INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1956) Throwback Thursday Review

Posted on by
Reply

A timeless, terrifying motion picture! Based on the Collier’s magazine serial turned book The Body Snatchers by Jack Finney, directed by Don Siegel, and produced by Walter Wanger (of Cleopatra infamy), this Allied Artists’ motion picture is the single best representation of the fears and anxieties of the 1950s. But the beauty of this particular picture is that its themes including the fear of conformity, loss of identity, dehumanization, loss of individuality, and even vulnerability are still relevant today, perhaps even more so than they were at the time this seminal horror film was released. 

In Santa Mira, California, Dr. Miles Bennell (Kevin McCarthy) is baffled when all his patients come to him with the same complaint: their loved ones seem to have been replaced by emotionless impostors. Despite others’ dismissive denials, Dr. Bennell, his former girlfriend Becky (Dana Wynter) and his friend Jack (King Donovan) soon discover that the patients’ suspicions are true: an alien species of human duplicates, grown from plant-like pods, is taking over the small town.

While this film sits comfortably in the horror/sci-fi subgenre, it shares a lot of characteristics in common with film noir. Between the recurring narration, a central character in over his head, and the fact events do not turn out favorably for the central character, it pulls on the best of the film noir apparatus to craft a highly unnerving cinematic story that prompts one to think about the state of the world around him or her. 

Perhaps in its day, Invasion of the Body Snatchers was a commentary on the threat of communism/socialism on the American republic, but that is not the only subject to which this film can speak to us decades later. Could it still be read as a warning against the threat of communism today? Sure. But, communism doesn’t look or act like it did back in the 1950s. That’s the danger inherent with famous allegorical films such as this one; the well-known danger is pigeonholing it into only ever meaning what it meant back during the days of the Cold War. When in fact, this film can be read as a commentary on a variety of topics, depending on the worldview of the audience member. 

Whatever the form the existential enemy takes, whether you choose to read it as a commentary on communism, socialism, nationalism, or woke-ism (more accurately defined as applied/reified postmodernism), this film speaks to that which is defined as a threat to one’s present existence. When we label what this film is about, we limit its potential to speak to us. So, it’s better to read the film through its various themes versus defining what the enemy is. From beginning to end, the film depicts events and behaviors that rob individuals of expression, identity, competition, entrepreneurship, and choice in exchange for homogeneity, group think, forced societal roles, and emotion. Ostensibly, this film is about an enemy that seeks to dehumanize and force conformity upon everyone—a world in which everyone is equal and exactly the same versus a world in which we are all equal but definitely not the same. The film demonstrates what happens when we are asleep to the threat of the enemy, and it comes in like a thief in the night. And when we finally recognize the threat, it’s all but too late for us, for humanity, for freedom.

The film begins laying the pipe for the second act reveal of the pod people all the way at the beginning. It’s a scene to which many may not pay particular attention; it’s the scene wherein Miles notices that the Grimaldi vegetable stand is no longer open. One of the characteristics of a society that demonstrates a lack of support or simply opposes free enterprise (or by extension the marketplace of ideas), is manifested in this imagery. Farmer Grimaldi abandoned his private farming business in exchange for supporting the planting and harvesting of the alien pods. Other disturbing imagery is the crisis between the second and third acts wherein Miles and Becky are told that the pod people (replicants of their human counterparts) mean them no harm and want to provide a peaceful existence. The real horror here is that the peaceful existence comes at the cost of freedom and one’s unique identity (all the traits that make one a unique man or woman). These pod people are devoid of any genuine emotion, only exhibit the pretense of it, and see individualism as a threat to their existence.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a call to action; it’s a wakeup call to all those that watch it to stand vigilant against tyranny, to stand guard against threats both seen and unseen that seek to undermine what it means to be human. Furthermore, the film posits the idea that the deadliest enemy may not be the one that can be viewed with the naked eye; rather, the deadliest enemy is the one that sneaks in unbeknownst to most individuals. Or maybe it comes disguised as something that sounds great on the surface, but only seeks the destruction of uniqueness, freedom of expression, the marketplace of ideas, and the human dimension of existence. 

