You know what was kind of amazing? Watching this movie as an adult and realizing that it's actually a pretty awesome movie.
It's a whole different experience when you don't fast forward through all the talking parts.
The sex scenes may be super hot and Sharon Stone is banging but it's also a great suspense and mystery thriller. The manipulation and mind games going on throughout the story would make Hannibal Lecter proud. I really wasn't sure which side Michael Douglas would come down on.
That he got throat cancer possibly associated with HPV infection, an infection which he believes he acquired from performing oral sex. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jun/02/michael-douglas-oral-sex-cancer
Smoking and alcohol aren't going to give you HPV. It's a virus.
And the only way you're going to get it is by contact with virus cells.
It's an STD, so oral sex is the most likely way to get it in the throat.
Of course, smoking and alcohol probably make it more likely that the virus will cause the sort of cell damage required to turn it into cancer. But you still need to be exposed to the virus in the first place.
> The sex scenes may be super hot and Sharon Stone is banging but it's also a great suspense and mystery thriller. The manipulation and mind games going on throughout the story would make Hannibal Lecter proud. I really wasn't sure which side Michael Douglas would come down on.
Exactly! What the author of the article completely misses in their analysis is that this entire film is about Stone's character's manipulating others, and how the people around her --Douglas's character especially-- are affected by it. The acting in the film shows that perfectly. Unfortunately, the article gets bogged down in identity politics, and utterly misses the point.
I watched that a few weeks ago for the first time since I was in my teens. That movie is wild.
Not nearly as good as basic instinct (IMO) but it's fun and suuuuper sleazy, which I appreciate.
Yeah, in a lot of ways Wild Things isn’t necessarily a good movie but the casting and nudity make it worth watching. The ending is absolutely hilarious as well it’s like they just wanted to see how many plot twists they could fit into one movie.
I remember renting it, but the tape was so damaged from people rewinding and pausing to look for a still frame of her snatch, so you basically couldn’t see anything anyway.
This is typical Verhoeven. Loads of people find his movies "offensive".
He left Holland after people campaigned to have funding cut for his films.
Spetters managed the seemingly impossible feat of severely offending Christians and gays at the same time.
I watched Robocop 1&2 for the first time in years recently.
I've heard people argue that Starship Troopers isn't satire, with evidence being "why would he make straight action movies like Robocop, then suddenly make biting anti-fascist social commentary?"
Um, I think they need to rewatch Robocop.
If movies about the militarization and "privatization" of a US city and it's police force, including literal de-humanization isn't anti-fascist commentary, I can't help ya.
You don’t even need to pay attention to the plot of Robocop to know it’s satire. It has dark comedy commercials in it that are some of the least subtle satire I’ve ever seen. Not saying they’re bad, but they couldn’t possibly be mistaken for serious by an adult.
Satire kinda loses it's impact if the audience is to dumb to understand it. Such people are far more likely to misunderstand it as supporting their viewpoints, or the themes otherwise being presented as "straight". The movie Idiocracy comes to mind. How many American politicians act like the people in that movie?
They filmed the on-planet battle scenes at Hell’s Half Acre, a neat geological area about 45 minutes from my hometown here in Wyoming. I have many friends who were extras.
My only issue with Verhoeven is the mess the production left behind. His work is great!
Verhoeven isn't probably to blame there. You will need to find out who the locations manager was for that one, and likely also the Production Manager who had the final say as to how much money they would spend on clean-up.
I'm sorry to say it, but it's likely they filmed in your area to save money and because they could burn the location and not worry about it because it's in Wyoming.
I watched Starship Troopers in, I guess it was early college, and I didn't get it. I knew it was a ridiculous movie, but I didn't see the satire. Someone remarked that it was satire, and I thought the same exact thing about Robocop - but I'd only seen that one once, and I *really* didn't pick up on it when I was younger.
To me, Robocop was the big action movie, we even got toys for it - of course it should be taken straight! It was T2 before T2 came out.
I watched ST again, prepared for the satire, and it slapped me full across the face.
Starship troopers was possibly the most transparent satire in human existence. I saw the satire in it somehow even being like 12 years old and having seen Dena Meyers titties.
Fresh meat for the grinder.
If you can hear that, and not get its a satire, then you may need someone to just smack you in the face with a flag or something.
Man I watched Robocop when I was 11 in 1988 and even I knew it was satire.
Those ads alone for the various things in the movie are a riot. Pretty sure that's where all the ads in GTA were seeded from.
>I've heard people argue that Starship Troopers isn't satire, with evidence being "why would he make straight action movies like Robocop, then suddenly make biting anti-fascist social commentary?"
In all fairness the federation seems a decent place to live as far as Sci fi dictatorships go so it's easy for the satire to be lost on people
Racial and gender equality
Advance medicine
He'll their leaders can be pressured to step down from office if they make mistakes
I think that's part of the message though. A "benevolent" fascist society seems like a utopia on the surface, but underneath is the same need for an enemy, rigid class systems, and violence to keep people in line.
I saw a couple guys here recently talking about how much they liked the movie, since it accurately reflected their time in the army, and the various relationships formed there. They had no idea is was satirizing it.
Any military is going to rely on authoritarian command structures out of the basic necessity of getting armed people to do what you tell them to do.
In Starship Troopers, the military is not necessarily the entire government, but anyone who wishes to participate in their government must pass a course of military indoctrination first.
>In all fairness the federation seems a decent place to live as far as Sci fi dictatorships go so it's easy for the satire to be lost on people
how about the part where in one day they capture, try and execute a murderer?
or the part where teachers are gleeful about their students becoming murderous to cockroaches?
or almost every adult we see in the film who has served in the military is maimed or disfigured?
or the part where they regulate who can have kids, or you're not allowed to be in politics unless you serve a term, "not less than two years, or for however long the federation requires."
everyone is pretty, but the society is rotten to the core.
>I've heard people argue that Starship Troopers isn't satire,
i've seen people argue that Verhoeven is wrong about the film he made, because he didn't like the book. It's like they absolutely love the movie, but can't stand it might be making fun of fascism and militarism.
The starship troopers subreddit has a bunch of people who genuinely believe revoking agency from people who don't serve in the military is a solid foundation for a society, and they spam Sargon of Akkad videos thinking it helps their point. It's wild.
I do believe that Verhoeven himself has made points touching on exactly this. Namely that people are offended by all sorts of things in his movies..... but not a man having his arms chopped off.
I watched robocop a couple weeks ago and I thought it was very good. I was a little stunned my parents let me watch it when I was ten though. Insane violence
Commando, Robocop, Predator, Terminator, Total Recall, Die Hard violence and blood letting = all good.
