Every time I go to Blockbusters, their foreign new releases are almost always 30% in the genre of erotic thrillers. I enjoy watching these films and the fact that Blockbuster has continued to carry films of these sorts only proves that there is a market for these type of films. Problem is that it's only the foriegn markets that has success in the erotic thrillers.

I think the key element here is RISK. Studios are simply not taking enough risks with these type of films. Why? Because the most well known American erotic thrillers are the ones that bombed (Critics and/or Box Office). And the other that are successful, are usually succesful on a small market basis, or word of mouth. NOT based on it's genre power.

In other words, I don't think there was really ever a successful market in erotic thrillers. Just a few films that made it through the cracks or films that got hyped/or smashed by the critics.

----

I, for one, would appreciate seeing a well made erotic thriller in the theaters.

Reply

plain and simple why they're not made: money. None of the films listed were money makers for the simple fact that they were horrible. Any well done film, no matter the genre, will make some money. So to blame puritanical values for the erotic thriller demise is just trying to pass blame. The fucktard religious right has always been there and have always been anti anything sexual. They just have a (literal) cheerleader in office now, so they're getting more attention.

The article is just typical Hollywood slop: blame everyone else but themself.

Reply

I for one am glad that erotic thrillers are going down the tube. No matter the reason, I will be glad when they are completly gone. Those films have always been distasteful and so uncalled for. I hope the next generation of film makers will create movies that feed the soul instead of suffcating it with sexual contents that not even a striper would want to watch.

Reply

Yep, the American Erotic Thriller is dead in Hollywood because they are crap. "Basic Instint" 1992 was very powerful because of its' sleeze factor. Women didn't want to admit they were like or wanted to be like Catherine Tramell(Sharon Stone). Well, until she did. Plus, that movie had Michael Douglas. Star power and good if not sleezy screenwriting. "Basic Instinct 2", well, No Michael Douglas this time around and the writing needs help. Sharon Stone is fun though. Yep, Erotic Thrillers in the U.S. are dead. I don't think the church has anything to say anymore about anything. Think about it, Priests addicted to Internet Porn, Internet predators, Killers, Rapists, Celebrity Sex tapes. I mean we see it everyday we turn on the computer. TOO BAD HOLLYWOOD CAN'T WRITE ANY GOOD SCRIPTS ABOUT ALL OF IT!

Rpond

Reply

>The fucktard religious right has always been there and have always been anti anything sexual.

Reply

Basic Instinct 2 failed because the story is 10 years old, Sharon Stone is a fucking loon and it was clear that the story was nothing more than a rehash of the first film. No one should be surprised that this movie failed. If someone is surprised at that they should be shot, maimed and killed in order to rid the gene pool of their ignorance.

Reply

No one is making these movies, because every single one of them sucked a$$ and therefore no one went to see them. I find it ironic that Verhoeven would even mention Showgirls, a film that managed to turn T and A into a boring piece of crap. Maybe Jane March will get up and complain that no one wants to put her in another NC-17 boring fuck fest.

Besides with the mainstreaming of pornography these "erotic" thrillers are pointless, or at the very least their only purpose is something to put on late night Cinemax. Have you seen the crap “erotic” thrillers that are on all the Cinemax channels every night at midnight? Man that religious right oppression really sucks ass.

Personally I find erotic thrillers boring and contrived. If I want to see erotica, I'll watch a porno, for about 10 minutes then I am done. If I want to watch a thriller then I will watch a thriller.

Verhoeven is pissed because no one will let him make a movie, because Hollywood realized he is a no talent hack and this is his way of substituting his own failures for some "Right Wing Anti-Titty" campaign.

Reply

I wouldn't see a good erotic thriller in theaters but not because I think there's anything morally questionable about them, merely that I don't believe there's such a thing as a good erotic thriller anymore. In fact, I'm not sure I would see anything that touts itself as erotic. In this day and age, it seems that, at least for the more mainstream movies, erotic is code for inundate-audience-with-senseless-nudity/sex/etc, and that makes me annoyed. (Someone needs to teach the people in charge the real meaning of the word erotic.)

Reply

The problem with american erotic thrillers is that they're erotic first and thrillers second, whoever's making them is forgetting that they're supposed to thrill us, giving us a boner should be a second priority.

Reply

One of the least anticipated sequels in cinematic history, Basic Instinct 2, opened in theaters last Friday. In three short days, it emerged as a critical and commercial failure of monumental proportions. It finished the weekend with the eleventh-highest total gross, behind not merely Ice Age 2 but even Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector and Slither, a horror-comedy about killer slugs. What could possibly account for such a fiasco? A crowded field of film options? The ongoing box office slump? Paul Verhoeven, the director of the original Basic Instinct, has a different scapegoat in mind: George W. Bush.

