Search

» » Тело как улика (1993)

Тело как улика (1993) watch online HD

Тело как улика (1993) watch online HD
  • Original title:Body of Evidence
  • Category:Movie / Drama / Thriller
  • Released:1993
  • Director:Uli Edel
  • Actors:Madonna,Willem Dafoe,Joe Mantegna
  • Writer:Brad Mirman
  • Budget:$30,000,000
  • Duration:1h 39min
  • Video type:Movie

Watch online HD Download HD

Short summary

A millionaire is found dead of heart failure handcuffed to the bed with a home video tape of him and his lover. When cocaine is found in his system, and his will leaves $8 million to his lover, they arrest her on suspicion of murder. Her lawyer succumbs to her charms, and he begins a torrid and kinky affair with her. As new evidence turns up during trial, he begins to wonder if he's defending a murderer.

Madonna personally selected Willem Dafoe as her co-star.

Neither Madonna or Willem Dafoe had a body double for any of the sex scenes.

In a radio interview with Sway Calloway, Willem Dafoe confirmed that the scene in the parking garage is genuine, no body doubles were used.

In interviews, Madonna stated that she found filming the sex scenes "scientific, not sexy at all", but co-star Willem Dafoe admitted that he was "turned on despite himself" while filming the scenes.

Madonna's acting coach quit just before production began, claiming that "she thinks she knows everything".

In preparation for this role Madonna met with a real-life dominatrix, who taught her "a few tricks" including how to tie someone's arms behind their back using a belt.

Willem Dafoe attended a criminal trial to prepare for his role. The trial was interrupted when several people in the courtroom, including the judge and many jurors, recognized him and wanted to talk to him.

Two of Madonna's more infamous scenes (one involving dripping candles, the other requiring her to masturbate) were improvised.

Producer Dino De Laurentiis stated in interviews after this movie's release that he begged Madonna to delay the publication of her 'sex book' by a few months, so that the public would not think that this was just 'the sex book movie', but that she refused. De Laurentiis maintained that this contributed strongly to the film's poor box office performance.

Madonna, Willem Dafoe, and director Uli Edel spent 2 weeks rehearsing the sex scenes before filming began.

Willem Dafoe accepted the role of Frank Dulaney because he was interested in the reversal of Hollywood norms, having a female character dominate during the sex scenes.

Madonna insisted that Willem Dafoe really be restrained during the 'hot wax and champagne' scene, so that when she improvised, his reactions would be more "genuine".

In an interview on youtube, Michael Forest states that he initially turned down the role of Andrew Marsh, because it was presented to him as "they were doing him a big favor" because he would be filming sex scenes with Madonna. In order to dissuade the producers from trying to cast him, Forest had his agent make an outrageous financial demand. To Forest's surprise, they agreed to pay what he asked, and he was left with no choice but to accept the role.

Madonna was always first choice to play Rebecca Carlson. Producer Dino De Laurentiis purchased the script because he believed it was the perfect role for her.

Madonna's salary for this movie was higher than all the other actor's combined.

The black briefs worn by Madonna in the 'hot wax and champagne' scene were on display for a number of years in a strip club in Aberdeen, Scotland, until the owner decided to sell them at an online auction.

During a televised interview in January 2015 when asked about her experience working on this movie, Julianne Moore responded that Madonna was 'method acting' throughout the production, and was so into her character that she refused to speak to Moore on the set, with the result that Moore was so nervous when required to slap Madonna during their scene together, that she came nowhere near to making contact.

In the original script, Rebecca was not supposed to pour the hot candle wax the third time. In the script, she merely used this as a way of taunting Frank, before blowing out the candle and performing a sex act on him. Despite the act being simulated, Madonna refused, because she believed it was not in keeping with her character. The script was changed so Rebecca poured the hot wax for a third time.