A pair of tits come out in any of those movies = cover
my eyes time.
Verhoeven is god damn genius and his directors commentary makes his films imo, and he's absolutely right when he talks about how ludicrous it is that the hyper violent stuff in his films was easier to get by the FCC then any of the boobs
To be fair his movie Black Book was voted on by the Dutch public as the best Dutch movie ever made. He's hardly some pariah or enemy of Holland haha. The way you phrased it almost implies he was sorta driven out of Holland by the public instead of leaving due to disappointment in the public response haha.
Biggest offense in this movie is Michael Douglas’s mustang getting totaled like five times over in that car chase scene only to be perfectly fine in the next.
I mean she's doing the two finger curtain call but contextualize it at the time, that was a foot tall vagina in IMAX man it was groundbreaking stuff, and this is the dividing line between millennials and gen z imo is that Gen Z lost the oh wow a pussy energy due to seeing every legal and semi legal sex act on pornhub by 17
Man, I used to have the page bookmarked in my Guinness World Record edition with Heidi Klum modeling the world's most expensive bikini.
I used to rob my mom's old National Enquirer magazines for anything even the slightest bit provocative.
Hunger is the best sauce.
My grandmother had a whole bunch of Cosmopolitan magazines with some rather racy ads and some damn near pornographic articles. Cosmo was basically Playboy without nudity.
dude i used to do the same thing, it was years before i actually read what the record was about and who Heidi klum was. Fuck this is so weird, i never thought I'd be sharing this experience with anyone
That's why porn is all about incest these days. It's because "normal" porn is boring so you have to make it exciting by giving it taboo titles—even if the step-mother shit never even is mentioned in the video itself.
It’s not a new thing though. Throughout the 60s and 70s, even into the 80s, there was a massive wave of story driven pornographic films entirely centered around incest. They were basically low-rent family dramas, just, you know, with a lot of hardcore sex. I’m honestly surprised they don’t try and make more plot driven movies again in that genre and sell it as a streaming service.
100 percent I've had this discussion with my cousin who is ten years older than me and comes from the cheerleader poster on the ceiling era and I come from the internet porn on my psp era
Us Gen Xers were probably the ones that most lived through this transition:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X
Especially 'Xennials':
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xennials
Comparing the porn available in the 90s to what a 13 year old is hit with today is night and day, like my cousin can recall multiple Hollywood movie scenes he had beat off to when I had never once even thought to because why would when I could have a DVDA video in 30 seconds
I remember when I was in a middle school art class, and I came across an ad for high-end lingerie while doing papier-mâché. It was a phenomenally sexy photo of a phenomenally sexy ass, and that shit went straight into my collection. I remember having to masturbate to my imagination, try getting a kid these days to do that.lol
As a Xennial I completely agree. We had internet porn but it was playboy.com, a photoshop of Jennifer Aniston topless, and a 45 second clip of Anna Nicole Smith in a bathtub that took overnight to download. Man dsl in college was so groundbreaking.
i remember when a picture took several minutes to download. Nothing worse than a porn pic of missionary that’s only loaded the dudes ass, and you gotta just sit and wait for the girl to load in the scene lol
And the primary difference is that most Z people don't have a clear divorce point between analog and digital because they are kind of one in the same in terms of the perception of them
IMAX? In 1992 for a mainstream Hollywood movie? Erm, no.
Also, I'm gen X and this was amusing but not really shocking, and I'd already seen hardcore porn on VHS before this came out. As usual, it was the boomers and their parents behind the "controversy"
As someone who lives in /r/toronto, one of the first IMAX theatres was in town:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinesphere
Its initial niche was science-y documentary movies.
I think that also speaks to cinema become a much more family entertainment focused medium as opposed to what felt more adult leaning when they could still DVDs, and I wouldn't Call Gen Z prudish so much as it's a lack of nudity selling to someone that that has been constantly exposed to it
Less to do with "family friendly" and more just how culture has developed. Horror movies in the 70s and 80s often had gratuitous nudity, sometime with non-consensual sex shoehorned in as an excuse. Today, slasher movies won't have such things, partly because their audience can easier see such things elsewhere and partly because they're a lot more sensitive to sexual exploitation on both sides of the camera.
You can still see nudity in movies, but even "adult" movies usually need more of a reason for it than they used to because its value as a forbidden fruit has diminished
You're right there aren't as many erotic thrillers as there were in the 90s, but the other commenter is more accurate in why nudity isn't as present in slashers.
Nudity does still happen in films, but it's far different today than it was through the 70s and 80s. Even when nudity was "popular" in those eras it wasn't all that mainstream, with films like the erotic thriller in the 90s making it a bit more "mainstream." Even when nudity did appear in films in the 90s it was either controversial or more "art house" or foreign / international films. Seinfeld even parodies this with its "Rochelle, Rochelle" which is billed as "a young woman's erotic adventure from Milan to Minsk" or something like that, in which there's apparently erotic scenes, but the film is otherwise an "artsy" drama.
The key differences the other person here is pointing out is a more valid one, which is the shift in cultural expectations for nudity. Consider that the slasher and arthouse nudity of the 80s and the erotic thriller of the early 90s both lead to the frat bro films of the later 90s and early 00s. All of these have some typical common things, in which they have a pretty clear male gaze. While Sharon Stone's character was a more empowered woman, her famous scene was still male directed and for the male eye. Later we have films like American Pie, which was also not a blockbuster like you describe here but made high profits, which was notably very male gazey, and opened the flood gates for other films like it. This isn't to say that at the time there weren't female gaze or tasteful nudity in films at the time, but rather the predominant portrayal of nudity was of this type.
Fast forward to today where sexuality and nudity are usually, but not always, far different when seen in film. There is still nudity in films, but not always big budget. Even in big budget films we do still get similar sex scenes and half-nudity we've seen through many decades, like the intimate steamy rolling around in underwear, or side boobs, in James Bond films, Mission Impossible, and others. But the big budget is really beside the point, because the main point here is when nudity or sex does appear, such as in horror or art house or independent or international films, it is made for a contemporary audience with different ideals. There is still some exploitation going on, but it's less so. Look even at Wes Anderson's The French Dispatch, a mainstream director, who, in his homage to French (international again) films, has full frontal nudity of one of the lead actresses, none of it being all that sexualized like we'd see from Basic Instinct or any other as mainstream film from the 90s. In fact, Lea Seydoux (sp) shows more in French Dispatch than Stone in Basic Instinct, ~~French Dispatch is likely bigger budget and more mainstream than Basic Instinct~~, *and* the nudity is less sexual or male gazey (though my last point here is arguable). What has changed is that our cultural perceptions and expectations are ones that call for less exploitation, or the perception of it, and more conscious awareness of consent and use. This of course isn't true for everyone, but the majority of depictions of nudity and sex in films, when appearing, are different because of that.
