User Reviews (88)

Add a Review

  • Certainly not a great film, but not as bad as it has been made out to be. Madonna's acting is OK, and I suspect the "woodenness" of her performance was largely what the director wanted. Her character's passion was limited to the bedroom (and elevator, and stairs, and parking garage, etc.) and never extended to her daily life. And, by the way, I had forgotten how pretty she could be back then. Anne Archer looked awfully good as well, even while being weepy and not completely hinged. The rest of the cast put in good work, with a special commendation for Julianne Moore. Frank Langella was suitably creepy, and Joe Mantegna suitably industrious. Some of the dialog didn't completely work, but if you watch this without preconceptions, you'll find it OK.
  • It's been a while since Body of Evidence was released to theaters and rejected by critics and the public. But I'm not at all ashamed to admit that I still get kicks out of popping this film into the vcr and getting completely entangled in the story. It's thought provoking. Can someone literally be, umm, sexed to death?

    And why do people think Madonna did such a bad job in this film? She was perfect in doing exactly what she needed to in order to develop her character--the sultry Rebecca Carlson. I mean, come on! Who else could look so sexy as the mega bad girl delivering a line like "I f***--that's what I do." Madonna is superb and I think she really proved critics wrong when she won a golden globe for Evita a few years after Body of Evidence was released.

    The plot of this movie is one of the most interesting story lines I have ever known. Is Rebecca a out of control dominatrix who really did sex her much older lover to death? That's what the prosecution tries to prove as they charge her for murder after her wealthy older lover is found dead. Throughout the film, the plot thickens and you're not sure if Rebecca is a murderous bitch or not. And the sex scenes in this are highly erotic! Madonna, come my way with that candle wax any day of the week! And the look in her eyes as she teases her lawyer by shoving her fingers down her panties---Geez, that look is classic!

    Body of Evidence may not be Oscar caliber, but hell, was Titanic? I don't think so. But if you're in for a sinful delight, you should go rent Body of Evidence right now.
  • Body of Evidence: 7 out of 10: A woman is on trial for seducing men to death. Will her lawyer get her off? Will she get him off? Stay tuned for the drama both inside and outside of the courtroom.

    The case for the Prosecution:

    Exhibit A: The courtroom scenes: AKA half the bloody movie. Body of Evidence is often considered an erotic thriller. However, it spends an amazing amount of time in the courtroom. Now courtroom scenes can work in thrillers (see 1990's Presumed Innocent), but they should be to the point and thrilling. The scenes here are pointless with half a dozen side characters introduced and then forgotten. It never feels like a real trial. The judge allows so many shenanigans that she makes Judge Ito look like Judge Judy.

    Exhibit B: William Defoe: I genuinely like William Defoe. But as the lead character in an erotic thriller? As Weird Al Yankovic wrote about Mr. Defoe in his song "Ode To A Superhero"

    And he's ridin' around on that glider thing And he's throwin' that weird pumpkin bomb Yes, he's wearin' that dumb Power Rangers mask But he's scarier without it on

    Now If William Defoe switched roles with Joe Mantegna as the prosecutor that might have worked a lot better. Both are wonderful charismatic actors but nobody wants to see William Defoe's O face.

    Exhibit C: Madonna: Madonna makes bad movies. This is a Madonna movie. Hence this is a bad movie. Prosecution rests.

    The prosecution is feeling a bit overconfident there and rested their case without mentioning Anne Archer's performance or the horrifying screenplay.

    The Defense:

    Exhibit A: Madonna: In 1992 naked Madonna was everywhere. People were buying $50 coffee books that consisted if nothing but pictures of her naked while hitchhiking. (This is true ask your cool aunt). As Rosie O'Donnell said to her in A League of Their Own. "You think there are men in this country who ain't seen your bosoms?" What a difference twenty-six years makes. We are not inundated with Madonna nowadays (naked or otherwise) so she seems fresh again. Also, she really isn't bad in this movie considering the lines she is given. She certainly gives a better performance than Anne Archer.

    Exhibit B: Erotic Thrillers: Erotic thrillers enjoyed a moment between Basic Instinct and Showgirls. We really don't see them like these anymore and haven't for a long time. There were a lot of them in that time period (Heck there were two with Billy Baldwin for God's sake) So we often will revisit the lesser known ones for some nostalgia much like future generations will watch Ant-Man and muse how they don't make Superhero movies anymore.

    Exhibit C: That one scene you forgot was in the movie: The defense is wheeling out a TV and DVD player. Looks like they are going to show a clip. The overconfident prosecution doesn't object. Is that a young naked Julianne Moore? Wow, that sex scene is so intense. Where did that come from and how did Madonna allow herself to be upstaged.

