Sliver Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
You like to watch...don't you
Young publishing executive Carly takes an apartment in an exclusive "sliver" building in New York, only to learn that the previous tenant, who bore a great resemblance to Carly, died in a mysterious fall from the apartment balcony. When other tenants of the building begin to die likewise mysteriously, Carly begins to suspect that a killer may be inhabiting the building and that it may be either Zeke, the voyeuristic building owner with whom she's become involved romantically, or Jack, a mystery writer with a suspicious quality.
| Sharon Stone | Carly Norris |
| William Baldwin | Zeke Hawkins |
| Tom Berenger | Jack Landsford |
| Polly Walker | Vida Warren |
| Colleen Camp | Judy Marks |
| Amanda Foreman | Samantha Moore |
| Martin Landau | Alex Parsons |
| CCH Pounder | Lt. Victoria Hendrix |
| Nina Foch | Evelyn McEvoy |
| Keene Curtis | Gus Hale |
| Nicholas Pryor | Peter Farrell |
| Anne Betancourt | Jackie Kinsella |
| Tony Peck | Martin Kinsella |
| Frantz Turner | Doorman #1 |
| Dr. Melvyn Kinder | Dr. Palme |
| Phillip Noyce |
4.50 out of 10 (9636 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Dull, Tawdry, and Stupid...
posted on 09 Mar 2009I found Ira Levin's novel Sliver to be very enjoyable in which the protagonist(s) are much more likable and intelligent. In the movie, which was made horrifyingly bad by Eszterhas's pitiful script, Sharon Stone comes off as weak and guilt-ridden and goes through her scenes with questionable motivation. After the first five minutes of the movie, it quickly gets very boring as it's a thriller with thrills that are few and far between. Undoubtedly, all of Sliver's thrills can be seen in the trailer set to the suspenseful score Jerry Goldsmith wrote for Basic Instinct. With the exception of Colleen Camp's performance, all the rest in the movie are a disappointment which was a surprise since it came out just a year after Stone was nominated for a Golden Globe. Ultimately, there's nothing good that can really be said about Sliver. It's too drawn-out with dull scenes that don't really convey a story well. By the time you come to the movie's last scene, you're reminded that it's also a mystery, but you just don't seem to care. In fact, if you make to the end and learn the killer's identity, you'll probably say to yourself: "I knew it." Read the book and buy Sliver's AWESOME soundtrack, but don't waste your money on this crap.
One of the worst movies
posted on 14 Jan 2009This movie is a single mans movie. I say that because, without giving anything away, there is one scene that makes it almost worth loosing over an hour of your life for. Otherwise, this is a piece of trash that didn't deserve a greenlight.Stone is at her worst in acting. She is an actress that can be good when she wants to be (Casino proves that). But the fact is, in this movie she is there for a paycheck, not an Oscar.The plot is predictable and boring. It has no real twist and you will see the end coming about 45 minutes before the end.The writing is insipid and silly. I could do better than this script without even working up a sweat.Miss this movie unless you are a Sharon Stone completist.
A Brilliant Thriller...
posted on 11 Jan 2009I hate when people bash this film, for it has been and probably always will be my favorite movie of all time. A thoroughly constructed and mastered plot line, beautiful cinematography, a delicious soundtrack from hot 90s various artists such as Enigma, a sultry and subtle power score by Howard Shore and Christopher Young, and the greatest actress who ever lived: Sharon Stone. Sharon Stone is at her best as Carly Norris. William Baldwin is weak, but I guess passable. Tom Berenger is fantastically entertaining. Polly Walker is a joy. Martin Landau, in a small role, is a nice surprise. People for years have told me that this film is torrid and boring, weak and heavy handled, and so on and so on. I disagree. It's perfect, and I hardly think movies are perfect they can always have a little something more, or a little something less. When people say like most of you people on these message boards that the ending is no surprise or weak or arbitrary, you have NOT been watching closely. What makes you think that Tom Berenger's character is the only murderer about?I suggest you all look CLOSELY, very CLOSELY at the clues Phillip Noyce and Joe Ezsterhas have laid out for you. If you just take the ending for what it is, you're wrong and need to review the film to understand everything that's been going on, before your eyes and in the unseen. See, there are people in places who can know a very great deal if they choose, and also people who choose to make sure that no one knows a good deal about anything...So I dare you, watch the film again and find a new ending all on your own.
Shallow pulpy romance/suspense/mystery
posted on 28 Oct 2008Decent 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.
Ever get that feeling you were being watched?
posted on 06 Jun 2008Not many movies can do what Sliver has accomplished. The fear and joy of voyeurism. Is it moral to watch your neighbors without them knowing, we all do it right? But one person has gone to far.You will feel scared and aroused!!! And the next time you walk around naked in your living room or hit your spouse in a heated argument, you may want to shut the blinds and turn off all the lights first.
