Stone circa BI:1=Hot. Stone circa BI:2= Older and Hotter
After all the vicious reviews of “Basic Instinct 2″ and the more than unkind comments about Sharon Stone’s age (no, little boys, 48 is not even close to being old), let’s give some of the same treatment to actually old men.
“Indiana Jones 4″ has been announced starring, once again, Harrison Ford. The big news late last week was that Sean Connery may return as Indiana’s dad. Yes, that means we have an Indiana Jones adventure movie starring the 64-year-old Ford and 76-year-old Connery. At this rate it had better be titled, “Indiana Jones and the Nursing Home of Doom.”
It will be fascinating to see how the MSM and Hollywood elite treat those two geezers when that film comes out. I have a tiny feeling, no matter what is said, they will not be eviscerated for their age as Stone has been. So, as we did a pic comparison of Sharon, then and now, let’s do the same for the boys.
Ford Then=Hot. Ford Now=Not.
Connery Then=Wow, Hot! Connery Now: Uh, Not.
Sharon Stone, btw, is a woman who is at her professional and sexual height, as most women can be between 40 and 60. The fact that many men and women can’t handle that, especially the insecure who are relegated to “review” the work of others, isn’t a surprise. Stone has announced she wants there to be a BI:3, which she would direct. Good for her. I saw BI:2 and while it wasn’t great, it certainly didn’t deserve the universal trashing it received.
I would suggest that perhaps it’s not that Sharon Stone has changed or that the film itself wasn’t good, it’s that we have changed and are not as shocked or innocent as we were 14 years ago. Believe it or not, 14 years does a lot to desensitize you to cultural issues. In many ways Stone couldn’t win. The public wanted the same experience, the same inexperience, they thrilled to all those years ago. No one can deliver that, and so the woman in front of us, reminding us of what we used to be and what we aren’t any longer, was on the receiving end of our disapointment in ourselves, the simple fact that we have aged, and all that comes with it.
As of this writing, BI:2 moves into its third week of release with a box office take so far of $15,408,000 worldwide. Certainly not what they expected, but ultimately the film will limp into making some money. In the meantime, I hope Stone does make BI:3 happen, and I hope she does direct it. She’s shown with both “Casino” and last year’s “Broken Flowers” that she’s an excellent actor if she has the right material and director. BI:2’s fatal flaw was not Sharon Stone, it was Michael Caton-Jones the director. After seeing the film, even I have ideas that would have made the pic memorable and challenging without having to degrade into a parody of the 1992 version.
I have a feeling Stone also knows what needs to happen. Let’s hope in the meantime she makes some good choices and then nails the next BI with the proverbial ice pick, in whatever capacity she serves.
And any pansy who says I’m being “too mean” (I can hear it now) about Ford and Connery, ask yourself if you felt the same sympathy for Stone these past couple of weeks as she was being assailed.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
[stares at naughty bits] Huh?…..did you say somethin’?
I agree with Tammy that Stone is more attractive now than she was then… And I would also submit that Stone’s best performance is in Casino, which happens to be one of the most underrated movies of the past few decades.
Okay, Tammy touches on many points here. I just saw Basic Instinct 2, largely on Tammy’s semi-recommendation. I certainly won’t criticize Sharon Stone for her age, although 1) Maybe my attitude is abnormal, but I’m getting on in years myself, and I feel more commonality with humans (including women) of closer to my own age, and 2) Hollywood is so good with makeup that they can make anyone look like anything. Heck, they can turn you into a Romulan. They can change your race or your weight or even your sex. Dropping a few years is child’s play to them. It may be that in real life Sharon Stone looks like Golda Meir, but you couldn’t see it here.
However, there won’t be BI=3; not with BI=2 getting BO=0 (“Box Office=0″, ha ha). The audience just didn’t come, in any sense of the word. Why not? The savage reviews didn’t help, but my guess is the sequel couldn’t achieve the notoriety of the original, because the stuff that was once shocking is now mundane. The young moviegoers weren’t drawn in because they hadn’t seen the original and were looking for younger films with younger actors. And the older moviegoers, who are less inclined to automatically attend movies, didn’t get caught up either. Maybe Hollywood made, as John Kerry would put it, the wrong movie in the wrong place at the wrong time. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it does better in Europe. The pseudointellectual Europeans, unlike their dumb American brethren, flock to pseudointellectual movies about men who obsess over mysterious, dangerous women. They love those movies the way we love to see stuff get blown up.
I’m guessing that Tammy appreciated the exploration of psychological themes, including questions of control in relationships. Not to mention the appearance of Charlotte Rampling. Oh, and of course the opening scenes of the movie were obviously inspired by the life and times of Ted Kennedy. He should sue!