    The Verdict: In 2018 the defense wins. Time has been kind to this movie. I certainly understand the panning this received when it hit the local cineplex in 1992. For one thing, Madonna and Julianne Moore fighting over William Defoe sounds like a mental patient's fan fiction. For another, this is a Netflix and chill movie, not something you want to see in a theater filled with suburban housewives and Paul Reubens. It is both as bad as you remember it but somehow endlessly entertaining.
  • What a Movie! Leaves u begging for more... and in my opinion equally as good (if not better than) Basic Instinct. Madonna is at her sexiest and the movie prevails great suspense and surprises. Why was this movie so rejected? its not as bad as some i have seen that have got much more praise. and for one i don't understand why people don't like Madonna as an actress, that's the possible irritation to this movie for people... which is stupid... she is excellent and nowhere near out of place.. give this movie the benefit of a doubt. Its Erotic, Sexy, Sleak, Fun, and.... oh why was this movie put down again....?
  • sol-kay10 December 2003
    It was only a matter of time that by 1993 Modonna one of the worlds most recognized woman and #1 sex symbol was to showcase her enormous and natural talents on the big screen for all to see.

    "Body of Evidence" is a story about greed lust murder and betrayal where Madonna, Rebecca Carlson, is accused of murdering her rich and elderly lover with the most potent and deadly weapon at her disposal, her body. The lurid and sensational trial that followed left the quiet and sleepy little city of Portland Oregon so shook up that it still hasn't recovered from the shock that hit it after all these years.

    Portland Millionaire Andrew Marsh, Michael Forrest, is found dead of a heart attack in his mansion with his hands tied to the bed and a video tape of him and Rebecca Carlson having sex still playing on the VCR. Before long the DA has Miss. Carlson indited for his murder and the evidence against her is almost air-tight and a conviction seems like a forgone conclusion.Miss Carlson was to inherit $8,00,000.00 from Marsh after his death. Attorney Frank Dulaney, Willam Dafoe, takes the case for Carlson's defense and it turned out the be the biggest mistake that he ever made in his entire life.

    The movie goes from the ridiculous to the sublime and every thing else in between and by the time the movie is over you feel like you went over Niagara Falls on a surf board. You have to say one thing about "Body of Evidence" it's not at all boring and Madonna dose have acting talents with her very effective portrayal of the sexy and over the top Rebecca Carlson, even though she was obviously playing herself. Willam Defoe was very good as Rebecca's lawyer who was manipulated by her like all the men that she manipulated in the movie; you couldn't fault him for that once she turned it on the poor man was a goner.

    Anne Archer, Joanne Braslow, was tragic as well as sympathetic as Rebecca's rival for the dead millionaire Andrew Marsh's affections as well as money whom to no one's surprise lost out to. Joe Mantegna was as good as ever as the hard driving DA, Robert Garrett out to convict Rebecca for Marsh's murder.

