Tag Archives: Paul Verhoeven

Basic Instinct-1992

Basic Instinct-1992

Director Paul Verhoeven

Starring Michael Douglas, Sharon Stone

Scott’s Review #1,545

Reviewed August 24, 2026

Grade: B+

Basic Instinct (1992), starring Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone, is a titillating thriller like Fatal Attraction (1987), both of which set the tone for many films patterned after it well into the 1990s.

It was the must-see film of 1992 and became a slick, stylistic mega blockbuster hit.

Body of Evidence (1993) and Sliver (1993), starring Madonna and Stone, respectively, are quick examples of the film’s influence.

Plus, Douglas starred in Fatal Attraction, so several films are connected.

With Basic Instinct, there is an immediate, sizzling sexual tension at hand, largely due to Stone’s smoldering kinkiness and bisexuality.

The actor was a relative newcomer at the time and moved to the forefront of Hollywood notoriety mainly due to the controversial full-frontal crotch exposure, which made headlines and shocked millions.

Other controversies surrounded Basic Instinct, which I will get to in a moment.

The film also put director Paul Verhoeven on the map. Unfortunately, he followed up Basic Instinct with the dreadful yet similarly veined film, Showgirls (1995).

The mysterious Catherine Tramell (Stone), a beautiful crime novelist, becomes a suspect when she is linked to the brutal death of a rock star. The dangerous and sensual femme fatale confidently struts her stuff as she toys with local police, leading a game of cat and mouse.

Primarily investigated by San Francisco homicide detective Nick Curran (Douglas), Catherine seduces him into an intense and addictive relationship. At the same time, the murder case becomes increasingly complicated when more seemingly connected deaths occur.

Is Nick’s life in danger? What does the mysterious character named Roxy (Leilani Sarelle) have to do with the central plot?

Besides being known for making Stone an A-list star, the film borrows from the likes of Alfred Hitchcock and Brian De Palma. This is a marvelous treat for fans of those directors.

In particular, Vertigo (1958) and Psycho (1960) clearly influenced it.

The brutal ice-pick murder at the very beginning is a direct nod to the famous shower scene in Psycho, but with the gender roles reversed (a man is killed instead of a woman).

For Vertigo, Catherine Tramell echoes the icy, enigmatic, and stylish blonde archetype seen in Kim Novak, and both films use San Francisco as a moody, atmospheric backdrop.

Finally, a lush, suspenseful musical score by Jerry Goldsmith pays homage to Hitchcock’s frequent composer, Bernard Herrmann.

As for De Palma, his thriller Body Double (1984) deals directly with voyeurism, obsession, and dangerous, manipulative femme fatales. It’s a direct stylistic and thematic stepping stone to Basic Instinct.

The film is enthralling and edge-of-your-seat intense for most of the way and has an unexpected, arguably jaw-dropping twist ending, but after a while it becomes a bit too gimmicky to earn a solid A grade.

It’s almost as if it borrows so much from other films that it lacks a real identity of its own, though it’s still an entertaining and shocking film.

I don’t share the repeated accusations of misogyny and homophobia that have gnawed at the film ever since it was released.

Sure, the killer is a female, and the killer is also bisexual, but that actually makes the events erotic and tinged with sexual energy and unpredictability; perhaps I merely wanted to enjoy the film.

On the other hand, one can argue that the film is boldly feminist. Catherine plays by her own rules and confidently, sometimes callously, consumes her prey.

She rejects traditional female passivity and wields total sexual, financial, and intellectual power over men.

Decades later, feeling slightly dated, mostly because similar films have more longevity, Basic Instinct (1992) nonetheless is recommended mostly for the smoldering chemistry between Douglas and Stone and for the creation of a badass female character.

Oscar Nominations: Best Film Editing, Best Original Score

Elle-2016

Elle-2016

Director Paul Verhoeven

Starring Isabelle Huppert

Scott’s Review #644

Reviewed May 17, 2017

Grade: A-

Sure to evoke both disgust and intrigue from viewers brave enough to watch it all the way through and hopefully ponder the character dynamics, Elle is a titillating French film that was showered with heaps of praise upon its release in 2016.

Controversial without question, in large part by the film’s main character, Elle, will undoubtedly divide film fans- some heralding the picture as greatness, others detesting it as too exploitive.

It is not an easy watch by any measure, but one aspect is cemented in truth-Isabelle Huppert gives a fantastic performance in a complex and perverse role.

Unique even in its first scene, Michele Leblanc (Huppert) is a ruthless, alpha businesswoman who is raped and beaten by an intruder in her lavish Paris home.

The violent act occurs in the first scene, immediately giving the film an “in your face” presence. When the rapist, who wears a ski mask, flees, Michele shakes off the incident with nary an emotional scar.

Through backstory, we learn that years ago, Michele’s father brutally murdered many people and was imprisoned for life. Michele’s mother is an aging glamour girl who hires sexy male escorts. Michele’s son is engaged to a domineering pregnant woman, and her ex-husband is dating a younger woman.

Michele lives a complicated life.

At first, Michele seems sympathetic, and we feel her pain as she is taunted by a woman in a coffee shop for her father’s past deeds.

To say nothing of her rape, we cringe when Michele hears noises and imagines the masked intruder returning to rape again, empathizing with the character.

When the mystery man harasses Michele, he sends notes and leaves “gifts” in her home, and we are scared for her. However, as the film goes along, Michele’s obsession and other questionable actions make the character challenging to like.