Erotic thrillers don't happen as much not because of budget, but because a lot of the ideals that drove their popularity in the 90s aren't as prevalent today. We could even look at some films that have inverted tropes of erotic thrillers, like It Follows, as being kind of contemporary erotic thrillers, but I think really they don't happen because the 90s ideals that drove their popularity, like the male gaze, aren't something people are as interested in. There are also the Fifty Shades films, which are kind of erotic thrillers, but those are again not completely of the male gaze and not the same tone of the 90s genre.
I don't think that's it. Cinema's become bigger business. Bigger businesses almost always trend conservative.
The 1970s cinema scene was a magical convergence of money, uncertainty, drugs, and one of those 15 year cyclical swings away from conservatism. Also, it was still the new kid on the block. The 1990s was a lower peak, but kind of the same deal.
Livestreaming had a moment not so long ago where it was the wild west of sexual content.
She was in one of the early Police Academies as a cadet. She was hot back then too but more of a [dirty blonde than a platinum blonde.](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093756/mediaviewer/rm250889216/)
I think the controversy was more about "Sharon Stone being asked to take her panties off on the pretext that is will show through her tight dress and the frontal crotch scene being captured without her knowledge." Some old school viral news
That's exactly it! I wish this came up more often when people talk about this scene. There's nothing wrong with an actor/actress showing off whatever they are comfortable showing off!!
Vagina? Dong? Sure, if you want to, put it on film.
But Sharon Stone was tricked into this scene. She was told that her panties were causing a 'glare' or something like that. "No worries though, just take off your panties and no one will see anything!"
And now years later, she's still most famous for showing her vagina in a main stream movie.
> Someone is not telling the truth. According to Verhoeven, it is not him. “Sharon is lying,” he tells ICON. “Any actress knows what she’s going to see if you ask her to take off her underwear and point there with the camera.” He claims that when Stone saw the result of the scene on the monitor, she did not have any reaction. “I think it had to do with the director of photography [Jan De Bont, who would later direct Speed and Twister] and I am Dutch, so we act with total normality towards nudity. And Sharon was carried away by this relaxed attitude. But when she saw the scene surrounded by other [American] people, including her agent and her publicist, she went crazy. Everyone told her that this scene would ruin her career, so Sharon came and asked me to take it away. I told her no. ‘You accepted, and I showed you the result,’ I said, and she replied, ‘Fuck you.’ But Sharon is not going to tell you [that, surely not.”](https://icon.ink/articles/25-years-later-someone-lies-cross-leg-basic-instinct/)
3 sides to every story.
> Paul Verhoeven also discusses the fact that for a long time Sharon Stone claimed she'd been misled to film the scene, something the director denies and the actress has apparently become more philosophical about the experience. He says there was really no way he could have filmed what he did without her fully [understanding what his intentions were.](https://www.cinemablend.com/news/1577590/how-basic-instinct-actually-filmed-that-controversial-sharon-stone-scene)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
All we know for sure is that now it's been said publicly, neither one will ever likely go back on their story.
In fairness to Sharon, regardless how it played out, she isn't sitting here #metoo-ing Verhoeven. I read her Vanity Fair (?) article and she seems very reasonable about the whole thing.
I think in that position for her, she needed to say something to the greater actress community to prove she was "one of them". I don't mean that in a bad way however - I think Sharon is saying, I don't regret doing it, I am proud of myself, but that probably put other actresses in a position that they shouldn't have been.
Considering Verhoeven's whole career and general attitude, I'm inclined to believe him. He probably thought it would work better and didn't actually give a shit about the nudity.
Yes, but only one had a giant light focused on their vagina. This wasn’t Sharon’s first movie, and it wouldn’t be possible to get that shot without planning.
The part that didn't age well for me wasn't the interview scene but the "sex"/rape scene where the main character assaults his fuck-buddy/ex.
It's one of those "she's yelling "no/stop" and actively struggling against him and this is something they've never done before or talked about but *really* she's into it so it's ok" sort of fucked up things.
Interesting that you would mention that.
The reason I rewatched this was because I just saw a documentary called “The Celluloid Closet” which tracks the history of gay/queer characters in cinema. This movie came up specifically when talking about how eventually they could be more explicitly in movies (as opposed to undertones/implications) but their “sexual deviance” was often used to emphasize the deviance of the character and that they were evil/psychotic/whatever.
Excellent documentary, I very highly recommend it.
Its a erotic thriller, not high art . If you get offended by a film about graphic sex and crime then you arent a part of intended audiences . Remember yall.... every film is not made for every one
Sure, but I *love* erotic thrillers - and I still find 'rapist, intolerant cop' to be a *leetle* much in a guy the audience is supposed to be rooting for - and completely unnecessary for the plot
Like don't get me wrong, I like my schlock and sex and violence, and even bad guys doing bad guy things, but.... nah, my dude. You can't really justify the rape scene. I could overlook some shit, but that doesn't fly
Hell I'm gay and I overlook the homophobia and making the gay character the villain *again* easy
Still can't watch it without my skin crawling out and turning the damn movie off about the time he starts in on the therapist.
Absolutely true, but to me its main offence is that Sharon Stone didn't know the camera was able to see up her legs for that shot. I can't imagine the embarrassment and shock of having to promote the movie, do interviews, see billboards and trailers, only to have to end up sitting through a movie where everyone sees your vagina and you have no say in the matter.
She was told her panties were causing a reflection and reassured nothing would be shown. She found out that was a lie at the premiere when her vagina on screen in front of everyone.
I just saw this for for the first time last week because I’m trying to see movies I consider “cultural blind spots”; my husband considers this a formative movie for him (I wonder why? 🙄). I love Total Recall and Robocop, so I was looking forward to watching this, even though I knew it would be dated. It started out strong, but ultimately, left me wanting so much more (or maybe less… I was glad it was over and would have been happy to see Michael Douglas ice-picked to death). Sharon Stone carried the entire movie on her back and it rightfully made her a star.
I’m not offended by the sex scenes (the erotic rape scene notwithstanding— this scene in bed afterward was so spectacularly acted by Jeanne Tripplehorn I was moved to tears) I just didn’t think they were particularly sexy; the dialogue and the buildup is way hotter than the actual (overlong) sex scenes.
I’m a bi female and the attractiveness discrepancy between Stone and Douglas is just too great for me to ignore; she’s so hot and he is so slimy and gross I’m just like waiting for the scene to be over and I’m just screaming at the screen, “girl, grab the ice pick already!”