    The movie has a number of shocking and explosive surprises that will keep you guessing until the final credits start to roll and is much better then you would expect from all the negative comments that it got at the time of it's release. Madonna's acting surprisingly evoking sympathy as well as outrage during the entire movie, Madonna was very good in the scene where she was on the witness stand, that even rival her scenes in the buff, which was the real reason for most people seeing the film, that gives the audience and extra bonus.
  • Because the critics gave this such a panning, I didn't bother to watch it for a long time. Now that I have, I'm surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Amazingly, I thought it was better than Basic Instinct, the film that everyone said it was simply a poor copy of. The storyline is tight and engaging, Madonna much better than usual, the sex scenes good, even if Willem Defoe appears more comfortable in the courtroom scenes, and the ending brilliant. A greatly under rated film.
  • I couldn't tell you the plot of this movie. Actually, I don't know if this movie had a plot. What I do know is that Madonna is in it and boy or boy, is she ever. Another courtroom drama without the drama, the only reason one will watch this movie is Madonna. The passion between Dafoe and Madonna is the only thing worth watching. That and the nudity and strong sexual acts, Body of Evidence is a left over movie stolen from the Basic Instinct genre. The courtroom and crime scenes is just background to what the movie is, Madonna in the bedroom.
  • Beautifully filmed, Madonna never looked better. This campy thriller gave Madonna fans some of her most famous lines--"Men Lie", "Have you ever seen animals make love", That's what I do, I", and a few others. Her clothes are incredible and Julianne Moore is very pretty too. Now, the problem lies not so much within Madonna's acting but timing...the film was released 3 months after her SEX book pictorial was released. The public just didn't know what to think, and I do think her constant blinking of the eyes can become very irritating. The sex scene in the parking garage is beautifully filmed and Madonna does kick some butt in the sex scene department. If you think about Sharon Stone's icy performance in Basic Instinct and Madonna's in this--they're really about the same. But a major Madonna backlash had begun by the time this film was released and was labeled a turkey. As a Madonna fan, I LOVE IT--as a regular viewer, ITS PRETTY GOOD. No, I can't lie-- I love it! Sorry, I really do! Campy and fun! NOT to be taken seriously!
  • I really enjoyed this movie because of Madonna, Madonna, and oh yes, Madonna. The plot is a joke, but Madonna steams up the screen considerably. This seemed like the perfect role for her, because it didn't even seem like she was acting. She so adeptly teases and torments Willem Dafoe that the viewer just knows that she is this kinky and sexy in real life! Madonna, handcuff me and drip candlewax on me anytime!
  • Trashy sex-melodrama might have been much more fun had it the slightest sense of humor. Alas, all the laughs here are unintentional, and the straight-faced actors just end up looking foolish. Willem Dafoe seems on auto-pilot throughout, cast as a defense attorney opposite Madonna, playing a woman who is suspected of killing her wealthy older lover with too much rough-housing in the bedroom. Grubby nonsense with a clich√©-ridden script, B-movie characters, and a silly finish. For camp-addicts, a hoot; all others beware. Released to video in R, NC-17, and Unrated versions, none of which managed to improve on the ludicrous screenplay. *1/2 from ****
  • I have problems with everybody putting this movie down. it's a 99% remake of Basic Instinct and everybody seems to love and praise that movie. Madonna Rocks in this movie. and the movie wouldn't be as enjoyable if it weren't way over the top
  • Who cares if 'Body of Evidence' is a so-called 'Basic Instincts' rip-off, and the plot is a bit bogus? It's escapism, so I say to all the critics just chill a bit and lay off this movie. Madonna is simply stunning in it and as an enormous fan of hers [practically in anything she endeavours], I cannot believe it took me until 2001 to watch this movie. I guess I was sucked in to believe it was worst than it actually turned out to be. I can say that, whilst this movie is not Oscar-material, it was enjoyable, sexy and intriguing. Why people take it so seriously is beyond me. I firmly believe it was too harshly criticised. I was pleasently surprised. Sure, Madonna has a long way to go before she is considered a serious actress and perfects her craft, but she fit perfectly into this femme-fatal role and is very convincing. She is a better actress than people give her credit for!
  • I really enjoyed this movie. I saw it last summer on HBO or some cable network. It was like a really good 'Law & Order' episode...There was great suspense, strong sexual scenes, twist in the story line.and not a bad cast. Willem and Madonna really worked well together. I was surprised to see Ann Archer in the film too. It was also nice to see a young Julianne Moore. She did an excellent job. You could see a chemistry between the two. I just wonder why it was not that popular...I agree it was like a Basic Instinct. My favorite part is def the end of the film, its one of those scenes that is completely unexpected! See this movie if you have the chance.
  • (Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)

    Not that there is a TV version.

    We could also call this 'Madonna on top' or 'Madonna in charge' or maybe 'She can show you the power you can have from the prone position.' The one thing about Madonna, other than having no shame (and I admire her for that) is that she can crawl and not feel the slightest bit reduced.

    She's not especially bad in this mediocre thriller, nor especially good. The script is ridiculous and the treatment without a hint of nuance or subtlety. William Dafoe and Joe Mantegna seemed to be acting on rote and Anne Archer was a wash. The problem is the movie is so obviously fake that it's like watching bad TV. There's no point other than kinky sex. I'm not sure why Madonna agreed to do this. I can't believe she needed the money, nor can I believe she didn't care about her reputation as a performing artist. I think her appearance here exposes her weakness: simply put, she has bad taste because this could not in any way further her career.

    On the plus side I saw the unrated version and she was very sexy.
  • The_Orenda12 June 2004
    First thought that popped into my mind when 'Body of Evidence' began was that this had the potential to be a bad episode of 'Law & Order.' Who knew that it would be much worse? The script and direction is absolutely horrible, hands down. We all know what we came to see and an interesting movie is not it here.

    Can you fornicate someone to death? Strangely enough, Madonna is on trial for committing such a terrible act!

    I cannot completely hate the movie for some nice scenes between Dafoe and the 'Material Girl.' But if you can think of any other reason to watch this tripe, be it for pitying Julianne Moore as one of her earlier works or for just plain abusing your life, please do tell! 'Body of Evidence' should simply have been called 'Madonna's Sex Movie.' Could have done better with it.
  • alphamaleno-113 January 2012
    In this raunchy thriller, Madonna is suspected of murdering her elderly partner using her sexy body (lucky guy). After she is accused of such a "crime" the lawyer she chooses to represent her is Willem defoe.

