"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. (**)
96 Reviews
Going against the consensus, but I like this film!
seamanm21 January 1999
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.
Slick erotic thriller, but no "Basic Instinct"
gridoon20247 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Joe Eszterhas' erotic thrillers are like cinematic junk food: not nutritious, but tasty. "Sliver" plays almost like a gender-reversed "Basic Instinct", but lightning doesn't strike twice: the sex scenes are unremarkable (except maybe for the fact that you see more nudity from William Baldwin than from Sharon Stone in them), and there is nowhere near the same tension (or action). On the other hand, Eszterhas' subplot about the ethics of voyeurism and about "real life" as the ultimate soap opera was prophetic in the pre-"Big Brother" era. Baldwin's poor acting is a detriment, but Stone is very good in a role far removed from Catherine Tremell; nice, funny little turn by Colleen Camp as her colleague. **1/2 out of 4.
A surprisingly good movie...
sdiegotw1 September 2011
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.
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.
Had potential
ODDBear27 January 2006
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.
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.
Sharon Stone is convincingly vulnerable in otherwise silly film
moonspinner5513 September 2003
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 ****
Shallow pulpy romance/suspense/mystery
mstomaso3 November 2006
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.
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.
Good film except the ending
jonsid5730 January 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed Sliver. Sharon Stone was great as book editor Carly Norris who moves into an apartment building where a lady was thrown off the balcony . There she meets the owner and voyeur Zeke played by William Baldwin and author Jack played by Tom Berenger . A couple more murders occur . The film has some good scenes and does hold you . The film does look at the issue of voyeurism . I read the book Sliver and the ending made a lot more sense than the film ending . The films ending was reshot apparently due to test audiences disliking it and the ending contains a different killer than was originally planned .
Man, the 90's...
BandSAboutMovies13 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Remember Joe Eszterhas? The writer who pretty much owned the theaters in the late 80's and early 90's with films like Flashdance, Basic Instinct, Jade and Showgirls? In addition to Sliver, at least two of the films above - Basic Instinct and Jade - could qualify as giallo-style films. When reviewed through the lens of 2018, his films seem puerile at worst and silly at best, gradually becoming goofier the sexier they claim to be.
Directed by Phillip Noyce (Dead Calm, The Saint), based on a novel by Ira Levin (Rosemary's Baby, No Time for Sergeants, Deathtrap, The Stepford Wives, The Boys from Brazil...man, did Ira have his finger on the pulse of pop culture or what?) and produced by Robert Evans (Ever wonder who owns the IOU on my writing style? Wonder no longer, baby. Also, watch The Kid Stays in the Picture to learn how the producer of The Godfather and Rosemary's Baby was often more interesting than the stars of his films), Sliver was originally rated NC 17 due to its sex scenes and some male frontal nudity. Also, there was an original ending - we'll get to it in a bit - that audiences hated.
Carly Norris (Sharon Stone, Basic Instinct) is a book editor that never seems to go to her job. While she is there, she spends most of her time gossiping and bemoaning the fact that she never gets to have sex, despite being oh so fashionable and, you know, looking like Sharon Stone in 1993.
Somehow, she gets to immediately move into the best New York apartment ever, as the previous tenant (Naomi Singer, who looks exactly like Carly, which is a giallo staple if I've ever heard of one) has recently fallen to her death from her balcony.
Everyone in the building wants to get to know her, no one more than Zeke (William Baldwin, Flatliners). Within, oh let's say a day or two, they're having sex all over the place and talking about flying a plane into a volcano. He says that he designs "computer video games" and she's just happy to have a younger man interested in her, despite the fact that she has a six-figure clothing budget (giallo fashion alert) and, you know, looks like Sharon Stone in 1993.
Carly also has another suitor, a writer named Jack (Tom Berenger, Major League) who is the most sexist character in the film, but certainly not in Eszterhaus' oeuvre. As more neighbors begin to die, she begins to distrust both Zeke and Jack.
Oh yeah - there's also Vida Warren, who is a model, but also a hooker, and also has the worst cocaine snorting scene in the history of film, treating it as a child would Pixie Stix.
At the close of the film, we learn that Jack killed Naomi, the original tenant because he was jealous of Zeke, who actually designed and owns the building. Zeke knew Jack killed her because of his network of security cameras, but he didn't want his secret getting out.
Zeke invites Naomi to enjoy the cameras, but she eventually destroys his control room, telling him to get a life before she leaves both him and her home.