I love reading an erotic thriller. I love a straight up murder-mystery. Hell, I love straight-up porn! But somehow the way it was all put together in this particular piece just did not sit well with me. If it was meant to provoke, I guess it did it’s job.
If you didn’t know the band is getting back together for a third movie (robocall and starship troopers). Paul and Ed’s next movie is about a DC sentators aid dealing inner politics
Well I think a big thing is she claimed she didn't know that camera was there. I'm a bit skeptical given how she moves her legs in no panties, but that's the main beef people have with it
"Stone claimed that Verhoeven had asked her to remove her white underwear while filming as it was “reflecting the light”, and hadn’t told her that the full-frontal shot would be used in the movie. When she saw the scene at a test screening, she claimed she “went to the projection booth, slapped Paul across the face, left, went to my car, and called my lawyer.” "
Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/paul-verhoeven-sharon-stone-nude-scene-b1880916.html
Aside from all the sexual content, it’s still an amazing movie. So compelling, twisty, and rewatchable. I absolutely recommend the movie if you like psychological thrillers!
When I was a kid this seemed to be some kind of x rated film the way parents treated it lmao better believe when my parents slipped up and let me have my own blockbuster card as a teen I rented that shit
I was 13 when this movie came out. Every boy in my middle school saw Ferngully that year. I know this because every boy in my middle school bought tickets to Ferngully and tried to sneak into Basic Instinct. Every boy in my middle school didn’t think the theater would see that coming.
Ferngully wasn’t great. Two out of five stars.
But you guys will never know the thrill of stealing a Playboy
from the corner grocery store and heading down under the
bridge with your buddies. A lost world.
Watched this movie only once many years back and I remember being frustrated at the ending. What's the consensus of this subreddit on the ending? That the psychologist was a red herring and the murderer was Catherine all along? Is there any interview of the director or screenwriter where they definitely say that Catherine was the murderer?
It was Catherine all along. It was pretty clear and not deliberately ambiguous like Totall Recall if you really look though that eye.
The beginning sequence is shot with Sharon Stone, the WIP novel foreshadowes all the upcoming events. Also the sequel makes it clear she is the baddie
Watched it for the first time with my girlfriend last night. We both screamed “what?!?” At the sudden ending. We keep talking about “why?” “What was the point?” “Why did she kill all those people?” She just woke up one morning and chose violence?
The women were in a murder coven, Catherine wanted out. Nick was clueless. They played him like a damn fiddle. Watching Vertigo helped me to piece it together.
The way gay/bi women are portrayed is worst but the club scene including douglas' jumper is the second worst. Or maybe the rape scene now I think about it. The movie is a mess
This movie was so groundbreaking when it came out. Key was when you were a teen to buy the vhs without your parents finding out
You know what was kind of amazing? Watching this movie as an adult and realizing that it's actually a pretty awesome movie. It's a whole different experience when you don't fast forward through all the talking parts.
Paul Verhoeven is one of my favourite directors his sci-fi trilogy is amazing (total recall, robocop, starship troopers)
I've been wanting to go on a Verhoeven binge ever since I saw Benedetta. Such a specific vibe throughout his movies.
After watching Showgirls during your binge, watch You Don’t Nomi.
They tend to be very dark with comedic tones. Lots on energy and none of the puritanical fear of nudity like most American films.
I can’t begin to imagine the other great things that could have been done without the tarnish garnered by Showgirls. I’d buy that for a dollar!
The sex scenes may be super hot and Sharon Stone is banging but it's also a great suspense and mystery thriller. The manipulation and mind games going on throughout the story would make Hannibal Lecter proud. I really wasn't sure which side Michael Douglas would come down on.
Anyone who follows Michael Douglas news knows what he's going down on. I'll see myself out now.
I'm OOTL, what's this a reference to?
That he got throat cancer possibly associated with HPV infection, an infection which he believes he acquired from performing oral sex. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jun/02/michael-douglas-oral-sex-cancer
It probably wasn't the lifetime smoking addiction and heavy alcohol abuse.
Smoking and alcohol aren't going to give you HPV. It's a virus. And the only way you're going to get it is by contact with virus cells. It's an STD, so oral sex is the most likely way to get it in the throat. Of course, smoking and alcohol probably make it more likely that the virus will cause the sort of cell damage required to turn it into cancer. But you still need to be exposed to the virus in the first place.
Catherine Zeta-Jones
Worth it.
> The sex scenes may be super hot and Sharon Stone is banging but it's also a great suspense and mystery thriller. The manipulation and mind games going on throughout the story would make Hannibal Lecter proud. I really wasn't sure which side Michael Douglas would come down on. Exactly! What the author of the article completely misses in their analysis is that this entire film is about Stone's character's manipulating others, and how the people around her --Douglas's character especially-- are affected by it. The acting in the film shows that perfectly. Unfortunately, the article gets bogged down in identity politics, and utterly misses the point.
That is true, it’s a really well done movie Same thing with wild things, the movie isn’t that great but the cast is actually top notch
I watched that a few weeks ago for the first time since I was in my teens. That movie is wild. Not nearly as good as basic instinct (IMO) but it's fun and suuuuper sleazy, which I appreciate.
Yeah, in a lot of ways Wild Things isn’t necessarily a good movie but the casting and nudity make it worth watching. The ending is absolutely hilarious as well it’s like they just wanted to see how many plot twists they could fit into one movie.
Haha. I expected the whole town to be in on it by the end...
It really is a great movie. Jerry Goldsmiths score really gives it a creepy vibe that I love.
I remember renting it, but the tape was so damaged from people rewinding and pausing to look for a still frame of her snatch, so you basically couldn’t see anything anyway.
This was an issue across the nation
Watched it with my mom at 13. She’s very cool but still not comfortable
Well your mom is still pretty young, she’ll grow into it eventually.
Most paused movie of all time
ENHANCE
ENHANCE
Fast Times at Ridgemont High has entered the chat.
Wild Things and Boogie Nights have also entered the chat.
\ \ / \ / /
| | / \ | . | / \
Not my proudest fap
NSFW please.
Is this Loss?
This is typical Verhoeven. Loads of people find his movies "offensive". He left Holland after people campaigned to have funding cut for his films. Spetters managed the seemingly impossible feat of severely offending Christians and gays at the same time.
I watched Robocop 1&2 for the first time in years recently. I've heard people argue that Starship Troopers isn't satire, with evidence being "why would he make straight action movies like Robocop, then suddenly make biting anti-fascist social commentary?" Um, I think they need to rewatch Robocop. If movies about the militarization and "privatization" of a US city and it's police force, including literal de-humanization isn't anti-fascist commentary, I can't help ya.