Due to the timelessness of the message of this terrifying film, we are drawn back to it time and time again. We are reminded to stand guard against an enemy that seeks to destroy our very way of life. It’s a story of survival and the great cost of freedom. A recurring theme throughout the horror genre is the theme of survival, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a brilliant exploration of how to survive against mounting odds that appear unstoppable. Horror films have a way of causing us to rally, causing us to come together in support of our right to survive. There is no other genre that inspires us to fight the enemy like a horror film.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

ABIGAIL horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Fangtastic! Universal Pictures’ Abigail is a wildly entertaining, classically-inspired horror movie that you can really sink your teeth into. It delivers old school vampire movie elements with a contemporary sensibility. Ostensibly, it’s the metaphoric child of Dracula (1931) and The Horror of Dracula (1958). From beginning to end, the terror and laughter continually draw you into the story. Tonally, it strikes a great chord. The narrative never takes itself too seriously; however, it never devolves into parody either. It’s an effective blend of the atmosphere and music of an old school Universal monster picture and the increased gore of Hammer studios. Underscoring the blood-curdling outside/action story is an internal story with a redemptive message and even a little heart.

A group of would-be criminals kidnaps the 12-year-old daughter of a powerful underworld figure. Holding her for ransom in an isolated mansion, their plan starts to unravel when they discover their young captive is actually a bloodthirsty vampire.

From the moment the film opens, I was hooked! It opens with a solitary ballerina gracefully dancing on the stage in an empty auditorium; but what makes this scene particularly alluring is the original Dracula score (selections from Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake) underscoring the entire opening sequence. It’s a deceptively simple scene that draws us into the beauty of the dance and music. Not only does the iconic music play at the beginning, but variations of it serve as a significant part of the movie’s score. This scene could be made greyscale, and edited to look like it was shot on 1930s 35mm film stock, and I’d almost buy that it was shot nearly 100 years ago.

While the movie may start out in the city, it doesn’t take long to venture into the countryside where a foreboding Tudor style estate serves as the main location for the events of the film. Again, Abigail is channeling Universal’s roots in classic horror by placing our relatively small cast in an isolated expansive estate that could’ve very well been used in a Carl Laemmle/James Whale motion picture. All that was missing was the eerie setting being draped in a dense fog rolling off the moors. As the characters wander through the imposing countryside mansion, the movie effectively established the rules by which the film will live by as it delivers its screamtastic narrative.

Without getting into plot specifics, I can tell you that it’s a simple plot with complex characters–so the best kind of cinematic story! Each and every character is sufficient developed, and quickly. The movie wastes no time at any point. It’s a lean, mean script that snaps, crackles, and pops. Not only is the world build, complete with rules, but the logic of the movie follows the rules and boundaries that it setup for itself during the first act. And while the movie does adhere to many classic vampire tropes, it also subverts some expectations. But not too many. There is one, in particular, to which I feel that it should’ve adhered but identified a way around it for dramatic purposes. But otherwise, I like that it pretty much stuck to the vampire playbook that has been used since Bram Stoker penned the seminal novel.

While there is a lot of blood, I wouldn’t say that it is a particularly violent picture. When the violence and gore hit–they hit–but it’s not gratuitous to the point of exhaustion from the visceral gore and projectile blood. I’d say it’s along the lines of Ready or Not levels of violence/gore. It’s never delivered in a manner that feels disturbing or disgusting; like with the tone, there is a consistent tongue-in-cheeky quality in the fighting or kill scenes. There are some fantastic skills and scenes that I hope make their way into the HHN (Halloween Horror Nights) house that this movie is destined to become this year or next.

the comedy is effectively delivered scene after scene. There is a great combination of humorous dialogue and visually-driven humor. Lots of hilarious image juxtapositions and an over-the-top quality to much of what is experienced. The movie is full of exaggerations, twists, and reversals. Whether the punchline is delivered in an argument or a sight gag, it’s done incredibly well by writers and directors that care. There is one scene that I particularly enjoyed, and it’s the vampire dancing with a headless corpse to the Dracula score. It’s just so ridiculous that you will undoubtedly laugh!

Despite the wildly entertaining qualities of this movie, it is not without some heart. One of the characters learns that constantly feeling like the victim of their circumstances is not constructive, and sometimes the best thing to do is move forward, freeing oneself from the prison of victimization. It was a nice touch that didn’t feel forced, but rather earned by the character.

