MovieChat Forums > Basic Instinct (1992) Discussion > Nick didn't realize that the evidence wa...

Nick didn't realize that the evidence was planted??

posted 2 years ago by Carlo (62)
25 replies | jump to latest

So I watched again Basic Instinct. The last time I watched it was a few years ago. The end of the movie really doesn't add up. Beth comes out of nowhere and Nick shoots her because he thinks that she may have a gun in her pocket. If we assume that this was a frame conceived by Catherine, it was really risky. Hadn't Nick shot Beth, she would have been alive and she could have been able to disprove the false evidence that had been planted against her in her own apartment. Of course, we must agree on this point. If you think that Beth was the killer, you probably think that the evidence was real and therefore you can't follow my point. Anyway, that's the real issue. How could that evidence be authentic? Nick himself had been many times in her apartment. How couldn't he notice all that stuff? It's ridiculous. I think that the frame against Beth is not really credible. The end of the movie should have been rewritten.

reply

[–] buzzlightbeer (1812) 2 years ago

Good point. I agree with you.

I thought the same thing recently, of how could katherine predict that nick would shoot beth. She couldnt have known this.

I agree this shouldve been thought out better.

Here is another thing i thought of....

Why did the Nielson give nicks psych file to katherine? Why would he do that? Nielson didnt seem like the crooked type who would do something unethical like that.

Also, why would Nielson even be talking to katherine anyway? For what purpose? Were they friends? Or did he sell the file to her? It doesnt make sense.

reply

[–] Carlo (62) 2 years ago

Well, consider this. Nilsen despised Curran. He considered him an unreliable cop who should have been removed from the force years ago because he had shot two people when he was high and drank. When he meets him at that bar, he mocks him calling him "shooter" and he reminds him the "incident" that costed the life of 2 people, if I recall correctly. Curran was saved with a crooked investigation, I guess, and Nilsen didn't swallow it. That's why he gave those files to Katherine. He wanted Curran out of the force. That's the best explaination that I can find considering the attitude of his character.

reply

[–] buzzlightbeer (1812) 2 years ago

You make great points!!! Thanks

Here is a new theory i came up with this week, from another thread.....

""""""Rewatched it today, and i caught something i never noticed before....

Nick went to talk to Beths ex husband in monterray. Found out he was dead. He asked how. Shot.

Then nick has a convo with the policeman washing the car. The policeman tells nick that richard garners investigation revealed a love triangle, that garner's wife (beth) had a girlfriend.

BINGO.

Beth lied, she wasnt just with catherine in college in passing. They were having an affair and catherine shot beths husband (either with beths consent or unbeknownst to her). Perhaps with, to get beth free for whatever reason, or insurance? Any reason.

Now its years later and beth gives Nicks file to catherine, as a favor because they are still freaking or for blackmail purposes, again whatever reason.....why doesnt matter. But she does give it to her. (At this point i will insert the detail that catherine had to have nicks file prior to the opening credits, before johnny boz was killed)

So there ya go. Beth gave it to her. And maybe beth did also show it to Nielsen, but that was unrelated to catherine getting hold of it.

Then when beth died and they found the gun in her apartment, that sealed everything up nice and neat. And I bet if the check, that same gun was used to kill beths husband. Im sure of it."""""

reply

[–] Carlo (62) 2 years ago

Thanks man, I just try to use my logic as best as I can :-D Ok, let's see now this theory, which is quite interesting.

"Then nick has a convo with the policeman washing the car. The policeman tells nick that richard garners investigation revealed a love triangle, that garner's wife (beth) had a girlfriend.

BINGO.

Beth lied, she wasnt just with catherine in college in passing. They were having an affair and catherine shot beths husband."

Didn't Beth admit to Nick the affair that she had had with Catherine? If I remember correctly, she said to him that she was "experimenting". Of course, this happened after Nick's conversation with the policeman. He founds out, she spills the beans. Anyway, Beth doesn't seem to be in good terms with Catherine. Apparenty, she broke every tie with her after college because she considered her dangerous and a possible murderer. Why would she give Nick's psycho files to her? I don't know. I'm not fully convinced. Nielsen seemed to have a real and concrete motive to give those files to Catherine. He despised the guy and he considered him unfit to stay in the force. One more thing: didn't Catherine kill Nilsen? That could be explained because she didn't want to know who was her source. She didn't want to know that Nilsen gave her the file and so she killed him.

reply

[–] buzzlightbeer (1812) a year ago

""Beth doesn't seem to be in good terms with Catherine. Apparenty, she broke every tie with her after college because she considered her dangerous and a possible murderer. Why would she give Nick's psycho files to her? I don't know. I'm not fully convinced. Nielsen seemed to have a real and concrete motive to give those files to Catherine. He despised the guy and he considered him unfit to stay in the force. One more thing: didn't Catherine kill Nilsen? That could be explained because she didn't want to know who was her source. She didn't want to know that Nilsen gave her the file and so she killed him. ""

I get your point. I do.