Although this movie is often castigated for its similarities to Basic Instinct (1992), shooting began only two weeks after that film was released, so the similarities are probably coincidental. But the gigantic success and media attention of Paul Verhoeven's film could still have influenced the direction and the editing. Certain dialogue lines and situations are definitely similar.

The 'hot wax and champagne' scene was included in UK Channel 4's list of the '100 sexiest movie moments'.

In an interview about this movie with UK Film Threat magazine in April 1993, director Uli Edel stated that while other actresses approached for the role of Rebecca Carlson balked at the explicit nature of the sex scenes, Madonna had her agent pursue the role for her, and Madonna told Edel that no matter how far the scenes would go, she would "always go a step further". Edel also confirmed in the same interview that Madonna refused to take direction for the sex scenes.

In an interview with Entertainment Tonight promoting the film, when asked about performing the erotic scenes with Madonna, Willem Dafoe responded that "It's like an action scene with a twist. She is a great partner to do something like that with".

Joe Mantegna stated in an interview that filming the courtroom scenes was so tedious, that two of the extras playing jurors fell asleep during the filming of Willem Dafoe's closing statement. Mantegna yelled at them to wake them up.

Marie-Christine Darah, the actress who dubbed Madonna's voice in the French version, revealed in an interview that Madonna chose her personally.

At a showing of the film in Los Angeles, Madonna's former best friend Sandra Bernhard was reprimanded for talking too loudly while the movie was playing. One source said that Bernhard reacted to being shushed by proclaiming to all within earshot, "This is not a serious film." The source added that Bernhard did not bother to wait until the movie was over before walking out.

The two lines spoken by Madonna's character in the 'hot wax and champagne' scene ("My way", and "Are you scared?"), are also lyrics from two of her songs recorded around the time the film was released, 'Erotica' and 'Justify My Love'.

Madonna's character doesn't remove her shoes in any of the three major sex scenes, except very briefly to smash a lightbulb with her heel.

This was the second movie in two years in which Madonna plays a character who picks a bottle of champagne out of an ice bucket whilst wearing black underwear. The other was Dick Tracy (1990).

Gabriel Byrne was considered for the role of Frank Dulaney.

John Wilson's "The Official Razzie Movie Guide" lists this film as one of "The Ten Best Bad Films ever made."

In Japan, this movie was released under the title 'Body'. Another film starring Madonna, 'Dangerous Game', released around the same time, was named 'Body 2' in Japan, even though the two films have no connection.

Patricia Cornwell wrote a novel with the same title. She successfully lobbied for a disclaimer in film's trailer and advertisements saying the film had no connection to her novel.

A TV trailer for this movie features a shot of Madonna's character walking from the balcony of her houseboat back inside. This shot is not in the final cut of the movie.

Included in film critic Roger Ebert's 2005 list of his most hated films.

In an interview with Cosmopolitan in 1996, Madonna stated that two different endings were filmed for this movie, one in which her character lived, and one in which she died, and that they went with the 'misogynistic ending'. Of this movie, she said "Film is a director's medium. In other words: try not to work with a director who hates women. In my case, that means I'll be photographed badly and end up dead in the end."

The cuffs that Frank wrestles from Rebecca and uses to manacle her, are in fact 'legcuffs' and not 'handcuffs' (noticeable because of the length of chain between the bracelets).

The back cover of the UK VHS release contained a very conspicuous spoiler- a still photograph of Rebecca's bloody corpse submerged in water. She dies at the very end of the movie.

In a 1994 interview with The Face magazine, Madonna confirmed that Rebecca got away in spite of her guilt in the original version of the film, and that the ending was changed in the last week of shooting. Madonna said, "I fought it every step of the way, but I had no control. Woman who has sex must die, that is the theme of that movie, but it wasn't that way to begin with." Madonna also said, "I'm disappointed in it, but I'm not sorry I did it. I think I did a good job. But I got the blame for everything. It was like I wrote it, produced it, directed it, and I was the only one acting in it." The journalist added that when they attended a preview screening of this movie, many of the male critics "shifted coats and bags onto their laps" during the sex scenes, but "they didn't write about that."

