IMDb user comments for
Sliver (1993) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 7:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Index

61 comments in total

---

17 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
At least it keeps you guessing...., 3 March 2001

Author: gridoon

"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. (**)

---

20 out of 26 people found the following comment useful :-
Going against the consensus, but I like this film!, 21 January 1999

Author: Mark Seaman from Yorkshire

Whether it's Sharon Stone, or the obvious truth about my voyeuristic tendencies, I like this movie. Sharon has seldom been more alluring and Baldwin's character, with his eerily magnificent toys, lives his life observing others. A movie for the CNN generation I'd contend.

---

14 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Sharon Stone is convincingly vulnerable in otherwise silly film, 13 September 2003

Author: moonspinner55 from redlands, ca

A New York City apartment complex 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 thing. 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 ****

---

9 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Lousy Plot, Not Quite Porn, 18 September 2006

Author: Cammy-3 from Maryland, USA

Finally saw the uncut version of this on a premium channel. First, the movie was based on a novel by Ira Levin, who wrote "Rosemary's Baby" years ago, about a bunch of weird witches in a kinky New York apartment building and several unexpected deaths in the building. This is about a bunch of perverts in a kinky New York apartment building and several unexpected deaths in the building. So there's an odd feeling of familiarity.

Next, the script, by Joe Ezterhaus, is "Basic Instinct" meets "Jagged Edge." The film starts out like a classic woman in peril film, except the woman is Sharon Stone and the camera lingers on her obsessively. It's soft porn in some shots and hard core in the shower scenes where we get to imagine her masturbating. The scenes with her in them just go on and on. (Yes, she is/was beautiful, but a fabulous face can't carry this sorry mess.)Its a mish-mash of a bad plot, bad dialogue, uneven acting and we've seen it all before. Twice. Nothing new is added to the film to make it interesting except the concept of voyeurism and it's not enough.

---

15 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
Corny Basic Instinct-clone without brains, subtlety or class, 4 August 2003
Author: SteveThomp from Victoria, Australia

Sliver is the movie you'd expect a high-school media student to make if you thrust a camera into his hands and commanded 'make me another Basic Instinct'. It's all sex before plot, cinematography before composition, style before substance. It's Basic Instinct without the intrigue, tension, psychological subtext or Hitchcockian twist (which, to be fair, really just leaves the sex). Sharon Stone revisits the role of blonde centrepiece, although this time she's the slightly-reluctant and unknowning victim rather than the carnivorous bi-nympho of BI. Sadly, this does not work in the least, and it shows one of the key distinctions between a good actress - as Stone is - and great actresses like Jodie Foster: the ability to recognise and choose a role. Stone obviously thought this was another sex-and-death ride to box-office success, and it was little more than a stinker.

That is not to say that Sliver doesn't occasionally grab your attention, however it does so in a base, superficial way. The sex scenes are numerous, stylistic, moderately explicit and, to be fair, not as unrealistic as your usual cinematic couplings. Stone's character Carly is more sexually repressed than Catherine Tramell in Basic Instinct, but that doesn't stop her from masturbating in the bath or being readily seduced by Baldwin's Zeke. Lurking on the fringes is Tom Berenger's character Jack, who's neither fully explained or explored and just provides a counterpoint for the interplay between Stone and Baldwin. The major theme here is voyerism - Baldwin apparently has all the Sliver apartments wired for vision so he can spy on the lives of the residents, whether mundane singles, drug-takers or child-molesting fathers. Baldwin's fascination is not lewd, sexual or perverse, he just seems to revel in the power of information, of *knowing* who people are and what they do behind closed doors (perhaps Noyce and Esterhaz are taking a back-handed swipe at the audience themselves).

All this is lovely, but it doesn't change one thing - Sliver ultimately becomes boring and tame. The interest in the sex peters out midway through the movie, the TV wall-screens and Zeke's hi-tech gadgetry are all interesting but not enough to sustain the movie. We're given snippets of the lives of others in the building, but not enough to fatten the narrative, while the main characters themselves are neither interesting, likeable or 'deep' enough to hold our interest. And the script also sucks, feeling as though creative muscles were strained in order to compensate for an anemic plot. Sliver is a ham-fisted Basic Instinct clone that is more mirrors than Machievelli and should be avoided unless you want to see Sharon Stone naked.

---

9 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Disappointing, 27 December 2005

Author: Mattias Petersson from Stockholm, Sweden

"Sliver" feels like one of those movies, not uncommon in the early to mid 90's, where the film-makers tried to add as much sexual-tension as they possibly could. Of course much of this is because of the success of "Basic Instinct".

