The film is for horny pups of all ages who relish the memory of reading stroke books under the covers with a flashlight. Verhoeven has spent $49 million to reproduce that dirty little thrill on the big screen.Read Full Review »
67
ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Owen Gleiberman
Beneath its heavy-breathing fripperies, though, Basic Instinct is mechanical and routine, a muddle of Hitchcockian red herrings and standard cop-thriller ballistics.Read Full Review »
63
USA Today: Mike Clark
The film never makes total sense, but at its best (the first half-hour), it comes closer to solidly junky titillation than the hapless Final Analysis. [20 Mar 1992, Life, p.1D]Read Full Review »
50
Time: Richard Schickel
This reflects its fundamental flaw of arrogance, a smug faith in the ability of its own speed, smartness and luxe to wow the yokels. [23 Mar 1992, p.65]Read Full Review »
50
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES: Roger Ebert
The film is like a crossword puzzle. It keeps your interest until you solve it. Then it's just a worthless scrap with the spaces filled in.Read Full Review »
40
LOS ANGELES TIMES: Kenneth Turan
A reminder of the difference between exhilaration and exhaustion, between tension and hysteria, between eroticism and exhibitionism. The line may be fine, but it is real enough to separate the great thrillers from the also-rans. And Basic Instinct is not a great thriller. [20 Mar 1992, Calendar, p.F-1]Read Full Review »
30
The New York Times: Elvis Mitchell
The $3 million reportedly paid for Mr. Eszterhas's screenplay did not buy a coherent ending.Read Full Review »
30
Washington Post: Desson Thomson
What isn't so fascinating is this movie's absurdity of motivation. No one does anything that makes sense. No one seems real. When the actual perpetrator is uncovered, there is no enlightenment as to why the killing occurred.Read Full Review »
20
Washington Post: Rita Kempley
What we have here is a movie with not just one, but a family pack of psychos.Read Full Review »
Hotmail
