be natural....
2006-07-21 20:16:41 · 8 answers · asked by thatniceboy 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
basic sex
2006-07-21 20:20:03 · answer #1 · answered by waterdancer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is just an outdated version. Basic Instinct worked because it was different from those times. Nowadays there are a lot of movies that are like Basic Instinct and there is nothing different. The story offers nothing new and exciting to look forward to. They must have put some one else instead of sharon stone as there are lots of beautiful actresses who are young and have lots of fanatics. Also it is so predictable.
2006-07-21 20:23:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well I went to see it one night when i was in a city big enough to have a theatre that didnt care what they played. Our city got rid of the only theatre that would have played it.
I think it was terrible. I saw a preview with a lot more sex in it then that movie showed. Either someone faked an entire preview (with the acutal sets) or it was heavily edited.
If they had left it how the preview showed, it would have been good. As it was, i wouldnt pay 5 cents to watch it agian
2006-07-21 22:17:03 · answer #3 · answered by clomtancy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aren't Sharon Stone's 15 minutes up yet?
2006-07-21 20:20:08 · answer #4 · answered by Theatre Guy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Derivative and predictable with not nearly as much sex and nudity as was promised. Plus, Stone was too old for so many close ups. And I would sue whoever cut her hair.
2006-07-21 21:24:43 · answer #5 · answered by LORD Z 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Waste of money. (The movie studios not mine.)
I wish there was a way a person could get that money before it's wasted and use it on a really good script.
2006-07-21 20:21:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
who cares, you can rent a porno if you really want to see something rather than waste time on a long movie for brief scenes where you might see something
2006-07-21 20:22:13 · answer #7 · answered by LW 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
completely useless and unnecesary
2006-07-21 21:28:29 · answer #8 · answered by JOHN R 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