MovieChat Forums > Basic Instinct 2 (2006) Discussion > Somebody should tell Sharon Stone...

Somebody should tell Sharon Stone...


She's old.

No, this isn't a rant about old people trying to be sexy. This is a rant about a woman who was ageing beautifully, who had a lot of "typical" plastic surgery done to stay young looking, but in turn it has made her look VERY old instead. Her face structure has changed and you can see the "typical" eye work she has had done which make her look older than she is but is trying to cover it with makeup. She was one of the few women in hollywood who was still pretty the older she got.

And I have to note her hair looked terrible the whole movie. She should have stuck with her own hair instead of those add ins.

OMG her boobs look so Horrible. What is wrong with this world!

reply

I'm just curious why some people choose to point out what's physically "wrong" or "horrible" about other people. Especially truly beautiful people like Sharon Stone, who has not had plastic surgery. And even if she has, she definitely does not look it. Check out Cher for someone who has obviously had botox. Not Sharon. She's gorgeous, naturally. And it really bothers me that people are condemning her and the movie, simply for still being sexy. It's like mass jealousy.

reply

I agree with your opinion. I think Sharon Stone is an exceptionally attractive and desireable woman.

reply

I thought this movie was SILLY but Sharon looked GOOD AS USUAL.

reply

Dear God!!! who could see Sharon Stone and think she wasn`t the most beautiful 48
yer old woman on the planet!!! Her eyes, her facial bone structure, her body, all
flawless in every way... I am mesmerized by her, I was expecting her to look less
attractive 14 years after the original, but she looks even better, my head hurts!

Randy "Bad"Berry

reply

jade silver , sharon had plastic surgery. look @ her boobs there not real!

reply

Cheep shot. Why bring Cher into this. She admits to having things repaired. Keep to the people and subject at hand. Yes Sharon Stones hair did look a bit unwashed. Shame she has great hair. BAD stylist!

reply

I must agree jadesliver. However, her hair extensions were hideous! This coming from someone who wears them.

reply

Mass jealousy ? Are you serious ? If she wasn't looking for every way possible to look younger and be sexy it wouldn't be so damn pathetic, but it is pathetic. She has tried so hard she looks like and old used up whore. Not to mention her part in this film is the part of an old used up whore. Why is that ? Nobody is knocking down the door with better offers and it's not like she turned them down to make this movie hit , the big hit that it is. She was never a huge talent anyhow. Now it's over unless she continues to play parts such as these . If she actually had talent to fall back on she would have offers for better movies etc. For example, Michelle Pfieffer doesn't have to play roles like these because she can actually act and has more and better acting skills than Sharon Stone.

reply

I was thinking that too. That why is Michael going nuts for this 48 year old woman when he ( who is not a bad looking guy at all) could have any crazy woman he wanted, not one who was being screwed by boys,girls and drug dealers. I think that was the worst thing about this movie, that they made her a total whore and that just ruined the story. But i mean for 48 god she didn't look that bad. YEah her hair was gross, they royally messed that up. But everything else was ok. But did you see the scene where she was wet from the rain to her therapy session? God she looked 100 there. lol
Michelle Pfieffer is a good actress but she also has been quoted because she prefers to not to sex scenes such as what this movie would have made her do. I think Sharon Stone did this because someone had a script and offered her alotta money to do this movie so of course she did it because she wanted to have a come back in her career. But you can't say she can't act because she was amazing in the '90s, now she just got older, which happens to all actors. This movie was just her mid-life crisis..lol

"the crunch means it's working"

reply

I dont get why was her hair gross?
Seriously i thought her haircut made her look younger.
Yes but on the other hand im not a gay barber.

Vote History:
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=41392738

reply

nor am i. im a girl tho and she had split ends , most of the time you cld easily tell her hair was fake. i thought her hair was the best wen she had it up in a bun right b4 she had sex wit a drug dealer.

"the crunch means it's working"

reply

Well straight men don't really care if there are split ends

reply

She was never amazing, including the 90s.

Note how good actresses get good gigs for more than about 5 years.
There's a reason nobody cares about Sharon Stone anymore. It's because looks was all she had.

reply

I disagree. Did you even see Casino? Did you see BI 1? She was a type cast. she fell into a role that she was getting to old to play. And she never developed her range or she was never given a shot to use her range. Personally I think if someone gave her a real role in the 90s or early 2000s she'd have had a longer career.

"the crunch means it's working"

reply

[deleted]

I heard that she has had botox. I really wish she wouldn't do that. She is the type that looks great even as she ages naturally. Kind of like a modern day Lee Remick. Lee always looked great. Even as she aged.

reply

Her hair was terrible....and so was her wardrobe! She looked very drag queeny in several scenes.

reply

I defenitley dont agree. Her hair was good. In some scenes it was a little odd. But most of it was awsome. and her wardrobe wasnt that bad. Please. shut it. :DD

RAINBOW recruiter
www.myspace.com/hugolo

reply

[deleted]

I wasn't impressed by the half second from 20 meters of her ultimate treasure

Huh?






"I wasn't impressed by the half second from 20 meters of her ultimate treasure" - CBBUBS67: Confused IMDb user

reply

Sharon Stone was smokin' hot in this movie. I agree that her hair wasn't that great though.

reply

Sharon has a great figure but her boobs are false, you can tell that a mile away, I have to agree with the comments about her hair and clothes, also she has had some face work which is a pity because she had a great natural look. But I think the film was better than people have made out,not great but fair to middling.If there is another film they will have to have her daughter or someone, sex divas at 60 I don't think so.

reply

"She's old."

OP you're talking like a jealous woman.