How Bad Can You Get?
posted on 10 Apr 2008Weak story. Weak plot. Weak characters. Dismal performances from everyone involved. Director Noyce hasn't been able to live this one down. For Stone, it's just more exposure for her Frances Farmer-like image. For Berenger, it was the beginning of the end of a decent movie career. For Baldwin, well, nothing was really hurt here. Way to go, Billy...or is it William?
A sexy thriller in more ways the one
posted on 24 Dec 2007Out 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.
one deficit
posted on 27 Jun 2007SPOILER!!!!! I have one thing that I can not understand in plot. Baldwin's tape apparently appears that the murder who killed Naomi who is very similar to Stone is not Baldwin but Berenger. and Baldwin must know it through the tape. then, when he was suspected to a murder by Stone and Berenger intended to take the guilty to him why didn't he show the tape which can improve his innocence to his girlfriend? this movie gave me the stark image that have a unreasonable plot in order to just make audience confused who is a murder.
A very ordinary movie by any standards
posted on 16 May 2007Sharon Stone plays Carly Norris in this movie. Unlike Basic Instinct that at least had a clever plot, this movie;s story line is pretty lame. I am sure many watched more for Stone's nude scenes than for the movie itself. Any movie that relies on this for interest is going to struggle.Baldwin plays Zeke (the Geek). Apart from Backdraft, Billy really hasn't had a hit.Not the greatest, but for lovers of Sharon Stone, she gets the gear off again.
You won't like to watch
posted on 28 Jan 2007This 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.
If you want suspense, read the book
posted on 23 Dec 2006As a thriller, "Sliver" pretty much sucks.It's obvious that this was a studio set-up hack with Ira Levin's competent, engaging (though far from his best) suspenser vivisected down to the frame in order to be filled out as the next "Sharon Stone sexpot vehicle." I'm not completely sure anymore (I read the book over a decade ago) but I think that even the identity of the killer was different...anyway, I remember being at least engaged, which I wasn't at all with this movie.It's not a TOTAL dud...there are some interesting parts...the multitude of small supporting characters gives some voyeuristic thrills, and this is a well-shot movie. It always evokes a really nice forlorn sort of autumn in NY feeling for me. But back to the movie, unfortunately.The biggest minuses Sliver has going against it are the "performances" (ha ha) of Billy Baldwin and --- ESPECIALLY --- Tom Berenger. It's odd because, especially in Berenger's case, it is obvious he is capable of better work. But it's like he took a slimy character and just made him slimier without adding any depth. Baldwin is guilty of that too...his character is neither appealing or interesting.But a lot of this is Ezsterhas' script...the lines are wooden, cheesy and stale and smack of a dozen rewrites (how bout that ending, guys?). Stone is actually not half bad...she does a lot with what she's given which is just not very much. It's got the bad taste of a left-over pizza...as good as it is at times, it's just doesn't feel fresh.
Awful, boring, and plotless
posted on 14 Nov 2006Justifiably 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.
Underdeveloped
posted on 15 Oct 2006Sexually inactive book editor Carly Norris (Sharon Stone) gets a new apartment in a Manhattan high rise before learning that the previous tenant went over the railing to her death. She does a little microfiche sleuthing and finds that other tenants have met untimely ends. Seems that evil is aloft. Meanwhile she meets two guys intent on releasing her from the sexual doldrums, one a best selling macho writer (Tom Berenger), the other a pretty boy with charm (William Baldwin). Somebody mysteriously gives her a telescope so she can check the action through the windows of the high rises around town. Meanwhile we are flashed shots of the tenants as though on video tape. Stone opts for Baldwin who seduces her. This is interesting: Stone crying tears of joyful release as she climaxes. Afterward it is revealed that he owns the apartment and has set up surveillance cameras in the walls to spy on the inhabitants.I forget what this is ripped off from-maybe Crawlspace (1986)-but believe it or not, there was a man in Alaska a few years back who actually did this sort of spying on a modest scale. He had a four-plex or the like with peep holes in the bathroom, etc. It was on the news. Here we have high tech spying from a war room with monitors along the wall and an easy chair.
Charming boy truly likes to watch.The main problem with this film is the source material. Ira Levin, who penned the novel, never presumed to literature while managing a very successful career shocking the book club set with such made-into-movie hits as "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Stepford Wives." His first success, and perhaps the only thing genuine book he ever published, was "No Time for Sergeants" from the fifties. The other novels suffer from flashy fake premises that lead to psychological waters never fully navigated. In "Sliver" what is not engaged is the character of a man who would choose to spy on his neighbors as a way of life. It is like throwing him in a grab bag to make him into your standard issue psycho killer. As such he is left unexplored.A secondary problem is Phillip Noyce's uninspired and underdeveloped direction. We can see, even without reading the novel, that heroine Carly Norris was a somewhat frumpy, sexually fallow woman headed straight for matronhood. If only they had the guts to play her full out like that. But Stone seemed ill at ease in such an unfamiliar role and Noyce couldn't be bothered with nuances.