You don’t want to miss seeing Abigail on the big screen, because the experience will not be the same at home. If you’re a fan of both Universal and Hammer horror, then you’ll want to make sure to watch Abigail in cinemas.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

CIVIL WAR (2024) film review

Posted on by
Reply

A gripping, thought-provoking motion picture about the power and cost of capturing the human experience in a single frame during war. While it would be easy to describe Alex Garland’s Civil War as a thoughtful, if not painful, graphic warning of what happens when society is completely deconstructed and humanity is lost, this film is actually about the power of storytelling through a single frame. Specifically, the state of what remains of humanity and the cost thereof amidst war. Not for the faint of heart, this film takes you only where imbedded journalists have been during a war, complete with all the death and destruction. The film reminds us of the human cost on the battlefield, in the neighborhood, and those that are capturing the images that will tell the story of societies darkest days.

In a dystopian future America, a team of military-embedded journalists races against time to reach Washington, D.C., before rebel factions descend upon the White House.

A picture is worth a thousand words, or so we hold true, but a picture can come at great cost, particularly during wartimes. Instead of focussing on the backstory or who is fighting for whom and for what principles, Garland uses the apparatus of a dystopian warn-torn United States to explore the human dimension and cost of a polarizing, grizzly domestic war. And he does this through a group of imbedded journalists played by Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Maura, Cailee Spaney, and Stephen McKinley Henderson. Together, they face certain death as they strive to cover the war and reach the President for a one-on-one interview.

We aren’t given enough information about the reason for the Western Front (California+Texas) and Florida Alliance secession from the rest of the country, but that’s because Garland wants us to focus on a different story, the human story told through the power of a single frame and the lives that bring these photos before our eyes. Perhaps you’ve never thought of how these photos get from the battlefield to online and traditional magazines and newspapers, but you’ll think twice the next time you are viewing photographs from current or past wars.

But it isn’t simply a motion picture depicting the difficulties in working as a wartime imbedded journalist–that is incidental–this is a picture of the human lives on the battlefield and the places seemingly removed from the atrocities of war. We seldom think of all the different human reactions to war, and this film brings us face to face with those that are fighting for their respective causes, those documenting the various campaigns, and those that go about their daily lives as though the country isn’t ripping apart at the seems a few hundred miles away. Garland doesn’t offer any particular slant, neither does he steer the audience in agreement or disagreement with any faction involved in the war; rather, he crafts a mosaic, if you will, of a collection of metaphoric still images that capture each type of reaction to the war.

I often talk about the emotive difference between film and digital in my classes, and this film is a great example of that argument. It’s the argument that film is superior to digital because with film, there is a tangible relationship between the filmmaker and the film stock, and by extension, a relationship is developed between the editor and film stock. We particularly witness this relationship in Civil War between Jessie (Spaney) and her classic Nikon SLR (film) camera. Whether as depicted in this movie or in real life, there is far more value placed on and discernment in using film to capture people and events, because the photographer/filmmaker is limited to the number on frames on each roll/reel. Therefore, the photos won’t be of just anything, the artist is only going to take a photo that has meaning. Granted, the keeper may still be 1/30, but each was taken with explicit intent, creating immense value in each still frame.

Even after the shutter has opened and closed, imprinting the image on the 35mm frame, the relationship continues through the development process because the developer sends the film through a chemical process that reveals the full spectrum of light–something tangible, that the developed can see, touch, and feel. Digital cannot capture the full spectrum of light the way film can: one is a replicated process that actually cuts off the whitest of whites and blackest of blacks, whilst the other is a chemical process that captures the full range and spectrum of light as imprinted on the film cell. Film photography (or cinematography) creates an emotive dimension between the artist and image, there is a tangible relationship, so everything is done with immense care, consideration, and discernment.

Why is any of this important in discussing Alex Garland’s Civil War? Because to gain the full appreciation of the story he is telling, it is imperative that we understand the relationship between the photojournalist and tragic, devastating events in which they are working to capture the human dimension behind the atrocities of war. Neither Jessie nor Lee (Dunst) will take photos of just anything, every move is thoughtful, the people and events being captured by their respective cameras carry meaning, they carry the human story. That story is made up of those fighting for the Western Front, Florida Alliance (which we don’t see in the movie), or what’s left of the (former) United States’ armed forces.

