Sliver

35-year-old book editor Carly Norris, who was married for 7 years but is now having trouble starting a new relationship, wants to move into the posh high-rise Sliver Building on New York's East Side. She is surprised by how quickly her application is approved, but college professor Gus, who also lives in the building, says Carly looks just like the previous resident of 20-B. A number of the building's residents seem friendly, especially Zeke.

Someone is able to see what is going on in the apartments, and this person even has videotapes of some of the action. In addition to whoever this person is, Carly is also spying on people after someone gave her a telescope. Specifically, the couple having sex in a nearby building.

Carly's boss Alex won't give her a raise. He does take her to lunch, where they meet Jack Lansford, author of 'Flesh and Blood', which Carly has never read.

Strange things start happening in the Sliver building. And Carly knows something happened to the woman who had her apartment. The movie has a chilling quality that increases as time passes.

I thought Sharon Stone did a good job here, but her best moment was a funny scene where Carly's date wants to see her panties. And Carly did have a surprising reaction to ... well, I won't give it away. Stone was quite good in the scene, though.

There was plenty of good acting, but I think CCH Pounder stood out as one of the detectives.

Overall, I was happy with the movie. It was a little violent, which is to be expected, but just tense enough to be interesting.

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. (**)

Stylistically this is one of the best films from the early-mid nineties. But style isn't substance. The script was less than perfect going into production, and several endings were filmed for lack of a clear resolution. But don't let that stop you from seeing this film. Stone and director Noyce polish a bad script into a fine music video. It's like watching VH1 merge with the Playboy channel. A fine soundtrack with an even better [unreleased] score from Howard Shore play well against the dramatic, color-rich backdrops and voyeuristic black and white camera shots. It's very easy on the eyes, and perfect for a $14 dvd (if they ever release it).

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.