stabbed the victim many times. At the end,
she was looking down toward the floor unsure of how to grab it or when it
should be used. 

  If she was so decisive in both previous murders, why show confusion at the
end? 

  Easy, because she had written about it, but she had never actually used the
Ice Pick to kill someone. Unlike the real killer, she was unsure on how to go
about getting the drop on someone.

  George

	I'm curious if anyone has seen this both when it was
	at the movies and now on video/laser, and if so, if
	they could answer this question.

	I saw the film at the movies and at the movies in the
	infamous police station interogation scene where Sharon
	Stone crosses her legs, they showed very explicit female
	lower frontal nudity (which I was very surprised for a
	R rated film!).

	However some friends saw it only on video and they indicated
	that the above mentioned nudity wasn't explicit.  Did they
	edit that scene for the home video market?  Seems strange sense
	they usually add footage for home video, not remove it!

	Did anyone else also hear that Sharon Stone did not know that
	it was going to be such a close-up and was surprised herself?
	She certainly seemed to blush when Billy C. made the joke about
	it at the Oscars Monday night!

  It was in the video I rented. She mentioned it on the Barbara Walters
interview just before the Oscars. She said that she didn't know they were going
to use it and didn't find out until she was seeing the final version with a
large group of people. It was somewhat embarrassing and she indicated that she
felt the director handled it badly by not telling her about it before hand. 

  However it doesn't seem that she's bothered all that much. She made a lot of
jokes about it when she did Saturday Night Live (one of there better shows this
past season) and she seemed to be joking about it somewhat during her
presentation at the Oscars when she referred to "backbone" as part of the
anatomy. 

  George

    
    	On the "whodunnit" issue:
    	
        (spoiler)	
    
    
    	Either the Stone character was clairvoyant, or the print-out of her
    latest novel clinches it for me.  If it wasn't her, this is one good
    call:
    
    	(the text on the screen runs off the sides, so this is all you see)
    
    		Shooter raced into the
    		pounded the button for the
    		up the staircase, his
    		His partner's dead body
    		elevator, legs sticking out
    
    	BTW: each time Stone wields the ice pick - in the opening
    murder and the ice-chopping scenes at her home and Douglas' apartment, she
    uses her right hand.
    
    	Pretty clear to me.
    									Les
    	

RE       <<< Note 92.30 by 6179::FISTER "Twenty minutes into the future" >>>
>                               -< The evidence! >-




Spoiler



  A number of people had access to Cathrine's house. She consulted with her
woman lover and the older woman killer. Both are likely to have known about
that part of the book and either could have leaked to to anyone much earlier
than we saw it. 

  The case against Cathrine (I think that was her name) is very weak.

  - The Ice pick at the end proves she had a morbid sense of humor but not that
    she was a killer.

  - The description of the partner that was killed was seen by several people.

  - There are a number of alternate suspects including the detective's
    girlfriend and her woman lover, probably the one with the greatest
    motive.

  - The changes she would have had to make to the girlfriend's apartment
    would have been very difficult.

  - It would have been very difficult to be sure there were no finger prints
    or any other evidence on the stuff she planted. A single hair or skin from
    a paper cut would have placed her in the girlfriend's apartment.

  If all they had was what we saw they would get laughed out of court. I'm not
sure if we even saw enough evidence to get an indictment. 

  I wouldn't even agree to man 3. They'd never get a conviction on what we
saw.

  George

    spoiler:
    
    
    George, at the risk of running this into the ground...:')
    
    Movies don't end like this one did just to say: Stone's character has a 
    sick sense of humor. The ice pick was there to erase all doubts from the
    viewer's mind of the identity of the killer.
    
    It is a device to wrap-up the story.
    
    Now, you may find hundreds of inconsistencies in the script, and you'd
    be right, because this thing was written very poorly IMO. The fact that
    you are NOT sure of the killer is proof of that. But because you have
    reasons to believe Stone was not the killer doesn't make it so. I could
    give you a hundred reasons why I don't think Dorothy was dreaming in
    The Wizard of Oz, I could argue that it all actually took place, but again,
    that doesn't make it so.
    
    Trust me on this: If Stone was not the killer - the ice pick would not be
    shown under the bed. 
    
    In movies... almost everything has a reason for being where it is. 
    Especially things like this, at the very end of a movie.
    
    re;
    James                    

What's with all this nitpicking ?

It is just a movie...and fiction at that !!!!!!

RE     <<< Note 92.33 by 45106::ALFORD "lying Shipwrecked and comatose..." >>>


>What's with all this nitpicking ?
>It is just a movie...and fiction at that !!!!!!

  Half the fun of movies is talking about them. I'm sure that the critique
industry is a multi-million if not a multi-billion dollar industry in itself.

  Siskel and Ebert are both millionaires mainly because people love to hear them
argue about movies and to take sides with one or the other.

  We argue about this movie because it's fun to argue about this movie.

  George

    
    George,
    
    You weren't by any chance a member of the debate team 
    in school? ;-)
    
    J
    

re .33

>  It is just a movie...and fiction at that !!!!!!


Or, to quote Alfred Hitchcock, "It's just a mooooovie."  :^)


Randy

    RE: .34  by 25415::MAIEWSKI 
    
  >Half the fun of movies is talking about them. I'm sure that the critique
  >industry is a multi-million if not a multi-billion dollar industry in itself.

    What's the other half?
    

RE              <<< Note 92.37 by 3270::AHERN "Dennis the Menace" >>>

>    What's the other half?
    
  Watching the movie.

  George

    What was the name of the character Sharon Stone played?
    

    who was the actress that played the psychologist ??
    
    

    Dr. Elisabeth Garner was played by Jeanne Tripplehorn, who is now 
    "costarring" (for lack of a better word) as a blond French (I think) 
    bimbo in the movie THE NIGHT WE NEVER MET. TNWNM also stars Matthew
    Broderick. 
    
    Big waste of talent(s) in that movie, IMHO.
    
    Catherine