Final Instinct

If a film could be rated just for ideas, then perhaps i would rate higher than a five. For me, the ratings are all about the overall entertainment value that watching a movie provides... and this film did provide some entertainment! It's definitely a thriller rather than a horror. And in some ways a very simplistic thriller at that. Every character has two dimensions, or sides to their personality. Angie is schizophrenic, there, simple, two sides to a personality. The man across the hall is possibly undecided about whether he wants Angie, or wants to get back with his ex. Another two sides! His ex and his twin brother (another two!) play one role in front of him, and another when with each other! Two's company to be sure! And the list goes on.

The possible calculations of all these two's, allow the movie to traverse its twists and turns without too much friction... it's a thriller, and we don't want to know "who done it?" till the end, right?? So we learn a little about Schizo-Angie's world, and very little it is at that, and then see her plunged into a carefully designed, even designer, nut-ball apartment of hell. And believe me, what goes on would be enough to send anyone schizo, let alone someone already suffering problems! The acting is passable... Stephen Railback does well playing both twin brothers, Ronny Cox plays the same character he always does... oooh, he can look mean when he wants to! And Sharon Stone has her usual moments of smouldering sexuality, determined beauty, and vulnerable perfection which make her performance and her 20-something virginal character acceptable! However, I did spot one rather interesting fish impression... I wonder if she's thought of developing that into a mermaid role or something!!

The complexity of the situation Angie finds herself in is what really makes the film. With thrillers, or horrors, we viewers do need to ask "just how will she get out of that!" And for this low key, low budget film, they certainly made sure we asked the question!

"And what was the point of the scissors?" you ask... well, scissors have points!!

The real masterpiece by Frank De Felitta is the excellent 1981 Telefilm 'DARK NIGHT OF THE SCARECROW' which next to the brilliant 1988 'SCARECROWS' is probably the 2nd best Killer Scarecrow movie of all time (you can see my review of that film here too if you wish)

But, back to this one... I'm glad he wrote and directed this movie, because in lesser hands it really would likely have been pretty lame. But, thanks to his engaging and creepy style, although somewhat flawed, it is a fun and entertaining film to some degree.

In my lowly and wretched opinion, I thought Sharon Stone's performance was not really that great. I was quite surprised since she went on to become so famous that her acting in this one was pretty weak. However, I thought everyone else did a great job with their roles, especially Railsback and of course the always great Ronny Cox.

As I do in all my reviews, I'm not going to waste your time going over the somewhat complicated plot, since just about every other reviewer almost always goes all through that. But, as I always try to do with my reviews is simply give you my opinion as to whether I felt the movie was well done and/or entertaining.

So, what carries this film the most I feel is the style and mood, a truly disjointed and Surreal tone which greatly adds to the atmosphere of this kind of Psychological Thriller. And, of course like I mentioned whatever directorial flourishes that Felitta brought to the story.

If you can tolerate Sharon Stone's rather overdone performance (yes, I Know she is supposed to be somewhat unbalanced, but I just didn't personally really buy her rendition of it) the actual story, the performances of the other excellent actors, and especially the offbeat, Surreal touches do give this movie a nice off kilter vibe which lends itself to being a moderately entertaining Psychological Thriller. I gave it a solid '6'

I personally think that with a little better writing and a lot better performance by Sharon Stone, this could easily have been a strong '7'...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My Particular Way of Rating:

5 - Flawed, but perhaps with a little entertainment value here and there for some.

6. A decently passable story maybe worth a watch.

7. A solid film, well made, effective, and entertaining.

And, obviously, you can probably figure out what above and below these would mean... : )

I first saw "Scissors" some ten years ago, and I had kept some memories of it when I saw it again on tv. It fulfilled my expectations, as I remembered it as rather interesting, though somewhat far-fetched.

Several reviewers have wondered about the necessity of showing Sharon Stone's beautiful bare breasts. I think it signifies that, though she reacts frigidly to men's advances, her sexuality is nevertheless present and no longer repressed when she is alone. Most writers rightly stress the excellency of the impersonation of Sharon Stone, on her (delayed)way to stardom. However I should like to point out that Steve Railsback, a very underrated actor, is quite remarkable too in the dual role of the neighboring twins. I think the film is worth a 8.

There are so many things that make no sense and plot points that are completely meaningless. The main supporting actor, Steve Railsback plays twins, but neither of those characters story arcs play a factor in the main storyline or the climax of the film. The acting is so over the top you'd think someone told Sharon Stone this was a comedy. Almost no situation put on screen in this film makes any logical sense. There's a bird in the film and you can see the string attached to its leg that the handler is using to control it. This is definitely a so bad it's good movie, but be warned the score may be the worst I've ever heard and it's bad in a bad way and the movie is at least 15 minutes too long, so even the "good" parts can drag and get tedious at times.

Before Sharon Stone hit big with Basic Instinct, she made Scissors - another thriller than gave her what was easily her best role at that time. In it, Stone plays a repressed 26 year old virgin who repairs broken dolls and sees a psychiatrist (Ronny Cox) who keeps trying to free her of her repressed childhood memories. Things take a bizarre turn when she's attacked in the elevator by a red headed man with a beard and she stabs him with a pair of scissors. He leaves, but not before taking her purse and keys. She begins living in fear that, one day, he'll return and finish the job.

Enter a kindly actor neighbor and his invalid creep of a brother who both take a liking to our heroine as her mental stability takes a turn. She's eventually called on to interview for a job at a fancy new loft and ends up locked in, further complicating her already fragile mental state.

There's a lot going on in Scissors and most of it doesn't need to be there. The entire subplot with the two brothers could have been dropped completely since the payoff isn't interesting enough to warrant its inclusion in the first place. Stone is good, especially when she finally starts losing her mind. The final twist is far fetched, but does make some sense in the grand scheme of things. It's just a shame that the movie spends so much time on characters and subplots that feel like they're from a different film entirely.