Body of Evidence (1993)

After watching this movie the only thing i could think of is Madonna's ass. Why not? All this confusing story about old men having arrhythmia and women who can manipulate their desease into death is nothing compared to Madonna's ass.Ass is a hero and an object of attention in this movie. Of course, Madonna got for her full art gallery, but i ask - isn't her ass is art? And i never seen Madonna in her gallery, only in court. This movie have a court of law apparently. But who cares.Willem Dafoe playing a lawyer who got sense of admiration for Madonna (more like for her ass) and trying to save her from electric chair. I bet chair got jealous for Dafoe playing with Madonna's ass, but it's not a point. Point is - forget the story. It's stupid. It's laughable. It's unbelieveable. But be sure to check Madonna's ass. It's got a very good quality.

Madonna's track record with movies has not been too good. When this movie was released it was trashed by the critics, but I believe it was in part because it was released at the same time as her Sex book and Erotica CD. Most of the public were fed up with Madonna and sex and people basically ignored this movie and one of her best CD's, Erotica.The plot involves Rebecca Carlson (Madonna) who has been accused of murdering her much older lover by deliberately having kinky sex with him despite his severe heart condition. Frank Dulaney (Willem Dafoe) is a defense attorney who gets assigned to her case. He is married to Sharon (Julianne Moore) and has a son. Robert Garrett (Joe Mantegna) is the prosecutor. During the trial the highly flirtatious and kinky Rebecca begins to weave a spell over Frank and pretty soon he's having a torrid affair with her while the trial is still going on. He does a decent job keeping it from his wife for awhile , but naturally, she eventually finds out. There's also the deceased man's secretary Joanne (Anne Archer) who is convinced that Madonna killed him to get his riches but it turns out that Joanne may have been much closer to her employer than just working for him.It's a murder mystery and a courtroom drama. What is very interesting though is that there are, in fact, two trials in one. The first is the murder itself. The second, subliminally but more overt as things progress, is about what the conservative mind would refer to (perhaps) as deviant sex: handcuffs, restraints and making love in a public place for example; in this case, a poorly lit multi-storey car park. As such, a serious argument is presented in favor of the non-conventional view of sex; one that is fun and exciting but of course, only when both parties agree. It is certainly a view I subscribe to and have written about. The verbal descriptions elicit reactions in court. What was particularly impressive was the acting of Madonna. I have never thought of her as an attractive woman in the conventional visual sense but she certainly conveys a predatory hunger in this movie. The fact that she was much younger than the man she was in love with resonates; I have been there. I give it five stars because it presents the case for an aspect of life - terrific sex - that so many decline to acknowledge.Overall rating: 7 out of 10.

Hei, I gave 6 because the script was not that great, as a thriller it could have had a better suspense. But the acting work and directing was on the level. There is nothing wrong with Madonnas acting in this film. And she looks great too. It is a typical "erotic thriller" and not of the worst kind at all. It is just an average representative of the genre and as such, on a stronger side. The script has large plot holes like most erotic thrillers but most of the people watch it to see Madonna and men watch it for Madonna getting her clothes off, isn't it. I think Madonna and her lawyer had a good on-screen chemistry and it was a fully valid chill-out film to watch. This review is written by a heterosexual woman. I do not fancy Madonna, but I like her persona and her acting and I think she was good in this film.

Whoever it was who told Madonna she could act did a great disservice to humankind. So unfortunate are we who have to sit through one of her movies. If any movie she was in had any potential to be good her incompetent acting would ruin it. Body of Evidence, alas, had no potential of being any good. Madonna didn't ruin it because there was nothing worth ruining. Everything about the movie is terrible. Even so, Madonna's pathetic acting sticks out like a sore thumb. She is so awful that it distracts from how awful everything else in the movie is. But put Madonna aside for a moment and note how terrible the movie's plot is, how laughably bad the dialogue is, how wretched the performances of the rest of the cast are. This is a movie of no redeeming value. There is nothing about it you can point to as being even competently done, much less well done. Madonna plays a woman accused of murder. The murder weapon? Her body. She is accused of fornicating a man to death. Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds. Willem Dafoe plays her lawyer. The movie follows the murder trial, the courtroom scenes exceeded in their stupidity only by the bedroom scenes. There is nothing even remotely believable about anything that goes on in this movie. The story is much too dumb to be at all compelling. The performances from Dafoe and some other notable faces such as Joe Mantegna and Julianne Moore leave much to be desired. Of course compared to Madonna everyone else in the movie looks like Olivier and Hepburn. Everyone, except Madonna who clearly has no shame, must be ashamed they were ever involved with this movie. Spare a thought for director Uli Edel. After the acclaimed Last Exit to Brooklyn this turkey was his followup. It basically ended his career. In the movie Madonna's character wrecks lives. Seems Madonna caused one real-world casualty as well.