Basic Instinct Ending...hmmmmm
Rob Black
I must admit to being a little slow and not figuring out that the killer
was the psychologist until it was very apparent!
Anyway, my question is this: At the end of the movie the classic "fake"
ending is done when you think that Sharon Stone is reaching for an ice
pick and then her hand comes up empty. Then of course the very last shot
is of the ice pick under the bed. Why would this be there? I know that the
movie does not address that on purpose. So what does everyone think?
I have 2 hypotheses.
One is that since Michael Douglas was dating the shrink , and the cops
found a supply of ice picks in her apartment, the ice pick under the
bed is one of hers that she was going to use on him when they were
having sex. The only problem with this is that when Michael Douglas
shot her her last words to him were, "I love you." So I'm not sure if
she really would've wanted to knock him off.
The other one is that Sharon Stone was indeed going to kill Michael Douglas.
I figure that she was obviously a bit wacko. She might have planned this
because her other books had come true and even though it wasn't her
fault, she could no longer seperate fiction from reality and wanted to
continue the trend. Combine this was the unexplainable fact that she wrote
about Michael Douglas' partner's death before it happened. This would
point to her as being wacko enough to kill him.
Whaddaya think?
Rob Black
Richard John Rauser
>Last night I finally saw Basic Instinct. Very good movie I thought. Although
>I must admit to being a little slow and not figuring out that the killer
>was the psychologist until it was very apparent!
Bzzzzt. Sharon Stone was the killer.
>Anyway, my question is this: At the end of the movie the classic "fake"
>ending is done when you think that Sharon Stone is reaching for an ice
>pick and then her hand comes up empty. Then of course the very last shot
>is of the ice pick under the bed. Why would this be there? I know that the
>movie does not address that on purpose. So what does everyone think?
It's there because Sharon Stone is the killer and is about to kill
Mikey...but changes her mind because she realizes that he loves her
and that he _knows_ she is the killer and loves her anyway. This is one
of the most twisted movies I've seen in a long time...glorified nihilism
if I've ever seen it. (And you all thought Wizards was bad!)
>Whaddaya think?
Well, besides being very morally twisted, I thought the movie was a big
waste of time. Basically a let's-show-as-much-skin-as-possible combined
with a let's-be-as-brutal-as-possible and also a let's-make-the-plot-as
confusing-as-possible movie.
--
Richard J. Rauser "You have no idea what you're doing."
rau...@sfu.ca "Oh, don't worry about that. We're professional
WNI outlaws - we do this for a living."
-----------------
"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are." -Dr.Banzai
Robert McAulay
-Spoiler...-
>Last night I finally saw Basic Instinct. Very good movie I thought. Although
>I must admit to being a little slow and not figuring out that the killer
>was the psychologist until it was very apparent!
You bastard! How many times have people been yelled at for ruining movies
for other people!?! Do you honestly think you are the only one who matters
here? I have been happily saving that movie for a quiet night when I found
someone else who hadn't already seen it. Thanks buddy.
>Whaddaya think?
Methinks you should remove yourself from r.a.m in a *big* hurry and not come
back for a while.
Mike.
Joseph Herbers P210
the h%&! happened in this movie. Anyone have a good summary of
the arguments for, and against the outcomes???
In article <rauser.7...@sfu.ca> rau...@fraser.sfu.ca (Richard John Rauser) writes:
>bl...@jazz.concert.net (Rob Black) writes:
>
>>Last night I finally saw Basic Instinct. Very good movie I thought. Although
>>I must admit to being a little slow and not figuring out that the killer
>>was the psychologist until it was very apparent!
*almost* everything points to it being Beth, EXCEPT, how would she
know about the ending to the new book???
> Bzzzzt. Sharon Stone was the killer.
How? How would she have killed Gus and got away with Gus in the
elevator, Douglas on the steps, and Beth there already (or coming
up some other steps) There are others, but this seems most obvious.
> Well, besides being very morally twisted, I thought the movie was a big
>waste of time. Basically a let's-show-as-much-skin-as-possible combined
>with a let's-be-as-brutal-as-possible and also a let's-make-the-plot-as
>confusing-as-possible movie.
Hmm...maybe. But my wife and I actually enjoyed it. Just like
someone else, we saw it at a $1 theatre. The projector sucked,
but the moving kept us interested. We argued over the movie all
the way home...
Joe Herbers
Ted Ko
|> I haven't read this group in a while but am interested in what
|> the h%&! happened in this movie. Anyone have a good summary of
|> the arguments for, and against the outcomes???
|>
|>
|> In article <rauser.7...@sfu.ca> rau...@fraser.sfu.ca (Richard John Rauser) writes:
|> >bl...@jazz.concert.net (Rob Black) writes:
|> >
|> >>Last night I finally saw Basic Instinct. Very good movie I thought. Although
|> >>I must admit to being a little slow and not figuring out that the killer
|> >>was the psychologist until it was very apparent!
|>
|> *almost* everything points to it being Beth, EXCEPT, how would she
|> know about the ending to the new book???
|>
|> > Bzzzzt. Sharon Stone was the killer.
|>
|> How? How would she have killed Gus and got away with Gus in the
|> elevator, Douglas on the steps, and Beth there already (or coming
|> up some other steps) There are others, but this seems most obvious.
|>
Here's my attempt at a summary:
Reasons Beth was killer:
1) As stated above, how would Sharon Stone get away?
