Okay so the movie. Eric roberts looks butt uglyl cheesey movie, but i like it. But sharon stone in this era is the beautiful woman on earth.
Watching it on TV right now. She is drop dead gorgeous.
Laura:You left a dead prostitute buried alone in the desert?
Kyle:She's not alone.
1990 to 1996 was her peak as one of the most beautiful actresses ever
shareNot even close. Her beauty was generic, like a Sears catalog model. Also, she had no tits or ass worth mentioning, and her legs were average at best.
sharequality face...
shareNot even close. Her beauty was generic, like a Sears catalog model. Also, she had no tits or ass worth mentioning, and her legs were average at best.
Your non sequitur is dismissed, Special Ed.
shareOk stud. I bet the ladies just throw their panties at you when you walk down the street.
shareThat's another non sequitur, mooncalf, not to mention, another laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading. For the record, idiots are inherently the sole source of non sequiturs of this type, which of course establishes you as an idiot.
Here's a hint, hayseed: the OP established the standard (i.e., "the most beautiful woman on Earth"), so my post had exactly nothing to do with my standards, obviously. Nearly everyone's personal standards are well below the level of "the most beautiful woman on Earth," otherwise, ~3.8 billion males would only be interested in a small pool of women who could arguably qualify as "the most beautiful woman on Earth."
Looks like I hit a nerve. Was 'non sequitur' on your word-of-the-day toilet paper?
Your opinion on her appearance is so exaggerated and off-kilter it deserves to be ridiculed. 'Her legs were average at best' - really? Have you seen the average pair of legs? If Sharon Stone is average, your wife or girlfriend (if by some miracle you managed to nab one) must look like Quasimodo.
"Looks like I hit a nerve."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, as is your third laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading, Miss Cleo.
"Was 'non sequitur' on your word-of-the-day toilet paper?"
Your non sequitur is dismissed, road apple.
"Your opinion on her appearance is so exaggerated and off-kilter it deserves to be ridiculed."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, ninny.
"'Her legs were average at best' - really?"
Yes, really, else I wouldn't have typed it.
"Have you seen the average pair of legs?"
^^^ Reading Deficiency Alert ^^^
Obviously I've seen the average pair of legs, given that I've already cited Sharon Stone's legs as an example. Most any woman in her prime age range who isn't significantly overweight or underweight has legs comparable to Sharon Stone's. You need far more prominent curves in the legs (and ass) to rise above average, like so:
https://i.imgur.com/Ze1neZR.png
"If Sharon Stone is average, your wife or girlfriend (if by some miracle you managed to nab one) must look like Quasimodo."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, dullard. That makes what, your sixth public declaration of idiocy?
Wow your responses are so varied and interesting to read. Autistic douchenozzle.
https://i.imgur.com/Ze1neZR.png
"Wow your responses are so varied and interesting to read. Autistic douchenozzle."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, airhead.
"Lmao looks like a transsexual with an ass implant. I think I see the issue now, you're into men."
Not only have you established yourself as an idiot multiple times (by posting non sequiturs), you now fail Biology 101 forever. The point at which her hips start to curve outward is above her navel:
https://i.imgur.com/AcChMia.jpg
That's an exclusively female skeletal structure, numbnuts. LOL at you not being able to tell the difference between a female and a male, and also, LOL at you not being able to tell the difference between flesh and bags of silicone. I have no doubt that you can't tell the difference between real and fake tits either. Morons like you see real tits and proclaim them to be fake just because they are big, and see smaller, but fake, tits and believe them to be real.
You + an idiot = 2 idiots.
"These are great legs - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2szmouXEAA8gsg.jpg
Slender, feminine and proportionate with the rest of her body."
Like I said: average at best. The profile of her calves consists of nearly straight lines. Also, LOL at you thinking you know the first thing about proportions when you can't even tell the difference between a man and a woman. And LOL at you in general, you know, while I'm at it.
"That thing with the pink hair you posted looks like a third rate stripper that possibly has a penis."
You and a fool are alike.
Your non sequitur is dismissed, airhead.
you now fail Biology 101 forever. The point at which her hips start to curve outward is above her navel:
Like I said: average at best.
"Such interesting and varied responses, you must be a whiz with the ladies."
Comical irony, coming from the firmly established idiot who keeps posting non sequiturs. Your non sequitur is dismissed of course.
"That's why I said looks and not is."
That's another non sequitur and a laughable attempt at a save. I didn't say, nor suggest, that you said "is" rather than "looks," and the only thing she looks like is a female, due to her blatantly female skeletal structure (not to mention every other part of her looking blatantly female as well).
"If you cut her off below the hip and just showed me her legs, I would question whether they belong to a transsexual. They do not look slender or feminine at all. The calves are disproportionately large and make her look stumpy."
First, you commented on a picture that showed her from head to toe, not just below her hips, so consider your tacit request to move the goalpost, denied. Second, her legs are very feminine, which is why they are well above average, and her calves are the main thing that elevate her legs to above average. You've already established that you have no sense of proportion (you can't tell the difference between a man and a woman).
This woman has above average legs too, and it's mainly because of her calves:
https://i.imgur.com/wOBUf2T.jpg
Calves are supposed to curve out, rather than being nearly straight lines like with Sharon Stone.
