"Sliver" was heavily panned by critics and the main criticisms were that the film provided little in the way of compelling thriller elements, that it diluted some of the plotlines of the novel, and that the actors were not on form. Many also singled out the editing and ending, calling the latter hasty and unconvincing. It was also nominated for seven Razzie Awards, including Worst Picture, Worst Director, Worst Actor (William Baldwin), Worst Actress (Sharon Stone), Worst Supporting Actor (Tom Berenger), Worst Supporting Actress (Colleen Camp) and Worst Screenplay, but failed to "win" any. When re-seeing "Sliver" it makes me think of a poor mans Brian De Palma thriller. It wants to be a De Palma film, but is nowhere near the heydays of the mentioned director. The plot is too thin (so much seems to be fillers), the dialogue campy, it lacks real suspense and the characters arenīt intriguing or for that matter interesting. Yes, the main topic of personal privacy, surveillance and the notion of someone playing Big Brother/Peeping Tom is there, but itīs just no very well handled by Phillip Noyce. The lovely Sharon Stone is ok, but sheīs been in better shape while both Baldwin and Berenger (I reckon one of his worst roles) are out of shape. The sex scenes are initially ok in my mind. I think the first sex scene between Stone and Baldwin has a touch of hotness to it, but then it goes pear shaped after that. The pillar scene is just over the top ridiculous. In the original ending Sharon Stone and the killer fly over a volcano when the killer suddenly confesses his crimes. He then veers the aircraft into the volcano as the end credits roll and leaves the audience to decide whether they survive. The preview audiences disliked this ending and we got "Get a life!" as the ending instead. Well... neither of them seems satisfying in my eyes, but I havenīt red Ira Levinīs book so I donīt know if he keeps things together and the volcano ending (if that is actually the ending in the book) works or not, but the ending in the movie just feels halfassed and rushed due to the preview audience.
Failed attempt to reflect on the boundary between the private field of the public.
This movie is a Sharon Stone stop as "fatal attraction".
PS: on the same topic take a look at:
Das Leben der Anderen
It's still just as dumb today, and there's a lot of sex in it, way more than I remembered, maybe I watched a pg version originally, or I just forgot, not sure which. I actually bought it down half a star from my original rating because it relies too much on sex to lift a weak story line, but then again, 90's Sharon Stone, it's not like that's a shocker!
She's a watchable actress and quite pretty here. Ending is like a jolt, very abrupt, thought so the first time I saw it. She does have good chemistry with William Baldwin on screen.
As I previously stated, for a bit of 90's tack, you could pick worse, but it certainly does have it's faults, although the voyeur plot certainly is a little different.
also stars Polly Walker, Colleen Camp, Martin Landau, Amanda Foreman, CCH Pounder and Nina Foch.
directed by Phillip Noyce.
But Sliver makes that pretty debateable, because save from Sharon Stone's presence as an actress and a goddamn sexy woman, Sliver supplies little worth following.
For one thing, it has no interesting characters. It has an attractive book editor in a relationship in a guy who looks like a skinnier Alec Baldwin with a larger skull, but nobody worth caring about. I mean they're nothing interesting, and the story isn't worth telling. For some reason some guy videotaped all his tenants and some other guy murdered them, or maybe it was the same guy, I don't know and I don't care. Sliver gave me no reason to care or want to know why.
And whatever Sliver is supposed to be, a thriller or an erotic thriller or a joke, it only succeeds as a joke because its it even funny enough, or dramatic enough, or bad enough, to qualify as entertainment in any category, and its barely sexy enough for a Sharon Stone film, particularly one that is supposed to be an erotic thriller. It really barely emphasises Sharon Stone's good elements as an attractive woman or as an actress, and either way it just decreases her credibility as an actress unfortunately.
Phillip Noyce Really missed the ball on this one, because the ending is stupid, the story is stupid, the beginning is stupid. It's all stupid. The script is stupid, the characters are stupid, and the actors have to work with all that.
William Baldwin proves he is one of the lesser Baldwin brothers in Sliver, in terms of acting and in terms of picking a film to add to his credibility. Still, he did get to have a naked Sharon Stone ride him so you can't blame him. You can blame him for all the poor acting though.
And try as Tom Berenger might, dragged down by the lack of talent around him he fails to shine.
Sharon Stone is a lone bright spot here, and I'm not just saying that because she's an easy source of blood rushing to the penis. She downplays her sexual appeal to a point where her character is one that is innocent with a body unfathomed and unravished by the darkness she encounters. Her performance is actually ok and befitting to the character as well as benefitting to the film which is actually pretty challenging. She's just really a good cast member and a good presence in the film, and is as sexy as ever, even though its not her finest hour.
But still, Sliver doesn't have a story worth telling so I don't know why Phillip Noyce bothered trying. At least he got Sharon Stone on board, but that saves nothing.