But there is one key thing which eliminates Nielsen as being the one who gave Catherine the files:

When Nick barged in Nielsen's office and grabbed his collar and said 'why did you give her my file?' Nielsen didn't know what the hell Nick was talking about. It was a genuine reaction, one of confusion. Yes I know some viewers will try to rationalize this away like Nielsen was posing or whatever, but in movie terms it is a solid rebuttal of the proposal that Nielsen gave her the file. This is the thing that always bugged me, for years, that was nagging at me in the back of my mind because it didn't add up.

Nielsen wasn't even aware of Catherine. His gripe was with Nick. His hatred was for Nick, stemming from an old beef.

Unless you want to try to say Nielsen was just denying it to Nicks face when he barged in. But in that case the filmmakers failed because they should have cut in a knowing facial expression on Nielsen's face to let the viewer know that he KNEW he had given the file but was denying it to fuck with Nick. By not doing this, we must take it that Nielsen truly was uninformed about anything to do with Catheriine. Again, his focus was on Nick.

""Curran was saved with a crooked investigation, I guess, and Nilsen didn't swallow it. That's why he gave those files to Katherine. He wanted Curran out of the force. That's the best explaination that I can find considering the attitude of his character.""

I get your point. But, this presupposes that Nielsen was in on the whole plan to Kill Johnny Boz. You have to remember that ALL OF THIS was planned in advance by Catherine, way before Boz's murder with the ice pick. So that would mean Nielsen gave the file to Catherine back before the murder, but for what reason? I get your angle here but it doesn't add up to me that Nielsen would have been in on the planning of the Boz killing, before the movie started.

We may never know these answers for sure. I wish Ezsterhas would answer these questions on a podcast or something lol

reply

[–] pjl69 (2425) 2 years ago

"Why did the Nielson give nicks psych file to katherine? Why would he do that? Nielson didnt seem like the crooked type who would do something unethical like that."

Its a Paul Verhoeven movie. He always has such assholes in his movies.

reply

[–] Carlo (62) 2 years ago

Actually, the real asshole is Curran, not Nielsen. Curran killed two innocent bystanders while he was high on cocaine. He should have been removed by the force and his ass was saved through some dirty trick. Maybe Nielsen was a bit annoying but he was right about saying that Curran should have been fired.

reply

[–] pjl69 (2425) 2 years ago

There's usually several assholes in Verhoeven's movies and the main character may well be one of them... that's one of the reasons why I like his movies.

reply

[–] Carlo (62) 2 years ago

Yes, especially in Basic Instinct. The only good guy seemed to be Gus and look how he ended up..

reply

[–] DavidM (333) 2 years ago

¿Do you think Catherine also sleeped with Nielsen to get the files?

reply

[–] Carlo (62) 2 years ago

Very possibile. She didn't seem to have any problem in sleeping with any guy to get what she wanted. So, if she thought that sleeping with Nielsen would help her in reaching her goal, Nick's files, certainly she might have done it.

reply

[–] DavidM (333) 2 years ago

Oh... ¿You think she also rode him like she did with Nick?

reply

[–] Carlo (62) 2 years ago

Pal, if you want to jerk off, watch a porn movie. Don't come in a chat to discuss movies.

reply

[–] DavidM (333) 2 years ago

Why you say that? I am really interested in the relationship between Catherine and Nielsen...

reply

[–] millsey72 (9527) 2 years ago

Lets just call it a plot hole and move on instead of coming up with our different theories

reply

[–] Carlo (62) 2 years ago

Well, I thought that this space was to discuss our different theories about things like this...not just to call them "plot holes" and move on..

reply

[–] millsey72 (9527) 2 years ago

Just trying to help. Its easier on the mind if we agree its a plot hole and move on. Why stress out and over think a scene?

reply

[–] Carlo (62) 2 years ago

No stress, at least for me. I like to discuss with other people the inconsistencies of a movie and hear their opinions about it. Thanks for your help anyway.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9527) a year ago

I only watch this movie for a few scenes. Who cares about the plot details

reply

[–] DavidM (333) a year ago

For the Hot ones, right?

reply

[–] Patman111196 (1224) 2 years ago

He DID realize it was planted. Look at the end of investigation and you see him holding a copy of the new book that Catherine based him on and not just doing nothing staring and remaining silent. He knew that Catherine was the killer and that she framed Beth. He chose to spend how little his life was left with Catherine, knowing she would eventually kill him.

reply

[–] chiefcaseyryback (678) 10 months ago

Wait, how did he know Catherine framed Beth?

reply

[–] Patman111196 (1224) 10 months ago

Because the new book he saw at Catherine's house and later first copy he had during the investigation of Beth described how Gus's death would play out in detail, and nobody else had read it because it hadn't been sold to the public yet. Because of that, he was the only one who knew that Catherine was really the killer at the end and that Beth was most likely framed by her, and he might have remembered how Beth said that something was wrong with her lock, which could have been done by Catherine.

reply

[–] chiefcaseyryback (678) 10 months ago

Interesting, I need to rewatch it for those details. If that was the case, why didn't he tell anyone or show them the book? And wouldn't she be exposed as the killer when the book was released if it incriminated her?

reply

[–] Patman111196 (1224) 10 months ago

It probably wouldn't be considered to be enough proof to have her charged. They would have to look into specifics such as the exact timeframe when the manuscript was being published and such. Also the case was pretty much already closed with Catherine having already having framed Beth in such a short time, so there was nothing Nick could really do.

reply