Joe Eszterhas's original ending - where Zeke turns out to be the killer, revealed to a sympathetic Naomi as they fly over and perhaps into a volcano - was "incomprehensible to test audiences," which led to Eszterhas writing five different endings. The re-shot ending, where actors Tom Berenger and Polly Walker wear S&M fashions, had to be filmed with body doubles as the actors did not agree to this in their contracts. Eszterhas hates the film, particularly the new ending and final line.
The sex scenes were a big deal when this came out. During the filming of them, Sharon Stone bit William Baldwin's tongue "with such force that he couldn't talk properly for days afterwards." This may be why neither actor would speak to one another by the end of the filming. What remains on the screen is coupling that is at best robotic and at worse, ridiculous. It's still not the worst sex scenes in an Eszterhaus film.
Sliver is filled with that trademark Eszterhaus wit. Witness dialogue like Carly saying, "You've been spending too much time with your vibrator." Her friend's reply? "I certainly have - I've been getting a plastic yeast infection!" By wit, I mean copious amounts of the kind of sex talk that CEO's that have been removed thanks to modern thinking and the #MeToo movement would find humorous or normal.
Oh yeah! Martin Landau is in this and utterly wasted! There's no reason for him to even be in this movie! He does absolutely nothing other than make you look at the screen and say, "Martin Landau is in this."
The giallo themes that the film starts with - Carly being a dead ringer for a murdered woman, high fashion, the promise of kink - pretty much go nowhere. The film was a commercial, if not an artistic success. But it seems like there was so much promise that goes undelivered and the film begs for an Argento or even DePalma touch. Even a late in the movie knife murder reminds you that this film could be all masked faces and black leather gloves, but never goes all in.
Directed by Phillip Noyce (Dead Calm, The Saint), based on a novel by Ira Levin (Rosemary's Baby, No Time for Sergeants, Deathtrap, The Stepford Wives, The Boys from Brazil...man, did Ira have his finger on the pulse of pop culture or what?) and produced by Robert Evans (Ever wonder who owns the IOU on my writing style? Wonder no longer, baby. Also, watch The Kid Stays in the Picture to learn how the producer of The Godfather and Rosemary's Baby was often more interesting than the stars of his films), Sliver was originally rated NC 17 due to its sex scenes and some male frontal nudity. Also, there was an original ending - we'll get to it in a bit - that audiences hated.
Carly Norris (Sharon Stone, Basic Instinct) is a book editor that never seems to go to her job. While she is there, she spends most of her time gossiping and bemoaning the fact that she never gets to have sex, despite being oh so fashionable and, you know, looking like Sharon Stone in 1993.
Somehow, she gets to immediately move into the best New York apartment ever, as the previous tenant (Naomi Singer, who looks exactly like Carly, which is a giallo staple if I've ever heard of one) has recently fallen to her death from her balcony.
Everyone in the building wants to get to know her, no one more than Zeke (William Baldwin, Flatliners). Within, oh let's say a day or two, they're having sex all over the place and talking about flying a plane into a volcano. He says that he designs "computer video games" and she's just happy to have a younger man interested in her, despite the fact that she has a six-figure clothing budget (giallo fashion alert) and, you know, looks like Sharon Stone in 1993.
Carly also has another suitor, a writer named Jack (Tom Berenger, Major League) who is the most sexist character in the film, but certainly not in Eszterhaus' oeuvre. As more neighbors begin to die, she begins to distrust both Zeke and Jack.
Oh yeah - there's also Vida Warren, who is a model, but also a hooker, and also has the worst cocaine snorting scene in the history of film, treating it as a child would Pixie Stix.
At the close of the film, we learn that Jack killed Naomi, the original tenant because he was jealous of Zeke, who actually designed and owns the building. Zeke knew Jack killed her because of his network of security cameras, but he didn't want his secret getting out.
Zeke invites Naomi to enjoy the cameras, but she eventually destroys his control room, telling him to get a life before she leaves both him and her home.
Joe Eszterhas's original ending - where Zeke turns out to be the killer, revealed to a sympathetic Naomi as they fly over and perhaps into a volcano - was "incomprehensible to test audiences," which led to Eszterhas writing five different endings. The re-shot ending, where actors Tom Berenger and Polly Walker wear S&M fashions, had to be filmed with body doubles as the actors did not agree to this in their contracts. Eszterhas hates the film, particularly the new ending and final line.