2) Her lies about her history: being blond, only having lesbian sex once...
3) Her answering machine didn't have a message from Gus (this was pointed out
in the movie, but I don't believe the argument, see below)
Reasons Sharon Stone was killer ( IMHO, she was the killer 'cause these
reasons are much stronger)
1) Beth couldn't know the ending of the book
2) Sharon stone's connection with the Internal Affairs guy
3) Her habit of having sex exactly the way the murder was done
4) In the first scene, Beth would have to have worn a wig; possible but
I think doubtful in that scene
5) From what we saw of their bodies, the killer's body in the first scene matched sharon stone's a lot closer than beth's.
6) Sharon kept commenting how the woman kills the detective at the end and comes
very close to doing so.
Regarding Richard Rauser's post:
How do you know Michael Douglas knew she was the killer? I think he was totally fooled and was too much in lust to care whether he should investigate further.
To the guy named Mike who responded to Rob Black:
Ease up on the guy,eh? I mean, his title DID say Basic Instinct ENDING which
sorta tells you he's going to talk about the ending so you should've avoided
the post.
--
<--The-Dark-Elf-<<< E-Mail: t...@athena.mit.edu
te...@ctt.bellcore.com
Bryan Lepine
>In article <1992Aug4.1...@rock.concert.net> bl...@jazz.concert.net (Rob Black) writes:
>-Spoiler...-
>>Last night I finally saw Basic Instinct. Very good movie I thought. Although
>>I must admit to being a little slow and not figuring out that the killer
Big big spoiler deleted here!
>You bastard! How many times have people been yelled at for ruining movies
>for other people!?! Do you honestly think you are the only one who matters
>here? I have been happily saving that movie for a quiet night when I found
>someone else who hadn't already seen it. Thanks buddy.
>>Whaddaya think?
>Methinks you should remove yourself from r.a.m in a *big* hurry and not come
>back for a while.
>Mike.
I think Mike should get a reality check! Why should he leave?
Sure he goofed big time but if you were waiting to see it and you were
truly this militant about not finding out who dunit THEN WHY THE HELL WERE
YOU READING ALL THE ARTICLES ON IT?
Becuase like most people I've realized that spoilers are posted without
warning sometimes I simply skip any article dealing with a movie I'm going
to see or want to see very badly.
Methinks you should remove yourself from r.a.m. until you calm down and
get a life!
--
============================================================================
"For a successful technology, reality must take |Bryan C. Lepine |
precedence over public relations, for nature |umle...@ccu.umanitoba.ca |
cannot be fooled." -Richard Feynman ============================
Marie E. Copertino
|In article <1992Aug4.1...@rock.concert.net> bl...@jazz.concert.net (Rob Black) writes:
|>Last night I finally saw Basic Instinct. Very good movie I thought. Although
|>I must admit to being a little slow and not figuring out that the killer
|>was the psychologist until it was very apparent!
|You bastard! How many times have people been yelled at for ruining movies
|for other people!?! Do you honestly think you are the only one who matters
|here? I have been happily saving that movie for a quiet night when I found
|someone else who hadn't already seen it. Thanks buddy.
GEEZ.... he wrote "Basic Instinct ****Ending****" in his subject line!
I know it's net-iquette to actually write the word "SPOILER", but
the word "Ending" would've given it away to me.
Get a clue, Robert, what would you think the article would be about
with that subject line, the beginning????
--
@_ @@@@ Marie Elena Copertino
@@ o o@@@
@@@ ^ @@@
@@@@@ `-' @@@@@ "Be excellent to yourself."
Marie E. Copertino
||>Last night I finally saw Basic Instinct. Very good movie I thought. Although
||>I must admit to being a little slow and not figuring out that the killer
||>was the psychologist until it was very apparent!
||You bastard! How many times have people been yelled at for ruining movies
||for other people!?! Do you honestly think you are the only one who matters
||here? I have been happily saving that movie for a quiet night when I found
||someone else who hadn't already seen it. Thanks buddy.
| GEEZ.... he wrote "Basic Instinct ****Ending****" in his subject line!
| I know it's net-iquette to actually write the word "SPOILER", but
| the word "Ending" would've given it away to me.
| Get a clue, Robert, what would you think the article would be about
| with that subject line, the beginning????
Ummmnnn...I think I meant "Get a clue, Mike" -- he was
the original super-dork who flamed in the first place.
Sorry Robert... ;)
Kim Rivers
In article <1992Aug5.1...@walter.bellcore.com>, te...@jpl.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Ted Ko) writes:
>Reasons Beth was killer:
>1) As stated above, how would Sharon Stone get away?
Easy. she went down a differnet staircase. Besides, Beth was too stupid to
be the killer, she committed a cardinal sin of anyone watching a police show in
TV wouldn't -- whena stressed out cop with a gun points it at you and tells you
to freeze, you a) don't keep walking towards him asking whats wrong (he WAS
covered in blood, to boot) and b) you don't stick your hand in your pocket and
rummage around.
You especially do not do these things being a police psychologist who would
know these rules inside and out and apparantly had a lobotomy on the way over.
>2) Her lies about her history: being blond, only having lesbian sex once...
So? Lots of people lie, about really dumb things which seem petty to
outsiders.
>3) Her answering machine didn't have a message from Gus (this was pointed out
>in the movie, but I don't believe the argument, see below)
You can very easily erase answering machine messages.
