Basic Instinct (1992)

It's the wrong identity that creates death, and it's the right identity that creates life. The consequence of this, is that death is right and life is wrong.An actuality, is a falsehood that mirrors the sameness. The sameness is correct, but, it's the illness of the sameness to harbour a false version of itself. What this means is that perfection is the equivalent of being in the possession of danger.To be perfect, is to possess danger. Perfection isn't the danger itself, perfection is to "possess" the danger. The resulting implication, is that danger is the equivalent of not possessing perfection, as opposed to just being the fact of non-possession.The basic fact, of non-possession, is an implied inferiority. This would then mean that the non-possession of perfection isn't an implied inferiority. As further consequence, perfection means to possess something which isn't an implied inferiority, ergo, it means to possess something which has the power to be an implied superiority. The balance is then as such: perfection is the state of being shut off from the freedom to improve, and the freedom to improve is the state of being at risk of danger. Perfection is the safety of no progress - the lack of perfection is the risk of progress. Perfection is the boredom of stability - the lack of perfection is the excitement of progress that's dangerous.The lack of perfection is risk; risk is the boredom of stability, and it's the lack of risk that's the excitement of progress that's dangerous. When a living being experiences stability, they are at risk. When a living being experiences dangerous progress, they are safe. Progress is change, so safety is when a living being experiences dangerous change. Conversely, risk is when a living being experiences no change. Danger is no change - safety is dangerous change.Danger is stability. Stability is dangerous change - danger is dangerous change. The very fact of danger is the equivalent to the change of itself. Danger is the same as the experience of itself being changed.The juxtaposition to this, is that safety is the same as the experience of itself being the same - safety is no change, and therefore no change is the same as the experience of no change being no change. No change is no change living no change. Change is change living change. No change is no change differing no change. Change is change differing change: no change changes no change, and change changes change.The same must change itself, and the different must change itself. The balance to this is that the same can't change itself without difference, and the different can't change itself without offending the meaning of change. The different has to be the same, in order to honour protocol. The protocol has to be the protocol, in order to let the different honour the protocol.The standard wants to deviate, but can't, because the deviant is dependent on respecting the standard. The deviant therefore is the real standard, and the standard was always the real deviant: the standard can't be excited, because it's respecting the standard that's the true source of excitement.The origin of life, or, the origin of the universe is the most exciting thing in reality. The tragic truth though - and it "is" a tragic truth - is that in order for the origin of life to be the most exciting thing in life, the penalty is that the origin of life isn't aware of its own state. At the beginning of reality, there exists a single being who is the most exciting thing possible: what's deeply upsetting, and what's deeply tragic about this single being who exists at the beginning of the universe is that they are unable to know of themselves as the most exciting thing possible. This being can't know that they deserve to be worshipped, glorified and lusted over for all eternity.

As this erotic thriller opens a blonde woman is seen having sex with a man; she ties his wrists to the bed then his pleasure turns to terror as she repeatedly stabs him with an ice-pick. Detective Nick Curran is in charge of the investigation and his only real suspect is the victim's girlfriend. She is Catherine Tramell, a bisexual crime writer whose latest book includes a murder that is identical to the one Nick is investigating. He is convinced that she is the killer but there is no actual proof and she is soon playing mind games with him. It turns out that many people who were close to her have died violently and she seems to be attracted to killers. This might include Nick as he had previously been investigated after the accidental fatal shooting of two tourists. As the story progresses Nick gets caught up in a relationship with Catherine; he is already in a relationship with the police psychiatrist who just happened to have known Tramell when they were both studying at Berkley. Nick later gets suspended from the case when an Internal Affairs officer is murdered shortly after confronting him.There is no denying that this film is best known for one scene where Sharon Stone shows that she isn't wearing any knickers; this is a pity as the film is far more than that one 'blink and you miss it' scene. The story is enjoyably sleazy with plenty of twists and turns. As the story progresses the suspicion moves between three possible suspects. We are constantly wondering whether Tramell is an intelligent killer who is playing games with everybody around her or whether somebody else is targeting people around her. Michael Douglas does an impressive job as Detective Curran but it is Sharon Stone who dominates the film as the seductive Catherine Tramell; a character who is almost playing with the audience as much as she is playing with the other characters. The supporting cast are solid as well; most notable George Dzundza as Nick's Partner and Jeanne Tripplehorn as the police psychiatrist. Nobody will be surprised that there is a fair amount of sex and nudity in this film, there are also some moments of intense violence that may disturb some viewers. Overall this is a solid thriller that should keep the viewer guessing till the very end… and possibly one will still be wondering what really happened as the credits roll.

its success. its art to change the rules of thriller. the smart use of ambiguity and taboo. and Paul Verhoever. memorable scenes, Sharon Stone and Michael Douglas in one of essential points of career and the obsessive music. a film who escapes from definitions. and who makes history. its force of seduction remains the same. its magic and provocative sensuality and impeccable story. because it is one of models for a genre who escapes from old standards. and an experiment. from one of the most uncomfortable directors.

The suspense and building of tension is off the charts in this Paul Verhoeven movie. As a fellow Dutchman I am proud of his work! The erotic feel throughout the movie is very appealing, as well as the intellectual conversations.I saw the movie in the cinema and it was mind-blowing. Not one dull moment because of the mysterious Catherine Tramell. The flirting and courting between the two lead characters is very sexy. The jealousy and mind games are nice to watch as well as the raw emotions that cause death and betrayal. A masterpiece that fitted Sharon Stone as a glove. Her best work I think. The movie music is just right and adds to the mysteriousness.A must-watch movie that has survived a lot of controversy!