Beyond what emerges as the main story, Garland’s film does contain a graphic warning of a possible future in which the United States becomes embroiled in domestic warfare (civil war) due to whatever the reasons were that lead to the secession by California, Texas, and Florida (the three most populous states, by the way). It’s to the film’s credit that Garland does leave the backstory vague, as it’s less important what led to this point, but rather the importance is found in the reactions to the war. Both sides of this war are being fought by those that believe they are right, and will fight for the principles in which they believe. The problem isn’t simply the divergence of opinion and belief as it is in the complete disregard or sacrifice of humanity in exchange for a manmade or arbitrary identity.

This is witnessed in an exchange between our journalists and a group of paramilitary civilians, led by Jesse Plemons). Our journalists state they are American journalists, and Plemons’ character reacts by demanding to know what kind of American. This represents those that discriminate or hold prejudice against those that don’t look or sound like they are originally from the United States. In his mind, being from the United States looks and sounds like a particular type, and if one does not fit into that type, then they are not welcomed and ultimately expendable.

Other reactions to the war are also witnessed by our journalists. Such as the lack of reaction to that which is tearing the country to shreds. On their way from New York City to Washington, D.C., our central characters stop in a West Virginia town that is seemingly removed from the war. When the citizens of this town are asked how can they behave as though a few hundred miles away that the very foundations of the country are being shattered, the town reacts in apathy to the war. They are certainly knowledgeable that there is a war, but they choose to stay out of it. Just as the front lines are a reaction to war, this too is a reaction that bares consideration. Garland leaves it up to each audience member where they fall along the full spectrum of the human dimension in war.

In addition to the writing, directing, and technical achievement demonstrated in the film, the performative dimension is outstanding. The genuine reactions to and emotions on display are dripping with authenticity. You will feel what these actors’ characters are feeling throughout the movie. And not just the gut-wrenching parts, the strategically placed moments of humor will stir your soul as well.

Garland crafts a motion picture that serves as cautionary tale of what happens when we stop thinking about one another as unique individuals, as children of God, and instead treat those that are different in some way as a threat to our very existence. What happens when we care more about someone’s identity (with whatever the ideal or principle) than we do about them as a person. There is a time to defend that in which one believes or when one’s life is in danger, but left unchecked, that defense can turn into an offense due to primal fears, anxieties, obsession, and selfishness. Perhaps this film will serve as a reminder of what can happen when we stop treating one another with respect as fellow humans (as fellow Americans) and instead merely treat one another as threats to our very existence. Treatment with respect and dignity does not equate to endorsement or agreement, but it does leave an opportunity to change open. We’ve seen throughout history that there is sometimes a cause for war, but it should always be the last resort.

Often times, I am negatively critical of the writing in the film’s A24 produces or distributes, because I find many of these films are poorly written; however, this film demonstrates the power of acknowledging storytelling/screenwriting conventions and guidelines. Why? Because they work! At first I was wondering why with such a fantastically written screenplay was the realization missing at the end. Then I realized that it is there in character, plot, and in myself. You’ll just have to watch the film to fully understand that which I am attempting to describe without giving away any spoilers.

Garland’s Civil War is unlike anything I expected. I expected a movie dripping with overt socio-political ideology and commentary, but what I got was an incredibly thoughtful motion picture about the human dimension of war, particularly a domestic war between the states. Garland does not hold back on the violence, so those with PTSD from war or uncomfortable with violent movies should be cautioned before watching this film.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

GHOSTBUSTERS: FROZEN EMPIRE movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Spooktacular! Nonstop action and laughs from beginning to end. Nicely written and directed with a fantastic mix of legacy and new Ghostbusters elements. Demonstrates connective tissue the soul of the original two Ghostbusters movies whilst delivering plenty of new ideas! With a cast of lead and supporting players that share fantastic chemistry, both legacy and new characters are completely at home in and part of the world of the Ghostbusters. The character dynamics are as sharp and engaging as ever, with moments of humor and camaraderie that work collaboratively to balance the tension with the supernatural threats. With its sleek storytelling and spectacular visuals, you don’t want to miss seeing this movie on the BIG screen.