The sex scenes were a big deal when this came out. During the filming of them, Sharon Stone bit William Baldwin's tongue "with such force that he couldn't talk properly for days afterwards." This may be why neither actor would speak to one another by the end of the filming. What remains on the screen is coupling that is at best robotic and at worse, ridiculous. It's still not the worst sex scenes in an Eszterhaus film.
Sliver is filled with that trademark Eszterhaus wit. Witness dialogue like Carly saying, "You've been spending too much time with your vibrator." Her friend's reply? "I certainly have - I've been getting a plastic yeast infection!" By wit, I mean copious amounts of the kind of sex talk that CEO's that have been removed thanks to modern thinking and the #MeToo movement would find humorous or normal.
Oh yeah! Martin Landau is in this and utterly wasted! There's no reason for him to even be in this movie! He does absolutely nothing other than make you look at the screen and say, "Martin Landau is in this."
The giallo themes that the film starts with - Carly being a dead ringer for a murdered woman, high fashion, the promise of kink - pretty much go nowhere. The film was a commercial, if not an artistic success. But it seems like there was so much promise that goes undelivered and the film begs for an Argento or even DePalma touch. Even a late in the movie knife murder reminds you that this film could be all masked faces and black leather gloves, but never goes all in.
What About The Panties?
refinedsugar10 September 2023
'Sliver' takes a mish-mash of different ingredients and combines them in pursuit of being a highly charged piece of entertainment from the Hollywood movie making machine. One part romance. Two parts torrid sexuality. One part murder mystery whodunit. One part soapbox commentary on surveillance & technology. It shouldn't work. It should collapse under all it's weight, but it doesn't. It's a fun trip.
Sharon Stone plays Carly Norris. A newly divorced book editor who lands an upscale apartment in a trendy building in NYC after it's previous female tenant is murdered. She may not being looking for another relationship so soon, but certainly misses physical intimacy. She doesn't have to look any further than eager building residents Jack Landsford (Tom Berenger) an accomplished published writer and the mysterious Zeke Hawkins (William Baldwin) to accomplish that. Of course tenants are dropping like flies in this building and if she wants to stay alive, she better get to the bottom of things and pick the right guy, eh.
Written by Joe Eszterhas (Jagged Edge, Basic Instinct) and directed by Phillip Noyce (Clear and Present Danger), I had a pretty fun time watching 'Sliver' in spite of myself and the material on hand. Stone can do this role in her sleep. Smart, disarming sexuality. Baldwin is weirdly charming while Tom Berenger is always a treat to watch unravel. You can also catch Martin Landau as Stone's boss and CCH Pounder as a police detective.
'Sliver' features laughs (intentional or not), sex acts and an abrupt ending that doesn't leave any ambiguity. Spelling everything out for you in a satisfying manner leaving it being an effective one time watch. There isn't much of depth to really take away - other than most of the characters featured are damaged - but I had a good voyeuristic time watching the sometimes smart, sometimes trashy material play itself out.
Sharon Stone plays Carly Norris. A newly divorced book editor who lands an upscale apartment in a trendy building in NYC after it's previous female tenant is murdered. She may not being looking for another relationship so soon, but certainly misses physical intimacy. She doesn't have to look any further than eager building residents Jack Landsford (Tom Berenger) an accomplished published writer and the mysterious Zeke Hawkins (William Baldwin) to accomplish that. Of course tenants are dropping like flies in this building and if she wants to stay alive, she better get to the bottom of things and pick the right guy, eh.
Written by Joe Eszterhas (Jagged Edge, Basic Instinct) and directed by Phillip Noyce (Clear and Present Danger), I had a pretty fun time watching 'Sliver' in spite of myself and the material on hand. Stone can do this role in her sleep. Smart, disarming sexuality. Baldwin is weirdly charming while Tom Berenger is always a treat to watch unravel. You can also catch Martin Landau as Stone's boss and CCH Pounder as a police detective.
'Sliver' features laughs (intentional or not), sex acts and an abrupt ending that doesn't leave any ambiguity. Spelling everything out for you in a satisfying manner leaving it being an effective one time watch. There isn't much of depth to really take away - other than most of the characters featured are damaged - but I had a good voyeuristic time watching the sometimes smart, sometimes trashy material play itself out.
Lousy Plot, Not Quite Porn
Cammy-318 September 2006
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.
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.
