Sliver (Acosada)

Sharon was the absolute goddess back in the early 90s. She exuded the vibe of a blonde bombshell back in the 50s and 60s. Her every smile, every laugh touched the young soul of mine when I watched it as a kid. William Baldwin, however, couldn't act to save his life. The music was the highlight, eerie but atmospheric. However, the plot is a straight ripoff from Basic instinct, only 10 times thinner. The ending also made no sense at all. According to the backup ending, Zeke was supposed to be the bad guy and in the end, he flew a helicopter into a vocano with Carly after admitting he was the one behind it all. Makes sense since this and Basic instinct came from the same writer.

Sharon as Carly was absolutely beautiful though. The restaurant scene where she seduced Zeke was comparable to any scene in Basic Instinct. Strongly recommended for any Sharon fan.

I hate when people bash this film, for it has been and probably always will be my favorite movie of all time. A thoroughly constructed and mastered plot line, beautiful cinematography, a delicious soundtrack from hot 90s various artists such as Enigma, a sultry and subtle power score by Howard Shore and Christopher Young, and the greatest actress who ever lived: Sharon Stone. Sharon Stone is at her best as Carly Norris. William Baldwin is weak, but I guess passable. Tom Berenger is fantastically entertaining. Polly Walker is a joy. Martin Landau, in a small role, is a nice surprise. People for years have told me that this film is torrid and boring, weak and heavy handled, and so on and so on. I disagree. It's perfect, and I hardly think movies are perfect they can always have a little something more, or a little something less. When people say like most of you people on these message boards that the ending is no surprise or weak or arbitrary, you have NOT been watching closely.

What makes you think that Tom Berenger's character is the only murderer about?

I suggest you all look CLOSELY, very CLOSELY at the clues Phillip Noyce and Joe Ezsterhas have laid out for you. If you just take the ending for what it is, you're wrong and need to review the film to understand everything that's been going on, before your eyes and in the unseen. See, there are people in places who can know a very great deal if they choose, and also people who choose to make sure that no one knows a good deal about anything...

So I dare you, watch the film again and find a new ending all on your own.

"Sliver" was not nearly as bad as most reviewers have suggested, in my opinion. It may be true that Joe Eszterhas rehashes his basic formula one more time here - "Is the person with whom the hero/heroine gets sexually involved a murdered or an innocent victim, framed by someone else?" - but it's a formula that works, that grabs your attention instinctively. The plot is flimsy, yet inherently interesting. Maybe this thriller would've been tighter if the gratuitously protracted (and not very erotic) sex scenes had been trimmed down in length, but Baldwin is magnetic in his role and Sharon Stone, great to look at as always, also gives a decent performance; they both overshadow Tom Berenger who doesn't make even the slightest impression. (**)

Apartment complex in New York City is beset with strange deaths and cameras everywhere; new tenant Sharon Stone is dating the mysterious owner, but could he be the killer? Based on a flimsy novel by Ira Levin (who was slumming, but that's a different story), this unappealing film wants to be both sexy crime-thriller and murder-mystery, but it is such a mess from a writer's standpoint that, in the end, all you have left are the performances, which aren't dynamic enough to carry the load. Sharon Stone is low-keyed, perhaps a bit self-conscious, yet this works for her tentative character. Too bad the filmmakers were so concerned with exposing the killer that they lost track of this woman and her plight. Drop all the mystery, and you might have a decent character study. *1/2 from ****

I waited 18 years to see this movie because I had always heard how terrible it is. When it first came out, I seem to recall thinking it highly implausible that someone could have the kind of video and audio equipment you see in this movie. But the equipment and its use in the film is entirely plausible, even in 1993.

I found no problems with the plot. It's an interesting thriller with something that's hard to find--a unique story that hasn't been told a thousand times already. The acting is good. The characters and their actions are completely believable. I was never left thinking that a real person might not have done the things that the people in the movie did.

Having seen the movie, I really don't understand why so many people criticize it so harshly. In terms of telling a compelling, entertaining story, I would say it is far better than movies like Hereafter and on par with a movie like the Adjustment Bureau (just two recent movies I could think to compare it to).

If you haven't seen it, give it a chance.