And I base it on SZ's record of inverse proportion: the films she pans always do well--very well--at the box office.

Make of that what you will.....

There wouldn't even have to be a movie, the title alone could take first place this weekend.

It's either...

Going to be gleefully fun and ridiculous (and yet lesser than the original: that's a given,) or...it's going to be a 'Mommie Dearest' kind of movie, which is equally great and something Ms. Stone excels at, having had plenty of practice in her career.

SZ makes a point of noting how Sharon Stone doesn't let poor writing detract from her performance, and I agree. I'd argue that since she's been given a bum rap in Hollywood for much of her career, one of Stone's great talents, one of her intellectual tools in her acting toolbox, is the ability to succeed where the material fails her.

Two cases in point: Diabolique and Catwoman. In the former, while everyone else thinks they are making high-art, Sharon Stone, the STAR of the film, acts in another movie entirely: a stylized 'camp-noir' if you will. Utterly fearless and brilliant with utterly no support.

In Catwoman, her 20 minutes are the only reason to see the movie, again, she's the only one aware of just how great this flick could be if everyone else realized that this garbage was no 'Batman,' but COULD be the Airplane For Super Hero Films(tm).

Still, it's bittersweet to know that...yet again, Sharon Stone is the best thing in the worst film. Get it together, Hollywood!

What's a "sporstcar"? Is that some new British masturbatory tool?

Saying Sharon Stone is sexy is like saying that "pro-life" statue of Brittany Spears is sexy; they're both cheaply sexual and fake looking.

I must disagree with "Necromancer".

Putting Sharon Stone in the same room with Britney Spears is like putting the USS Enterprise on the same ocean with a speedboat. Yes, I will grant that Britney is hot. But that's about all there is to her. And when she ever let go with that "just trust the President" line, I decided she was just another brainless strip-club wannabe.

Sharon Stone, on the other hand has always had this smoldering intelligence and a kind of indifference to what anyone thought of her. She knows what she brings to the table and has never suffered fools gladly. While Demi Moore seemed to be all about the petulant diva and you could ignore that, you can't safely ignore Sharon Stone. Better bring your A-game when you deal with her. I've known women like that. That kind of intelligence, combined with that smoking hot body is a serious turn-on. She gets abuse for being confident when a man would get kudos. She knows that reality and she doesn't give a right damn. One of these days she will get film roles that let her showcase what she's really about, and I will be glad to watch.

I never appreciated how important foreheads are to acting. Stone's forehead looks botoxed to death. It really does make a difference.

They were over-age strippers, and they suffered from far too much plastic surgery.

Anyone and everyone who goes to see this movie will basically be screwing Stone's dead career.

I would take Sharon Stone over Britney in a heartbeat (and she's got at least 15-20 years on me age-wise). Britney is total trailer trash and without redeeming qualities. Given, Stone has clearly had some work done, but so has Britney, and at least Stone's work was artfully done. I doubt Basic Instinct 2 is a very good movie, but neither was Basic Instinct 1. Just imagine if they put old Micheal Douglas' old ass in part 2, he would look totally out of place as a musty old dude, while Sharon Stone is plausible as a sex pot like 15 years after the original. She deserves props for that.

"Piece of Shit."

This is sure to be as memorable.

If you look at my original post, I compared Stone to the Spears statue (look over in Broadsheet to read more about that particular artistic travesty), NOT Stone to Spears.

Yeah, I've always liked Sharon Stone. I even dug her as the villain with literal boobs of stone in the wretched Cat Woman. Sadly, at least based on this review, she seems to be going the way of Mickey Rourke before Sin City. Basic Instinct 2 sounds like her Wild Orchid, pulling off the miraculous feat of being both sleazy and dull at the same time. What a damn shame.

The only directors at this point who could save her career from the straight-to-skin-e-max dung heap are those who understand how to create mythology. Scorsese does, which is why Casino is still her swan song. Tarantino, Lynch, and her namesake Oliver could also do her justice. Stone has the rare ability to both understand her camp value as a performer, and yet completely invest herself in whatever she's called upon to do, no matter how ridiculous or bizarre. Add a street-smart understanding of sexual aggressiveness, capped with detergent box good looks, and you have a larger-than-life, mythological-type vixen. In other words, a true star.

Now, if only Hollywood knew what to do with one...

Sharon Stone has never been "sexy", and certainly isn't sexy now. She's a freaking nutcase. She's a B actress who got promoted to A on the basis of a cooter shot. Now, like all Hollywood actors, she thinks the sun shines out of her behind, but in reality no one with any sense cares what she thinks. It doesn't matter how "smart" she is; intelligence isn't something you HAVE, it's something you DEVELOP, like muscles, and Stone hasn't developed anything; she just sits around and waits for people to hand things to her. Including a rep for smarts, and rep for sexy. But I'd rather have sex with a block of wood than her, even in her "prime".

And the movies are AWFUL. I do hope this new one becomes a camp classic like "Showgirls", because it's been a while.