User reviews


  • comment
    • Author: Shakar
    Certainly not a great film, but not as bad as it has been made out to be. Madonna's acting is OK, and I suspect the "woodenness" of her performance was largely what the director wanted. Her character's passion was limited to the bedroom (and elevator, and stairs, and parking garage, etc.) and never extended to her daily life. And, by the way, I had forgotten how pretty she could be back then. Anne Archer looked awfully good as well, even while being weepy and not completely hinged. The rest of the cast put in good work, with a special commendation for Julianne Moore. Frank Langella was suitably creepy, and Joe Mantegna suitably industrious. Some of the dialog didn't completely work, but if you watch this without preconceptions, you'll find it OK.
  • comment
    • Author: Fonceiah
    It's been a while since Body of Evidence was released to theaters and rejected by critics and the public. But I'm not at all ashamed to admit that I still get kicks out of popping this film into the vcr and getting completely entangled in the story. It's thought provoking. Can someone literally be, umm, sexed to death?

    And why do people think Madonna did such a bad job in this film? She was perfect in doing exactly what she needed to in order to develop her character--the sultry Rebecca Carlson. I mean, come on! Who else could look so sexy as the mega bad girl delivering a line like "I f***--that's what I do." Madonna is superb and I think she really proved critics wrong when she won a golden globe for Evita a few years after Body of Evidence was released.

    The plot of this movie is one of the most interesting story lines I have ever known. Is Rebecca a out of control dominatrix who really did sex her much older lover to death? That's what the prosecution tries to prove as they charge her for murder after her wealthy older lover is found dead. Throughout the film, the plot thickens and you're not sure if Rebecca is a murderous bitch or not. And the sex scenes in this are highly erotic! Madonna, come my way with that candle wax any day of the week! And the look in her eyes as she teases her lawyer by shoving her fingers down her panties---Geez, that look is classic!

    Body of Evidence may not be Oscar caliber, but hell, was Titanic? I don't think so. But if you're in for a sinful delight, you should go rent Body of Evidence right now.
  • comment
    • Author: Mave
    It was only a matter of time that by 1993 Modonna one of the worlds most recognized woman and #1 sex symbol was to showcase her enormous and natural talents on the big screen for all to see.

    "Body of Evidence" is a story about greed lust murder and betrayal where Madonna, Rebecca Carlson, is accused of murdering her rich and elderly lover with the most potent and deadly weapon at her disposal, her body. The lurid and sensational trial that followed left the quiet and sleepy little city of Portland Oregon so shook up that it still hasn't recovered from the shock that hit it after all these years.

    Portland Millionaire Andrew Marsh, Michael Forrest, is found dead of a heart attack in his mansion with his hands tied to the bed and a video tape of him and Rebecca Carlson having sex still playing on the VCR. Before long the DA has Miss. Carlson indited for his murder and the evidence against her is almost air-tight and a conviction seems like a forgone conclusion.Miss Carlson was to inherit $8,00,000.00 from Marsh after his death. Attorney Frank Dulaney, Willam Dafoe, takes the case for Carlson's defense and it turned out the be the biggest mistake that he ever made in his entire life.

    The movie goes from the ridiculous to the sublime and every thing else in between and by the time the movie is over you feel like you went over Niagara Falls on a surf board. You have to say one thing about "Body of Evidence" it's not at all boring and Madonna dose have acting talents with her very effective portrayal of the sexy and over the top Rebecca Carlson, even though she was obviously playing herself. Willam Defoe was very good as Rebecca's lawyer who was manipulated by her like all the men that she manipulated in the movie; you couldn't fault him for that once she turned it on the poor man was a goner.

    Anne Archer, Joanne Braslow, was tragic as well as sympathetic as Rebecca's rival for the dead millionaire Andrew Marsh's affections as well as money whom to no one's surprise lost out to. Joe Mantegna was as good as ever as the hard driving DA, Robert Garrett out to convict Rebecca for Marsh's murder.