"False. That scene would not be one of the most famous and watched scenes in movie history if she had average legs, it wouldn't have worked."
Again, you're an idiot. That scene is so famous because she spread her legs and she wasn't wearing any underwear, giving a brief glimpse of her vulva. Also, you seem to be under the impression that average means unattractive (you know, because you're stupid). It doesn't. Average looks pretty good; it just doesn't look extraordinarily good. For example, here are some computer-generated average female faces:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435688/The-average-woman-revealed-Study-blends-thousands-faces-worlds-women-look-like.html
"Like I said, if she's generic/average you must be dating some Quasimodo lookalikes with a hunchback and a claw for a hand."
Your non sequitur (nonsensical non sequitur, no less) remains dismissed, Slow Doug.
"You need to get out into the real world bud"
Your non sequitur is dismissed, and LOL at you still thinking your crystal ball actually works. Whoever sold it to you saw you coming from a mile away.
"instead of staring at images of random women showering in the street LOL. Creepy af."
First, this is more comical irony coming from the Lowest Common Denominator Poster Child who's been staring at a screenshot of el generico Sharon Stone. Second, it's not random; it's from a prank video that has about 58 million views, dumbass - https://youtu.be/ldoec-KBtWo
non sequiturs. Your non sequitur is dismissed of course.
and the only thing she looks like is a female
Calves are supposed to curve out, rather than being nearly straight lines like with Sharon Stone.
Again, you're an idiot. That scene is so famous because she spread her legs and she wasn't wearing any underwear, giving a brief glimpse of her vulva.
First, this is more comical irony coming from the Lowest Common Denominator Poster Child who's been staring at a screenshot of el generico Sharon Stone. Second, it's not random; it's from a prank video that has about 58 million views
"you're a dullard."
Comical Irony Alert: Part IV (you know, coming from the well-established and registered idiot).
"You are possibly the most boring poster i've ever come across."
Gee, that's too bad.
"Non sequitur non sequitur non sequitur. There, I saved you the effort of typing your next response."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, dolt.
"Her legs are not feminine at all, her calves are over-sized and she looks like she had a botched ass implant."
Your asinine assertions are negated by the fact that you've established that you can't even tell the difference between a man and a woman (LOL), and can't tell the difference between flesh and plastic bags of silicone (LOL again). In other words, you're not qualified to have an opinion, Dumb Guy™.
"Using your fucktarded logic"
Comical Irony Alert: Part V
"Arnold Schwarzenegger has more feminine legs than Sharon Stone"
No, dipshit, and logic is yet another thing that you're not qualified for. Also, this is yet another non sequitur on your part, given that it doesn't logically follow from anything I typed.
"I think it's clear you're just into manly muscly legs."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, moron. Also, that's comically ironic coming from the weirdo who likes straight legs and flat asses, which are boyish traits. And, LOL at you thinking atrophied-looking chicken legs are feminine. Feminine = curves, and legs that look like tapered table legs - https://www.vandykes.com/images/xl/204265.jpg?v=102634308180-1 - aren't even remotely feminine.
"Feminine legs do not necessarily mean bulging calves."
Feminine legs include calves that have a significant curve to their front profile, rather than being nearly straight lines, which looks neither feminine nor healthy.
Kelly Preston's legs are terrible, to the point that it looks like they are deformed:
https://i.imgur.com/UzaKXc7.jpg
As for Stacy Keibler, is that a joke? She has prominent calves, idiot - https://i.redd.it/192473em9x241.jpg - though her legs still don't look very good, at least not in that picture, because there's too much muscle definition due to her body fat percentage being too low. She has some weird bulging shapes in her knees too.
No one was ever more famous for her legs than Catherine Bach in her prime, and she had calves:
https://i.imgur.com/2nDWOGK.jpg
Also, neither Sharon Stone nor any of the other women you've mentioned are even in Catherine Bach's league.
And then there's Mary Hart:
Hart is known for her shapely legs, leading to an endorsement contract with Hanes for that company's line of pantyhose in 1987. Jay Bernstein had her legs insured with Lloyd's of London for $1 million each.
Your non sequitur is dismissed, dolt.
and can't tell the difference between flesh and plastic bags of silicone
Feminine legs include calves that have a significant curve to their front profile
Kelly Preston's legs are terrible, to the point that it looks like they are deformed:
LOL at you not being able to tell the difference between flesh and bags of silicone.
Also, your tacit concession that it was her exposed vulva, and not her legs, which made that scene so famous, is noted.
Your non sequitur is dismissed
Sharon looks great in this movie, but she looked best 9 years earlier in "King Solomon's Mines" where her shorts kept getting shorter as the story progressed. Check it out and I think you'll agree (just don't expect any nudity): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089421/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0. It helps that her character isn't ultra-bitter as she is in this one; hence, she's more all-around vibrant.
shareOhhh if you thought that she was sexy in this film, look at her in the Schwarzenegger's version of Total Recall! This was the hottest she has ever been!
But my personal pick for the hottest actress of that era would without any hesitation be: Elizabeth Shue. Omgggg that woman back then!!!
She was supremely hot in the 80's too, those Allan Quatermain films she was in were a bit crap but she kept my interest.
shareIf I recall correctly, the most beautiful woman of that era was Cindy Crawford.
share