The main problem with this approach is that i feel it warrants a sure hand. Otherwise you'll end up with a movie that lacks drive and in worst case just becomes silly. Unfortunately "Sliver" both lacks drive AND becomes silly. While i feel that "Basic Instinct" is a good thriller i don't know if trying to copy it is such a good idea. "Basic Instinct" worked mainly because of the chemistry between Sharon Stone and Michael Douglas in the two leads. Paul Verhoevens directing was mostly intent on creating appropriate moods and settings for their encounters. Here on the other hand we have a (seemingly much less dedicated) Sharon Stone having no chemistry whatsoever with William Baldwin. The fact that Baldwin is not even close to Michael Douglas acting-wise doesn't help either. But the failed "sexy" approach is not the only thing wrong with this movie. There is also the insanely crappy story of murders happening in a house full of cameras, and still no-one knows who the killer is.

In the end "Sliver" fails where "Basic Instinct" succeeds. The era of "sexy thrillers" has passed now fortunately, and this is one of it's biggest disappointments (considering actors, budget and ambition). I rate this 3/10.

---

5 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Sex is so deliciously naughty, don't you know?, 19 February 2003

Author: Spacelamb from Australia

Edited by a food processor, Sliver is one of the dreariest thrillers ever. People talk about how racy Joe Eszterhas is, but why? Consenting adults having sex? Oooh, how shocking! Sharon Stone getting busy while relaxing in the tub? Gee, I'll bet no woman has ever done that before (at least not with both hands gripping the sides of the bath, no wonder Sharon seems to be concentrating so hard). Painting sexual curiosity as unspeakable depravity and then showing a Baldwin butt-naked with a flourish is a silly way to try and shock an audience, unless you intend your audience to be made up of elderly nuns. Eszterhas and Noyce don't bother with suspense or logic, they just present T&A as though it's the CGI in Jurassic Park, i.e. something new and awe-inspiring. If you've never had sex before, or you've got a thing for Sharon or Billy, then Sliver might be an exiting experience. Otherwise, avoid.

---

8 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Shallow pulpy romance/suspense/mystery, 3 November 2006

Author: mstomaso from Vulcan

Decent acting doesn't salvage this poorly scripted, over-sexed, story of a 30-something woman (Stone) who seems to make all of the worse possible choices in places to live and boyfriends. "Sliver" is the beautiful but apparently haunted (or at least dangerous) apartment building she moves into on the rebound from a lengthy failed relationship. Vulnerable, Stone is almost immediately courted by her new neighbors - Berenger and Baldwin. Inexplicably, she doesn't even consider moving when she learns that several unresolved murders, suicides or accidental deaths have occurred in the building, including the former occupant of her own room who looked just like her. Both of her suitors are creepy and seem about as trustworthy as politicians, and it appears likely that at least one of them has committed some terrible crimes.

This film must have made a better grade b mystery/suspense novel than a movie. Not having read the book, I can only guess based on my experience with the pulp mystery genre that the film follows its plot closely. All of the main characters seem to be either sex addicts, perverts or impotent men, and this provides an opening for too many boring and unnecessary sex scenes. I suppose these were meant to fill in the gaps left by the vacuous plot and the uninspired script.

In terms of mystery, Sliver's central plot succeeds, as it does (somewhat but not completely) keep you guessing right up to the end. However, the plot would have made a much better 30 minute or hour-long episode of a TV detective show (minus the sex). Sliver is overloaded with baggage and filler - too many sex scenes, a little too much character development (especially considering how shallow, irrational and absurd most of the characters are) and not enough psychological realism.

Overall, I found the film slightly entertaining, but a little difficult to get all the way through.

---

8 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Had potential, 27 January 2006

Author: Bjorn (jbjorns) from Iceland

Stone moves into an apartment building, has weird neighbors, spooky things start happening left and right, "perv" Baldwin watches her through surveillance cameras etc.

Sliver had potential. While it's not a total time waster it is very disappointing. Director Noyce doesn't seem to know exactly what kind of film he's making here, always promising something that never comes. Rumour has it that the film was drastically cut and re shot and the end result here is not satisfying, though I don't know what was originally planned, but it must have been better. It has it's moments, certain scenes work very well and suspense is easily built but not sustained. As said, the ending is ridiculous and really hurts the film.

Stone is simply a goddess and delivers a good performance but William Baldwin is utterly intolerable, why this man was given leading roles in big budget Hollywood films I will never know. The always reliable Tom Berenger isn't given much to do and his role is a rather thankless one, underwritten and somewhat degrading. Sadly his career went downhill from here on.

---

14 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
Ugh, 13 July 2000

Author: deejay_bill from Tennessee

Bad, bad, bad movie, carried only by the alleged star-power of Sharon Stone and featuring another Baldwin reject and about as much eroticism as an obscene phone call. The film also boasts one of the worst endings ever committed to celluloid. Avoid at all costs.

---

---

Page 1 of 7:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history