    The movie has a number of shocking and explosive surprises that will keep you guessing until the final credits start to roll and is much better then you would expect from all the negative comments that it got at the time of it's release. Madonna's acting surprisingly evoking sympathy as well as outrage during the entire movie, Madonna was very good in the scene where she was on the witness stand, that even rival her scenes in the buff, which was the real reason for most people seeing the film, that gives the audience and extra bonus.
  • comment
    • Author: Hucama
    Beautifully filmed, Madonna never looked better. This campy thriller gave Madonna fans some of her most famous lines--"Men Lie", "Have you ever seen animals make love", That's what I do, I", and a few others. Her clothes are incredible and Julianne Moore is very pretty too. Now, the problem lies not so much within Madonna's acting but timing...the film was released 3 months after her SEX book pictorial was released. The public just didn't know what to think, and I do think her constant blinking of the eyes can become very irritating. The sex scene in the parking garage is beautifully filmed and Madonna does kick some butt in the sex scene department. If you think about Sharon Stone's icy performance in Basic Instinct and Madonna's in this--they're really about the same. But a major Madonna backlash had begun by the time this film was released and was labeled a turkey. As a Madonna fan, I LOVE IT--as a regular viewer, ITS PRETTY GOOD. No, I can't lie-- I love it! Sorry, I really do! Campy and fun! NOT to be taken seriously!
  • comment
    • Author: Tyler Is Not Here
    I couldn't tell you the plot of this movie. Actually, I don't know if this movie had a plot. What I do know is that Madonna is in it and boy or boy, is she ever. Another courtroom drama without the drama, the only reason one will watch this movie is Madonna. The passion between Dafoe and Madonna is the only thing worth watching. That and the nudity and strong sexual acts, Body of Evidence is a left over movie stolen from the Basic Instinct genre. The courtroom and crime scenes is just background to what the movie is, Madonna in the bedroom.
  • comment
    • Author: Skyway
    Because the critics gave this such a panning, I didn't bother to watch it for a long time. Now that I have, I'm surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Amazingly, I thought it was better than Basic Instinct, the film that everyone said it was simply a poor copy of. The storyline is tight and engaging, Madonna much better than usual, the sex scenes good, even if Willem Defoe appears more comfortable in the courtroom scenes, and the ending brilliant. A greatly under rated film.
  • comment
    • Author: Nilabor
    Trashy sex-melodrama might have been much more fun had it the slightest sense of humor. Alas, all the laughs here are unintentional, and the straight-faced actors just end up looking foolish. Willem Dafoe seems on auto-pilot throughout, cast as a defense attorney opposite Madonna, playing a woman who is suspected of killing her wealthy older lover with too much rough-housing in the bedroom. Grubby nonsense with a cliché-ridden script, B-movie characters, and a silly finish. For camp-addicts, a hoot; all others beware. Released to video in R, NC-17, and Unrated versions, none of which managed to improve on the ludicrous screenplay. *1/2 from ****
  • comment
    • Author: Dikus
    (Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)

    Not that there is a TV version.

    We could also call this 'Madonna on top' or 'Madonna in charge' or maybe 'She can show you the power you can have from the prone position.' The one thing about Madonna, other than having no shame (and I admire her for that) is that she can crawl and not feel the slightest bit reduced.

    She's not especially bad in this mediocre thriller, nor especially good. The script is ridiculous and the treatment without a hint of nuance or subtlety. William Dafoe and Joe Mantegna seemed to be acting on rote and Anne Archer was a wash. The problem is the movie is so obviously fake that it's like watching bad TV. There's no point other than kinky sex. I'm not sure why Madonna agreed to do this. I can't believe she needed the money, nor can I believe she didn't care about her reputation as a performing artist. I think her appearance here exposes her weakness: simply put, she has bad taste because this could not in any way further her career.