The Spengler family returns to the iconic New York City firehouse where the original Ghostbusters have taken ghost-busting to the next level. When the discovery of an ancient artifact unleashes an evil force, Ghostbusters new and old must unite to protect their home and save the world from a second ice age.

The rich world-building combined with the well-developed characters and meaningful conflict, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire will whisk you away to an immersive world of frozen landscapes and ancient ruins. Relying, not only on CGI, but incorporating practical effects gives the movie a sense of depth and naturalism. Concerning the practical effects–which I wish it had relied upon more–but I digress, I loved the moments with Slimer (and another bookish apparition) because Slimer was back in all his optical effects glory (for the most part anyway). It was like being transported back to the original Ghostbusters to greet the lovable menace. While not practical, we do get moments with the Staypuff marshmallowies too!

A surprising narrative strength demonstrated by the movie is its thematic depth. Through interpersonal conflict, the movie explores rich themes such as redemption, the challenges of growing up, and hubris. While the outside/action plot is a classic good vs evil setup, the inside/emotional story delivers many substantive layers that enrich the humanity of the characters and the story itself. The movie’s deceptively simplistic packaging surrounds a complex narrative that keeps the audience engaged.

One of the character-driven subplots of the movie provides a great opportunity to explore isolation and loneliness even when surrounded by people. Humans are designed to desire companionship, whether that companionship is romantic or platonic. And I appreciate the movie exploring what it’s like to feel alone within your on family. On the topic of family, the movie also provides an exploration on one’s family of origin and one’s found family.

For all it’s spooky hilarity, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is a family melodrama that touches your heart whilst the more thrilling elements of the movie seek to wildly entertain you.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

BASIC INSTINCT (1992) a Throwback Thursday review

Posted on by
Reply

Still suspenseful and seductive! The Paul Verhoeven hypnotic neo-noir thriller continues to entertain and fascinate us more than three decades later. Exemplary direction, writing, and acting. Every storytelling element works flawlessly together to craft a film that was a cultural phenomenon and made Sharon Stone a household name. The heavily Hitchcockian-inspired film also contains characteristics of giallo that assault the senses and add a cloak and dagger quality to the string of mysterious, gruesome crimes. The effective use of red herrings and misdirection adds to the tension, keeping audiences guessing until the final reveal. Recently, I used this film in class, and my students, none of whom had seen it before, found it to be captivating, thoughtful, and provocative.

The mysterious Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone), a beautiful crime novelist, becomes a suspect when she is linked to the brutal death of a rock star. Investigated by homicide detective Nick Curran (Michael Douglas), Catherine seduces him into an intense relationship. Meanwhile, the murder case becomes increasingly complicated when more seemingly connected deaths occur and Nick’s psychologist and lover, Beth Garner (Jeanne Tripplehorn), appears to be another suspect.

Basic Instinct both pays homage to and yet subverts expectations and tropes we have of film noir. This psychosexual suspense thriller draws inspiration from the works of Alfred Hitchcock and Dario Argento, particularly Vertigo, Psycho, and Suspiria in its exploration of manipulation, sexuality, and obsession. The use of shadowy lighting, ominous music, and morally ambiguous characters all contribute to the film’s rich noir aesthetic. That, coupled with unraveling the alluring mystery of the ice pic wielding killer, makes this a gripping sensory explosion motion picture tour de force.

Jerry Goldsmith’s phenomenal score plays a vital role in shaping the film’s atmosphere, mood, and emotional impact. Through its seductive melodies, tense rhythms, and character motifs, the music enhances the storytelling and helps to create a compelling and immersive cinematic experience. Whether accompanying intimate moments or intense suspense and violence, the music enhances the audience’s experience and adds an immersion to the storytelling. Goldsmith is an underrated composer because, not only did he deliver this seductive score, but he also wrote themes and music for Gremlins, Alien, Star Trek: the Next Generation, The Omen, and more. In addition to a prolific library of work in cinema and television, his compositions also demonstrate a wide rage of styles, unlike most other composers. When discussing great composers of the music of cinema, he should definitely be in the conversation.