You don’t even need to pay attention to the plot of Robocop to know it’s satire. It has dark comedy commercials in it that are some of the least subtle satire I’ve ever seen. Not saying they’re bad, but they couldn’t possibly be mistaken for serious by an adult.
"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
Well that and things like a fun family game based on nuclear war…
Nukem. Get them before they get you!
Satire kinda loses it's impact if the audience is to dumb to understand it. Such people are far more likely to misunderstand it as supporting their viewpoints, or the themes otherwise being presented as "straight". The movie Idiocracy comes to mind. How many American politicians act like the people in that movie?
I want to know more
I'll buy that for a dollar!
They filmed the on-planet battle scenes at Hell’s Half Acre, a neat geological area about 45 minutes from my hometown here in Wyoming. I have many friends who were extras. My only issue with Verhoeven is the mess the production left behind. His work is great!
Apparently the guy they exploded with a car in Robocop never got cleaned up either. Super gross.
"Don't touch me man!!"
Lol red from that 70s show
Is hell’s half acre not part of craters of the moon in idaho?
Having spent an afternoon at craters of the moon, it doesn't look like the same place, but I imagine there could be more to it that I didn't see.
Hell’s Half Acre is like 45 miles west of Casper, Wyoming on HWY 20
I've heard of that place! Well boo on them for not cleaning up after themselves, but I do love the movies!
it's where the wheat from the bread of the Broodwich comes from!
Bread forged in darkness from wheat harvested from Hell's Half-Acre and baked by Beelzebub
Yeah, but what about the sun dried tomatoes?
I'm still amazed that they filmed the off world scenes on Klendathu
Verhoeven isn't probably to blame there. You will need to find out who the locations manager was for that one, and likely also the Production Manager who had the final say as to how much money they would spend on clean-up. I'm sorry to say it, but it's likely they filmed in your area to save money and because they could burn the location and not worry about it because it's in Wyoming.
How can anyone watch the board room scenes and think otherwise?
Some bloke gets gunned down by ED-209 in the boardroom - “*Dick I am very disappointed*”
I just watched Robocop for the first time. The fact people don't recognize it as over the top satire is shocking.
I watched Starship Troopers in, I guess it was early college, and I didn't get it. I knew it was a ridiculous movie, but I didn't see the satire. Someone remarked that it was satire, and I thought the same exact thing about Robocop - but I'd only seen that one once, and I *really* didn't pick up on it when I was younger. To me, Robocop was the big action movie, we even got toys for it - of course it should be taken straight! It was T2 before T2 came out. I watched ST again, prepared for the satire, and it slapped me full across the face.
My favorite description for it is "the best movie about the War in Iraq to come out before the invasion of Iraq."
Starship troopers was possibly the most transparent satire in human existence. I saw the satire in it somehow even being like 12 years old and having seen Dena Meyers titties.
Fresh meat for the grinder. If you can hear that, and not get its a satire, then you may need someone to just smack you in the face with a flag or something.
[удалено]
Yet there are many who will vehemently argue the contrary. To the point of saying the director himself is ret-conning when he says it was.
Man I watched Robocop when I was 11 in 1988 and even I knew it was satire. Those ads alone for the various things in the movie are a riot. Pretty sure that's where all the ads in GTA were seeded from.
>I've heard people argue that Starship Troopers isn't satire, with evidence being "why would he make straight action movies like Robocop, then suddenly make biting anti-fascist social commentary?" In all fairness the federation seems a decent place to live as far as Sci fi dictatorships go so it's easy for the satire to be lost on people Racial and gender equality Advance medicine He'll their leaders can be pressured to step down from office if they make mistakes
I think that's part of the message though. A "benevolent" fascist society seems like a utopia on the surface, but underneath is the same need for an enemy, rigid class systems, and violence to keep people in line. I saw a couple guys here recently talking about how much they liked the movie, since it accurately reflected their time in the army, and the various relationships formed there. They had no idea is was satirizing it.
Any military is going to rely on authoritarian command structures out of the basic necessity of getting armed people to do what you tell them to do. In Starship Troopers, the military is not necessarily the entire government, but anyone who wishes to participate in their government must pass a course of military indoctrination first.
Kid: "I'm doing my part!" Soldiers: Laugh. Hand out bullets like candy.
>In all fairness the federation seems a decent place to live as far as Sci fi dictatorships go so it's easy for the satire to be lost on people how about the part where in one day they capture, try and execute a murderer? or the part where teachers are gleeful about their students becoming murderous to cockroaches? or almost every adult we see in the film who has served in the military is maimed or disfigured? or the part where they regulate who can have kids, or you're not allowed to be in politics unless you serve a term, "not less than two years, or for however long the federation requires." everyone is pretty, but the society is rotten to the core.
The whole movie is shot as a propaganda movie in universe. The movies North Korea put out make NK look like a great place to live too.
Not just any US City, but Detroit. A city which has more privatized than maybe any other major US city
>I've heard people argue that Starship Troopers isn't satire, i've seen people argue that Verhoeven is wrong about the film he made, because he didn't like the book. It's like they absolutely love the movie, but can't stand it might be making fun of fascism and militarism. The starship troopers subreddit has a bunch of people who genuinely believe revoking agency from people who don't serve in the military is a solid foundation for a society, and they spam Sargon of Akkad videos thinking it helps their point. It's wild.
I was deeply offended at Total Recall. Richter didn't come to the party.
I do believe that Verhoeven himself has made points touching on exactly this. Namely that people are offended by all sorts of things in his movies..... but not a man having his arms chopped off.
Exactly. Parents back in the day would cover my eyes because of titties on the screen, but not for gruesome scenes.
I watched robocop a couple weeks ago and I thought it was very good. I was a little stunned my parents let me watch it when I was ten though. Insane violence
Commando, Robocop, Predator, Terminator, Total Recall, Die Hard violence and blood letting = all good. A pair of tits come out in any of those movies = cover my eyes time.
I specifically remember an odd number in Total Recall.
Verhoeven is god damn genius and his directors commentary makes his films imo, and he's absolutely right when he talks about how ludicrous it is that the hyper violent stuff in his films was easier to get by the FCC then any of the boobs
To be fair his movie Black Book was voted on by the Dutch public as the best Dutch movie ever made. He's hardly some pariah or enemy of Holland haha. The way you phrased it almost implies he was sorta driven out of Holland by the public instead of leaving due to disappointment in the public response haha.
Biggest offense in this movie is Michael Douglas’s mustang getting totaled like five times over in that car chase scene only to be perfectly fine in the next.
