Conference bookie::movies

> This is definitely a whodunit right up to the last few seconds of the movie,

	It should be, supposedly as a result of test showings of the
	film, they decided to change the ending, including who the
	murderer was ........

    Re: .0
    
    Did we see the same movie? At most, I'd give it a 6 out of 10. And I
    thought Alec could have done a much better job than William. IMHO,
    William was a bit too young and innocent looking. 
    
    Erotic? Huh? Where? 
    
    Suspenseful? Huh? Okay, but certainly not an edge-of-your-seater. I
    thought the killer was who the killer was from the very first time the
    killer hit the screen. I had my suspicions, and they were confirmed.
    
    I guess if you go into this movie expecting the caliber of Basic
    Instinct, you'll be disappointed. Or even the caliber of sex, lies, and
    videotape, which had James Spader to "save" it. IMHO, SL&V was a more
    intriguing film, although I have to admit that the voyeuristic setup in
    Sliver was interesting.
    
    Ranks right up (down) there with Body of Evidence ;)
    
    Catherine
    

    Well, maybe my view of erotic isn't the same as yours ... but my
    daughter said the same thing, and so did my boyfriend and HER
    boyfriend.  We all thought it was very steamy ... as far as Baldwin
    being too young and innocent looking, I think that was the intent.  And
    I think he did a hell of a job.
    
    Also, I didn't say it was an "edge-of-your-seat" thriller; I said it
    was suspenseful, and it was.
    
    As for your knowing who the murderer was right from the beginning, I
    think you must admit you went back and forth a few times, didn't you? 
    We can all say "oh, I knew who it was" after the movie ends and it
    proves our theories, but to say it never entered your mind that you
    could be wrong on your first guess ...???
    
    Since this movie is going to have lots of viewers, I'd be interested in
    their opinions.
    
    Leslie

    By the way, I thought Basic Instict was totally convoluted and not up
    to the storyline of this movie, so a comparison, other than how Sharon
    Stone acted in this one vs. the other one, doesn't really make sense. 
    There were more questions at the end of Basic Instict than answers.
    
    Just my opinion ...
    
    Leslie

    Ray, did you see this movie?  I think you'll find that there's going to
    be a split decision on judging the ending ... I personally loved the
    way the movie ended, for Stone's character especially.  My daughter
    didn't like the ending because I think she wanted something rosier. 
    Had the murderer been the "other" suspect, I can only guess at how it
    could have ended, but why should I?  I thought it was good.
    
    Leslie

    
    Re: .3
    
    
    >  Also, I didn't say it was an "edge-of-your-seat" thriller; I said it
    >  was suspenseful, and it was.
    
    I guess there's a fine line between "suspense" and "thriller." I
    misunderstood you; my mistake. It _was_ suspenseful. I consider a
    thriller one that keeps you guessing every minute, which this movie did
    not do for me.
    
    >  As for your knowing who the murderer was right from the beginning, I
    >  think you must admit you went back and forth a few times, didn't you? 
    >  We can all say "oh, I knew who it was" after the movie ends and it
    >  proves our theories, but to say it never entered your mind that you
    >  could be wrong on your first guess ...???
    
    I have to admit, when the killer came on the screen the first time,
    there was something in the eyes that said "This is the one," and I told
    my movie buddy I thought that was the killer. A few scenes later, I
    said it again. My "hunch" turned out to be correct. There was only one
    brief time during the movie that I thought I might be wrong, but the
    next scene quickly proved me wrong.
    
    I don't think I want to debate the possible conceptions of eroticism.
    Each to his/her own.
    
    Catherine
    

    BOY did I not like this movie.

    I thought Sharon Stone was the best thing about Basic Instinct because
    of the strength and confidence of her character.  In Sliver she
    plays a completely different and unappealing character, passive 
    and unassertive and not in control of things going on around her.
    The character seems more suited to someone like Meridith Baxter
    Birney than Sharon Stone.  In Fact she resembles Birney.

    I didn't like William Baldwin in this either.  He seems so 
    self-conscious of the camara, and playing up his sex-symbol image
    which I personally find less than believable.  The sex scenes with
    Stone are pretty lame too, similar in style to those in Basic Instinct
    where the sex has a animal-like or violent feel.  Not that I found the
    scenes offensive - I didn't.  Just strange and not very sexy.

    Add these bad characters to the basic chaos of the plot.  There are a
    bunch of subplots that aren't related and don't have to be in the
    movie.    The most disappointing thing about it is that what is 
    ostensibly the main theme of the movie, the peeping Tom voyeurism 
    going on in the apartment complex where everybody lives, is pretty 
    much irrelavent to the plot.  I did like the ending even though it 
    seemed like it could have been a toss-up as to who did it.