It's a dirty job, but I pay clean money for it.

reply

I think she was very sexy in the movie and she didn't look old at all.

reply

Her hair was very raggedy.

Don't expect, suggest...

reply

Shes beautiful!

And remember this girl has a very high IQ. Beauty and brains!!!

reply

[deleted]

I was flabbergasted at how awful her poor hair looked. You'd think the makeup artists could have done a better job. Her breasts absolutely looked like they had implants in the hot tub scene.

reply

I thought she looked absolutely beautiful in this movie and that her age did not show at all. I was pleasantly surprised at how young she looked.

I love Sharon Stone and she did a great job with this movie.

reply

She's old... look at those ghastly fingers, them rolls on her tummy, damn those wrinkles... she's old!

Oh she is 47 then in this picture? Then we can say...

Damn she looks great! That is the hottest milf I've ever seen!

reply

your an idiot shes hot!

reply

I think it's good that she's not pursuing a 20-year-old, mask-like visage. The message that older women are sexy would be wrongly delivered if she was desperately clutching any remaining youth. Perhaps it could be the "older" part that MAKES a woman sexy, eh??

reply

Well I just think it's weird that Sharon Stone promoted the movie as being an empowering film. To show that older women are sexy and beautiful and that it's all very natural. Which I agree with, however, she clearly has had plastic surgery. The face on her skin is tighter than it ever was before, and she has had breast implants. Althoug she got about the same size, you can tell they are fake. They are very round with no sagging. (even the hottest 40 something, will have a little sag) and she also has barely visible, but still there breast surgery scar. You can see it the scene where she is in the hot tub, and she leans back

reply

I thought Sharon Stone looked really great in the film.. Her appearance was not the film's major problem.. It was the plot, which was severely lacking.. It's obvious that Sharon did this for the greenbacks..

The best thing about the film was the sex scenes.. They turned me on, especially the scene where, Michael is having sex with the redhead (can't recall her name) from behind and he wraps her hair around his hand and pulls it.. Great scene!! The scene where Catherine straps the belt around Michael's neck during sex is great too.. All and all, the plot was just a rehashing of the first "Basic Instinct".. I didn't like the setting (London), because it seemed too dreary.. Part of the attraction of the first one, was the beautiful scenery and the San Francisco back drop.. This one, just felt claustophobic to me for some reason.. There were some fabulous looking scenes, but the cinematography didn't touch the first one.. Plus, Michael Douglass (Shooter) was a more worthy adversary for Catherine.. She played Michael lovely from the very beginning and he never really put up a fight.. In the first one, it was great to watch "Shooter" slowly lose himself in this woman.. He slowly reverted back to all the harmful and dangerous proclivities that got him in trouble to start with.. This "Basic Instinct" was kind of bland.. Glad I didn't see it in the theatres and waited for DVD, while I regretted not having the opportunity to see the first one at the movies.. I was too young back then and my parents would have never let me.. No need for a third installment..

"Some say they're your friends, but in reality they're your enemies.."

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Just to make clear - when I said she ain't pursuing a "20-year-old, mask-like visage" I really meant that she DOES look her age, just a bit, eh... enhanced. Y'know? I realize she's had some work done, but it looks (to me) all within reason and I don't agree that she has "porn actress boobs" or a "glazed look." Just a woman who's had some, er... "upkeep"...

reply

As in the Smokey Robinson song "I've Made Love To Sharon Stone A Thousand Times,even if it was only in my mind"(unfortunately!) and I refer more to Sliver that Basic Instinct.Sliver was not a great movie,but she was sublime:sexy and innocent at the same time!
But more then 10 years are gone and she's no more a girl.
I've seen Basic Instinct 2 some days ago and it was worst I could imagine:the plot could work with a better direction,I didn't see Morrissey in other movies,but this one needed a more solid and famous actor to face Stone.But what made me really sad was Sharon's new breast:in many movies we have all seen her normal breast, subordinate to the gravity law,but in the Jacuzzi scene she seems to have change it with two great apples!
Sigh,sob,sigh:nothing last forever!

reply

Yeah I think she still very attractive but WOW this movie was terrible the most absurd ending everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! And I like absurd movies & endings

reply

she's still hot as ever tho...great legs

reply

Can' t say the same. I paid to see this one, in the Movie theater and was mad nobody warned me beforehand. I never saw the first one because I was too young, at the time but everyone talked about it when the 2nd came out so I decided to see the 2nd at the movies. Later, I brought the 1st. She was mature, in the 1st. I don' t like to say old because by those standards, hey, I am old too. It is a stretch for me to see her being that kind of suductress, (at 40 plus) in the 2nd along with everything, everyone else points out about the plot. It only got a 3.7, on IMDB though. Do you guys agree?

reply

Whuz up, chimein?? Yeah, you're right on all counts. I can't see this movie getting only a 3.7.. I'd have to say, it deserved a 5.0.. It was just okay!! Nothing spectacular and definitely worth renting rather than paying for at a cinema.. As I said, if not for the smokin' sex scenes, then my horny a$$ would have given it a donut sized, 0. The sex scenes are really good, but the plot is bland.. A rehash and lesser version of the first.. I didn't really get into it as a mystery, because the surprise factor was gone.

Honeys play me close, like butter plays toast.."- B.I.G.

reply

Just more proof that when you're hot, leave your body the hell alone. Her breasts look like crap now.

reply

i don't agree with this thread at all im afraid.
i actually think she looks better in this film than in the original, though her breasts were obviously better in the first.
i don't think she looks like she has had a lot of plastic surgery. she simply does not look her age, and looks absolutely stunning.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]