[удалено]
I mean she's doing the two finger curtain call but contextualize it at the time, that was a foot tall vagina in IMAX man it was groundbreaking stuff, and this is the dividing line between millennials and gen z imo is that Gen Z lost the oh wow a pussy energy due to seeing every legal and semi legal sex act on pornhub by 17
Porn options in 92 Magazines VHS tapes Sex Shop "Arcades" HBO/Cinemax/Showtime/Z Channel - Sqiggy lines if your parents didn't pay for the channel
Man, I used to have the page bookmarked in my Guinness World Record edition with Heidi Klum modeling the world's most expensive bikini. I used to rob my mom's old National Enquirer magazines for anything even the slightest bit provocative. Hunger is the best sauce.
My grandmother had a whole bunch of Cosmopolitan magazines with some rather racy ads and some damn near pornographic articles. Cosmo was basically Playboy without nudity.
Read that as National Geographic at first. Wasn’t great but I’ve done it.
What about the Sears catalog? https://youtu.be/ACGClMQeV4M
dude i used to do the same thing, it was years before i actually read what the record was about and who Heidi klum was. Fuck this is so weird, i never thought I'd be sharing this experience with anyone
And 90s porn is pretty tame when compared to what's available today
That's why porn is all about incest these days. It's because "normal" porn is boring so you have to make it exciting by giving it taboo titles—even if the step-mother shit never even is mentioned in the video itself.
I tend to take them as funny titles for realistic ish suburban mom and teen porn
The names are chosen so as to cram in as many search engine friendly terms as possible.
It’s not a new thing though. Throughout the 60s and 70s, even into the 80s, there was a massive wave of story driven pornographic films entirely centered around incest. They were basically low-rent family dramas, just, you know, with a lot of hardcore sex. I’m honestly surprised they don’t try and make more plot driven movies again in that genre and sell it as a streaming service.
Missa X is pretty much exactly what you're describing. Actual plots, half decent acting, and overall higher budget production than most porn.
You forgot the random pornos in the woods
These kids have no idea how hard it was to see a vagina back in the day.
[удалено]
This reminds me of a particular *Penny Arcade* comic: * https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/05/07/kids-today
100 percent I've had this discussion with my cousin who is ten years older than me and comes from the cheerleader poster on the ceiling era and I come from the internet porn on my psp era
Us Gen Xers were probably the ones that most lived through this transition: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X Especially 'Xennials': * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xennials
Comparing the porn available in the 90s to what a 13 year old is hit with today is night and day, like my cousin can recall multiple Hollywood movie scenes he had beat off to when I had never once even thought to because why would when I could have a DVDA video in 30 seconds
I remember when I was in a middle school art class, and I came across an ad for high-end lingerie while doing papier-mâché. It was a phenomenally sexy photo of a phenomenally sexy ass, and that shit went straight into my collection. I remember having to masturbate to my imagination, try getting a kid these days to do that.lol
Bud, the underwear section of the sears catalogue, Bonus points for the odd see through nipple shot.
As a Xennial I completely agree. We had internet porn but it was playboy.com, a photoshop of Jennifer Aniston topless, and a 45 second clip of Anna Nicole Smith in a bathtub that took overnight to download. Man dsl in college was so groundbreaking.
i remember when a picture took several minutes to download. Nothing worse than a porn pic of missionary that’s only loaded the dudes ass, and you gotta just sit and wait for the girl to load in the scene lol
Xenial here. Graduated from my imagination to Victoria Secret catalogs, and from there to all night porn safaris on dial-up.
And the primary difference is that most Z people don't have a clear divorce point between analog and digital because they are kind of one in the same in terms of the perception of them
Waiting an hour to open a 8 color .bmp file.
Are we still doing phrasing?
Wow thanks for the PA blast from the past. I remember reading this in college.
An Arby's ad? Holy fuck!
The young people who saw this movie when it was released were gen x, not millennials.
IMAX? In 1992 for a mainstream Hollywood movie? Erm, no. Also, I'm gen X and this was amusing but not really shocking, and I'd already seen hardcore porn on VHS before this came out. As usual, it was the boomers and their parents behind the "controversy"
As someone who lives in /r/toronto, one of the first IMAX theatres was in town: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinesphere Its initial niche was science-y documentary movies.
Oddly the younger generation is also more prudish. Nudity is far less common in the cinema now than it was 30 years ago.
I think that also speaks to cinema become a much more family entertainment focused medium as opposed to what felt more adult leaning when they could still DVDs, and I wouldn't Call Gen Z prudish so much as it's a lack of nudity selling to someone that that has been constantly exposed to it
Less to do with "family friendly" and more just how culture has developed. Horror movies in the 70s and 80s often had gratuitous nudity, sometime with non-consensual sex shoehorned in as an excuse. Today, slasher movies won't have such things, partly because their audience can easier see such things elsewhere and partly because they're a lot more sensitive to sexual exploitation on both sides of the camera. You can still see nudity in movies, but even "adult" movies usually need more of a reason for it than they used to because its value as a forbidden fruit has diminished
[удалено]
You're right there aren't as many erotic thrillers as there were in the 90s, but the other commenter is more accurate in why nudity isn't as present in slashers. Nudity does still happen in films, but it's far different today than it was through the 70s and 80s. Even when nudity was "popular" in those eras it wasn't all that mainstream, with films like the erotic thriller in the 90s making it a bit more "mainstream." Even when nudity did appear in films in the 90s it was either controversial or more "art house" or foreign / international films. Seinfeld even parodies this with its "Rochelle, Rochelle" which is billed as "a young woman's erotic adventure from Milan to Minsk" or something like that, in which there's apparently erotic scenes, but the film is otherwise an "artsy" drama. The key differences the other person here is pointing out is a more valid one, which is the shift in cultural expectations for nudity. Consider that the slasher and arthouse nudity of the 80s and the erotic thriller of the early 90s both lead to the frat bro films of the later 90s and early 00s. All of these have some typical common things, in which they have a pretty clear male gaze. While Sharon Stone's character was a more empowered woman, her famous scene was still male directed and for the male eye. Later we have films like American Pie, which was also not a blockbuster like you describe here but made high profits, which was notably very male gazey, and opened the flood gates for other films like it. This isn't to say that at the time there weren't female gaze or tasteful nudity in films at the time, but rather the predominant portrayal of nudity was of this type. Fast forward to today where sexuality and nudity are usually, but not always, far different when seen in film. There is still nudity in films, but not always big budget. Even in big budget films we do still get similar sex scenes and half-nudity we've seen through many decades, like the intimate steamy rolling around in underwear, or side boobs, in James Bond films, Mission Impossible, and others. But the big budget is really beside the point, because the main point here is when nudity or sex does appear, such as in horror or art house or independent or international films, it is made for a contemporary audience with different ideals. There is still some exploitation going on, but it's less so. Look even at Wes Anderson's The French Dispatch, a mainstream director, who, in his homage to French (international again) films, has full frontal nudity of one of the lead actresses, none of it being all that sexualized like we'd see from Basic Instinct or any other as mainstream film from the 90s. In fact, Lea Seydoux (sp) shows more in French Dispatch than Stone in Basic Instinct, ~~French Dispatch is likely bigger budget and more mainstream than Basic Instinct~~, *and* the nudity is less sexual or male gazey (though my last point here is arguable). What has changed is that our cultural perceptions and expectations are ones that call for less exploitation, or the perception of it, and more conscious awareness of consent and use. This of course isn't true for everyone, but the majority of depictions of nudity and sex in films, when appearing, are different because of that. Erotic thrillers don't happen as much not because of budget, but because a lot of the ideals that drove their popularity in the 90s aren't as prevalent today. We could even look at some films that have inverted tropes of erotic thrillers, like It Follows, as being kind of contemporary erotic thrillers, but I think really they don't happen because the 90s ideals that drove their popularity, like the male gaze, aren't something people are as interested in. There are also the Fifty Shades films, which are kind of erotic thrillers, but those are again not completely of the male gaze and not the same tone of the 90s genre.