>Reasons Sharon Stone was killer ( IMHO, she was the killer 'cause these
>reasons are much stronger)
>4) In the first scene, Beth would have to have worn a wig; possible but
>I think doubtful in that scene
>5) From what we saw of their bodies, the killer's body in the first scene matched sharon stone's a lot closer than beth's.
Check out the killer's nose in the Gus scene. Beth had a very puggish nose.
The killer did not. (Yeah, it's trivial, but hey, it works.)
>How do you know Michael Douglas knew she was the killer?
>I think he was totally fooled and was too much in lust to care
whether he should investigate further.
He wasn't fooled. He was just in lust. He wanted ignore circumstance so he
could continue boffing her.
--
Kim Rivers
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Remember, no matter where you go, I'm not with you, and I probably +
+ didn't want to go there anyway. <--------------------------<< +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Joseph Herbers P210
another, and there's more?(plus the elevator) Either way, Stone
would have had to kill Gus while Beth was already there or coming
up some stairs. Then Stone sneeks away, BUT somehow drops the pick
on the stairs Beth supposedly came up. And she had to know Gus would
beat Beth there, and that she kill him and sneak off. I don't buy it.
> Besides, Beth was too stupid to
>be the killer, she committed a cardinal sin of anyone watching a police show in
>TV wouldn't -- whena stressed out cop with a gun points it at you and tells you
>to freeze, you a) don't keep walking towards him asking whats wrong (he WAS
>covered in blood, to boot) and b) you don't stick your hand in your pocket and
>rummage around.
So Stone knew she would do this AND Douglas would kill her???
That's the only reason she summoned Beth? And why was she after Beth
if Beth had been the one obsessed with her? Why did she kill the IA guy?
>>3) Her answering machine didn't have a message from Gus (this was pointed out
>>in the movie, but I don't believe the argument, see below)
>You can very easily erase answering machine messages.
But they said one hadn't been used. Also Stone kills Gus, plants the
bloody pick on the stairs, she then drives to Beth's house, breaks in
(though the lock was bad) and plants all that stuff about herself.
Again the timing and the ability to pull it off it way too much.
Also, Stone allowed Douglas to read the end of the book. If he had
been a little quicker, he would never have let Gus go up. There are
a lot of arguments against Stone by the end of the movie...
BUT there is an equal number against Beth that I can see.
So maybe Paul "Total Recall" Verhooven (sp?) is just jerking us
all around! And that's annoying if neither can be the killer.
What if they both were...any ideas on that?
Joe Herbers
Andre Kuzniarek
> BUT there is an equal number against Beth that I can see.
> So maybe Paul "Total Recall" Verhooven (sp?) is just jerking us
> all around! And that's annoying if neither can be the killer.
> What if they both were...any ideas on that?
I think the butler did it.
AK
------- an...@wri.com ----------------------------------------------------
"The only blasphemy is to wallow in
IN-SIG-NIF-I-CANCE!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARC Y. WASSERMAN
>In <1992Aug05....@bmerh85.bnr.ca> eisc...@bmerh52.bnr.ca (Robert McAulay) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug4.1...@rock.concert.net> bl...@jazz.concert.net (Rob Black) writes:
>
>>-Spoiler...-
>>>Last night I finally saw Basic Instinct. Very good movie I thought. Although
>>>I must admit to being a little slow and not figuring out that the killer
> Big big spoiler deleted here!
>>You bastard! How many times have people been yelled at for ruining movies
>>for other people!?! Do you honestly think you are the only one who matters
>>here? I have been happily saving that movie for a quiet night when I found
>>someone else who hadn't already seen it. Thanks buddy.
>
>
>>back for a while.
>
>>Mike.
>
>I think Mike should get a reality check! Why should he leave?
>Sure he goofed big time but if you were waiting to see it and you were
>truly this militant about not finding out who dunit THEN WHY THE HELL WERE
>YOU READING ALL THE ARTICLES ON IT?
>
>Becuase like most people I've realized that spoilers are posted without
>warning sometimes I simply skip any article dealing with a movie I'm going
>to see or want to see very badly.
>
>Methinks you should remove yourself from r.a.m. until you calm down and
>get a life!
Like most people, Mike was probably reading through the articles
one by one. Whether or not it says "huge spoiler" onthe subject
is irrelavant; on most editors, the whole post immediately comes
up. I saw the spoiler right away too and am extremely annoyed.
Use control-L!!!!!!
Marc Wasserman
mwas...@diana.cair.du.edu
--
"So you're choosing to run from your own people in a rackety old TARDIS?"
D O C T O R W H O
30 Years
"Why not? After all, that's how it all started!"
Jacob Steen Due
>Last night I finally saw Basic Instinct. Very good movie I thought. Although
>I must admit to being a little slow and not figuring out that the killer
>was the psychologist until it was very apparent!
>Anyway, my question is this: At the end of the movie the classic "fake"
>ending is done when you think that Sharon Stone is reaching for an ice
>pick and then her hand comes up empty. Then of course the very last shot
>is of the ice pick under the bed. Why would this be there? I know that the
>movie does not address that on purpose. So what does everyone think?
[2 hypotheses deleted]
I'm quite sure that the psychologist wasn't the killer - Sharon Stone was. I
base my opinion on the fact that it was Sharon Stones body that was in the
first killing scene - not the psychologists. I'm quite sure of this. For me
that is either a gigantic goof, or an indication of Sharon Stone as the killer.
For me it spoiled the whole movie, which I by the way found pretty boring (for
me there was no suspense towards the end). As for the objects found in the
psychologists appartment - well mabye she really was obssesed by Sharon Stones
caracter, and therefore she collected material on Sharons lovers, AND on her
ice-picking habits.
On second thoughts mabye Sharon killed the first guy and the psychologist
killed Michaels partner - who knows ??
/Jacob
*******************************************************************************
* Jacob Steen Due email j...@daimi.aau.dk *
* *
* *
* "What kind of a professional drives a motorcycle and weares a black *
* leather jacket" quote from "Little Shop Of Horror" *
* *
*******************************************************************************
Ted Ko
|> How many staircases are there!?! Douglas is on one, Beth is on
|> another, and there's more?(plus the elevator) Either way, Stone
|> would have had to kill Gus while Beth was already there or coming
|> up some stairs. Then Stone sneeks away, BUT somehow drops the pick
|> on the stairs Beth supposedly came up. And she had to know Gus would
|> beat Beth there, and that she kill him and sneak off. I don't buy it.
The setup seems simple: There are 2 staircases and the elevator.
Douglas is on one, Beth on the other and Stone is waiting for Gus. Stone kills
Gus and sneaks off somewhere around the corner (nobody is searching the rest
of the floor). Beth enters from her staircase and moves towards the elevator.
Stone sneaks down the same staircase, planting the evidence.
|> So Stone knew she would do this AND Douglas would kill her???
|> That's the only reason she summoned Beth? And why was she after Beth
|> if Beth had been the one obsessed with her? Why did she kill the IA guy?
|>
Stone was counting on Douglas being so screwed up that he would do something
rash. Even if he didn't kill her, the evidence was there and no one would
ever believe her side of the story.
|> >>3) Her answering machine didn't have a message from Gus (this was pointed out
|> >>in the movie, but I don't believe the argument, see below)
|> >You can very easily erase answering machine messages.
|>
|> But they said one hadn't been used. Also Stone kills Gus, plants the
|> bloody pick on the stairs, she then drives to Beth's house, breaks in
|> (though the lock was bad) and plants all that stuff about herself.
|> Again the timing and the ability to pull it off it way too much.
|>
From what I've seen of answering machines, the message could easily erase
itself. The ones I've used erase all their messages unless you specifically
save them which Beth would have no reason to do.
Between the time when Stone kills Gus she has a lot of time before the police
arrive at the murder scene and decide to drive over to Beth's. Plenty of time
to plant evidence.
|> Also, Stone allowed Douglas to read the end of the book. If he had
|> been a little quicker, he would never have let Gus go up. There are
|> a lot of arguments against Stone by the end of the movie...
|>
Remember that the book said that "he rushed up the steps" which meant that
Douglas would have to suspect something was going to happen so Stone needed
him to read that passage for him to be suspicious and fill out the story.
Brian G. Greenberg
In a previous article, jher...@brtph393.bnr.ca (Joseph Herbers P210) says:
>
>BUT there is an equal number against Beth that I can see.
>So maybe Paul "Total Recall" Verhooven (sp?) is just jerking us
>all around! And that's annoying if neither can be the killer.
>What if they both were...any ideas on that?
>
>Joe Herbers
Well this is what I thought when I first saw the movie. I think Beth
killed the IA guy (because she was inlove with Douglas and the IA guy was
going to get him kicked of the squad. The IA guy also knew about her past
and was probably trying to blackmail her). Stone killed the rest including Gus. Beth
couldn't have done it like the book unless she broke into Stone's house and
read the ending of the book.
-Brian
--
| Brian G. Greenberg: | "You can do more with a kind word |
| Summer : bl...@po.cwru.edu | and a gun, than with just a kind |
| Fall : bg4n...@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu | word." -Al Capone |
| bggre...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu | GO BROWNS!!! |
Joseph Herbers P210
|> In article <1992Aug05.2...@brtph560.bnr.ca>, jher...@brtph393.bnr.ca (Joseph Herbers P210) writes:
|> |> beat Beth there, and that she kill him and sneak off. I don't buy it.
|> The setup seems simple: There are 2 staircases and the elevator.
|> Douglas is on one, Beth on the other and Stone is waiting for Gus. Stone kills
|> Gus and sneaks off somewhere around the corner (nobody is searching the rest
|> of the floor). Beth enters from her staircase and moves towards the elevator.
|> Stone sneaks down the same staircase, planting the evidence.
Perhaps, but why did Beth come up those stairs and not try the elevator??
How would Stone know where she would come up? And how would she make
the timing work out this way? Douglas could have seen her in the
parking lot. Or what if she came up the same stairs as Douglas?
What if she was delayed in traffic? What if she never got the
message and was out, with witnesses??? Maybe what you say is supposed
to be what happened, but then it's too unbelievable, esp given how clever
Stone is supposed to be.
|> |> So Stone knew she would do this AND Douglas would kill her???
|> Stone was counting on Douglas being so screwed up that he would do something
|> rash. Even if he didn't kill her, the evidence was there and no one would
|> ever believe her side of the story.
I don't buy this because of the timing above. She may have been with others.
|> Between the time when Stone kills Gus she has a lot of time before the police
|> arrive at the murder scene and decide to drive over to Beth's. Plenty of time
|> to plant evidence.
