User reviews

Sharon Stone has had a very chequered career, spanning performances that have garnered Golden Globes and Oscar nominations, as well as Razzies. Her performance in Casino convinced skeptics of her acting ability and yet it is for her portrayal of the sexily sinister author Catherine Tramell - in Basic Instinct - that she is perhaps most remembered. Basic Instinct II revives the role – a dangerous undertaking and one that many critics have panned (possibly without even watching it). Yet the character is an interesting one and deserves not to be dismissed so lightly, especially in this well-written sequel.

The enigma of Tramell is whether, in researching her novels, she just gets very close to actual murders, or whether she actually commits them. In Basic Instinct II we become aware of a third possibility – that she manipulates people into creating interesting story lines, even if it means pushing them over the edge mentally and emotionally so they perhaps commit crimes they would not otherwise have committed. Following in the footsteps of twisted real-life authors recently depicted on screen such as Capote, such a possibility does not seem so preposterous.

Where Basic Instinct II fails, is in capturing a suitable target audience. The original Basic Instinct, however good a thriller, is linked in the public imagination with a particularly explicit scene involving Stone uncrossing and crossing her legs during a police interview. Given the raunchy nature of Tramell's personal life, to which the film gave ample reign, the movie drew adult audiences hoping to be shocked. This creates a number of problems for Basic Instinct II. Firstly, the public taste for sexual explicitness seems to have ebbed. Sex scenes are more likely to kill a blockbuster than boost attendances. The independent and European films featuring explicit sexuality tend not to get multiplex coverage – and the limits are now so broad that most mainstream actresses are unlikely to want to push the envelope with such explicitness unless it is to test the limits of art – and Basic Instinct II, like its forerunner, is a thriller not an art house movie.

Yet it suffers from the 'sex-movie' tag. Re-shot in black and white, with a shorter running time, and minimizing any nudity, Basic Instinct II could have been marketed as film noir. The difficulty of puzzling out the who-dunnit keeps the attention, but waiting for the next sex scene it just fizzles (as there's very little to wait for). With a running time of nearly two hours, some of the direction could have been tighter, but the overall feel of the movie almost creates a genre. Sharon Stone hones Tramell's character even better than in the original, and the final twist is difficult to anticipate. As a portrait of a genius writer that can run rings around police detectives and psycho-analysts, Basic Instinct delivers in spades. While Sharon Stone is a good-looking fortysomething, those watching it for sexy thrills may be disappointed.

I cannot accept the negative comments of other reviewers. They are too critical, perhaps because they are stuck in the past. I would like to see a comment from someone who had never seen Basic Instinct 1, perhaps someone very young ? I left the cinema feeling glad that I had not been swayed by the IMDb reviewers. 14 hours later I am still trying to find flaws in the plot but I cannot think of anything serious. My advice to everyone is see it for yourself and make up your own mind.

It follows a similar pattern to Basic Instinct 1 but the plot is less confused. It still left me wondering at the end but in a more satisfactory way. Sharon Stone is as sexy and evil as before and wears her 48 years extremely well; this remains her defining role. David Morrisey was satisfactory even though he is no Michael Douglas. Of the supporting cast I particularly liked David Thewlis as the police detective.

The sequel of Basic Instinct won't be for sure a remarkable movie, as the original one, but we cannot say it's awful, because it isn't. In fact, I think it's quite good.

The main reason why so many people think this movie is so awful is because they compare this one, more than they should, to the original one! Beside that, the expectation for this sequel was very high (many people expected the sequel since 1992!), and when that happens it's very hard to have success. In most cases it's condemned to fail. But in my opinion, this movie didn't fail, especially because it's a powerful mind twist!

All the plot is a twisted labyrinth where lies and deceives mix together with killer instinct. It's a game to survive! Of course Sharon Stone is not so "hot" in this sequel as she was in the original, nor either exist any "unusual sexy scene" (cross legs' scene), but on the other hand I think she has refined her "killer instinct"! In the original, her character was provocative, seductive and manipulative, but it didn't have the coldness and the evilness on its sight, as it has now at the sequel! The way she manipulates the psychologist and the way she looks at him, is really cold, wicked, in a word: evil!

So, generally, I don't think this movie is brilliant - in fact, it's far away from that - but it's not as bad as some people told!

I found this movie to be very good in all areas. The acting was brilliant from all characters, especially Ms.Stone and Morissey. Tramell's Character just gets smarter and more psychologically twisted by the minute. The plot is interesting even though, this movie is more for the mind playing between the main characters and how Catherine continues her writing with new ways and twists for her novels. The setting was also fabulous and the whole atmosphere of the movie was that mysterious,thriller like masterpiece. Go see this film now , it deserves better than what it got from the audience ,which was misled by some faulty terrible reviews about the movie(Before it even started).....You won't regret it,if you go see it...

