At the time of its initial release "Sliver" was billed as an erotic thriller. Its Hungarian-American writer Joe Estzerhas was highly popular due to his successful scripts which were huge box office hits in Hollywood. This influenced Australian director Philip Noyce to such a large extent that he decided to helm a film project based on his script. This film was made in early nineties, a highly productive phase for actress Sharon Stone who starred in two successful "erotic" thrillers. Sliver features a very risky romantic relationship between a heterosexual couple in which the 'true identity' of the male lover is not known. It is the excessive use of surveillance cameras as a tool to spy upon people which propels the film's central premise. Actor William Baldwin plays the role of the character who takes immense pleasure in pursuing this activity. Apart from its excessive focus on mystery as a narrative device to mesmerize viewers, director Phil Noyce and Screen writer Joe Eszterhas are able to move their film forward with extreme caution as the answer to the vital question about who is the killer is neither revealed nor understood by audiences until the very end. This substantial quality enables Sliver to be hailed as an intelligent thriller.

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.

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.

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.=