Divorce Was Never This Messy

 When it comes to remakes of classics of old, it is a touchy affair, one could say, to see the remake and consider it better than the original would be considered infidelity.

*See what I totally did there? :D*

Andrew Davis's re-imagining of Hitchcock's 'Dial 'M' For Murder' (which was loosely based on a play) doesn't spit upon The Master's work, nor does it try to ape it and that's why I personally feel it is the better of the two. This is perhaps one of the better contemporary suspense thrillers of last century that never fails to keep the audience pinned to the chair with anticipation and excitement.

                                                                            Orly?

Steven Taylor (a snide and quietly maliciously Machivellian Michael Douglas) lives a pretty cushy life as a business-savvy Wall Street bull who is married to the lovely (and much younger) trophy wife, Emily, a worker for the UN. This changes when Taylor's investments begin to unravel and, being the ruthless bastard he is, decides that killing Emily for her rather sizeable fortune is the best way keep his financial head above water, as ya do.
Adding fuel to this dastardly plan is the fact that Steven knows that Emily is involved in a passionate affair with David Shaw, a painter of limited means who just happens to live in a rather large loft. Rather than do the decent thing and talk to Shaw about how he's wreaking his (admittedly one-sided marriage) with Emily, Steven offers Shaw the opportunity to get a massive share in his murder plot by being the one to take Emily's life.

 

                                            "Here's to you and your trust fund, sweetie."

How's your head? It gets better, and by that, I mean more complicated. :-D


The reason why 'A Perfect Murder' works much better than it's predecessor is it's characters and their psychology. You have Steven, constantly scheming, always making plans and formulating exquisite lies, you have Emily, an unknowing victim of these plans who is trying to stay alive and get to the bottom of this shit, and then you have Shaw, who may, or may not be who he says he is, and may or may not, want to kill Emily. As convoluted as this story seems, it is something you can go with because it is masterfully done.

 

                                                                 Plus, it's pretty sexy.

While the characters and their motives are the primary focus, the rest of the movie isn't sacrificed. We have a marvelously subtle score by James Newton Howard, some terrific camera craft (a strong example being the initial attempt on Emily's life- very suspenseful) and the excellent use of the unimitable scenery of New York, as well as it's locations (I SO want Steve and Emily's townhouse! I SO want Shaw's strangely affordable studio loft!).

Sure, Hitchcock's 'Dial M' is a classic, but in no way does this update try to intrude on the ground recently tread by The Master. Technically speaking, 'Perfect' is bound more to the theatrical play that was the source of 'Dial M' and that is what gives it a separate life of it's own. Another reason why I feel 'Perfect' surpasses the 'Dial M' is because it is more culturally relevant to audiences now, even though this movie was made way back in '98. Sure it has dated a little, but it boasts a far more relatable assortment of talent as well as social relevance. For example, when it comes to pro-active female roles in cinema today, Paltrow's character, while blonde and vulnerable on the surface, is a lot tougher than Grace Kelly was. Yes, her character was a cheater, and yes, her morals are flawed, and no, she isn't exactly a role model, Paltrow ensures that Emily's strength shines through as Steven continues to secretly make her life a living nightmare.

On the whole, 'Perfect' may not be perfection, but it's quite an impressive adaptation of a remake of an original. If you are looking for a vastly entertaining suspense thriller, this one should be on the list because there is heaps to love in ample time to kill.

Ice Cold

'Basic Instinct' really is one of those movies you will either appreciate or say is utter trash, and it just so happens, if done cleverly, I love utter trash which has an entertaining face. While this film really makes no bones (he he, I said 'bones') about what it is on the surface (a lurid, early 90's erotic thriller), deep down, there are so many issues that can be discussed on an intellectual basis.We all know that this movie did not and never will win any awards for being a sterling look into the human spirit, but it is almost always overlooked as an important piece of cinema just because the audience saw va-jay-jay. To me, this is a very stylized look of the ever-going battle of the sexes on celluoid. While this battle has seen many arenas through drama, comedy and even action, 'Basic Instinct' takes this to the battlefied of sex, violence and mindgames, a clever option because those three sensationalist elements really do put bums in the seats. Paul Verhoven, you really are a sly bastard. 

Happy ending! Stabbity stabbity!

Upon viewing this movie recently, what surprised me is that despite the movie opening with a bang (literally), there really isn't a lot of the torrid sex this film is lauded to have. Yes, it is there and yes, it's explicit, but a distinct aura of sex is what truly permeates through this movie more than the sex itself. When we first see Catherine Trammell (Sharon Stone, in a performance which truly has defined her career for better or worse) she was the Hitchcockian icy blonde for the '90's- she doesn't give anybody the time of day unless it's for her own amusement. Despite her gorgeous looks, she is anything but vulnerable. She is feminine yet masculine in how she conducts herself around other men. She is for all intents a purposes a predator rather than prey in the male gaze. Although she isn't afraid to show off her body, she doesn't allow anybody to touch it without her permission- in short, she is a sex bomb, NOT a sex object, something which no doubt makes her a threat to the male characters in this film.

When vice-ridden Detective Nick Curan (Michael Douglas) decides he is the best man to bring Trammell to justice and in the process becomes involved in a dangerous affair with her, he knows she could very well be the death of him, but does that stop him? 

                                                                  Of course not, silly!

I am of several minds when it comes to this movie. I do not believe this is a terribly intelligent film, nor do I believe it is strictly an excuse to show flesh. Countless musings have been made about 'Basic Instinct' and how it symbolizes the on-going 'battle of the sexes', transgression, sexual preferances and a whole plethora of matters that concern society even today. Back in 1992, although bisexuality and homosexuality was indeed common, it held an enormous amount of shock value when it came to displaying its extremities on the big screen. One of the major selling points of this movie that has provoked so much discussion is the portrayal of these sexual culture- it is seen as highly sexual, but to the hetrosexual outsider Nick, it is an alien world filled with temptation and danger. 

                                               Well aren't you boys just the CUTEST?

On the flip side, others have said it is a film about female empowerment, with Catherine Trammell as the figurehead of this. Sure, it's not a wholly positive portrayal of pro-feminism, but it is a sensationalized example of it. Whatever was Verhoven's actual intent may always remain an mystery, but you can't blame people for analysing this movie and the two central characters. 

Personally, how I feel about this movie changes every time I view it. One day I may see it as this 'battle of the sexes' masked as an erotic thriller, others I may see it as a cheap yet entertaining tramp who only looks pretty but is otherwise a boring ride... so to speak. In saying that, I really have nothing new to add to this movie that hasn't already been said someplace else, but Paul Verhoven is a director who is (in my opinion only) dismissed unfairly just because he tends to exploit the more graphic elements of humans and their world. Okay, his films aren't ashamed of wallowing in exploitation (hola, 'Showgirls'), but at the same time, they never feel as if they are done PURELY for sensationalism for they actually have something to say (take a look at 'Starship Troopers' and 'Robocop'- both of them focus on the absurd lengths the propaganda machine goes, the excessiveness of violence in Western culture performed for our entertainment). Verhoven isn't saying EVERYBODY does it, his films come across as a general statement. In the case of 'Basic Instinct', Verhoven is possibly saying that people are too eager to be titilated about the unknown elements of sexuality and turning it into some whacked out adventure rather than focusing on what it really is. Dare I say, 'Basic Instinct' is masquerading as a form of arousal in order to make fun of how humans think and act.

Verhoven... you slick Dutch bastard.