I also began to wonder if Michele was perhaps dreaming the entire film!

As a fan of acclaimed film director Claude Chabrol, Elle appears to be heavily influenced by him.

Director Paul Verhoeven certainly must have studied his works. He is no slouch himself—female-empowering sex films such as Basic Instinct (1992) and Showgirls (1995) that he directed come to mind. He gives Elle a sleek and sexy feel.

The fact that it is set in romantic Paris helps make the film glamorous and cultured. Verhoeven even weaves a whodunit into the story for much of the movie until the rapist is revealed shockingly.

If the film had ended with the big reveal, this would have made for a compelling, if not mainstream, Lifetime television-type film, but Elle takes off from this point. Michele, already fancying her handsome rapist, actually begins a macabre relationship with the man, going so far as to act out the rape again- her fantasies coming true!

This story turn may repel the average viewer, but to me, this turns the film into a completely left-of-center, layered, psychologically themed story.

Elle is not a revenge tale or a film about a victimized woman; it is much more.

What a dynamic performance Ruppert gives, and here is why- she successfully makes Michele both sympathetic and reviled.

Besides the aforementioned rape complexities, she despises her mother and sleeps with her best friend’s husband. In a scene that arguably makes Michele cross the line in reprehensible behavior, she confesses her affair to a best friend, Anna, when Anna is at her happiest moment- this is downright cruel!

So, no, the audience does not entirely sympathize with this character, but how layered this makes the character, and what a treat it is for actress Ruppert to sink her teeth into a character like this one.

With a wounded yet cold central character, partly thanks to exceptional direction by Verhoeven and a brilliant portrayal by Huppert, he takes Elle into largely unchartered territory and brave waters to create a film that will make the viewer both think and loathe.

Part nymphomaniac wounded bird and vicious shark, Elle contains a complex and memorable leading character.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Isabelle Huppert

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Female Lead-Isabelle Huppert (won)

Showgirls-1995

Showgirls-1995

Director Paul Verhoeven

Starring Elizabeth Berkley

Scott’s Review #372

962109

Reviewed January 31, 2016

Grade: D

Having heard much about the infamously poorly reviewed Showgirls (1995) and its reputation as one of the worst films ever made, I finally got around to watching it (twenty years after its release).

Now considered something of a camp classic, I am glad I did.

While I recognize the dubious distinction it holds and do not disagree with it, I also found something slightly entertaining about the film, and my thought process throughout was “this film is so bad that it might be good”, but in the end, it is pretty much just a bad film.

Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley) hitchhikes to Las Vegas, intending to find success as a showgirl.

After her belongings are stolen, she is befriended by a kind-hearted woman named Molly, who works as a seamstress at the topless dance revue Goddess.

Molly takes her in and introduces her to the star of the show, Cristal (Gina Gershon).

A rivalry immediately develops between the women as Cristal mocks Nomi’s job at another topless club.

The main story centers on this rivalry as Nomi attempts to climb the ranks and succeed in the shady world of adult entertainment.

Along the way, she becomes involved with various men, specifically the entertainment director (and Cristal’s boyfriend), Zack, played by Kyle MacLachlan, leading to further tensions.

Let me be honest here- Showgirls is a bad film in every way. I observed three major flaws in the film: poor acting, poor writing, and an over-the-top tone on every level.

Let’s break it down.

Within minutes, I knew the acting was subpar, and I wondered whether that was the fault of the director (Paul Verhoeven), the actors, or a combination.

Known for directing Basic Instinct (a sexy, smoldering film), he may have had the same success in mind for Showgirls.

Berkeley gets the brunt of the mention since she is the lead character, but, wow, what a bad performance.

From the overdramatic delivery to the phony earnestness, I did not buy the performance for a minute and, on more than one occasion, fantasized about how a different actress might have tackled the role (Nicole Kidman and Julia Roberts came to mind).

Gershon was almost worse, as an irritating, brooding pout marred her sexiness and vixen-like character.

The writing is one-dimensional- a poor girl tries to achieve success in a bad, bad world and meets challenge after challenge. Nothing new here.

The predictability was apparent almost immediately, and most of the characters were unlikable. When Nomi takes an interest in a man, he becomes a player, keeping another aspiring female star on the side and feeding her the same lines he gave Nomi.

Even the one sympathetic character (Molly) exists only to make Nomi more likable, as when Molly is attacked and Nomi races to her bedside.

Forced and formulaic, this scene is a prime example of poor and contrived writing.

Most scenes play over the top.

Brimming with nudity and sexual excitement, the film is bawdy and party-friendly. In one scene, dancers take a line of coke before hitting the stage, and a feud between two of them results in one sabotaging the production, causing the other to break her hip.

The larger-than-life (in more than one way) x-rated, well-endowed, mama dancer, while entertaining, is also silly and foolish.

Chaotic and pointless, each scene was hard to believe and take seriously.

You may be wondering what positives can be found in Showgirls- the answer is not many, but there is a charm I found in the film, but perhaps I am gluttonous for punishment.

I think the film “feels” like it wants to have fun, and a certain level of entertainment can be found in viewing it, but this is like trying to find a needle in a haystack to see any good in Showgirls.

I do not disagree that Showgirls (1995) is one of the worst films ever made, but I found a sliver of charm, interest, and fun mixed in with the more prevalent drivel, poor quality, and painfully bad acting.

But perhaps that is because it is so bad.