A tertiary problem is the casting of Stone in the first place. It might be said that Miss Stone, with her on-screen rapacious sexual appetite and her success at any cost cinematic persona, is truly a woman for the 'nineties.
(If so, it makes me long for the woman of the 'oughts.) At her best Stone is a professional without charm, but unless she is cast as a slutty, evil, predatory female, she just doesn't cut it at all. In the war room she reverts partially to her usual persona as she goes along with Baldwin's sick program, and she comes to life. Here we glimpse what might have been done with the premise: the surveillance cameras strip away all privacy and for a moment the man who welds them is exposed as a nazi-like monster, while she is confronted with her own compromised nature.A final problem is the ending. It's an inappropriate joke told by someone insensitive to any context. Yet I can see how Noyce thought it might work: Carly Norris not only looks like his mother, but now she punishes him as a mother would, by destroying his toys and telling him to grow up. She actually says, "Get a life." Maybe she should have given him a spanking as well.
Gives invasion of privacy a whole new meaning!
posted on 28 Mar 2006I 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.
I'd rather have a sliver than see this mess again.
posted on 26 Feb 2006Good Lord, where to begin? The performances were wooden and unconvincing. Director Noyce - who wouldn't know subtlety if it hit him with a sledgehammer - tried way too hard to force suspense, and failed miserably. And that script. Hoo-boy.Joe Eszterhas started his "Trilogy of Crap" with this horrendous dung-heap (The other two being "Showgirls" and "Burn, Hollywood, Burn"). So, I guess the best thing I can say about the script is that it isn't quite as bad as Showgirls. How's that for a back-handed compliment? And how about that ending? I fully expected to hear a rimshot after the line "Get a life."Some movies are unintentionally hilarious. "Sliver" falls into that category, only it isn't funny. It's just painful. At least the title is appropriate.
Sex is so deliciously naughty, don't you know?
posted on 08 Oct 2005Edited 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.
Plot is Good-Acting is good- Script-Poor!
posted on 19 Jun 2005I Saw Sliver the other night with a couple of friends and the movie could of been worse. Its Entertaining in some ways and the acting was decent but The writers could of made this a Great film and failed to do so. The Ending was very Aburpt and could of ment more. One Thing that this film did master was its Sex Scenes. They had alot of meaning and have an ACtul backround unlike most movies where they just Kind Of "Lets GO!". Great acting by decent actors in this film but the film could of been carried if it just more spice to it. If you want to Rent a film where you dont just want to be WOO'ed but entertained- rent it Plot 7/10 Acting 8/10 Sex Sences 10/10 Script 3/10 Directing 5/10Overall 6.6/10
This Movie Was Okay......
posted on 10 Jun 2005I will say that when I watched it was to view something sexy, because that was what I was in the mood for, and it was coming on HBO, so I thought "Why not?" I was UNimpressed with Sharon Stone's performance as a vulnerable somewhat inexperienced woman. She'd tried almost too hard to make it convincing and I just couldn't buy it. I thought Billy Baldwin was Okay, but I've never been really impressed with him as anything but a pretty face.The ending was just ridiculous, plain and simple. It was like they just completely cut off the movie with an idiot one-liner as soon as they showed who the real killer was. BUT....we don't get to see any further, like, WHY did the killer kill the women and why did he blame the other? Was it jealousy? And was Zeke really attracted to Carley and Naomi just because they looked like his mother, or was that really his mother in the pictures at all? And honestly, I thought Carly should have fed into the voyeurism more than she did.All in all, it just wasn't convincing. I think they could have had something with this movie. But they needed to make a decision, was an erotic film, with the focus on the sex and voyeurism, or was a murder mystery?
Strictly for fans of Sharon Stone. Everyone else should stay away from this stinker.
posted on 22 Jul 2009(my comments are based on the unrated version)It's pretty clear that the filmmakers of Sliver were hoping to cash in on Sharon Stone's breakthrough role in Basic Instinct. Unfortunately they didn't get anything right.
First of all, the plot meanders along to a conclusion that is painfully obvious was tacked on at the last minute. The numerous sex scenes, while fairly explicit, are decidedly unerotic. Sharon Stone doesn't even show hardly any skin as well (even though she could make a trash bag look ravishing.) And the film falls under the curse of the Baldwin Brothers factor. If you want to see Sharon Stone completely unihibited (and undressed) check out Basic Instinct (it's a fun film.) If you rent Sliver expecting more of the same, you're going to be sorely disappointed.rating:3