I’m not denying that Sharon Stone still looks good, but I think you ARE being unfair to Ford and Connery. Lets do the math here: The elapsed time between the two Stone pictures was 14 years. The difference between the HF picture is almost thirty years (between Star Wars) and the present day. And the early James Bond picture is probably over 40 years old. All of the “before” photos show the actors in their mid-thirties, but the “after” pictures are late forties, mid-sixties, and mid-seventies, respectively. A more fair comparison would involve Harrison Ford in the early ’90’s and Sean Connery in the mid ’70’s. Or you could wait to see how Sharon compares to Harrison in 2020, or how she compares to Sean around 2033. And since Indiana Jones 4 isn’t going to be an erotic thiller (I hope), their relative sexiness will probably be less of an issue.
Tammy, as far as I’m concerned you’re sexier than Sharon Stone at any age. I not ashamed to say that than I have a hugh crush on you.
Tammy, I think the difference between Sharon and Harrison/Sean is that the boys aren’t appearing in a movie designed to exploit their looks (no nudity as far as I know or hope. Blechhh!!!) Their appeal is to forty-something hairy-back guys like myself who like to think that we can still do heroics (you know, true fantasy.) And while I’m not naive enough to believe that Harrison/Sean haven’t had any plastic surgery, they haven’t gone nearly as far as Sharon has. I haven’t seen the movie, but did Sharon’s plastic surgeons (and I’m sure she has a staff) get credits?
You want a sexy older woman actress? Sela Ward. Rrrroooowwwrrrrr. http://www.fox.com/house/bios/sela.htm
Sela’s not afraid of a few wrinkles. Sharon’s beauty seems too artificial to me, too store bought. That may be unfair I know, but if she managed to look like that at her age without a scalpel, she’s about the only woman on the planet who has.
Of course Sharon Stone is hot, she’s our generation! But I think I’ll skip BI:3, where she crosses her legs in a wheelchair.
Mmmmm…Sharon Stone. Err…[collapses in highly uncharacteristic slack-jawed speechlessness]
Tammy’s right about the way mature women and old geezers are treated differently. I think it’s really bizarre that it seems to only be getting worse. Great actresses of the 30s and 40s kept working well into their more mature years, on par I think with the men. But the great actresses of today are shelved after a few good years. What happened to all those good liberal progressives on the Left Coast?
And there is an entire market that Hollywood ignores by sticking to what it obviously thinks is a formula. It’s young man/young woman or old man/young woman. The exception is a middle aged man/middle aged woman… like “Broken Flowers” or one of my favs “Open Range” with Costner and Annette Bening. Those were actually refreshing to watch because they didn’t follow the age formula.
Harrison Ford, Connery, and the “Indiana Jones and the Nursing Home of Doom” will tank. I’m so over them. He’s not just old…. he’s tired. And that earring of his is laughable… come on Harrison, act your age.
Not to play Devil’s Advocate…but if I had any complaint about Ms. Stone, it’s that she looks a little bit to plasticine for my liking. Either she’s had a cheek lift or a face pull or SOMETHING (look at those eyebrows…yikes!)- then had it buffed off with a fine coating of Madame Tussaud’s finest wax.
I prefer women that age gracefully, naturally – without the need to keep trying to LOOK like they are 30. That’s far hotter than any oddly-shiny topcoat can ever be.
Ford and Connery are geezers – but at least they are OK with that. Not that Sharon Stone ISN’T…but something there just don’t look quite right, know whut I mean?
-P-
Peter, I agree with you about Stone, and prefer women with some life on their face. My comment was about the Hollywood age thing in general which still holds true.
I saw Her High-and-Shininess on Leno and Letterman and something just wasn’t right. Besides her perfect glossy look, she just sat there and giggled constantly…throwing about sexy glances…. and barely speaking 2 or 3 complete sentences in either interview. I thought maybe she was trying to be in character or something weird like that. Maybe she knew her girlfriend Hillary would be watching.
)!!!
What your saying is true about the treatment of men vs women in hollywood, but comparing a 48 yo woman to a 64 yo man and a 76 yo man isn’t quite fair. Lets see Connery and Ford at 48. Most women would have fallen into their arms hearts a flutter. I don’t care for stone’s movies, but she is hot, and yes women can do that without surgery. Genetics help and taking care of yourself. My mother is still mistaken as my wife when we are out, and she is 52 and I am 32. My dad never gets mistaken as brother though, I don’t get it.
Let’s consider the source of who thinks who is worthy and why:
“Representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men; they describe it from their own point of view, which they confuse with the absolute truth.”
Simone de Beauvoir
I haven’t really looked all that hard at any pictures of Sharon Stone lately, but I’d be very disappointed if she’s had work done. She is one the great natural beauties of all time. She doesn’t need it.
Artist For Truth, please tell me you were being ironic in quoting de Beauvoir.
CraigC,
No . . . sorry to say . . . have a mind of my own
You must log in to post a comment.