Mr. Verhoeven apparently cannot conceive that a sufficiently shameful film may cause potential moviegoers’ self-protection instinct to override their sexual instinct. To the contrary, he offered these startling insights into the American artistic climate: “Anything that is erotic has been banned in the United States. Look at the people at the top. We are living under a government that is constantly hammering out Christian values. And Christianity and sex have never been good friends.” Ahhh, it all makes sense now. Audiences didn’t flock to partake of absurd sex and ludicrous dialogue because of the Puritanical values of the Taliban-like Bush regime. Soon I expect to hear that Bush is responsible for wiping out the dinosaurs as well.

Of course, the freewheeling Clinton administration couldn’t save Verhoeven’s 1995 skinflick Showgirls from its own ignominious, career-destroying fate. And while Christianity and sex have had a tempestuous relationship, judging by the success of the porn industry America and sex seem to be getting along just fine. Perhaps true eroticism would draw Americans out of their bedrooms and back into theaters, but these days, lurid, voyeuristic thrills are a dime a dozen. Most adults are fully acquainted with what naked bodies look like, so for a movie to show them something they’ve never seen before, it would have to show them genuine insight into the human condition.

Religious conservatives often speak of what they perceive as the profound disconnect between Hollywood and the rest of America. Oftentimes such commentators exaggerate the truth, but in this instance they are absolutely right.

As an endnote, Paul Verhoeven belongs to the Jesus Seminar, an organization that gained notoriety in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s by having its members vote to determine the authenticity of the quotes attributed to Jesus in the Bible. This group judged the vast majority of the words of Jesus as either false or dubious, and published an edited version of the New Testament that reflected their conclusions. Verhoeven’s directorial efforts and public statements do not tend to inspire confidence in his competence as a Biblical scholar, or in any organization that would employ him in that capacity. It goes to show that people should take much of popular Bible “scholarship” with a grain of salt.

Reply

They're dying because they mostly forget about the "thriller" half of the equation. I'm trying to think of the last time I thought of an erotic thriller as "good". Right now I can only think of 3 (Body Heat, Fatal Attraction, The Last Seduction).

Reply

It would help their argument if they had a movie with critical acclaim that tanked. But they don't. Even those people with a fetish for women in their late 40s are going to wait for this to hit cable and record it so they can fast forward to the naughty bits.

Considering #10's list, which looks pretty valid to me, the real killer of this genre was the spread of high speed internet access and late night cable channels like Skinemax. Erotic thrillers are defined by sexual tension and delayed gratification but instant gratification is too easily achieved nowadays.

Reply

Paul Verhoeven is smarter than all y'all haters. Have you even seen Spetters? His filmography reads like a top ten of brilliant American satires. Showgirls was an amazing film. I mean Kyle MacLachlan? What a choice for that role. And Elizabeth Berkley puts in one of the strongest self-subverting performances I've seen. The fact that everybody knows that film is proof of its resonance with our culture. The reason erotic thrillers have not caught fire lately is due to the current trend of desexualizing action films. Movies such as Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Batman, Spiderman, etc- have given us a world where excitement and edge-of-your seat thrill rides are devoid of sexual content. Meanwhile celebrities are porno stars an vice-versa. The worlds have been divided.

Reply

I liked *Showgirls*. How can anyone h8 on that film when it had Gina Gershon in it chomping away in all her scenes? Now I agree with how much *Jade* sucked. Never has a film been so spoiled by an ending as that film. The theatre screen was awarded with thrown popcorn at the showing I went to, back in the day. Although I will not say who chucked their popcorn.

Want a great erotic thriller I'll shell out money to see? Put Gina Gershon in a film with Monica Bellucci. Yep, that'll do it.

Reply

Christians and sex are very good friends, how did we get here? The mature Christians hold sex in a higher regard then that is displayed on screen, so they choose not to take part in a film that has perverted what God designed to be pure, valued, and protected. You sex crazed film makers want to make a diffrence in the world, create something that feeds the soul, not poisons it.

Reply

Would you go see a good "erotic thriller," or do you feel that sort of thing should be kept out of theaters, no matter the quality?
I would go see a good erotic thriller, provided the movie was interesting AND that the director had not succumbed to the despiccable practice of self-censorship and covered up the nudity/sex.

And has your opinion changed since the crazy, sexy 1980s?
No. There is too much morality and religion in the movies today and too little decent sex and nudity. At least have the balls to show the real stuff instead of some souped-up, partially covered hollywood fantasy version of it. People have sex naked. In order to maintain the credibility of the story and the people, this should not be covered up, especially if trying to "protect the children".

What causes more damage ? The sight of a few naked bodies or the fact that someone considers not only their own, but other peoples' bodies to be unclean and not fit for display. My bet is on the latter.

Reply