The 1993 erotic thriller Roger Ebert couldn’t handle: “It has to be seen to be believed”
What makes a good erotic movie? While the answer will certainly differ depending on who you ask, all movies featuring eroticism, no matter how twisted or shocking, mustn’t feel cold, contrived, lacking in chemistry, or even worse – become accidentally humorous.
We’re not talking about sexy comedies here; instead, it’s those erotic movies that feature a layer of awkwardness and ridiculousness that end up falling flat, failing to entice audiences by making them laugh instead.
That fine line between sensuality and absurdity is what makes the erotic thriller such a difficult genre to pull off. Unlike straightforward dramas or comedies, these films rely heavily on tone, where even a slight misstep in dialogue, performance, or pacing can tip the entire project into unintentional parody. When the chemistry doesn’t land or the stakes feel artificial, the illusion quickly collapses, leaving audiences more detached than intrigued.
This is something that Roger Ebert, the legendary film critic, noticed when reviewing the 1993 movie Body of Evidence, which starred Madonna in a leading role alongside Willem Dafoe. Marketed as an erotic thriller, the movie saw the two actors embark on a sadomasochistic affair after Madonna’s Rebecca gets accused of killing her lover, leading Dafoe’s Frank to become her lawyer.
The movie had a strong premise, but sadly, it performed absolutely terribly. Not only did critics like Ebert hate the movie, but it only made a profit of $8million. Directed by Uli Edel, Body of Evidence was, to put it plainly, a huge flop. Even Madonna’s star status couldn’t save it, and she further cemented public opinion that she should’ve just stuck to singing.
Part of the issue was timing. By the early 1990s, the erotic thriller had already reached a kind of saturation point, with films like Basic Instinct setting a high bar that many imitators struggled to match. Instead of feeling provocative, newer entries often came across as derivative, leaning too heavily on shock value without the narrative depth or tension needed to sustain audience interest.
When Ebert saw the film, he instantly hated it, awarding it a measly half-a-star rating. “I’ve seen comedies with fewer laughs than Body of Evidence, and this is a movie that isn’t even trying to be funny. It’s an excruciatingly incompetent entry in the Basic Instinct genre, filled with lines that only a screenwriter could love, and burdened with a plot that confuses mystery with confusion,” he said.
Ebert wasn’t convinced that acting was the right gig for Madonna, writing, “After Bloodhounds of Broadway, Shanghai Surprise and Who’s That Girl? now nails down her title as the queen of movies that were bad ideas right from the beginning.” While she was arguably the biggest female popstar at the time, people quickly accused her attempts to become an established actor as nothing more than a way to earn extra cash and stardom.
Body of Evidence didn’t help her case, with Ebert adding, “What about the story here? It has to be seen to be believed – something I do not advise. There’s all kinds of murky plot debris involving nasal spray with cocaine in it, ghosts from the past, bizarre sex, and lots of nudity.” Evidently, the movie’s preoccupation with depicting a thrilling BDSM relationship between Madonna and Dafoe meant that the rest of the plot felt flimsy and underdeveloped.
Despite the filmmaker’s efforts to make an erotic tale, Ebert didn’t even believe that this was done successfully, making it a failure on all accounts. “When it comes to eroticism, Body of Evidence is like Madonna’s new book. It knows the words but not the music. All of the paraphernalia and lore of S&M sexuality are here, but none of the passion or even enjoyment. We are told by one witness that sex with the Madonna character is intense. It turns out later he’s not a very reliable witness.”