Unless she gets caught in traffic. Or, as above, she never got the
message and doesn't come. Or someone is at/near the apt., etc...
|> |> Also, Stone allowed Douglas to read the end of the book. If he had
|> |> been a little quicker, he would never have let Gus go up. There are
|> Remember that the book said that "he rushed up the steps" which meant that
|> Douglas would have to suspect something was going to happen so Stone needed
|> him to read that passage for him to be suspicious and fill out the story.
Too much luck. Like I said, if he was just a little quicker, they would
have been able to case the place and catch Stone with an ice pick.
I'm beginning to think the whole thing was messed up.
New theory, just forming in my head.........
Stone killed the rocker, Beth killed the IA guy - he had to have been
blackmailing her, most likely because of Stone - and then killed Gus
because Douglas and he were figuring it out. Hmmm...I think this works
better than the other theories, but it's stretching. Opinions???
Joe Herbers
Bryan Lepine
>>
>>Becuase like most people I've realized that spoilers are posted without
>>warning sometimes I simply skip any article dealing with a movie I'm going
>>to see or want to see very badly.
>>
>>Methinks you should remove yourself from r.a.m. until you calm down and
>>get a life!
>Like most people, Mike was probably reading through the articles
>one by one. Whether or not it says "huge spoiler" onthe subject
>is irrelavant; on most editors, the whole post immediately comes
>up. I saw the spoiler right away too and am extremely annoyed.
>Use control-L!!!!!!
I'm not defending what he did, I feel control-L should have been
applied but the subject line did say ENDING and he probably felt this
suffiecient
Unfortunately alot of people don't realize that there are some
poor slobs that stilll have to read through articles one by one, alot have
newsreaders that make life alot easier and I disaagree that most people
read there articles 1 by 1 any more.
>Marc Wasserman >mwas...@diana.cair.du.edu
>
>--
>"So you're choosing to run from your own people in a rackety old TARDIS?"
> D O C T O R W H O
> 30 Years
>"Why not? After all, that's how it all started!"
J.D.Tilander
>In article <1992Aug6.1...@walter.bellcore.com>, te...@jpl.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Ted Ko) writes:
>|> In article <1992Aug05.2...@brtph560.bnr.ca>, jher...@brtph393.bnr.ca (Joseph Herbers P210) writes:
>
>I'm beginning to think the whole thing was messed up.
>
>
more stuff deleted
>Joe Herbers
After reading all this stuff about Basic Instinct, I just wanted to say that
I think the above statement about sums it up, IMHO. I was really disappointed
with the movie, I thought it left a lot of loose ends (what was the point of
Roxie and the older murderess, I forget her name, who really did the killing,
etc.?) Maybe some of you are much more astute than I, but after this movie my
gut feeling was that the point of it was to show lots of sex and violence,
enough to take it to the R-rated limit, and that was about it. I really doubt
that they gave all that much thought to the plot. 'Nuff said. Hope I haven't
offended anyone.
Janet Tilander
Huw Rogers
>bl...@jazz.concert.net (Rob Black) writes:
>
>>Last night I finally saw Basic Instinct. Very good movie I thought. Although
>>I must admit to being a little slow and not figuring out that the killer
>>was the psychologist until it was very apparent!
>
>>Anyway, my question is this: At the end of the movie the classic "fake"
>>ending is done when you think that Sharon Stone is reaching for an ice
>>pick and then her hand comes up empty. Then of course the very last shot
>>is of the ice pick under the bed. Why would this be there? I know that the
>>movie does not address that on purpose. So what does everyone think?
>
>[2 hypotheses deleted]
>
[hypotheses 3 deleted]
>On second thoughts mabye Sharon killed the first guy and the psychologist
>killed Michaels partner - who knows ??
I reckon that they both murdered - just different people. It's
been a while since I saw the movie but I reckon Stone killed the
first guy and Beth the rest (and Stone was going to kill Douglas but
wimped out when she realised he did love her *and* knew she'd killed -
just like Rob said). I find this very *good* - but then I am a real
nihilist. ;-)
-Huw
[ H.J.Rogers INTERNET: rogersh%p...@cs.man.ac.uk ]
[ ,_, JANET: rogersh%p...@uk.ac.man.cs ]
[ :-(_)-o "I'll be back..." ]
[ _} {_ "Computer Science is an engineering discipline." ]
Richard Cheung
Stone did not kill a SINGLE thing in that movie... it was all done by
Elisabeth.
As for the icepick underneath the bed.. well for starters any fans of this
kind of psychological thrillers could pick the Hitchcock humor of it... BUT
the reason why it was there was because STONE's character has always been
dealing with tragedy in her life, and she uses her books as a way to let
out her feelings of anger.. Now she is also used to dealing with how her
books have an uneasy way of becoming real life... But inspite of all that,
she was stable. This all changed when she met Michael Douglas.. he made her
change her game, and challenged her and possibly even beat her at her own
game... and she was falling for him in a big way. So we come to the bedroom
scene, they have just made up, the case was apparently solved, so really
the 'book' in Stone's head had to end.. Stone wanted to kill Douglas
because that is the way it has always been.. and she doesn't know whether
she can deal with this not ending like the book... thats why she had the
icepick underneath the bed. She didn';t kill him however,m because even
though it will mean she will no longer be living in the shadows of
her book's endings and have that to shield over her true self, she now
has no need to shield herself because she loves Douglas.. So the icepick
was really only put there just in case she changed her mind, and not
really there as a major intent...
thats my theroy anyway!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When you clock the human race with the stopwatch of history...
its a new record.. everytime." -The Power
R i c h a r d C h e u n g . A d e l a i d e , A u s t r a l i a .
email:- rch...@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Bole
> on the ending of BASIC INSTINCT....
give away the name of the killer in order to ruin the movie for people going
to see it. Seems it wouldn't have made one whit of difference...nobody can
agree on the killer anyway!