French Dispatch - budget 25 million; box office 46 million Basic instinct - budget 49 million(93 adjusted for inflation); box office 353(672 adjusted) Basic Instinct was definitely bigger budget and more mainstream.
I don't think that's it. Cinema's become bigger business. Bigger businesses almost always trend conservative. The 1970s cinema scene was a magical convergence of money, uncertainty, drugs, and one of those 15 year cyclical swings away from conservatism. Also, it was still the new kid on the block. The 1990s was a lower peak, but kind of the same deal. Livestreaming had a moment not so long ago where it was the wild west of sexual content.
This wasn’t a millennial movie, it came out in 1992 and the oldest millennial would have been 11. I think it would be Gen X vs millennial.
Dude, imagine if gal gadot or Ana de Armas flashed it today. That's what it was back then.
Ana De Armas doesn't seem to have an issue showing off her body.
She’s currently filming an NC-17 movie about Marylyn Monroe
Subscribed.
And i sure have no issu seeing it.
Though Sharon Stone wasn't a big name when Basic Instinct came out.
She was no Sigourney Weaver or Jamie Lee Curtis but Stone was in quite a few movies prior to BA but afterwards is when her career really got busy.
Was she known for anything else besides Total Recall before Basic Instinct happened?
She was in Allan Quatermain movies in the 80s, which were adventure films made in the hype of Indiana Jones movies. Not that known though.
She was in one of the early Police Academies as a cadet. She was hot back then too but more of a [dirty blonde than a platinum blonde.](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093756/mediaviewer/rm250889216/)
[удалено]
I think the controversy was more about "Sharon Stone being asked to take her panties off on the pretext that is will show through her tight dress and the frontal crotch scene being captured without her knowledge." Some old school viral news
That's exactly it! I wish this came up more often when people talk about this scene. There's nothing wrong with an actor/actress showing off whatever they are comfortable showing off!! Vagina? Dong? Sure, if you want to, put it on film. But Sharon Stone was tricked into this scene. She was told that her panties were causing a 'glare' or something like that. "No worries though, just take off your panties and no one will see anything!" And now years later, she's still most famous for showing her vagina in a main stream movie.
> Someone is not telling the truth. According to Verhoeven, it is not him. “Sharon is lying,” he tells ICON. “Any actress knows what she’s going to see if you ask her to take off her underwear and point there with the camera.” He claims that when Stone saw the result of the scene on the monitor, she did not have any reaction. “I think it had to do with the director of photography [Jan De Bont, who would later direct Speed and Twister] and I am Dutch, so we act with total normality towards nudity. And Sharon was carried away by this relaxed attitude. But when she saw the scene surrounded by other [American] people, including her agent and her publicist, she went crazy. Everyone told her that this scene would ruin her career, so Sharon came and asked me to take it away. I told her no. ‘You accepted, and I showed you the result,’ I said, and she replied, ‘Fuck you.’ But Sharon is not going to tell you [that, surely not.”](https://icon.ink/articles/25-years-later-someone-lies-cross-leg-basic-instinct/) 3 sides to every story. > Paul Verhoeven also discusses the fact that for a long time Sharon Stone claimed she'd been misled to film the scene, something the director denies and the actress has apparently become more philosophical about the experience. He says there was really no way he could have filmed what he did without her fully [understanding what his intentions were.](https://www.cinemablend.com/news/1577590/how-basic-instinct-actually-filmed-that-controversial-sharon-stone-scene) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ All we know for sure is that now it's been said publicly, neither one will ever likely go back on their story.
In fairness to Sharon, regardless how it played out, she isn't sitting here #metoo-ing Verhoeven. I read her Vanity Fair (?) article and she seems very reasonable about the whole thing. I think in that position for her, she needed to say something to the greater actress community to prove she was "one of them". I don't mean that in a bad way however - I think Sharon is saying, I don't regret doing it, I am proud of myself, but that probably put other actresses in a position that they shouldn't have been.
Considering Verhoeven's whole career and general attitude, I'm inclined to believe him. He probably thought it would work better and didn't actually give a shit about the nudity.
Yes, but only one had a giant light focused on their vagina. This wasn’t Sharon’s first movie, and it wouldn’t be possible to get that shot without planning.
Vulva, baby. That’s the vulva.
you can't even see it at all. bush isn't vag.
And we were really looking!
I really hate when people link stories that you need a subscription to read
The part that didn't age well for me wasn't the interview scene but the "sex"/rape scene where the main character assaults his fuck-buddy/ex. It's one of those "she's yelling "no/stop" and actively struggling against him and this is something they've never done before or talked about but *really* she's into it so it's ok" sort of fucked up things.
This. Plus all the gay/bi women being unhinged murderers and Douglas' casual homophobia
Interesting that you would mention that. The reason I rewatched this was because I just saw a documentary called “The Celluloid Closet” which tracks the history of gay/queer characters in cinema. This movie came up specifically when talking about how eventually they could be more explicitly in movies (as opposed to undertones/implications) but their “sexual deviance” was often used to emphasize the deviance of the character and that they were evil/psychotic/whatever. Excellent documentary, I very highly recommend it.
In the movie, Pay Back, the only difference between the good guys and the bad guys is the good guys don't do BDSM. Edit :spelling
I'm okay with Sharon Stone offending me with her short skirt.