    On the plus side I saw the unrated version and she was very sexy.
  • comment
    • Author: Ffyan
    First thought that popped into my mind when 'Body of Evidence' began was that this had the potential to be a bad episode of 'Law & Order.' Who knew that it would be much worse? The script and direction is absolutely horrible, hands down. We all know what we came to see and an interesting movie is not it here.

    Can you fornicate someone to death? Strangely enough, Madonna is on trial for committing such a terrible act!

    I cannot completely hate the movie for some nice scenes between Dafoe and the 'Material Girl.' But if you can think of any other reason to watch this tripe, be it for pitying Julianne Moore as one of her earlier works or for just plain abusing your life, please do tell! 'Body of Evidence' should simply have been called 'Madonna's Sex Movie.' Could have done better with it.
  • comment
    • Author: Zyangup
    This was an interesting period in Madonna's life. She had released her album, "Erotica," her book, "Sex" and this film, "Body Of Evidence.

    Watching this movie is like watching an incredibly brutal train wreck. You can't help but look, even though the outcome is tragic. Madonna plays Rebecca Carlson, accused of murdering her lover by sexual means. In other words, her body was the murder weapon. Willem Dafoe plays the lawyer hired to save her bod, but you can tell what will happen a mile away. The sex scenes between the two of them become a rarity: it's not sexy.

    The plot is ludicrous and the ending is just dumb.

    However, if you have to watch it, watch it as a double feature with "Showgirls." The reason? Just 2 good examples of when sexiness turns viewers off!
  • comment
    • Author: Marg
    If you're still unsure that Hollywood execs have no creative ideas then get yourself a time machine and go back to the early to mid 1990s to a time when nearly every studio release was composed of a " person from hell movie 2 be they a doctor , a cop , a flatmate , a jilted lover etc who would terrorize an innocent or not so innocent victim . When cinema goers weren't putting with that crap we also had to put up with BASIC INSTINCT clones .

    BODY OF EVIDENCE was probably the most infamous clone mainly down to the fact that it's both unoriginal and painfully bad . The worst aspect is the script which lacks any type of sense or logic or decent dialogue . Yeah the lines are memorable all right but for the wrong reasons . Take this line of dialogue for example : " Have you ever watched animals making love ? " Does anyone else feel their mind boggle at such a ridiculous comment ? Animals making love ? Is that why there's so many insects in the world - They're the most romantic creatures on Earth ?

    Madonna is one of the great female icons of the 20th century but she is no actress . Madonna's performance is the second worst aspect of the movie . It's so bad that other well respected actors like Archer , Moore , Defoe and Prochnow sink to her level

    Simply one of the worst courtroom dramas ever made
  • comment
    • Author: Cargahibe
    Willem Dafoe plays a lawyer who becomes involved with his client, Madonna, a woman accused of intentionally murdering her rich, elderly lover through strenuous, kinky sex. Did she do it? Who cares? All you care about when you watch this film is when will it be over? This is a terrible film. Even if Madonna could act, and that's a mighty big if, it would still be doomed. The script is just plain awful. It doesn't generate a believable moment. Good actors like Dafoe, Joe Mantegna, Anne Archer, Juergen Prochnow and Frank Langella are totally wasted. As for the much vaulted sex scenes, they are more laughable than erotic. A dog.
  • comment
    • Author: Iesha
    Body of Evidence has all the hallmarks of a poor soft core porn movie . A naff script , lousy acting and that misty/cloudy look that you see so many times in low budget B movies. This film contains some of the worst over acting seen ever in a court scene acompanied by scenes you would never see in a court room. The question that i have to ask is why do good actors like Jullianne Moore and Willem Defoe take on movies like this? perhaps it is hard to tell how bad a movie is going to be when you agree to make one but surely they must a read this silly script or perhaps Defoe agreed to make this because of the activities he gets up to with Madonna and lets face it who can blame him, she was in her prime in 1993 and she did look good, shame her acting was not good as her sexual activities . 3 out of 10.
  • comment
    • Author: Dondallon
    Sometimes you'll see a movie where a really great actor will inspire novice actors or mediocre talents to act above their level. Here I think Madge's influence had the result of otherwise competent actors acting _down_ to her level. Julianne Moore, Willem Dafoe, Joe Mantegna are pretty respected actors and even Anne Archer and Frank Langella have done some good work in their careers, but this movie would have to be the low point of any of their careers.

