Perfect cast and a good story

Great Film overall

Fantastic!

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

OK, so first let's get these out there: It's not a perfect movie. And it's not a really quotable movie. But for some reason, this movie stuck in my head for a long time after watching it (and not at all because of the sex scenes). The concept has basically never been used before or since (to my knowledge), and is strangely relevant even today 25 years later (geez, has it been that long?) what with the ongoing privacy concerns. I found that core concept (which I can't really discuss due to spoilers) compelling and unique. Billy "Duckface" Baldwin wasn't that impressive other than his physical presence (and that the gaming/computer nerd in me loved some of his 90's period-paraphernalia, such as a Sid Meier's Civilization poster, a Macintosh PowerBook Duo Dock, Nine Inch Nails and Megadeth posters, and a few hints that he was a gamer); Sharon Stone looked sexy and gorgeous as was probably expected (in one scene she's wearing a choker... so hot... which have finally come back into fashion today!). The thriller "whodunit" keeps-you-guessing plot worked for the most part. The movie certainly (in my opinion of course) didn't deserve the trashing it got.To me the star of the show here was the unique concept and the thoughtful questions it raises long after the credits roll. And the soundtrack (still one of my favorite movie soundtracks ever! Alternative 90's gold, I say!)I award this 90's underrated artifact an 8/10

Sharon Stone is an actress I have a lot of time for. Not because she's frequently naked in her films but because she broke the usual Hollywood stereotype of actresses finding fame early in their careers and then spend the next forty years filling themselves with Botox in order the delay the inevitable aging process. And after the success of "Basic Instinct", Stone found herself firmly on the A-list after performing as the femme fatale for the Nineties, Catherine Trammell. The problem is, studios were keen to try and repeat the success and thus, I suspect that this movie hastily found itself into production. A pity because with a much tighter script, this might have matched her earlier success. Instead, it's a badly written thriller that lacks the shock value it wanted to have.Single book editor Carly Norris (Stone) moves into her new apartment, recently vacated by a young woman who threw herself off her balcony overlooking New York. As Carly gets to know her new neighbours, she discovers that accidents and unusual deaths are nothing new but regardless, she finds herself drawn to frustrated writer Jack Landsford (Tom Berenger) and enigmatic owner of the building Zeke Hawkins (William "Not Alec" Baldwin). Amid ill-timed power cuts and occasional visits from Detective Hendrix (CCH Pounder), Carly finds an unnerving connection between herself and the aforementioned jumper and she begins to suspect that she may be next...I realise that I'm not exactly the smartest cookie but even I wished that "Sliver" would offer me a bit more than two suspects. As such, the mystery element isn't really that much of a mystery so there are no surprises when the ending arrives (although there are plenty of plot-holes). Stone does the best she can with the material and easily outshines her two male co-stars but the complete lack of chemistry with Baldwin kinda hinders the film on the erotic front as well. Nothing about the film feels natural - if I moved into a building where people come a cropper at regular intervals, I'd pack my bags again and ask for my deposit back! The dialogue is hideously clunky to the point of being unforgivable - the ridiculous scene in the restaurant being almost laughable. At times, I felt sorry for Stone who must have realised that this is a lame and cynical attempt at cashing in on the success and notoriety "Basic Instinct" by being a seedy and exploitative erotic thriller in the exact same mould.There is enough to suggest that "Sliver" could have made much more of its premise. Take the CCTV network in the building - it might have argued whether it was morally wrong or not if the information gleaned from it was used for good. We get the faintest whiff of this subplot before descending into the usual routine about how watching other people have sex is a turn-on for our characters. "Sliver" is derivative of so many films that it cannot help but imitate the likes of "Basic Instinct", "Fatal Attraction" and "Body Of Evidence" during the erotic thriller explosion of the early Nineties. Trouble is, it's also crippled with such a bad script (sticking rigidly to the Joe Eszterhas formula) that falls into the usual trap of being neither erotic or thrilling. Stone provided further proof that she can carry a movie but even someone of her abilities can only carry this film so far.

The idea of Sliver is unique and was never done before esp by the time it was released which was the early 1990s . by then the audience were sick and tired of seeing people with gloves killing someone and they wanted new approaches to crime thrillers , the director has ruined the idea of the film by the narrow view of stone as a sex symbol and how everyone wants to sleep with her . he could have made it more interesting by adding the element of surprise like not knowing who is watching these people on video or by adding a twist to the story of the man who sleeps with his little girl. also by hiring more sophisticated male actors unlike Baldwin who came across as immature and clichéd .Berenger didn't add any dramatic effect to the plot ,and looked like he was doing a cigarettes ad metaphorically speaking . Stone seemed cold and very controlled by the director' s narrow vision of the film and how he was keen on making another sex themed thriller like basic instinct instead of concentrating on the great potentials Sliver would have . the ending was very disappointing and forgettable . all in all the director had the chance of a life time to make a great classic thriller where people would think twice before they do anything because someone might be watching , but instead he went after cheap sex scenes and a predictable plot. it is worth watching after all just to see how Stone was coping with massive success of Basic instinct which led her to make the wrong choice because she was under pressure to stay the Hollywood sex symbol .

Looks like a cross between a subject novelist Levin had always broached in "Rosemary's baby" (the building where horrible things happen;beware of neighbors!) and "rear window" (voyeurism:the telescope James Stewart used in Hitchcock's classic ;the 'improvement" in Baldwin's apartment) The parts of the two male principals have been changed in comparison with Levin's novel and Tom Berenger is not given a single chance to shine ;the new screenplay does not make much sense ,considering the wealthy spoilt child's behavior and obsession with his fellow men's life ;more than the hot scenes,the best is this real "sitcom" the boy is watching all day long ;considering today's TV ,the movie was ahead of its time for that matter.Levin's novel was not in the same league as "Rosemary's baby" ,"a kiss before dying" or even "the Stepford wives" ;but it was more interesting than later horrors such as "son of Rosemary" and the director did not make the best of it.=