A sexy thriller in more ways the one
boyinflares7 July 2006
Out of 1993 comes "Sliver" the sexy top-notch thriller that is very well done, but slightly misses the mark towards the end. Sharon Stone's character Carly Norris is a respected book editor with pretty much no social life, until she moves to a new apartment building called Sliver Heights, where she meets William Baldwin's character Zeke Hawkins and the two form a very passionate relationship. Of course being a thriller, something isn't quite right, and so Carly searches to find out what is going on.
Stone and Baldwin are both excellent in their leading roles. She's attractive, he's handsome and both are charismatic. There's some steamy scenes between the two of them, Stone's character is one that you can really care for. The supporting characters in "Sliver" actually do what supporting characters are supposed to - support. Tom Berenger's character the dodgy Jack Lansford is the "is he or isn't he" red-hearing, and is played well. Polly Walker plays the vampy Vid Warren, Carly's apartment neighbor, and is a good parallel to the reserved Carly. Colleen Camp is Judy Marks, Carly's incorrigible assistant and she is terrific. Finally, CCH Pounder plays the detective, Lt. Victoria Hendrix, though she is rather under-used here, this not being one of her best performances, probably because of the fact that she is under-used.
"Sliver" provokes some interesting topics of conversation for your next cocktail party, namely the notions of privacy and what would you do if you had the power to watch almost whoever you wanted, as Baldwin's character did. With the increasing notion of "Big Brother is watching you" in today's society, "Sliver" seems even more relevant to our lives. "Sliver" is presented in a glossy manner with a cool soundtrack and is relatively fast-paced. However, while the ending is effective, more could have been done to raise the notions of privacy that I previously talked about. Other than that, "Sliver" is a very sexy thriller.
Stone and Baldwin are both excellent in their leading roles. She's attractive, he's handsome and both are charismatic. There's some steamy scenes between the two of them, Stone's character is one that you can really care for. The supporting characters in "Sliver" actually do what supporting characters are supposed to - support. Tom Berenger's character the dodgy Jack Lansford is the "is he or isn't he" red-hearing, and is played well. Polly Walker plays the vampy Vid Warren, Carly's apartment neighbor, and is a good parallel to the reserved Carly. Colleen Camp is Judy Marks, Carly's incorrigible assistant and she is terrific. Finally, CCH Pounder plays the detective, Lt. Victoria Hendrix, though she is rather under-used here, this not being one of her best performances, probably because of the fact that she is under-used.
"Sliver" provokes some interesting topics of conversation for your next cocktail party, namely the notions of privacy and what would you do if you had the power to watch almost whoever you wanted, as Baldwin's character did. With the increasing notion of "Big Brother is watching you" in today's society, "Sliver" seems even more relevant to our lives. "Sliver" is presented in a glossy manner with a cool soundtrack and is relatively fast-paced. However, while the ending is effective, more could have been done to raise the notions of privacy that I previously talked about. Other than that, "Sliver" is a very sexy thriller.
Eh, not bad
Horror_Junkie_6079 January 2022
Ugh
deejay_bill13 July 2000
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.
Disappointing
Antagonisten27 December 2005
"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.
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.
Awful, boring, and plotless
theeht27 September 2000
Justifiably reviewed as one of the worst films ever made, this film of Ira Levin's book has a plot that is nearly non-existent. The usuably superb Stone and Berenger can't even do much to upgrade this lemon. A would be mystery, the only mysterious element here is how the scriptwriters expect us to believe that Sharon would prefer the goofy looking Baldwin over the handsome Berenger.
Uneven psychological sex-thriller
BroadswordCallinDannyBoy15 June 2007
Carly Norris has just moved into a fancy high-rise Manhattan apartment building, a sliver. After having her application accepted very quickly she soon finds out that the previous tenant in her apartment was not only killed, but Carly looks just like her. Signs point to the fact that the killer is someone Carly knows from the building...