    I regularly suggest renting this to friends with the challenge that I bet it will be the worst movie they have even seen. I've yet to be told I was wrong. The really laughable, idiotic "plot", dialogue and characterisations are so over the top the movie ends up just being ridiculous. The most pathetic thing is this sex obsessed disaster isn't sexy, even the sex scenes are idiotic. And Willem Dafoe may be many things and a very versatile actor, but sex god he ain't. The sex here just comes off as creepy and mildly disgusting. Also, if you examine the film, there's not one likable character in the entire movie.

    A calculating slut kills a foolish old pervert, an inept prosecutor tries an impossible case that he never should have taken to court, a jerk of a defense lawyer betrays his profession's ethics (are there any?) and his moron of a wife (hey, she takes him back, she can't be too intelligent) and various other spiteful, greedy, dislikable characters slime in and out of scenes. Even the (stereotypical) black female judge earned my permanent enmity with her idiotic lines.

    Too bad they all couldn't have died at the end. An massive earthquake or meteor strike would have been a good plot device, and just as believable as anything else that happened in this movie.
  • comment
    • Author: Windbearer
    I give this movie 10 out of 10 only for Madonna's incredible body, & her amazing performance in the sex scenes, which by the way i wonder how she made it while there are a lot of people behind the camera?! The people who say that the plot is so dull don't get that body of evidence was made in the first place to satisfy Madonna's huge promotion to sex in the nineties.. i mean come on the title "Body of evidence" is not appropriate at all & must change it to "body of Madonna"! I think Madonna is a very contradictory person & have a real problem with her self.. how she strongly promotes to sex in the nineties & then writes stories for children now! i bet she can't face her children with that movie & find that is not a good idea now or in the far future. Does anyone notice that Madonna became so skinny these days than she appeared in body of evidence? watch Swept Away & you'll know what i mean.
  • comment
    • Author: Ydely
    Police are called to the home of a millionaire found dead in his bed with a video of him having sex playing on the TV. They decide that he was murdered by his girlfriend Rebecca Carlson as she has profited from his death via his will. The DA believes that she used the man's weak heart condition to her advantage and had wild sex with him to kill him. Lawyer Frank Dulaney comes to defend Miss Carlson but finds himself drawn into her sexual world as he tries to find out if she really did plan to kill him.

    This review contains spoilers - but it doesn't matter cause the plot's crap!

    At a time these erotic mainstream thriller things were all the rage - Basic Instinct, Colour of Night - everyone wanted in. And so a bad idea was born to the cha-chik of cashing in! The plot is basically just what you'd expect in a courtroom thriller - lots of `objection' and shocking revelations. It's all just very poor to be honest. There is no imagination or spark to any of it and it could be just another soft-porn film with a bad plot on late night TV if it wasn't for the budget and the cast. The sex scenes are just plain daft - candle wax and all that, it certainly isn't erotic - merely feels like an appendix to Madonna's Sex book.

    The final twist is very much spoilt by the casting (not that it's very good anyway). There are lots of people called into court for 3 minute scenes who come and go - one of them is actor Jurgen Prochnow - well, I wonder if his role may be more meaty, hmmmmm? Of course it is! It's clear that a name actor like that wouldn't do such a minor role.