    OK, so it is not the most plausible plot line but this movie can still be enjoyed, not least for Madonnas hot body in numerous steamy scenes which although often criticised I found to be very well done and quite erotic. It is true that Madonna and her body are the main reason to watch this thriller but there are some decent genuine performances by defoe and mantegna battling it out in the court room and Anne Archer as the deceased' embittered ex. Julianne Moore is also in there in a small role as Franks (defoes) wife.

    Bottom line! if you like 80/90s sex films then this is a definitely worth watching. Also make sure to get the unrated version as there is a lot more to see in there.
  • Okay, I'm pleading guilty of being a guy but Madonna's bod alone is worth 5 stars. I've never been a fan but dee-YAMN, was she physically fit. Her acting was good too. It's her best effort other than 'Dangerous Game' where she showed she could really produce a great performance, if she got her ego out of way. I was really believing and sympathizing with her. There were no cringe worthy scenes that mark most of her acting career. This is major point since the movie revolves around her character. Willem Dafoe is good, as usual, in a rather unchallenging role as her defense attorney. The rest of cast is a who's who's of A list supporting actors who are always fun to watch.

    The plot itself is a rather lame, 'Basic Instinct' knockoff, which was practically a sub-genre at that time but it was engaging enough. It seems the director's main goal was to see if he could get Madonna, Julianne Moore and Anne Archer (who was a major crush of mine at the time) to take off all their clothes. It seems he succeeded though there may have been a body double for A.A. (sad face emoji)

    I can see how people of a more puritanical and/or snooty mindset could hate this movie but for it's unblinking and unapologetic trashiness, good performances and serviceable plot I found it entertaining. If you accept the movie for what it is, it's a very fun watch.
  • If you're still unsure that Hollywood execs have no creative ideas then get yourself a time machine and go back to the early to mid 1990s to a time when nearly every studio release was composed of a " person from hell movie 2 be they a doctor , a cop , a flatmate , a jilted lover etc who would terrorize an innocent or not so innocent victim . When cinema goers weren't putting with that crap we also had to put up with BASIC INSTINCT clones .

    BODY OF EVIDENCE was probably the most infamous clone mainly down to the fact that it's both unoriginal and painfully bad . The worst aspect is the script which lacks any type of sense or logic or decent dialogue . Yeah the lines are memorable all right but for the wrong reasons . Take this line of dialogue for example : " Have you ever watched animals making love ? " Does anyone else feel their mind boggle at such a ridiculous comment ? Animals making love ? Is that why there's so many insects in the world - They're the most romantic creatures on Earth ?

    Madonna is one of the great female icons of the 20th century but she is no actress . Madonna's performance is the second worst aspect of the movie . It's so bad that other well respected actors like Archer , Moore , Defoe and Prochnow sink to her level

    Simply one of the worst courtroom dramas ever made
  • I give this movie 10 out of 10 only for Madonna's incredible body, & her amazing performance in the sex scenes, which by the way i wonder how she made it while there are a lot of people behind the camera?! The people who say that the plot is so dull don't get that body of evidence was made in the first place to satisfy Madonna's huge promotion to sex in the nineties.. i mean come on the title "Body of evidence" is not appropriate at all & must change it to "body of Madonna"! I think Madonna is a very contradictory person & have a real problem with her self.. how she strongly promotes to sex in the nineties & then writes stories for children now! i bet she can't face her children with that movie & find that is not a good idea now or in the far future. Does anyone notice that Madonna became so skinny these days than she appeared in body of evidence? watch Swept Away & you'll know what i mean.
  • And that's what it is. And I like trial-movies. And it's not a crime to like seeing Madonna in the nude! The actor's performance is worth while watching. You know from the beginning that there will be a surprise ending, that keeps you watching and that's what you're getting.Watch it alone when you're still up late. Or together for some ideas to improve a dull relationship.
  • hausrathman30 November 2002
    Willem Dafoe plays a lawyer who becomes involved with his client, Madonna, a woman accused of intentionally murdering her rich, elderly lover through strenuous, kinky sex. Did she do it? Who cares? All you care about when you watch this film is when will it be over? This is a terrible film. Even if Madonna could act, and that's a mighty big if, it would still be doomed. The script is just plain awful. It doesn't generate a believable moment. Good actors like Dafoe, Joe Mantegna, Anne Archer, Juergen Prochnow and Frank Langella are totally wasted. As for the much vaulted sex scenes, they are more laughable than erotic. A dog.
  • I know the rest of the world hates this movie, but I love it. I watch it at least once every couple of weeks. The score, the wardrobes, the sets, everything is so perfect. If I could put myself in the world of a movie this would be it. My friends think I am crazy, but I can't explain just how much this movie means to me. It has a very simliar atmosphere to Sliver, which is another one of my favorite movies. The character of Carly in Sliver has many simliarities to Rebecca Carlson. If you haven't seen this movie, at least give it a chance and don't pre-judge it. I have forced many friends of mine to watch it, all of whom thought they would hate it, and most were pleasantly surprised.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This was an interesting period in Madonna's life. She had released her album, "Erotica," her book, "Sex" and this film, "Body Of Evidence.

