Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Shaddim · Mar 13, 2006, 10:51 AM

Yeah, I had the hots for her, many years ago. She, in her day, was one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood. However, that day, is loong past... and this can't be a good thing. Hell, I thought she was pushing it a little in Simpatico, but at least she wasn't flashing her goods everywhere. I know they can do quite a bit with F/X, but it's gonna take a lot of work to make men want to see that kitty spinning in a chair again.

What is it with stars who just can't stop making certain types of films? 48 is a bit old to be flashing full-frontal, isn't it?

http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/b...ct2/index.html

Dakar · Mar 13, 2006, 11:06 AM

Yeah, I'm disturbed.

wdlove · Mar 13, 2006, 11:19 AM

I enjoyed the trailer. Think that she still looks fabulous. A good actress.

Super Mario · Mar 13, 2006, 11:35 AM

She looks tasty for her age but who the **** is that crumby charisma less man in the movie?

Dakar · Mar 13, 2006, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Super Mario

She looks tasty for her age but who the **** is that crumby charisma less man in the movie?

Probably the only person willing to take the role.

Super Mario · Mar 13, 2006, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar

Probably the only person willing to take the role.

What....just because I never heard about the auditions. Me and Sharon on the casting couch, nice. I woulda.......

Chuckit · Mar 13, 2006, 11:47 AM

I like how she was upset that they "tricked" her into showing her kitty in the first one, and then in this one, she's like, "Hey, I want to do full frontal nudity!" Wonder if she's going to sue again.

Kevin · Mar 13, 2006, 11:54 AM

Not too long ago she said she was never going to do any nudity again. Said if you wanna see that, go watch her old films.

Women are fickle.

Rolling Bones · Mar 13, 2006, 11:56 AM

Bitch, bitch, bitch!

You're getting as bad as Cody Dawg.

Don't like it don't go see it.

I'd hit Stoney.

But that doesn't mean the movie is good and was probably done to pad her bank account. Actors always make a stinker when they need a new house.

Chuckit · Mar 13, 2006, 11:56 AM

I've heard that money can make people fickle.

TETENAL · Mar 13, 2006, 12:05 PM

Is a woman with 48 too old to have sex? if not, why shouldn't they be allowed to make a film about it?

I think she looked good in the trailer.

Rolling Bones · Mar 13, 2006, 12:09 PM

Steiner's jealous. His Viagra ran out and he hasn't had sex for a few weeks.

ghporter · Mar 13, 2006, 12:09 PM

Sharon Stone too old? Not a chance! She's still buff, still toned, and still VERY hot.

Besides, what does some arbitrary number have to do with a woman's appeal? Aside from avoiding those with particularly LOW arbitrary numbers (institutional food is bad for my digestion), the number that goes with age is irrelevant. Look at Tina Turner. Look at Sophia Loren. The only thing these ladies can't do is believeably pretend to be 20. Who wants to be 20? It's a horrible, in-between, useless age...

xi_hyperon · Mar 13, 2006, 12:14 PM

Trailer looks good. Sharon looks good. It's worth a few bucks to check out.

Cody Dawg · Mar 13, 2006, 12:20 PM

What about Madonna? You may not like her or her music, but she's extraordinary when it comes to keeping herself fit.

See her at the Grammys three weeks ago?

If not, here you go - this is 48+ years old:

Shaddim · Mar 13, 2006, 12:31 PM

IMO, Sharon just looked worn and tired. When I watched the trailer I just felt sorry for her, not aroused.

Maybe she's doing this so she can get some press and feel sexy and vital again. Who knows?

Madonna has her moments of sex appeal, but she's fast approaching that place too

xi_hyperon · Mar 13, 2006, 12:34 PM

It's a matter of taste. If you like older women, you're more likely to think she can pull it off (or take it off, ba-dum-bum). If not, then she's going to look old. I'm in the former camp, but then, I'm no spring chicken either.

Shaddim · Mar 13, 2006, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Is a woman with 48 too old to have sex? if not, why shouldn't they be allowed to make a film about it?

I think she looked good in the trailer.

I'm sure they picked the best shots, and maybe they can do enough editting to kinda pull this off, but it doesn't change the fact that it feels kind of sad in a way.

No, 48 isn't too old for sex, but in most cases it's too old to film it and show it to millions of people.

olePigeon · Mar 13, 2006, 12:39 PM

I met her once, nice lady.

She was one of the main contributors to our non-profit.

Shaddim · Mar 13, 2006, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon

It's a matter of taste. If you like older women, you're more likely to think she can pull it off (or take it off, ba-dum-bum). If not, then she's going to look old. I'm in the former camp, but then, I'm no spring chicken either.

Sure, some 1 in 20 may find her drop-dead sexy, and if she still feels that way about herself, then that's all the better. However, that's not the feeling I get from this, it looks like a last grasp at being a temptress, a fit of desperation.

