Plot hole: This is another movie where the cops are too dumb to go out by themselves. The woman who icepicks the first victim (we see) to death would have left enough forensic evidence on the scene to convict her ten times over - skin, hair, sweat, saliva, vaginal fluid, possibly blood, and they all contain DNA in abundance. She had vigorous, sweaty sex with this man and she didn't clean up afterwards (and she couldn't have done so thoroughly enough anyway) so she's left calling cards all over the place. The killer also handled the icepick (which the police take away in an evidence bag) with bare hands - her prints would be all over it. She might as well have left a signed confession, but they can't even identify her. Sharon Stone, for instance, leaves her fingerprints (on the chair and fixtures in the police station) and her saliva (containing epithelial skin cells which are an excellent source of DNA) on the cigarette butt she discards, also in the police station. She went there of her own accord and these artifacts are legally accessible by the police. It is obvious to anyone that the women who had sex with the victim killed him, and Catherine is most certainly a suspect. They don't have enough to charge her but they would if they did a simple series of tests on the dead man's body - and if she didn't do it, that would eliminate her as a suspect. They don't even check.
Basic Instinct (1992)
Plot summary
Directed by: Paul Verhoeven
Starring: Michael Douglas, Sharon Stone, Jeanne Tripplehorn, George Dzundza
Former rock star and San Francisco nightclub owner Johnny Boz is found murdered in his bed. Detective Nick Curran (Michael Douglas) is assigned to the case; he has a history of alcoholism and drug abuse although he is clean now. The prime suspect is Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone), an attractive and manipulative novelist who had been seeing Boz for a while. Police psychiatrist Beth Gardner (who happens to be Nick's ex-girlfriend) is brought in on the case when it is discovered that Boz's murder was copied directly from one of Catherine's novels. Nick starts to get too involved and everyone seems to be a suspect.
Nick: How did you feel when I told you Johnny Boz had died, that day at the beach?
Catherine: I felt somebody had read my book and was playing a game.
Nick: But you didn't hurt.
Catherine: No.
Nick: Because you didn't love him.
Catherine: That's right.
Nick: Even though you were fucking him.
Catherine: You still get the pleasure. Didn't you ever fuck anybody else while you were married, Nick?
Trivia: Director Paul Verhoeven actually has a PhD in mathematics. He received it back in the 1960's in Holland. He left the field and became a film director. (From Director's commentary on "Basic Instinct: The Original Director's Cut".).
Question: Why did Catherine change her mind about killing Nick at the end? Obviously she was planning on killing him anyway, but she changed her mind only hours after ending their relationship when her book was finished and was of no further use. So why did she spare him? Was it because she fell in "love" with him?
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: There's no definitive answer to this and the ending is deliberately ambiguous and open to interpretation. The audience is left to speculate whether or not Catherine kills Nick, or if she intended to kill him but changes her mind because she loves him, or intends to kill him at a much later time, and so on.
raywest ★