The plot tries to tackle some pretty deep psychology by probing into human nature's curiosity and compulsiveness, but only manages to scratch the surface, if that. The film also spends too much time developing as a "who's the killer?" movie to tackle any deeper subject matter. The list of suspects is also surprising limited so any who has seen a few films in the genre will narrow the "mystery" here to only a few key shreds of evidence, though the actual ending might still not be totally expected, it won't be satisfyingly clever either. The film's misguided development brings about some serious questions since there are pretty big changes in character, yet very little happens to actually merit them. In a brief, but interesting scene, Carly is dared to take of her panties in a fancy restaurant as part of a "game." Pretty risky game that would require a good amount of nerves and build-up, yet this is the first (and only) "game" they ever play. These things go on and what is left is an uneven psychological sex-thriller that even manages to deliver only mediocre sex scenes. --- 4/10
Rated R for sexual content and some violence
The plot tries to tackle some pretty deep psychology by probing into human nature's curiosity and compulsiveness, but only manages to scratch the surface, if that. The film also spends too much time developing as a "who's the killer?" movie to tackle any deeper subject matter. The list of suspects is also surprising limited so any who has seen a few films in the genre will narrow the "mystery" here to only a few key shreds of evidence, though the actual ending might still not be totally expected, it won't be satisfyingly clever either. The film's misguided development brings about some serious questions since there are pretty big changes in character, yet very little happens to actually merit them. In a brief, but interesting scene, Carly is dared to take of her panties in a fancy restaurant as part of a "game." Pretty risky game that would require a good amount of nerves and build-up, yet this is the first (and only) "game" they ever play. These things go on and what is left is an uneven psychological sex-thriller that even manages to deliver only mediocre sex scenes. --- 4/10
Rated R for sexual content and some violence
Sharon was smoking hot in her prime in 1993
tianqiluogz24 March 2024
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.
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.
Not as interesting as basic instinct but Sharon is hot.
danch22456710 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This sexy thriller wasn't as interesting or well made as Basic instinct and is also some what silly that it has some funny moments though that being said I didn't find it terrible and Sharon Stone looks damn sexy in this at 35 years as a vulnerable woman moving to an apartment where a lady who looked like her was recently pushed from the window. We the audience are given 2 suspects who we believe may have been responsible for the fall Tom Berenger a kinda intense writer and William Baldwin a perverted horny landlord of the apartment who watches his tenants on television films. The film does manage some suspense and I thought the sex scenes were pretty good and probably not as explicit as some would expect so its not bad to watch at night time for a thriller film with erotics.
Still a 90s gem
jomayevans10 February 2023
Recently rewatcjed4foe fist time in decades and even though I knew the plot ( so no spoilers don't worry) I still enjoy watching it. Stone and ndwom are both alluring and the soundtrack is magnificent. To the point I wish I downloaded it before I went a way recemtly so I could watch again. Sexy film amd sexy score.
Recently rewatcjed4foe fist time in decades and even though I knew the plot ( so no spoilers don't worry) I still enjoy watching it. Stone and ndwom are both alluring and the soundtrack is magnificent. To the point I wish I downloaded it before I went a way recemtly so I could watch again. Sexy film amd sexy score.
Recently rewatcjed4foe fist time in decades and even though I knew the plot ( so no spoilers don't worry) I still enjoy watching it. Stone and ndwom are both alluring and the soundtrack is magnificent. To the point I wish I downloaded it before I went a way recemtly so I could watch again. Sexy film amd sexy score.
You won't like to watch
Angeneer18 May 2000
This film is an obvious capitalization of Basic Instinct's success. As usual in these cases, it fails. While the plot is promising, it never creates the proper atmosphere and it lacks depth. It is worth just for Sharon Stone, who is a pleasure to watch, and the redeeming soundtrack.
Gives invasion of privacy a whole new meaning!
GOWBTW11 July 2006
I don't why many people put this movie down so bad. Anything with Sharon Stone is good. This movie is just as kinky as "Basic Instinct", only more high tech. Working for a publishing company is a hard job to take, even if you went through a rough marriage and trying to start over, finding yourself shouldn't be so hard. Not with Carly Norris(Sharon Stone). She moves into a new high in New York called Sliver Heights, she gets a room which the deceased lived. and their she meets the owner Zeke Hawkins(William Baldwin) owns Sliver Heights, and he thinks he God. This man is not only the owner, he's the biggest voyeur of that complex. A voyeur(Peeping Tom) like him make others look like amateurs. I liked ever scene of this movie, the love scenes, the shower scenes, the conversation scenes, and he actually records them which I think is downright obscene. Sharon never looked any hotter in that movie, and he character is really hard core all the way. The author Jack Landford(Tom Berenger) seemed to be a decent character, however his shady past makes him the target for police. When he was killed, the murders stopped, but the voyeurism was way more sinister than the crimes earlier. So Zeke was given a major attitude adjustment there, and I think it's time for a new owner. This movie was really hardcore, imagine for what the unrated version would be like! Rating 3 out of 5 stars.