    I'd say wait for the video, and even then only if you're a Sharon Stone
    fan or if everything else is out.

    Adam

re             <<< Note 195.8 by VAXWRK::ELKINS "Adam Elkins @MSO" >>>


>    BOY did I not like this movie.

    Adam,

   I totally agree. It takes real effort to take Sharon Stone, fresh from
Basic Instinct (arguably, one of the hottest movies released). William Baldwin,
who was excellent in Three of Hearts and Tom Berenger who was excellent in Dogs
of War, Platoon, Sniper etc.  and come up with this lame piece of trash.
 
 I should have expected what was coming, when Sharons first appearance on screen
has her with a suit that makes her look like she's got no neck, and her hair
parted down the middle.  No Oscar nominations for this hairstylist or wardrobe
department. The ending (particularly the last line in the movie) was soooo
contrived and predictable, you could see it coming from the first fifteen
minutes.
 The ONLY bright spot, were the parts of the sound track that featured the group
Enigma.

0 Stars out of 4

Regards
Barry

    Saw this yesterday with my wife.  I read the book and she hadn't.
    We both came away extremely disappointed with the movie.  If it were
    not for the excellent acting performance by Sharon Stone, the movie
    would be a complete waste.
    
    THE MOVIE CHANGES THE ENDING OF THE BOOK!!!  The book was much more
    straightforward in the identity of the stalker, but skillfully let
    you in on one piece of evidence at a time.  The screenplay was very
    clumsy, and there was absolutely no motivation for what showed up on
    tape at the end.  And my wife was extremely ticked off by the last 
    line in the movie.
    
    Another change from the book was the professor who became friendly
    with Sharon Stone's character ... uh, I need a formfeed here
    
    
    Their relationship was developed much more in the book.  They both
    became obsessed with finding out who owned the building, and only
    when they were getting too close to the truth did Zeke (Baldwin's
    character) kill him.  Very late in the book, when Sharon Stone's
    character is convinced Zeke is the killer, does she decide to play
    along with him and he admits to owning the building.  They play
    god with the video system for a while before she can't go on and
    must take action.
    
    2 out of 10
    
    NAZZ

    
    FWIW (has this been said already?):
    
    the reason why the ending was changed from the original (presumably
    "book") ending is advance screenings suggested that that audience HATED
    (not disliked, not felt unsatisfied, but HATED) the ending.  
    
    Therefore, it was changed to something apparantly more palatable.
    
    Having yet not seen the movie, nor having read the book, I dunno.
    
    kim

> FWIW (has this been said already?):

	Yes :-)  See .1 ...

    RE:  Note 195.11
    
    > FWIW (has this been said already?):
    >    
    > the reason why the ending was changed from the original (presumably
    > "book") ending is advance screenings suggested that that audience HATED
    > (not disliked, not felt unsatisfied, but HATED) the ending.  
    
    Well, not quite.  What I read said they HATED the first
    ending, which took place in Hawaii...   I've read the book,
    and the action never gets more than a few blocks from the
    "sliver" apartment.  So the audience didn't see the "book"
    ending.
    
    Having said that, let me add that I *hated* the book ending.
    It fit exactly the dictionary definition of _deus ex machina_:
    
    	A person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that
    	appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly
    	and provides a contrived solution to an apparently
    	insoluble difficulty.
    
    I liked the book up to the end:  he set up a situation with
    quick, bold strokes (not a lot of character development here,
    just the major premise), and I was waiting to see how he 
    would resolve it all.  The ending was (IMO) *terrible*.
    I was glad to hear that the movie had a different ending.
    Unfortunately, from the tone of the notes here, the new(est)
    ending is not being well-received either.
    
    Maybe I'll give it a try on video...
    
    			dick
    
    [Oh, you want to know how the book ends?  OK ...]
    
    
    
    You may not believe this....
    
    
    
    The building owner knows she's about to go to the police, so
    he decides to kill her and set up the old TV/movie director
    (what the Tom Berenger character started as) as the killer.
    So he invites the director to her apartment at 9:00, shows
    up early himself, and pushes her out the window.  She clings
    to the sill, he comes over to finish her off, and her CAT 
    (yes, her *CAT*) claws his eyes out, literally.  The director
    shows up, she's safe, and they call the police.  Then they
    dream of writing the book and doing the TV movie based on the
    trial...
    
    Honestly... the CAT?
    
