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.
Add a Review
-
caspian197812 December 2003
-
wilfredlola14 February 2023Really don't get why this film got such bad reviews. It's an okay thriller, nothing mind blowing but decent enough for a watch. And Madonna is hot af in it!
Remember this coming on late one night when I was flicking through the channels as a teenage boy, was like striking gold. So it gets an extra star for that 🌟 Personally I prefer it over Basic Instinct which it's often compared to. Just found it more interesting for some reason , and Madonna was a better seductress. Which is what the movies are mainly about really.
And the cast was actually better too. Frank Langella and Julian Moore in supporting roles! -
maralex5 May 2001Because 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.
-
Vertigo-2714 June 1999What 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....?
-
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 cliché-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 ****
-
Rex_Stephens12 June 2004First 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. -
briankemper-9048814 January 2020In my opinion, Madonna is one of the most beautiful women to ever walk the face of the earth.
-
DennisLittrell12 March 2000(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. -
Theo Robertson22 February 2004If 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 -
juliankennedy2315 November 2018Body 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. -
jessegehrig31 August 2014Perfect proof that great movies are made by accident- because Body Of Evidence was no accident, it was somebody's plan A. Someone actually thought this movie was a million dollar idea,f*cking Christ. So many talented and dynamic actors wasted in one movie- Dafoe, Mantegna, Moore, Prochnow, Langella. Wasted so self-important Madonna can be a big movie star, wasted! Wow, leave it to Madonna to make sex boring. If Madonna is a feminist icon, I would say that the women of the world have truly been cheated. Feminists, you can do better than Madonna, literally every woman in the world is a more suitable feminist icon than Madonna. This is some of what the world is made of.
-
LuckyFour-LeafClover21 July 2020Growing up I thought Madonna was as sexy as a person could possibly get and this movie might have been the zenith of that for me. Just in terms of her beauty, flirtatiousness, and the movies content. It was probably the first movie over rated R I watched and learned about S&M for the first time.
In a funny scene in the beginning of the movie a kid asks his dad Can You Really screw someone to death? In reality that's what the movie consists of. Madonna or Rebecca is accused of loving her victim to death by a combination of cocaine and sex to kill him. Willem Dafoe plays the later to defend Rebecca who falls astray and get seduced by her in the process.
Maybe because have a soft spot for it but I think it's actually a decent movie. Is Rebecca just a very sexually liberated open women or is she a deadly gold digger? The courtroom scenes I thought were done fairly well and the movie has a solid cast as well with Julianne Moore, Joe Montagna, Ann Archer, and Frank Langella. In my opinion it was a better movie than Basic Instinct which came out around the same time
WARNING Spoilers: When Rebecca whispers in Frank's ear you almost convinced me I still get chills. I know a lot of big Madonna fans wanted to see her live at the end and get away with it. And I would be okay with that ending as well. But, I liked one of the last lines in that movie about karma and people usually getting what they deserve. -
smatysia18 June 2011Certainly 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.
-
domino100324 March 2005This 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! -
bob the moo27 October 2002Police 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. -
CharltonBoy29 April 2002Body of Evidence has all the hallmarks of a poor soft core porn movie . A naff script , lousy acting and that misty/cloudy look that you see so many times in low budget B movies. This film contains some of the worst over acting seen ever in a court scene acompanied by scenes you would never see in a court room. The question that i have to ask is why do good actors like Jullianne Moore and Willem Defoe take on movies like this? perhaps it is hard to tell how bad a movie is going to be when you agree to make one but surely they must a read this silly script or perhaps Defoe agreed to make this because of the activities he gets up to with Madonna and lets face it who can blame him, she was in her prime in 1993 and she did look good, shame her acting was not good as her sexual activities . 3 out of 10.
-
rowmorg19 December 2005Having never consciously heard one of her recordings, I can't write about Madonna's part in the Tin Pan Alley conspiracy. But movie-making is not rock-videos, and here we see, as if on X-ray, right through her to the bad teeth, mean little face (behind the caked make-up), wiry little bottom and shortish legs. Considering she is a "singer", even her speaking voice is tawdry and unnuanced.