On to my opinion:
> Stone did not kill a SINGLE thing in that movie... it was all done by
> Elisabeth.
I found it fairly obvious that Stone did all the killing in the movie,
and even if it can't be logically proven (but they imply that Beth was set
up from the beginning) I feel that's what the makers wanted us to leave with.
Obvioulsly they didn't do a perfect job of it. As for all these theories,
it may be fun to argue about them...but I don't think it's really worth it.
It was a trashy movie...fun, entertaining, and very slick...but trash none the
less...it just wasn't a good mystery...but I wasn't complaining. :^)
Greg Bole "Well now, I've always believed if done
bo...@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu properly, armed robbery doesn't have to
be a totally unpleasant experience."
Brad Pitt in _Thelma and Louise_
Michael Masterson
>In article <80...@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>, rch...@ucs.adelaide.edu.au
>(Richard Cheung) writes:
>> on the ending of BASIC INSTINCT....
>I think it's really amusing that protesters of this film wanted to (did?)
>give away the name of the killer in order to ruin the movie for people going
>to see it. Seems it wouldn't have made one whit of difference...nobody can
>agree on the killer anyway!
>On to my opinion:
>>***** did not kill a SINGLE thing in that movie... it was all done by
>> ****.
>I found it fairly obvious that ***** did all the killing in the movie,
>and even if it can't be logically proven (but they imply that ***** was set
>up from the beginning) I feel that's what the makers wanted us to leave with.
>Obvioulsly they didn't do a perfect job of it. As for all these theories,
>it may be fun to argue about them...but I don't think it's really worth it.
Oh, I think they did a great job... One of my friends has seen it four
times, still catching little things in the background, and trying to
figure out who did it... it seems that the filmmakers wanted to leave
you with a mystery, so that you'd be wondering, and maybe go back to
see if you missed something (Grin).
cheers.
--
Simulated by professionals, do not try at home, see your dealer for details.
Your mileage may vary. Call before digging. Best if eaten by date on package.
Apply only to affected area. Batteries not included. Member FDIC.
Michael Masterson mma...@parnasus.dell.com
Barclay Blanchard
>So maybe Paul "Total Recall" Verhooven (sp?) is just jerking us
>all around! And that's annoying if neither can be the killer.
>What if they both were...any ideas on that?
That's what I figured. There were 2 MOs for the killings...stabbing and
shooting. I figure Beth committed 2 crimes of passion (killing her husband and
then killing the IA guy to protect herself and Nick) and Catherine killed the
others and framed Beth. Since Gus and Beth had died, Nick didn't have to (when
he asked her why the cop in her story died, she said because someone always
has to die); also, he accepted that she didn't want "rugrats," and she seemed
to ease up (from the icepick) then.
re: crimes of passion...
I can't see Catherine commiting a crime of passion; she was almost totally
emotionless. Beth was emotional enough (IMO) to have committed crimes o
passion.
--
Barclay Elizabeth Blanchard barclay@rail9000@gatech.edu
"I've been laughed at by some of the funniest people."
--Lissie, Alice Walker's _The Temple of My Familiar_
Maureen Wilkes
>waste of time. Basically a let's-show-as-much-skin-as-possible combined
>with a let's-be-as-brutal-as-possible and also a let's-make-the-plot-as
>confusing-as-possible movie.
My fiance and I didn't enjoy BASIC INSTINCT as much as we'd hoped.
Brutal? Well, the idea of what was happening was brutal, but it wasn't
executed (pun intended) very well. The car chase in particular was
anticlimactic, and the murder scenes were B-grade.
Confusing? Yes, but not in an engaging sense. I wasn't on the edge of
my seat trying to figure it out, I was just wondering where all the hot
scenes were that I'd heard so much about. About halfway through I decided
that if the ending was ambiguous, I'd just rent it and compare the body
in the opening scene with the bodies of the two suspects. I was more
confused with the casting of Michael Douglas than anything else.
Which brings us to......SKIN. Was anyone else disappointed by the sex
scenes that were so hyped when the movie was released? Never mind murder,
I kept worrying that Michael Douglas' heart would give out.
I enjoyed watching Sharon Stone, not because she's particularly talented
as an actress but because the camera likes her so well. Now THAT'S a
good bone structure! I liked her character a lot, much to the horror
of my feminist friends. Hey, what's so WRONG about a wealthy, successful
woman who outsmarts all the men around her?
As for those
women who objected, would they have preferred that she was dirt poor,
spineless, and stupid? A psychopathic personality is NOT gender specific,
it can (and does) exist in both males and females. To say that a
psychopathic female character is a statement against women, while a
male psychopathic character is simply a character, is hogwash. We need
more leading female roles (psycho and otherwise) that call for the
actress to do something other than squeal for help and look good in a teddy.
Whatever the flaws in BASIC INSTINCT, it at least had a female lead that
kicked ass.
BTW, someone had responded to my post about Greta Scaachi's (sp? oops!)
breast exposure in THE PLAYER. Yes, I realize that she didn't take her
top off in that film, but she didn't NEED to! Her wardrobe was
conveniently diaphanous enough to provide the audience with a view.
What interested me was the difference in audience response to female
and male nudity in THE PLAYER. When Cynthia Whats-her-name was
in the hot tub, no one batted an eye. It was, "Ho hum, nothing we
haven't see before." But when Tim Robbins was BRIEFLY exposed from the
rear, the audience gasped and tittered like it was a major revelation
that he isn't a eunuch. Sheesh.
Daniel R. Williamson
one !!!
--
===================================================================
REALNET: Daniel R. Williamson /\ INTERNET: dx...@cas.org
BITNET: dx...@cas.bitnet \/ UUCP: osu-cis!chemabs!dxw26
===================================================================
Jim Heath
> In article <1992Aug05....@bmerh85.bnr.ca> eisc...@bmerh52.UUCP (Robert McAulay) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug4.1...@rock.concert.net> bl...@jazz.concert.net (Rob Black) writes:
>>
>>-Spoiler...-
>>
>>>Last night I finally saw Basic Instinct. Very good movie I thought. Although
>>>I must admit to being a little slow and not figuring out that the killer
>>>was the psychologist until it was very apparent!
>>
I don't think she was. Did you miss the very last scene?
--
"Land of song, said the warrior bard, Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee." (Thomas Moore)
Doug Darling
>Last night I finally saw Basic Instinct. Very good movie I thought. Although
>I must admit to being a little slow and not figuring out that the killer
>was the psychologist until it was very apparent!
When you say the psychologist was the killer, I am assuming that you are not
talking about Sharon Stone (Ya see, they were both psychologists).
>
>Anyway, my question is this: At the end of the movie the classic "fake"
>ending is done when you think that Sharon Stone is reaching for an ice
>pick and then her hand comes up empty. Then of course the very last shot
>is of the ice pick under the bed. Why would this be there? I know that the
>movie does not address that on purpose. So what does everyone think?
Sharon Stone was the killer all along she framed the psychologist for the
murders. It was a bit unrealist how smoothly every thing went, but Stone
had planned to kill Douglas months before she even met. She was
fascinated with killers.
I was under the impression that SS may have even killed the psychologist's
husband.
>
>I have 2 hypotheses.
>
>One is that since Michael Douglas was dating the shrink , and the cops
>found a supply of ice picks in her apartment, the ice pick under the
>bed is one of hers that she was going to use on him when they were
>having sex. The only problem with this is that when Michael Douglas
>shot her her last words to him were, "I love you." So I'm not sure if
>she really would've wanted to knock him off.
She didnt want to kill him, she was set up. SS killed the partner in the
elevator then left the wig and PD cape on the stairwell. She went to the
shrink's apartment and planted all of the "evidence" that the police later
found. SS knew that MD would kill the psychologist thinking that she
killed his partner + he was trigger happy ("a shooter").
>
>The other one is that Sharon Stone was indeed going to kill Michael Douglas.
>I figure that she was obviously a bit wacko. She might have planned this
>because her other books had come true and even though it wasn't her
>fault, she could no longer seperate fiction from reality and wanted to
>continue the trend. Combine this was the unexplainable fact that she wrote
>about Michael Douglas' partner's death before it happened. This would
>point to her as being wacko enough to kill him.
>
SS knew that MD's partner was going to die because she had planned to kill
him. SS's character was a master-mind killer. She would spend years
planning a murder. I think the reason that she didnt kill MD was because
it would be too obvious.
>
>Whaddaya think?
Just my two pence :)
>
>
Jim Smith
>In article <1992Aug4.1...@rock.concert.net>, bl...@jazz.concert.
net (Rob Black) writes...
>SS knew that MD's partner was going to die because she had planned to kill
>him. SS's character was a master-mind killer. She would spend years
>planning a murder. I think the reason that she didnt kill MD was because
>it would be too obvious.
>>
>>Whaddaya think?
I got the impression SS was gonna kill MD right up to the last moment.
Then, when he allowed that _not_ having children was okay too, she
changed her mind. She was not an Earth Mother type. You have to be
heads-up and wide awake to catch the ending's who-done-it. If you dropped
your JuJuBees, and bent to pick them up, you'd come away thinking someone
else was the killer.
Jim
smith1....@panther.adelphi.edu
David J Mulligan Jr
In a previous article, jher...@bnr.ca (Joseph Herbers P210) says:
>New theory, just forming in my head.........
>Stone killed the rocker, Beth killed the IA guy - he had to have been
>blackmailing her, most likely because of Stone - and then killed Gus
>because Douglas and he were figuring it out. Hmmm...I think this works
>better than the other theories, but it's stretching. Opinions???
>
>Joe Herbers
Even though Stone said no, it seems to me that her "roomie" would have
killed the rocker out of jealousy. Roxie knew exactly how Stone was in
bed since she watched all the time. Besides, doesn't everyone say, "I'm
not jealous", at one time or another? Roxie probably told Stone this just
so she could keep watching.
I'm not so sure Beth killed the IA guy because he was blackmailing her
(although it could play a part, I guess). It seems more like she loved
Douglas so much that she wanted to ease his anger, much of it coming from
the IA guy; and this anger was keeping them apart. Didn't these two sort
of discuss this anger walking down the halls after the last confrontation
with the IA guy?
Beth killed Gus because he and Douglas were getting too close, and of course
she couldn't kill Douglas.