    

Well, stuff the movie; I'm going to the library!

dcl

    I also saw this as soon as it opened.  I thought it was a waste of
    money.  I was expecting it to be much better than it was.  Berringer
    was annoying and the rest of it was too  "predictable".  I give it
    a 2 out of 10.  I wouldn't bother renting it either.  It stunk!

    
    RE .-1
    
    I agree totally that I wouldn't bother renting it either, the sex
    scenes weren't even erotic (IMHO), Berringer was impossible to take
    seriously, the ending was TERRIBLE, and it came just when the rest
    was getting mildly interesting. About the only thing I liked about 
    this movie was watching the mind/converstaion games that William 
    Baldwin played with Sharon Stone when bringing her out of her shell.  
    
    * 1/2 out of *****
    
    							Lorrin Lee

    i thought this was one of the worst movies i have seen in a long time,
    My wife used love Berringer until she saw him in this movie. The sex
    scenes didn't do a thing for me maybe because the movie was so bad.
    Don't waste your time or money on this one.
    
    tony
    

Saw Sliver last night.  I thought the suspense (ie I kept changing my mind
about who the killer was right until the end, when I got it wrong!) was done
very well, but the overall pace a bit slow; there was room for plenty more
things to happen, for sub-plots to be developed, more intense characters, etc.
I didn't go to see it for erotic kicks; good thing too, there weren't
any.  But this leads me to something no-one else has mentioned...

Although the adverts/previews/hype/etc made much of the voyeurism angle in the
film, in reality this was very much in the background, just a device
to help some other parts of the film move along.  But I saw it from a different
angle too: it looked like the filmmakers were having fun with the audience, viz:

Most people go to see this film (and others of its ilk) at least in part for
sexual titillation� - ie the audience are being voyeurs.  The voyeurism in the
film was presented from several angles - as harmless fun, as disturbing
insights into other people's lives, invasions of privacy, spying, and playing
God.  I thought it interesting (and intentional) that the most explicit
sex scenes seemed to be the ones we say through Baldwin's videos, rather than
the ones that were part of the main film.  The filmmakers seemed to be laughing
at the audience, saying "Hey, you like this sex scene?  Well, you think Zeke
is a nerd, you're no better!"

The final line in the film (which I won't give away for those who haven't seen
it) is pretty crass, but seems to sum up the whole film, and seems to be trying
to say something about quite a bit of the rest of modern society too.  Or maybe
I'm giving the film more intellectual credit than it deserves :-)

(Footnote�: why is it that it is socially acceptable to go to the cinema and
watch steamy sex films, and admit you're watching them to get turned on, but
it's considered perverted, or at least weird, to hire 'porno' films to watch
in the privacy of your own home?  Just an interesting
psychological/sociological side-issue!)

Scott

    As Adam wrote in note #8:
    
    	I'd say wait for the video,
    
    don't
    
    	and even then only if you're a Sharon Stone fan or if everything
    	else is out.
    
    unfortunately everything else was out.
    
    I brought my list of good movies to rent with me (based from this notes
    conference) - they were all out.  Saw that SLIVER was available...  
    I am now going to make a list of movies to avoid.
    
    The very first note describes the movie pretty well.  It did keep me
    guessing.  What I did not like were the sex scenes throughout the film
    and not just the ones between Stone & Baldwin.  I really diskliked the
    very small storyline about the sexually abuse father & daughter.  The
    character that Baldwin plays doesn't have all his rocks in one place
    and out of the blue is able to get this father back on track.  Please!
    
    Don't pick this one up!
    
    Patricia

    
    Okay..who was the killer?  I just could'nt tell at the end.  I
    thought it was
    
    
    
    
    Tom Berenger  .. but the people who watched the movie w/me thought
    it was
    
    
    
    
    Alex Baldwin ..
    
    We re-wound it and I couldn't tell!
    
    So who do you think did it?
    
    

<spoiler follows>





























Beringer, at the end you see the video and he's killing the previous occupent
it was clearer on the Big screen yes I paid �3 to see this diabolical film at
the cinema.

re .22  which doesn't help if you read the note with DECwindow Notes ;^)

> re .22  which doesn't help if you read the note with DECwindow Notes ;^)

	Neither does the "20 blank line" style spoiler warning in .21
	when your window is 40+ lines long (DECwindows NOTES or
	Character-Cell!).

    In the book, which was better than the movie but still not terrific,
    the killer was 
    
    
    	the Baldwin character.  I have no idea why they changed it
    for the movie.
    
    NAZZ

    I think they did test screenings and found that the "right" ending
    turned off the audience.
    
    
    kim
    

If they'd done test screenings it probably would've gone straight to video.