Is she still pretty, of course, I'd even say she's beautiful, but there's a fine line here and I think she's crossing it.

Shaddim · Mar 13, 2006, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon

Trailer looks good. Sharon looks good. It's worth a few bucks to check out.

I probably will too, never could pass up the chance to see a good train wreck.

Ken_F2 · Mar 13, 2006, 12:46 PM

The director used early 20s look-alikes for many of the closeup shots in Basic Instinct II.

In the first movie, it was Sharon Stone in most nudity shots. That is not the case in II.

That said, Stone still has an excellent body for her age. She is nude in the wider shots.

Cody Dawg · Mar 13, 2006, 12:52 PM

I just saw the trailer.

If she had picked ANY other movie and the theme was sex then it would probably work. The comparisons to the new vs. old movies and characters dictate that this movie will probably fail.

To elaborate, the problem is that we're comparing the younger Sharon to the older Sharon and all we do is remember the younger one and so this movie doesn't work. The theme is sex and although she's a good actor, this movie is about "Can Sharon Stone Still Be Sexy At 48?" It's not about "Sharon Stone Is A Great Actor." Sharon can act and act well and why she went back to this vehicle to get back into the acting game is beyond me.

Sometimes a sequel should never be made.

If they wanted to make a sequel I'd have written it completely different. She'd either be a sexy lawyer or *somehow* have gotten her Ph.D. in psychology and now she's a sexy psychologist.

Older Sharon + reputable character + sexiness =

Younger Sharon + disreputable character + sexiness =

Older Sharon + disreputable character + sexiness =

Disreputable "bad girl" characters only work with younger actresses because the audience has "give" with them - they are sexy and young and craziness can play.

But disreputable "bad girl" characters don't work with older actresses - no matter how sexy they might be - because the public wants a mature woman to be reputable. Otherwise she's a parody of something or someone much younger. She becomes a Cruella DeVille-type character - a cartoonish parody.

So, no, Sharon should have left well enough alone OR she should have been given a role that lent her some credibility - much like Faye Dunaway's character in the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair.

d4nth3m4n · Mar 13, 2006, 01:01 PM

basic instinct AND rambo both being remade? wow, is this heaven?

TETENAL · Mar 13, 2006, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

No, 48 isn't too old for sex, but in most cases it's too old to film it and show it to millions of people.

That's stupid. What is part of life can be topic of a movie.

Don't feel sorry for Sharon. She is doing fine in that movie afaict from the trailer. Feel sorry for yourself. You are narrow minded.

Doofy · Mar 13, 2006, 01:04 PM

No urge to see Sharon in the buff again. Been there, done that.

ghporter · Mar 13, 2006, 01:09 PM

I disagree, Cody. I do not see Sharon's character getting cartoonish at all. Perhaps more intense or more inscrutable, but not cartoonish. Besides, that would ruin the potential for suspense.

As for Faye Dunaway in the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair, consider how many years went between the original and the remake: 31 years (1968-1999). It's only been about 12 years since Basic Instinct came out. There's a huge difference between thinking someone's entire self is different in ten years and in thirty years.

IceEnclosure · Mar 13, 2006, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

No, 48 isn't too old for sex, but in most cases it's too old to film it and show it to millions of people.

That's about it. ESPECIALLY if you already filmed it and showed it to millions of people 15 or so years ago.

Shaddim · Mar 13, 2006, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

That's stupid. What is part of life can be topic of a movie.

Don't feel sorry for Sharon. She is doing fine in that movie afaict from the trailer. Feel sorry for yourself. You are narrow minded.

Your misplaced anger at me doesn't change anything.

This is likely a bad move for her, and she's doing it out of desperation... she doesn't even feel good about her body, otherwise she likely wouldn't need a double.

Yes, I feel sad for her. Don't like it? Tough. *shrug*

Cody Dawg · Mar 13, 2006, 01:18 PM

She looks tired.

And coming back to reprise a role that is about sex seems like a desperate last grab for youth.

Picture the same movie made with...Charlize Theron.

It would be entirely different and Charlize has the acting chops, the legs, and yes the SEX APPEAL to pull it off.

When I saw that shot where she bends over to show off her bubbies (her cleavage) it didn't really do anything except make me think, "Why show that?"

In fact, after watching it I made a mental note to add an appointment with Larry Koplin in Beverly Hills to my calendar in about 8 to 10 years. (He's an extremely talented plastic surgeon.

)

Dakar · Mar 13, 2006, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Picture the same movie made with...Charlize Theron.

Boy-yoy-yoy-yoing

Chuckit · Mar 13, 2006, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Is a woman with 48 too old to have sex? if not, why shouldn't they be allowed to make a film about it?

Well, they can make a movie about it, but they should not expect it to be sexy.

davesimondotcom · Mar 13, 2006, 02:40 PM

I think Cody Dawg should do the casting for movies... Charlize in that role would be droolworthy!