Raunchy, Racy, and Suspenseful
skepticskeptical8 January 2024
I was surprised to learn that book editors are apparently a bunch of sex maniacs. Or so it would seem from the depiction of them in Sliver. Setting that bit of absurdity to one side, I have to admit that this film was truly suspenseful up until the very end. Granted, the surprise ending is not entirely logical, but still it made for an edge-of-your seat thriller.
I don't find this film very erotic, and maybe it is more raunchy than racy, but it certainly captured my attention! It also raises a lot of interesting questions about human nature, voyeurism, etc. (Did YOU watch it all? Then you would seem to fall into the class of voyeurs, albeit unwittingly...) Sharon Stone is of course gorgeous and achieves a near soft-porn performance, so I am sure that any red-blooded male would love this unexpected "mainstream" feature film.
I don't find this film very erotic, and maybe it is more raunchy than racy, but it certainly captured my attention! It also raises a lot of interesting questions about human nature, voyeurism, etc. (Did YOU watch it all? Then you would seem to fall into the class of voyeurs, albeit unwittingly...) Sharon Stone is of course gorgeous and achieves a near soft-porn performance, so I am sure that any red-blooded male would love this unexpected "mainstream" feature film.
Would-be 'erotic' thriller
Leofwine_draca14 December 2012
If the sight of Sharon Stone and William Baldwin gyrating their way through a series of long and drawn-out sex scenes is appealing, then I'd recommend SLIVER, one in a wave of erotic thrillers that populated the mid-1990s in the wake of BASIC INSTINCT. For movie fans in general, though, SLIVER is a bit of a non-starter.
The film's biggest flaw is an overly familiar script, which has an interesting premise involving voyeurism but does little with it (other than inviting the viewer to participate, a theme which has been done to death these days anyway). Sharon Stone moves into a high-tech apartment block where people are being murdered, and we're supposed to care about what happens next.
There are flashes of interest and inspiration throughout, usually involving the supporting cast. Watching Tom Berenger chewing dialogue is always a delight, and ROME's Polly Walker shows up too, although sadly not for very long. The talents of CCH Pounder and Martin Landau also end up wasted in favour of dull, slightly wooden turns from Stone (who displays none of the charm and allure she essayed in BASIC INSTINCT) and a sweaty, unpleasant Baldwin.
The thriller aspects are unevenly handled, and Aussie director Philip Noyce (who directed DEAD CALM, one of my favourite thrillers) drops the ball more than once, failing to elicit suspense from scenarios which should be tense and atmospheric. SLIVER isn't all bad; the most undemanding of movie fans might even enjoy it, but I'm afraid I've been here way too many times to see anything even remotely interesting.
The film's biggest flaw is an overly familiar script, which has an interesting premise involving voyeurism but does little with it (other than inviting the viewer to participate, a theme which has been done to death these days anyway). Sharon Stone moves into a high-tech apartment block where people are being murdered, and we're supposed to care about what happens next.
There are flashes of interest and inspiration throughout, usually involving the supporting cast. Watching Tom Berenger chewing dialogue is always a delight, and ROME's Polly Walker shows up too, although sadly not for very long. The talents of CCH Pounder and Martin Landau also end up wasted in favour of dull, slightly wooden turns from Stone (who displays none of the charm and allure she essayed in BASIC INSTINCT) and a sweaty, unpleasant Baldwin.
The thriller aspects are unevenly handled, and Aussie director Philip Noyce (who directed DEAD CALM, one of my favourite thrillers) drops the ball more than once, failing to elicit suspense from scenarios which should be tense and atmospheric. SLIVER isn't all bad; the most undemanding of movie fans might even enjoy it, but I'm afraid I've been here way too many times to see anything even remotely interesting.
What couldn't happen in real life doesn't stop Philip Noyce from making this useless piece of film
littlegreengremlins200418 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Total spoiler ahead. How did Tom Berenger know the model would take the stairway and have a knife ready to kill her with(ESP?) during those unexplained convenient power failures? And why are all those rich people living in a place with that kind of problem? Why are the cops so stupid that they accept that the other women committed suicide with no reason to believe that and how did Tom get out of jail(other than plot expediency) when it would be obvious due to blood splatter evidence that he did kill the model and didn't just happen upon her? When you use garbage psychology and phony untrue to life situations to make a crime thriller, you cheat the audience and show your contempt for them(Same as in Basic Instinct). Anything that Noyce,Esterhaus and who ever else was responsible for this ever make again should be boycotted. The real crime was this movie.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