    Madonna is out of her depth and just plain lacks the ability to play a sexy potential murderess. Stone got it bang on in Basic Instinct but Madonna is just so cold and obvious. As a result there is no fire between her and Dafoe. I love him in anything but he simply can't do it all - their sex looks so mechanical and forced. Mantegna is always watchable but has nothing to do here. Likewise it's strange now to see actresses like Archer and Moore slumming in minor roles.

    Acting is poor, writing is lazy, sex is stupid and the whole thing is distinctly mediocre at best.
  • comment
    • Author: Yahm
    I really enjoyed this movie. I saw it last summer on HBO or some cable network. It was like a really good 'Law & Order' episode...There was great suspense, strong sexual scenes, twist in the story line.and not a bad cast. Willem and Madonna really worked well together. I was surprised to see Ann Archer in the film too. It was also nice to see a young Julianne Moore. She did an excellent job. You could see a chemistry between the two. I just wonder why it was not that popular...I agree it was like a Basic Instinct. My favorite part is def the end of the film, its one of those scenes that is completely unexpected! See this movie if you have the chance.
  • comment
    • Author: Ferri - My name
    I have problems with everybody putting this movie down. it's a 99% remake of Basic Instinct and everybody seems to love and praise that movie. Madonna Rocks in this movie. and the movie wouldn't be as enjoyable if it weren't way over the top
  • comment
    • Author: Hrguig
    In this raunchy thriller, Madonna is suspected of murdering her elderly partner using her sexy body (lucky guy). After she is accused of such a "crime" the lawyer she chooses to represent her is Willem defoe.

    OK, so it is not the most plausible plot line but this movie can still be enjoyed, not least for Madonnas hot body in numerous steamy scenes which although often criticised I found to be very well done and quite erotic. It is true that Madonna and her body are the main reason to watch this thriller but there are some decent genuine performances by defoe and mantegna battling it out in the court room and Anne Archer as the deceased' embittered ex. Julianne Moore is also in there in a small role as Franks (defoes) wife.

    Bottom line! if you like 80/90s sex films then this is a definitely worth watching. Also make sure to get the unrated version as there is a lot more to see in there.
  • comment
    • Author: Mardin
    Having never consciously heard one of her recordings, I can't write about Madonna's part in the Tin Pan Alley conspiracy. But movie-making is not rock-videos, and here we see, as if on X-ray, right through her to the bad teeth, mean little face (behind the caked make-up), wiry little bottom and shortish legs. Considering she is a "singer", even her speaking voice is tawdry and unnuanced.

    Madonna started her obsessive search for fame and fortune by posing for nude shots. There's one of her at about 17 years old on a NY apartment window ledge, looking kind of alluring, with her dark Italian curls and big black eyes. But it's all been downhill from there, as hordes of commercial artists fiddled with her image until she became the chameleon lady of a thousand different looks on a thousand different magazine covers.

    In Body of Evidence, a film that should never have been made about a prosecution that should never have been brought to court, she is the irresistibly sexy galley owner, heavily into kinky sex with submissive males. I suppose the idea of playing a dominatrix appealed to this sociopathically ambitious person but she has no idea of how to convey it on the screen, which would require acting abilities.

    If we believed in her magnetic powers of domination, there might be a certain compulsion to the picture, instead she unwittingly reveals herself as a banal person who has succeeded in conveying many false selves to millions of other punters around the world.

    Madonna might have been able to con the tinselly world of pop music and women's magazines, but the movie camera sees through her with horrid clarity.
  • comment
    • Author: Adrielmeena
    OK, I give this movie a slightly higher rating than it deserves because I am a big Madonna fan and I think she's gorgeous. Childish I know, but mea culpa.

    That aside, all this movie needs is Leslie Neilsen in a few scenes and you would have a full blown comic parody. Think about it - replace the sex scenes (which are not that good) with some pies in the face, and this is almost as plausible as a Naked Gun Movie. The dialogue, most notably Madonna's speech at the end, is just laughable. It is also to a certain extent, insulting. Who would have thought that anyone would buy this as a legitimate thriller.