At its core, this seductive film explores themes of obsession, desire, power, and manipulation. The film delves into the darker aspects of human psychology, particularly the blurred lines between love, lust, and violence. It also examines the idea of control, both in personal relationships and within the criminal justice system. In an analysis of the film, one of my students described it as a chess game, with Tramell being the white pieces and Nick being black. After all these years, I never thought to read the film as a chess match, each character attempting to out maneuver the other. While the film has long sense been thought of as an elaborate cat and mouse game, I feel my student offers a much more precise reading of the film as a chess game.

Sharon Stone’s iconic career-defining role as Catherine Tramell is characterized by her magnetic presence and undeniable charisma. From the moment we meet her lounging at her beach house by the waterside, she exudes confidence and allure, drawing others into her orbit with ease. Her character subverts stereotypes, presenting a complex and empowered female character of opposition whom is both alluring and dangerous. In every scene in which she appears, she delivers her performance with incredible gravitas. And it’s this performance by which the film owes so much of its enduring legacy. That interrogation scene alone, wherein she is simultaneously in complete control of the interview whilst embracing her sexuality is still one of the best single scenes of all time, especially when exploring feminist cinema.

She isn’t a strong female character because the men around her are weak or incompetent at their jobs, she is a strong character–period–because those that surround her are smart and driven. Yet, Catherine Tramell continually proves herself throughout the film to be cunning, calm, confident, and in control of any situation in which she finds herself. Suffice it to say, Stone’s Tramell is a complex and enigmatic character who embodies the archetype of the femme fatale, a seductive and dangerous woman who manipulates those around her for her own gain. The femme fatale represents a beautiful symphony of duality that continually draws us into the story.

Tramell’s sexuality is a central aspect of her character, and Stone portrays her with a sense of agency and empowerment. She is unabashedly sexual, embracing her desires without apology or shame. Stone’s performance balances Tramell’s overt sexuality with a sense of control and autonomy, challenging traditional gender norms and expectations. Tramell is a complex character that defies social norms and mores, wielding her sexuality as a means of empowerment in a male-dominated world.

In the film’s exploration of the darker aspects of the human psyche, both Nick and Catherine become completely consumed by their mutual attraction and psychological gamesmanship, blurring the lines between lust and danger. In many ways, they are mirror images of one another, which may explain the instant fascination each has with the other. The film explores the consequences of unchecked desire and the destructive nature of obsession. Moreover, the film explores heteronormative gender norms and that liminal space between personal and professional boundaries.

Tramell’s overt sexuality challenges Nick’s masculinity and authority, leading to a complex dynamic characterized by dominance and submission. This exploration of heteronormative gender dynamics adds dimension to their relationship and underscores the film’s themes of control and manipulation. One can even take this further to read the ice pic itself as a phallic weapon that Tramell has commandeered. She exerts control over the penetrative ice pic just as she has exerted control over Nick, or at least Nick’s perception of her. Concerning the manipulation of perception, this aspect to the plot and characters is a fantastic homage to Vertigo.

Michael Douglas’ performance of the deeply flawed detective Nick Curran may not get the attention that Stone’s Catherine Tramell does, but he delivers an incredibly strong performance of the recovering alcoholic and struggling sex-addict. Nick, a man whose moral and ethical compass is constantly being tested, struggles with his past and his predisposition to impulsive behavior. His vulnerabilities and inner demons make him a compelling character, as he navigates a dangerous world while battling his personal demons.

His attraction to Tramell blurs the lines between his personal desires and professional duties, compromising his judgment and objectivity. This vulnerability adds depth to his character, showcasing his susceptibility to manipulation. Throughout the film, Nick seeks redemption for his past mistakes, making his character journey one of self-discovery and catharsis. Nick’s experiences in the roller-coaster of an investigation provide him with the tools to confront his inner turmoil and ultimately finds closure. This character arc adds emotional depth to the narrative and allows the audience to empathize with his struggles.

Basic Instinct simultaneously checks all the boxes for neo-noir, and still manages to break ground! It’s a mind-bending, mesmerizing thrill ride from start to finish that continues to age beautifully like a fine wine. It’s a bold and controversial thriller that continues to captivate audiences with its exploration of sexuality, heteronormative roles, power, and psychological intrigue.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry