Body of Evidence (1993)

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

A different way of telling a story

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Body Of EvidenceThe scrutiny in here isn't convoluted unlike any other court room drama and fortunately the makers being aware of it keeps it simple and goes deep with its finely detailed script that is engaging most of the time. The screenplay is not gripping; although some sequences are nicely written, and the primary reason would be the forcibly installed scenes that doesn't demand anything on plot track or character's perspective but is just merely for the audience. Brad Mirman; the writer, never even attempts to go beyond its self created bubble that keeps the feature on a loop which may look familiar or repetitive and addition to that, Uli Edel; the director, is short on execution and never even convinces the audience for a second look. The star power is the strength of the feature and the makers use it wisely but Madonna needs some work on her acting skills, Willem Dafoe is brilliant enough for carrying around the almost 100 minutes of the feature where he is supported nicely by Julianne Moore. Body Of Evidence is an evidence of the commercial cinema and the baggage that it comes with; which is the amount of time makers spend to bring the big bucks is ironically not feasible at all.

When I first saw this movie, I was disgusted beyond belief. I don't know what it was but there was something about the sex scenes that came across as very scuzzy. I still can't place my finger on why. I've seen so many sex scenes and have even watched the occasional porno or two but there was always something about the way the scenes that were shot in Body of Evidence that had be wanting to jump into a hot bath and scrub my skin with a scouring pad. Some other reviewers said that the scenes were a little too realistic and that may have been the reason. More than a decade later, I saw Body of Evidence again but this time I saw the R- rated version. Ironically, when the sex scenes are scaled down, it's a much better movie. It's not a brilliant film, of course, but a legitimately entertaining popcorn flick that's like a cross between Basic Instinct and Witness for the Prosecution. It's also beautifully shot; I was surprised at the level of cinematography for what's essentially a sleazy softcore movie. Some of the dialogue is also a lot wittier than you'd expect for a film like this. The last scene between Joe Mantegna and Willem Dafoe is a hoot. Dafoe's character is asked if he believes in karma. After he says, "No," Mantegna's character says, "Everyone gets theirs in the end, except for lawyers." Dafoe, who feels guilty after winning the case, then tells Mantegna that he should've won instead and Mantegna says, "I did." Okay, it's no Dashiell Hammett, but it made me chuckle.Also, there are some clever subtleties in the movie that I particularly liked. For example, when Dafoe goes to confront Madonna after she lies to him, look at how she's dressed. Up until that scene, she is dressed and styled like someone from the 1940s. The movie even went so far as to have her wear vintage style "granny panties", garter belts and stockings in many of her scenes! But after the twist, her face, hair and demeanor are different and she has on a pair of elegant, but modern style white satin pajamas. She goes from looking and sounding like this very old-fashioned, 1940s style woman into a typical 1990s chick. I know this doesn't sound like much given how cheesy the movie is, but I was pleasantly surprised by the transformation because I thought she was just going to still turn up looking like something out of Casablanca. The filmmakers didn't have to go that extra mile, but it was a very nice touch. Anyway, if you're interested at all in seeing this movie, I strongly suggest avoiding the uncut version. I know it sounds counterproductive because, hey-- who wouldn't want long, extended sex scenes in a movie? But trust me. They're not the type of sex scenes that you want to see, and they cheapen the movie, anyway. See the R-rated version instead and expect nothing more than an entertaining popcorn flick.

Perfect 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.

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.