    Watching this movie is like watching an incredibly brutal train wreck. You can't help but look, even though the outcome is tragic. Madonna plays Rebecca Carlson, accused of murdering her lover by sexual means. In other words, her body was the murder weapon. Willem Dafoe plays the lawyer hired to save her bod, but you can tell what will happen a mile away. The sex scenes between the two of them become a rarity: it's not sexy.

    The plot is ludicrous and the ending is just dumb.

    However, if you have to watch it, watch it as a double feature with "Showgirls." The reason? Just 2 good examples of when sexiness turns viewers off!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Police are called to the home of a millionaire found dead in his bed with a video of him having sex playing on the TV. They decide that he was murdered by his girlfriend Rebecca Carlson as she has profited from his death via his will. The DA believes that she used the man's weak heart condition to her advantage and had wild sex with him to kill him. Lawyer Frank Dulaney comes to defend Miss Carlson but finds himself drawn into her sexual world as he tries to find out if she really did plan to kill him.

    This review contains spoilers - but it doesn't matter cause the plot's crap!

    At a time these erotic mainstream thriller things were all the rage - Basic Instinct, Colour of Night - everyone wanted in. And so a bad idea was born to the cha-chik of cashing in! The plot is basically just what you'd expect in a courtroom thriller - lots of `objection' and shocking revelations. It's all just very poor to be honest. There is no imagination or spark to any of it and it could be just another soft-porn film with a bad plot on late night TV if it wasn't for the budget and the cast. The sex scenes are just plain daft - candle wax and all that, it certainly isn't erotic - merely feels like an appendix to Madonna's Sex book.

    The final twist is very much spoilt by the casting (not that it's very good anyway). There are lots of people called into court for 3 minute scenes who come and go - one of them is actor Jurgen Prochnow - well, I wonder if his role may be more meaty, hmmmmm? Of course it is! It's clear that a name actor like that wouldn't do such a minor role.

    Madonna is out of her depth and just plain lacks the ability to play a sexy potential murderess. Stone got it bang on in Basic Instinct but Madonna is just so cold and obvious. As a result there is no fire between her and Dafoe. I love him in anything but he simply can't do it all - their sex looks so mechanical and forced. Mantegna is always watchable but has nothing to do here. Likewise it's strange now to see actresses like Archer and Moore slumming in minor roles.

    Acting is poor, writing is lazy, sex is stupid and the whole thing is distinctly mediocre at best.
  • Sometimes you'll see a movie where a really great actor will inspire novice actors or mediocre talents to act above their level. Here I think Madge's influence had the result of otherwise competent actors acting _down_ to her level. Julianne Moore, Willem Dafoe, Joe Mantegna are pretty respected actors and even Anne Archer and Frank Langella have done some good work in their careers, but this movie would have to be the low point of any of their careers.

    I regularly suggest renting this to friends with the challenge that I bet it will be the worst movie they have even seen. I've yet to be told I was wrong. The really laughable, idiotic "plot", dialogue and characterisations are so over the top the movie ends up just being ridiculous. The most pathetic thing is this sex obsessed disaster isn't sexy, even the sex scenes are idiotic. And Willem Dafoe may be many things and a very versatile actor, but sex god he ain't. The sex here just comes off as creepy and mildly disgusting. Also, if you examine the film, there's not one likable character in the entire movie.

    A calculating slut kills a foolish old pervert, an inept prosecutor tries an impossible case that he never should have taken to court, a jerk of a defense lawyer betrays his profession's ethics (are there any?) and his moron of a wife (hey, she takes him back, she can't be too intelligent) and various other spiteful, greedy, dislikable characters slime in and out of scenes. Even the (stereotypical) black female judge earned my permanent enmity with her idiotic lines.

    Too bad they all couldn't have died at the end. An massive earthquake or meteor strike would have been a good plot device, and just as believable as anything else that happened in this movie.
An error has occured. Please try again.