But really, I could care less about the sequel to a movie that was so-so to begin with. Basic Instinct was ok, but if Matrix 2 sucked, Basic Instinct 2 must be heading for another level of teh suck.

But I could be wrong, of course.

Sharon does look decent, but Charlize would have looked better.

Cody Dawg · Mar 13, 2006, 02:46 PM

Now think about this:

Basic Instinct II with Charlize as the psycho and Sharon as the reformed-psycho who has earned her Ph.D. in psychology in the interim period and is now called in by the FBI to help with Charlize.

Opens up an entirely new angle.

Including a quasi-lesbian attraction the two might have for each other (TOTALLY COOL angle to toy with) because both of them have similar psyches.

That kind of screenplay would have clinched it for both of them.

Kr0nos · Mar 13, 2006, 02:47 PM

Very boderline sexy. Kudos to her for pulling it off though, - I know 30 somethings that are in far worse shape (though, in all fairness, we don't get to see Mrs. Stone without make-up).

/Not going to see the movie (BI 1 boring)
//Not even on DVD

Shaddim · Mar 13, 2006, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Now think about this:

Basic Instinct II with Charlize as the psycho and Sharon as the reformed-psycho who has earned her Ph.D. in psychology in the interim period and is now called in by the FBI to help with Charlize.

Opens up an entirely new angle.

Including a quasi-lesbian attraction the two might have for each other (TOTALLY COOL angle to toy with) because both of them have similar psyches.

That kind of screenplay would have clinched it for both of them.

Hell yeah, I'd pay to see that version.

davesimondotcom · Mar 13, 2006, 03:16 PM

Cody Dawg - I love your script idea... too bad the Hollywood types didn't think of it first.

osiris · Mar 13, 2006, 03:16 PM

I've never been a big fan of Sharon Stone, but good for her for pulling this off. She can play a tough gal quite well, and appears to be in better shape than most KFC quaffing teens out there.

I think I liked her in Casino the best. She does have range when matched with the right actors.

Cody Dawg · Mar 13, 2006, 03:47 PM

davesimon: I've done work for New Line before and keep in touch with some of the folks still in that biz. I think that an edgier Sharon Stone where she stepped back and let someone else headline with her as a supporting actress or co-star would have given her more credibility. Instead she goes for broke in this role and although she probably has the attitude, "Older actresses are just as good as younger actresses," which is the theme in L.A. nowadays, the truth is that younger actresses are necessary for some roles. Stone is trying to reprise a role that has an infamy to it and it was better left to it's own glory and place in Hollywood history. Reprising it removes some of the lustre from the original.

Another actress to consider would have been Jessica Biel. Jess definitely has the body and her price for doing the picture would have been attractive and she could have learned a lot from Madame Stone.

BRussell · Mar 13, 2006, 04:51 PM

Sharon Stone's age is not the problem with this movie.

olePigeon · Mar 13, 2006, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Now think about this:

Basic Instinct II with Charlize as the psycho and Sharon as the reformed-psycho who has earned her Ph.D. in psychology in the interim period and is now called in by the FBI to help with Charlize.

Opens up an entirely new angle.

Including a quasi-lesbian attraction the two might have for each other (TOTALLY COOL angle to toy with) because both of them have similar psyches.

That kind of screenplay would have clinched it for both of them.

And don't call it "Basic Instinct II," call it something creative and seemingly unrelated. That way it can be a good movie in itself; and for those who want it to be, can be a great sequal.

Super Mario · Mar 13, 2006, 05:33 PM

Years back Mad Comic parodied the first movie with their version Basically Itstinks. Will they do it again with Basic Itstinks Too?

olePigeon · Mar 13, 2006, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Super Mario

Years back Mad Comic parodied the first movie with their version Basically Itstinks. Will they do it again with Basic Itstinks Too?

MAD sucked after Gaines kicked the bucket. It's sucked ever since. The magazine is horrible and the TV show is even worse.

andi*pandi · Mar 13, 2006, 06:09 PM

unnecessary sequel. If they did cast Charleze Theron, they could have retitled it something interesting--it wouldn't have related to the first at all.

turtle777 · Mar 13, 2006, 07:43 PM

WTF is wrong with her hair. It's fugly.

-t

nredman · Mar 13, 2006, 08:37 PM

sub Demi Moore for Sharon Stone and i'll watch it

volcano · Mar 13, 2006, 09:45 PM

There was definitely a Powerbook in the trailer.

BRussell · Mar 13, 2006, 09:54 PM

For a, uh, slightly different trailer, check this out. Or google "basicinstinct2.mov". It's, uh, slightly different.

TETENAL · Mar 13, 2006, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

For a, uh, slightly different trailer, check this out. Or google "basicinstinct2.mov". It's, uh, slightly different.

Post a link to the HD version of this trailer.

MindFad · Mar 13, 2006, 10:41 PM

Wow, looks pretty friggin' horrible. I enjoyed the first movie. I won't bother with this one.