Madonna started her obsessive search for fame and fortune by posing for nude shots. There's one of her at about 17 years old on a NY apartment window ledge, looking kind of alluring, with her dark Italian curls and big black eyes. But it's all been downhill from there, as hordes of commercial artists fiddled with her image until she became the chameleon lady of a thousand different looks on a thousand different magazine covers.
In Body of Evidence, a film that should never have been made about a prosecution that should never have been brought to court, she is the irresistibly sexy galley owner, heavily into kinky sex with submissive males. I suppose the idea of playing a dominatrix appealed to this sociopathically ambitious person but she has no idea of how to convey it on the screen, which would require acting abilities.
If we believed in her magnetic powers of domination, there might be a certain compulsion to the picture, instead she unwittingly reveals herself as a banal person who has succeeded in conveying many false selves to millions of other punters around the world.
Madonna might have been able to con the tinselly world of pop music and women's magazines, but the movie camera sees through her with horrid clarity. -
hausrathman30 November 2002Willem 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.
-
SnoopyStyle9 May 2015In Oregon, the wealthy Andrew Marsh dies of a heart attack with evidence of a cocaine-filled sex game. D.A. Robert Garrett (Joe Mantegna) investigates. Marsh's secretary Joanne Braslow (Anne Archer) immediately points the finger at his girlfriend Rebecca Carlson (Madonna). Lawyer Frank Dulaney (Willem Dafoe) takes her case. She is arrested for murder with the motive that all of his $8 million estate is left to her. Despite being married to Sharon (Julianne Moore) with a son, Frank starts an affair with Rebecca.
Madonna is annoying. She is meant to be a femme fatale. She can't be annoying. She's definitely not sexy. She's the main flaw in this movie. Willem Dafoe overacts. He gets Joanne's accusation and goes off the deep end immediately. He's not the only one as this movie seems intent on overplaying every scene. Madonna is essentially playing the same role as Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct. The difference is that Stone is a much better actress in a movie that is more skillfully made. I'm not offended but I am bored. The courtroom is horribly paced. Madonna is even bad at flirting and the sex is cheesy bad. -
sol-kay10 December 2003It 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. -
zvonnydamne24 April 2018After watching this movie the only thing i could think of is Madonna's ass. Why not? All this confusing story about old men having arrhythmia and women who can manipulate their desease into death is nothing compared to Madonna's ass.
Ass is a hero and an object of attention in this movie. Of course, Madonna got for her full art gallery, but i ask - isn't her ass is art? And i never seen Madonna in her gallery, only in court. This movie have a court of law apparently. But who cares.
Willem Dafoe playing a lawyer who got sense of admiration for Madonna (more like for her ass) and trying to save her from electric chair. I bet chair got jealous for Dafoe playing with Madonna's ass, but it's not a point. Point is - forget the story. It's stupid. It's laughable. It's unbelieveable. But be sure to check Madonna's ass. It's got a very good quality. -
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. -
jburtonprod-802-75902922 March 2018Okay, 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. -
DanB-415 July 2001OK, I give this movie a slightly higher rating than it deserves because I am a big Madonna fan and I think she's gorgeous. Childish I know, but mea culpa.
That aside, all this movie needs is Leslie Neilsen in a few scenes and you would have a full blown comic parody. Think about it - replace the sex scenes (which are not that good) with some pies in the face, and this is almost as plausible as a Naked Gun Movie. The dialogue, most notably Madonna's speech at the end, is just laughable. It is also to a certain extent, insulting. Who would have thought that anyone would buy this as a legitimate thriller.
The lawyers in this film (Dafoe and Mategna) are two of my favourite actors, but they are so unbelievably incompetent that is flushes this movie down the toilet. As Madonna's entry in the Basic Instinct genre, this is a complete failure. As another chapter in her unparalleled entertainment career, its worth noting. *1/2 out of ****.