    The lawyers in this film (Dafoe and Mategna) are two of my favourite actors, but they are so unbelievably incompetent that is flushes this movie down the toilet. As Madonna's entry in the Basic Instinct genre, this is a complete failure. As another chapter in her unparalleled entertainment career, its worth noting. *1/2 out of ****.
  • comment
    • Author: Wild Python
    Spoilers herein.

    I often run across movies where the idea of the thing is much richer than the thing itself. In this case, the idea starts with that narrative battleground, the trial. Trial movies are cool, the best solution to the untrusted narrator problem. In this case, the viewer doesn't know who to trust: sometimes you actually SEE conflicting versions from different viewpoints. `Rashomon' is perhaps the touchstone for this device.

    Whoever thought this up added in another conflict: that between the vision of the writer (or director) and the actor's persona. This is literally a case of whether a body can be used as a weapon. Acting as sex is a rather old idea.

    The selection of actors shows that the producers wanted people who know how to work with these ideas, at least in the case of Dafoe (see "Boondock", Moore ("End of Affair") and Archer.

    But as you almost certainly know, Madonna's persona proves vacant and the director's vision has no center. `Crash' is what you want to watch to see the idea of sexual deviation as performance. Or `Cook, Lover.'

    Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
  • comment
    • Author: Mezilabar
    Who cares if 'Body of Evidence' is a so-called 'Basic Instincts' rip-off, and the plot is a bit bogus? It's escapism, so I say to all the critics just chill a bit and lay off this movie. Madonna is simply stunning in it and as an enormous fan of hers [practically in anything she endeavours], I cannot believe it took me until 2001 to watch this movie. I guess I was sucked in to believe it was worst than it actually turned out to be. I can say that, whilst this movie is not Oscar-material, it was enjoyable, sexy and intriguing. Why people take it so seriously is beyond me. I firmly believe it was too harshly criticised. I was pleasently surprised. Sure, Madonna has a long way to go before she is considered a serious actress and perfects her craft, but she fit perfectly into this femme-fatal role and is very convincing. She is a better actress than people give her credit for!
  • comment
    • Author: Fenrikasa
    I really enjoyed this movie because of Madonna, Madonna, and oh yes, Madonna. The plot is a joke, but Madonna steams up the screen considerably. This seemed like the perfect role for her, because it didn't even seem like she was acting. She so adeptly teases and torments Willem Dafoe that the viewer just knows that she is this kinky and sexy in real life! Madonna, handcuff me and drip candlewax on me anytime!
  • comment
    • Author: Nuliax
    Madonna's acting is not as bad as the script is. In fact, I don't think that Madonna is a bad actress at all. When presented with a good material, she delivers. But she tends to pick the characters that match her public persona. In this film, Madonna's body is a thing of beauty to look at and admire. She channels the actresses of the classic Hollywood era, which I adore, and has the best boobs in the history of Hollywood.
  • Cast overview, first billed only:
    Madonna Madonna - Rebecca Carlson
    Michael Forest Michael Forest - Andrew Marsh
    Joe Mantegna Joe Mantegna - Robert Garrett
    Charles Hallahan Charles Hallahan - Dr. McCurdy
    Mark Rolston Mark Rolston - Detective Reese
    Richard Riehle Richard Riehle - Detective Griffin
    D. Scot Douglas D. Scot Douglas - Printman
    Mario DePriest Mario DePriest - Technician
    John DeLay John DeLay - 2nd Technician
    Ross Huffman-Kerr Ross Huffman-Kerr - Photographer
    Anne Archer Anne Archer - Joanne Braslow
    Willem Dafoe Willem Dafoe - Frank Dulaney
    Mark C. Vincent Mark C. Vincent - Male Reporter
    Frank Roberts Frank Roberts - Minister
    Julianne Moore Julianne Moore - Sharon Dulaney
    All rights reserved © 2017-2024 hd.thomson-multimedia.com