Scissors

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.

During the opening credits, creepy music plays. It sounds like a giant music box with an orchestra, giving the impression of a children's story, but with an evil twist.

Angie buys the scissors, a style used to cut fabric (but which can also be used for more sinister purposes). Then she visits Mr. Kramer's thrift shop to buy a doll that needs repairing. She doesn't make a living fixing up dolls, because she needs to get jobs through a temporary agency as well, and she says dolls are only a hobby. Quite a hobby--there are so many in her bedroom it looks eerie, and she says she doesn't have room to sleep there. It is never explained how she can afford an apartment in a nice building, though rich parents are mentioned--by someone who doubts they are real.

When she gets back to her building, Angie is greeted by the security guard. A lot of good he does: Angie gets on the elevator and is nearly raped. She stabs the attacker with her scissors, but he leaves with them--and her purse, which has her apartment keys.

Angie goes to her neighbors, who she has never really gotten to know. Alex Morgan is a soap opera actor and really nice. His identical twin brother Cole is a portrait artist and confined to a wheelchair. He seems weird, and so are his paintings, which border on pornography. At one point, Cole confesses that Angie leaves her blinds open.

Throughout the movie, Angie is having difficulty coping with her recent attack. She is already in therapy. Again, someone like her should not be able to afford this. Dr. Carter can do hypnosis and seems like he would be very expensive. Yet Angie sees him a lot and makes very little progress. She is frustrated that he believes she makes up a lot of things.

One day Angie gets a job interview in a building that is mostly under construction. A sign in the elevator directs her to the top floor apartment apparently belonging to the developer. Angie goes in and finds herself trapped inside with no way to communicate (she can't even be heard yelling through the windows, and the two dog walkers who can see her ignore her). That's not all. There's a dead man with what appears to be her scissors in his back, a creepy talking doll, and a bird who keeps saying, "You killed him!" Sharon Stone shows what she is capable of. Angie shows a wide range of emotions, though someone like her wouldn't be expected to experience pure joy or excitement. Not that she couldn't have, but the writers chose to make her mostly troubled.

Steve Railsback does a very good job as well. I didn't realize the brothers were twins, because to me they didn't even look alike. For one thing, Alex wears glasses. But it is Cole that really shows Railsback's talent.

Ronny Cox also does very well as the therapist. And you have to like the folksy Mr. Kramer, who is only in a couple of scenes. And Midnight, Angie's cat, is so sweet and playful!

This isn't really my kind of movie. But it has an interesting mystery and a very strange ending. It's not too violent but almost always slightly on the eerie side. At least the weird music gets replaced with pleasant music in the romantic scenes. I won't say who, but there are several couples and one slightly naughty bedroom scene. Having seen this on broadcast TV, I don't really know how explicit the movie gets.

It's a good thriller for those who like that sort of thing.

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.

This film was made in 1991, and it is sort of odd. Sharon Stone however, looks great (she is more understated, young and fresh). Steve Railsback ("Helter Skelter", and the more recent "Ed Gein") is strange and menacing.

The film itself has some odd cinematography and sets, including the apartment where Stone is abducted. Sort of a cold, Los Angeles modern look to it. It was marketed as suspense/horror. Probably more suspense/mystery.

Ronny Cox as Stone's psychotherapist and Michelle Phillips as his politician wife, so there is a message somewhere lost in the script. It is not the worst, and Stone looks beautiful, so it's worth a shot. 6/10

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... : )