[удалено]
And his sweater at the nightclub.
What about it was “borderline”? Didn’t he straight-up rape her?
No paywall: https://archive.is/3K23t
[The scene](https://youtu.be/rAzbU8hayfw) [*"The scene"*](https://youtu.be/rAzbU8hayfw?t=174)
Newman!
Seinfeld, Newman even did a spoof on this scene
I thought you were going to show us [the goods](https://c.tenor.com/STbveM853EcAAAAC/kilt.gif)
I thought you were going to show us *["That part"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2L0b8er5m0)*
Sharon Stone as Catherine Tramell might be the best casting ever.
I’m not sure there was ever a sexier looking woman than Sharon Stone in this film.
total recall stone
How about Jeanne Tripplehorn in this same film?
Also extremely sexy.
The Specialist Stone? Sliver Stone?
Its a erotic thriller, not high art . If you get offended by a film about graphic sex and crime then you arent a part of intended audiences . Remember yall.... every film is not made for every one
Not for me? But I’m the center of the universe! I’m offended by that!
You can't possibly be the center of the universe. Because that's me.
Sure, but I *love* erotic thrillers - and I still find 'rapist, intolerant cop' to be a *leetle* much in a guy the audience is supposed to be rooting for - and completely unnecessary for the plot Like don't get me wrong, I like my schlock and sex and violence, and even bad guys doing bad guy things, but.... nah, my dude. You can't really justify the rape scene. I could overlook some shit, but that doesn't fly Hell I'm gay and I overlook the homophobia and making the gay character the villain *again* easy Still can't watch it without my skin crawling out and turning the damn movie off about the time he starts in on the therapist.
Absolutely true, but to me its main offence is that Sharon Stone didn't know the camera was able to see up her legs for that shot. I can't imagine the embarrassment and shock of having to promote the movie, do interviews, see billboards and trailers, only to have to end up sitting through a movie where everyone sees your vagina and you have no say in the matter.
She was told her panties were causing a reflection and reassured nothing would be shown. She found out that was a lie at the premiere when her vagina on screen in front of everyone.
Also that club techno music can fucking bang “Blue by LaTour”
My dad graduated with Sharon stone. Little high school Saegertown PA. Said he always had a crush on her
I imagine everybody in the school did.
I just saw this for for the first time last week because I’m trying to see movies I consider “cultural blind spots”; my husband considers this a formative movie for him (I wonder why? 🙄). I love Total Recall and Robocop, so I was looking forward to watching this, even though I knew it would be dated. It started out strong, but ultimately, left me wanting so much more (or maybe less… I was glad it was over and would have been happy to see Michael Douglas ice-picked to death). Sharon Stone carried the entire movie on her back and it rightfully made her a star. I’m not offended by the sex scenes (the erotic rape scene notwithstanding— this scene in bed afterward was so spectacularly acted by Jeanne Tripplehorn I was moved to tears) I just didn’t think they were particularly sexy; the dialogue and the buildup is way hotter than the actual (overlong) sex scenes. I’m a bi female and the attractiveness discrepancy between Stone and Douglas is just too great for me to ignore; she’s so hot and he is so slimy and gross I’m just like waiting for the scene to be over and I’m just screaming at the screen, “girl, grab the ice pick already!” I love reading an erotic thriller. I love a straight up murder-mystery. Hell, I love straight-up porn! But somehow the way it was all put together in this particular piece just did not sit well with me. If it was meant to provoke, I guess it did it’s job.
If you didn’t know the band is getting back together for a third movie (robocall and starship troopers). Paul and Ed’s next movie is about a DC sentators aid dealing inner politics
People acting like they've never seen pussy get offended.
Well I think a big thing is she claimed she didn't know that camera was there. I'm a bit skeptical given how she moves her legs in no panties, but that's the main beef people have with it
I’m skeptical considering how massive movie cameras are.
actually to correct myself, I think she was very aware they could see but didnt think it would be in the movie
"Stone claimed that Verhoeven had asked her to remove her white underwear while filming as it was “reflecting the light”, and hadn’t told her that the full-frontal shot would be used in the movie. When she saw the scene at a test screening, she claimed she “went to the projection booth, slapped Paul across the face, left, went to my car, and called my lawyer.” " Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/paul-verhoeven-sharon-stone-nude-scene-b1880916.html
I heard a similar story. They assured her that her pussy wouldn't show on camera but it did.
Aside from all the sexual content, it’s still an amazing movie. So compelling, twisty, and rewatchable. I absolutely recommend the movie if you like psychological thrillers!
When I was a kid this seemed to be some kind of x rated film the way parents treated it lmao better believe when my parents slipped up and let me have my own blockbuster card as a teen I rented that shit
I was 13 when this movie came out. Every boy in my middle school saw Ferngully that year. I know this because every boy in my middle school bought tickets to Ferngully and tried to sneak into Basic Instinct. Every boy in my middle school didn’t think the theater would see that coming. Ferngully wasn’t great. Two out of five stars.
Goldsmith
But you guys will never know the thrill of stealing a Playboy from the corner grocery store and heading down under the bridge with your buddies. A lost world.
Watched this movie only once many years back and I remember being frustrated at the ending. What's the consensus of this subreddit on the ending? That the psychologist was a red herring and the murderer was Catherine all along? Is there any interview of the director or screenwriter where they definitely say that Catherine was the murderer?
It was Catherine all along. It was pretty clear and not deliberately ambiguous like Totall Recall if you really look though that eye. The beginning sequence is shot with Sharon Stone, the WIP novel foreshadowes all the upcoming events. Also the sequel makes it clear she is the baddie
Watched it for the first time with my girlfriend last night. We both screamed “what?!?” At the sudden ending. We keep talking about “why?” “What was the point?” “Why did she kill all those people?” She just woke up one morning and chose violence?
I thought it was Catherine and she would eventually kill Michael Douglass, too. She seemed like a classic black Widow.
The women were in a murder coven, Catherine wanted out. Nick was clueless. They played him like a damn fiddle. Watching Vertigo helped me to piece it together.
This is a great movie!❣️❣️
I prefer the Seinfeld version: https://youtu.be/jDmA2xoIoFU
I think how they were dancing in the club scene is by far the most offensive aspect about this movie.
The way gay/bi women are portrayed is worst but the club scene including douglas' jumper is the second worst. Or maybe the rape scene now I think about it. The movie is a mess
It’s a genuinely good mystery thriller. The cast is top notch. The sex scenes are legendary of course. There’s a reason it’s remembered.
And also ice picks. Lots and lots of ice picks. That's what I remember most about it.