Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Michael_Elliott Scissors (1991) * 1/2 (out of 4)Angie (Sharon Stone) is walking into her building's elevator when she is attacked by a man. She's able to fight him off with some red scissors that she had just bought. When she gets to her floor her neighbor Alex (Steve Railsback) comes to help. She also meets his crippled brother Cole (Railsback) but he gives her a bad feeling. The trauma of the attack keeps bothering Angie who tries to talk it out with her therapist (Ronny Cox) but something just isn't adding up for her.SCISSORS has a very active and aggressive screenplay that covers the stuff that I mentioned in my summery but it has a lot of other things going on as well. That includes an entire subplot dealing with Angie suffering from various sexual issues that has caused her to be a virgin at the age of 26. This film really has a lot going on for it but when it's all said and done it's basically a "B" movie with interesting ideas that never really comes to life.The first hour of this movie has various tones lifted from Roman Polanski's REPULSION but sadly it's all done in such a way where there's no suspense or tension. The Polanski film is really borrowed from during the final act, which I won't spoil but this is where the movie really crashes and burns. I understand what director Frank De Felitta was going for but everything is just so flat and boring that the film just never works and in fact it really falls apart at the end. Again, I'm not going to spoil the twist but it just doesn't work.Stone turns in a good performance but her character just isn't written well enough to where it can fully come to life. I thought Railsback was very good in the role of the good brother and he certainly stole the film whenever he was on screen. Cox is good in his brief role but sadly none of the performances are able to overcome the rather bland direction and a story that just keeps going and going to the point where you just grow tired of it.

Jonas Miller You can already tell from the rating I gave this movie that it's excellent. The reason why it's so good is because you have to consider the genre of the movie (in this case a thriller).This thriller is seriously worth your time and is one of those masterpieces that are overshadowed by lesser thrillers with lots of marketing dollars & hype to make up for the lack of great content.Don't underestimate this movie and don't underestimate Sharon Stone. I'll guarantee you'll see her in a different light after. She is truly a gifted actress and in this movie you'll come to appreciate her talents. This movie has all the ingredients of a stone cold thriller so don't rob yourself of this experience. I'm not gonna say anything about the plot all I can say is watch it!

pnay75-1 I first saw "Scissors" some ten years ago, and I had kept some memories of it when I saw it again on tv. It fulfilled my expectations, as I remembered it as rather interesting, though somewhat far-fetched.Several reviewers have wondered about the necessity of showing Sharon Stone's beautiful bare breasts. I think it signifies that, though she reacts frigidly to men's advances, her sexuality is nevertheless present and no longer repressed when she is alone. Most writers rightly stress the excellency of the impersonation of Sharon Stone, on her (delayed)way to stardom. However I should like to point out that Steve Railsback, a very underrated actor, is quite remarkable too in the dual role of the neighboring twins. I think the film is worth a 8.

aorourke Warning Possible Spoiler! This movie was so bad I finally took the time to register just so I could complain about it. It looked dismally cheap and the only thing frightening was how sordid the Sharon Stone character was to watch. While Basic Instinct showed a smart, funny & ok violent exhibitionist, here the character was a mentally ill woman constantly being infantilized and shown with her legs spread & breasts falling out of her clothes. Add to that the completely absurd plot -- how does a semi-employed shizophrenic afford a deluxe apartment and a private psychiatrist? While the suspense was probably supposed to be which male character trapped her in an apartment, the only thing worth caring about was who was finally going to feed her poor cat.