Metascore
41

Mixed or average reviews - based on 28 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 28
  2. Negative: 9 out of 28
  1. Reviewed by: Barry Johnson
    Oct 15, 2014
    38
    One suspects that [Verhoeven's] produced exactly the movie he wanted to produce: fast, cynical and profitable. Cha-ching. [20 Mar 1992, p.AE17]
  2. Verhoeven's lurid thriller has moments of welcome self-parody, but most of the action manages to be sensationalistic, homophobic, and tedious at the same time. [20 Mar 1992, Arts, p.12]
  3. What isn't so fascinating is this movie's absurdity of motivation. No one does anything that makes sense. No one seems real. When the actual perpetrator is uncovered, there is no enlightenment as to why the killing occurred.
  4. Reviewed by: Bill Cosford
    Oct 15, 2014
    25
    I'd have thought you'd get more for $3 million. The dialogue here is among the worst in modern big-budget memory; even the cliches are lame. [20 Mar 1992, p.G5]
  5. 25
    Verhoeven does not explore the dark side, but merely exploits it, and that makes all the difference in the world.
  6. 20
    What we have here is a movie with not just one, but a family pack of psychos.
  7. It's just one more dunk in the slime pit of exploitation. [13 Apr 1992, p.26]
  8. Reviewed by: Terrence Rafferty
    10
    A vicious, grindingly manipulative urban mystery that uses a thick atmosphere of S & M kinkiness to distract the audience from the story's thinness and inanity.
  9. A perverse, lame-brained thriller that is pornographic, misogynist and homophobic. If that makes it sound appealing, I should also add that it's silly, boring and intellectually insulting.
User Score
5.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 91 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 19
  2. Negative: 6 out of 19
  1. Jan 28, 2013
    5
    Here we have a typical erotic-thriller which works (Besides the plot holes, and the unbelievable actions some characters make), because SharonHere we have a typical erotic-thriller which works (Besides the plot holes, and the unbelievable actions some characters make), because Sharon Stone and Michael Douglas were looking good, and had some screen-chemistry. The script (while nothing special) creates enough tension to keep you watch the whole movie, but the ending is confusing and disappointing. Full Review »
  2. Mar 20, 2011
    2
    I felt like I was watching a porno, with the same production value and cheap plot. The sex scenes were entirely over the top, and the movieI felt like I was watching a porno, with the same production value and cheap plot. The sex scenes were entirely over the top, and the movie was extremely predictable. Pretty much a waste of 2 hours. Full Review »
  3. Apr 2, 2014
    3
    not to good for the kids the guy at blockbuster down on 3rd said that it was a good movie and i watched it with my grandson.not to good for the kids the guy at blockbuster down on 3rd said that it was a good movie and i watched it with my grandson.
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Full Review »