Un avocat défend une femme accusée d'avoir tué son amant plus âgé en ayant des relations sexuelles avec lui.Un avocat défend une femme accusée d'avoir tué son amant plus âgé en ayant des relations sexuelles avec lui.Un avocat défend une femme accusée d'avoir tué son amant plus âgé en ayant des relations sexuelles avec lui.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 victoire et 8 nominations au total
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesIn a radio interview with Sway Calloway, Willem Dafoe confirmed that the scene in the parking garage is genuine, no body doubles were used.
- GaffesA detective states that the reason the police called the District Attorney is because the victim, Andrew Marsh, was handcuffed at the time of death. However, in the opening scene it is obvious that the dead man is not handcuffed. Moreover, if he were, it would almost conclusively prove Rebecca's guilt - if she did not kill him, she would have untied him before leaving. And despite this supposedly being the sole reason for Rebecca's arrest and prosecution, whether the deceased was or wasn't handcuffed at the time of his death is never mentioned again, by anybody.
- Citations
Rebecca Carlson: All we did was make love.
Frank Dulaney: In handcuffs.
Rebecca Carlson: It was different, but it was still making love. Have you ever seen animals make love, Frank? It's intense. It's violent. But they never really hurt each other.
Frank Dulaney: We're not animals.
Rebecca Carlson: Yes, we are.
- Versions alternativesThree versions of this movie have been released: an R-rated theatrical version, a NC-17 version and an unrated video version. European release is the NC-17 cut.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Siskel & Ebert & the Movies: Memo to the Academy - 1993 (1993)
Commentaire à la une
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.
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.
- juliankennedy23
- 14 nov. 2018
- Permalien
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Body of Evidence?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Body of Evidence
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 30 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 13 273 595 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 7 365 429 $US
- 18 janv. 1993
- Montant brut mondial
- 13 273 595 $US
- Durée1 heure 39 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant