Over time, Instinct's ratings have stabilized and risen, and DVD sales have been phenomenal. This year is a small year for Oscar, and I found this film when I was bored. It feels super good, and it really deserves the word classic. Look at the car and the house 20 years ago, it's really high-end and elegant, and look at the murderer, it's really low-key, luxurious and connotative.
"Instinct" is a movie that integrates the four major genres of eroticism, reasoning, psychology and love. It is truly unprecedented. It seems that it is difficult to make a movie like reasoning and solving a case, because detectives are often super objective and calm masters. Think Poirot and Martial. . . . . . Forget it. Sherlock Holmes, who is most likely to have a relationship with the opposite sex, has recently been made into love in the movie. Sharon Stone has been trying to make a film that can surpass "Instinct", but it has never been successful. Not only is she alone, but the entire Hollywood has not had a work that can be compared with her in the past 20 years. (PS has a movie called "Dawn", in fact, it has also made a useful exploration in this regard, that is, the starring actors should be 20 or 30 years younger.)
A movie can be impressive in terms of erotica, first of all The age and status of the actors are better, and the plot of the story is advanced enough to be substantively related to this type of content, otherwise it will not be considered a movie. At that time, Sister Sha was at a very young age, and the figure of the second female was not inferior. Watching "Instinct 2" again, I feel that youth is priceless and years are ruthless.
From the point of view of a mystery film, "Instinct" gave an open-ended case, not an open-ended ending, which is much easier. For 20 years, fans are still debating who is the murderer and who killed each of the dead? This is so rare! There are many possibilities for the whole story, because each deceased was killed with more than one motive. There are not many films that can fully use the audience's brains! To be honest, I think the writer and the director have different ideas for the development of the story (the version of the movie and DVD are also different), so the film has such a strange effect.
Many details are contradictory, and it is really unclear whether it is intentional or unintentional. For example, was the detective's partner really killed by Dr. Betty? Then why is there no blood on her hands? If she had time to wash her hands, why not take the opportunity to slip away and go back to the crime scene instead? How did she know that as soon as the elevator door opened, it must be a detective and not a courier from SF Express? A weak woman is going to kill a detective, except for an ice pick, why not carry a gun with her? If the doctor was framed, then why didn't she see the murderer, nor did Nick find out when did she go upstairs? Are these details the bugs that the writers and directors produced when they made up the story? Not necessarily, the arrangement of some details is very delicate. The bloody ice picks recovered from the murder scene are all wooden handles, while the ice picks in the female writer's house and the ice picks hidden under the detective's bed at the end are all metal handles. What does this imply? Female writers have murderous intentions but never actually carry them out? There is also a detail, that is, people from the Ethics Office investigated how Dr. Betty's husband died and Dr. Betty met the lover of the female writer at the same time period. In addition, the female writer is basically indifferent to the death of the man around her, but the death of the female companion leaves her in a daze (including the death of Dr. Betty).
From a certain point of view, the film is about two psychologists fighting against each other. People who understand psychology will see this film more than the general audience. The terrible thing about a female writer is that she can always use various means to mobilize the inner desires of others, whether it is sex or murder. Detective Nick is also imitating her unconsciously. He provoked the murderous intention of the female writer's same-sex girlfriend. This may be a metaphor - although he did not kill himself, the person who can drive others to kill is even more terrible! Although they can control or tease others, such people are often difficult to control themselves, especially orgasm will bring the desire to kill, or perhaps the desire to kill can bring orgasm. From the satisfaction of possessiveness and control, the two are really connected.
If it's a romance movie, it's a little different. But in fact, there are deep-seated reasons in the desperate love of these few people. They have all killed people, and their views on killing are very different from ordinary people. Both women fell in love with Nick because he had the blood of a killer in him, and he fell in love with these two women because they had a different view of killing than other women (Nick's wife committed suicide because of him). In the popular psychology of love, people fall in love with the oncoming self. If the other person's weakness is your weakness, do you still think it's a weakness? Nick believed that the female writer was the murderer from the very beginning, and he didn't necessarily believe that the female writer would not kill him, but he didn't care anymore, the women he loved were all dead. Even if a female writer is a killer, when she encounters such a person who doesn't care about her life and death, and she doesn't take his life, in addition to being soft-hearted, she should be somewhat subdued and sympathetic to each other.
View more about Basic Instinct reviews