Why is the ice pick in the last scene? Got me (and others apparantly since
this is what started the whole discussion). I mostly think it is there
because that is what thrillers are "supposed to have" at the end, plus it
leaves it open for a sequel.
But...let's see...she didn't at all go for it; it just happened to be there
when she stretched (like I'm doing now). She was using it to chop ice
earlier (in the movie) and probably didn't let go of it until shortly after
they fumbled into the bedroom and plopped on the bed.
Hmmm...well, it's a theory.
--
_ _
| \ | \ / csco...@uoft02.utoledo.edu
|_/ igitized |_/ ave \ bf...@cleveland.freenet.edu
Thomas Farmer
>In article <11AUG199...@venus.lerc.nasa.gov> eds...@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Doug Darling) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug4.1...@rock.concert.net>, bl...@jazz.concert.
>net (Rob Black) writes...
>>SS knew that MD's partner was going to die because she had planned to kill
>>him. SS's character was a master-mind killer. She would spend years
>>planning a murder. I think the reason that she didnt kill MD was because
>>it would be too obvious.
>
>Then, when he allowed that _not_ having children was okay too, she
>changed her mind. She was not an Earth Mother type. You have to be
>heads-up and wide awake to catch the ending's who-done-it. If you dropped
>your JuJuBees, and bent to pick them up, you'd come away thinking someone
>else was the killer.
I thought the ending was a cheap trick.
It spolit the rest of the film with some adolescent "wouldn't it be
cool if..." gimmick. They should ahve left the dark haired woman as
the killer.
As it was the film just fell into cliche...
--
Thomas Farmer | tfa...@datamark.co.nz or | Amiga 2.04, AIX 3.1
Datamark Intl Ltd | tfa...@cavebbs.welly.gen.nz | Win 3.1, OS/2 2.0
Technical Writer | Vote MMP!
& PC Wrangler | If I had something witty to say I'd put it here.
<Name goes here>
>In a previous article, jher...@bnr.ca (Joseph Herbers P210) says:
>
>>New theory, just forming in my head.........
>>Stone killed the rocker, Beth killed the IA guy - he had to have been
>>blackmailing her, most likely because of Stone - and then killed Gus
>>because Douglas and he were figuring it out. Hmmm...I think this works
>>better than the other theories, but it's stretching. Opinions???
>>
>>Joe Herbers
>
>Even though Stone said no, it seems to me that her "roomie" would have
>killed the rocker out of jealousy.
Quite possible. I did think it kind of weird when SS says, "she
never got jealous before..." In fact, I wondered for a minute or two if
maybe SS hadn't been in on her lover's plan to run down Douglas, but then
I thought, "Nah. It wouldn't have fit in her book."
>I'm not so sure Beth killed the IA guy because he was blackmailing her
>(although it could play a part, I guess). It seems more like she loved
>Douglas so much that she wanted to ease his anger
I'm not positive Beth killed ANYONE... remember the problem with
the lock on her door? I think it's a least possible that all that
"incriminating evidence" was planted there. (As an aside, one of my favorite
lines in the movie came when everyone was back at the police station after
finding Gus's body, and some detective comes up to Douglas, remarking
grimly, "We checked. It was her size." (referring to the SFPD slicker) Like
that just put the *clincher* on the case :-> )
And as for Beth's killing Gus: I don't think so. Don't forget the
printout of SS's latest draft of her novel, "The Shooter." When Douglas is
checking it over, there is a second or so where the text was clearly visible.
I made out at least "...he pushes the button...finds his partners legs sticking
out of the elevator." So this seems like a *big* clue that, yes, SS is a
murdering psycopath who writes books "stranger than fiction."
Basically, I was never able to shake the feeling that SS's character
was EVIL. (Admittedly, this was certainly the intent of the movie-makers: keep
the audience *sure* that's she's gonna off him, right up 'till the credits
roll. And they milked that expectation for everything it was worth at the end:
the second time she "reaches back and falls forward with... NOTHING in her
hands!", and also the phony fade-to-black.) But still, I believe she did kill
the rock star, or at _least_ knew Roxie's mind well enough to guess that
Roxie would kill him after watching her with him.
Now, as for Nielson's death, what have we got: he was shot with a
.38, the same *kind* of revolver used to kill the doctor (I know this sounds
inane at this point in the discussion, but that doctor was Beth's former
husband, right? I was kinda dozing for a minute there...) This does _not_
mean that it is necessarily the *exact same* gun, though. If you want to
think that SS was a briallant evil-doer, then it's not too hard to imagine
that she knew this piece of Beth's past and so arranged for Nielson to be
shot with a .38, and the weapon placed in Beth's apartment. (And the taped
message asking Beth to meet Gus at the hotel was erased while the plant was
being done.)
The only piece of truth I think was in SS's story was that it was
Beth who was infatuated with her, and I think that the evidence in that
police report was the pressure Nielson used to get Douglas's file from Beth.
I don't think it's *too* wild a leap to suppose that SS started setting this
whole thing up a year ago, and contacted Nielson with the info about the
police report, knowing how much he disliked Douglas, so that she could use
him as a link to see Douglas' file.
Well, that's enough rambling for now... I don't expect anyone to be
convinced by this post. I think you pretty much have to pick who you *want*
your heroes/villians to be, cuz you can pretty easily shape the evidence
to support whatever scenario you want.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's getting hard to be someone, but it all works out."
-- The Beatles
faf...@jessica.stanford.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------