Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

patrick powell A well-known phrase is 'nice try, but no cigar', Sliver doesn't even rate as a 'nice try'. That's a shame because Sharon Stone deserved better than this (though as a working actress, I'm sure she enjoyed, well, the work). The film starts in a pretty conventional manner, though in a manner you have seen many times before, but a slow decline starts quite soon. For one thing William Baldwin is throughly miscast, and although Tom Berenger is not, there is so little meat to his role that the guy has nothing to work with.The whole set-up is not even two-dimensional and there is just so much you just don't buy: the 'relationship' between Baldwin's character and Stone is at best ludicrous. None of the characters is fleshed out in any way at all, they are cyphers and nothing more. I've read that Stephen King described Ira Levin, who wrote the novel Sliver on which the film is based (he also wrote the novels Rosemary's Baby, The Stepford Wives and The Boys From Brazil which were all subsequently filmed) as 'the Swiss watchmaker of suspense novels, he makes what the rest of us do look like cheap watchmakers in drugstores'. Fair enough, though as I haven't read any of the novels I can't comment. What I can certainly say is that any subtlety and wit Levin put into his stories has completely disappeared in the film of his novel Sliver.It's as though the producers took various elements of what is known as a 'suspense' film and jammed them altogether without having much of an idea as to what they were doing. Well, I could go on, but what's the point. In sum: don't waste your time. Really. If you want to see how good an actress Stone can be in the right hands, get a copy of Scorsese's Casino. She nails it.

lumbergh-3 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

gridoon2018 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.

harrymccormack1981 Sharon Stone plays a book editor who moves into a luxury apartment block named "Sliver" vacated by a woman who "mysteriously" fell to her death from her balcony.Also mysteriously someone is watching her (and everybody else in the apartment block) with top-notch technology and following every moment whatever they are doing.William Baldwin and Polly Walker star as the neighbours and Tom Berenger stars a novelist who tries to romance Stone.Then follows the tedious attempts at the eroticism it advertises and desperately trying to create mystery, thrills and drama but the plot just witters into boring romps and dirty talk and tries to rush the drama back in.Sharon Stone and Tom Berenger are criminally wasted here despite their efforts while William Baldwin and Polly Walker are woeful.Based a novel of the same name but obviously trying to cash in Sharon Stone's success with the previous year's Basic Instinct, director Philip Noyce and screenplay writer Joe Eszterhas don't give much material to work from and it could have been much better if more carefully handled.Don't bother unless you fancy a moan like me.