For me, this movie is not as good as the original, but it could have been much worse. I think, it was very erotic and exciting, even though I did not really get the end. The actors were amazing. I think, it is nearly a miracle, how the nearly 50 years old Sharon Stone could still look so sexy. I also liked her wardrobe very much, and the sex scenes... And the others actors had been brilliant, too. I liked David Morrisey even better, than Michael Douglas. All in all a very erotic and exciting mystery with many surprising turns. I cannot understand those bad critics about it. Maybe it's by such people, who categorically don't like sequels.

I don't understand all these negative comments... Take the movie for what it is; an erotic thriller! I believe it's as good as the original, which is rare for any sequel to accomplish. The acting is outstanding! The movie is hot, and that's an understatement! It sets the mood from the beginning, and seduces you like only Stone can. Very interesting, a tangled web indeed... Morrissey is excellent is his role, and the chemistry between both is obvious from the start. They couldn't have made it any better if they tried. This is a film that will have you entranced and begging for more. It's not intended for the timid or faint, it's intention is to demonstrate the power of seduction and of the mind. As the title describes, in the end the basic instincts take control. If you liked the original, you'll love the sequel! Great job, guys!

Honorable jury, I would like to say a few words in defense of this movie. I believe that it has been trashed beyond limits, and it's not such a bad movie as the low IMDb average seems to indicate.

If you try to look beyond the genre, and you make abstraction of all the history around the first movie, what we have here is a well written murder drama, set in a dark, yet slightly futuristic London, involving a presumed serial killer and sexual predator and a psychologist who will fall gradually under her spell. Or is it so? Around the two main characters played by Sharon Stone and David Morrissey gravitate a few other characters related to the story - the police inspector (David Thewlis), the fellow more aged psychologist (Charlotte Rampling), the ex of the psychologist (Indira Varma). All give good performances, by the way.

The story has several twists, the guilt seems to pass from one to the other of the main characters gradually, and we are never exactly sure of what is truth and what is appearances in the story line. Sex does plays a role, but it's within the story and despite being quite explicit it's never in bad taste. Sharon Stone would not have gotten this role without her sex-appeal, but this film would not have existed without Sharon Stone. In my opinion it's by no means the abysmal movie many people seem to think it was.

Interesting, yes, very interesting indeed. Is she the killer this time around? Or......? This is a 'Basic Instinct' film in name alone of course. What this actually is this time around is far more dark and far more twisted, without the massive, thrilling campery of the first instalment, there's a far more interesting story here. Its enticing, claustrophobic. David Morrisey carries the film, but Shazza provides excellent value. Production values are high, London looks like some hi tech Gothic nightmare. 'A soft core porn movie' Eh? What's all that about? There are exactly three brief sex scenes in the entire movie, but then maybe that's a problem for lots of people.

Is this destined to be the equivalent of Alien 3 for this particular franchise?

I saw the movie and I don't understand why people say it's so bad. It isn't as good as part one but it's alright. Sharon Stone does a great job and she still looks amazing. Because of the bad reviews I read I really didn't expect much and I was positively surprised. I think it's the same with every movie the original is always the best one, but in my opinion Basic Instinct 2 isn't that bad. I saw the movie with a few of my friends and we all were positively surprised. Sharon stone is a great actress and the kind of moody character she plays in Basic Instinct 2 suits her pretty good. But also David Morrisey did a great job. So all together I really enjoyed the movie.

A sequel that comes traipsing in 14 years after the original can be accused of cashing-in. But you shouldn't judge a film until you've seen it right? Yes, I know I am being a total hypocrite here. And if Basic Instinct 2 were to be accepted as a potentially good movie then perhaps they should have done it back in the late 90s when David Cronenberg was involved. Think of the movie he would have made!

But, Hollywood being that grinding, pounding machine that it is, postponed this film until 2006. Verhoeven, Cronenberg, Jan De Bont and even John McTiernan all came and went. Lead actors such as Michael Douglas, Benjamin Bratt, Kurt Russell, Robert Downey Jr and Pierce Brosnan all passed.

As the years passed, the film shifted from America to London and underdog director Michael Caton-Jones took charge. The lead went to David Morrissey, who I have never heard of and a supporting cast of recognisable British faces filled out the rest of the characters. But after all this...is all this teasing and sexual depravity still relevant?

A lot has changed in 14 years. We no longer need to walk away from newsagents ashamed for buying a jizz mag because so much better stuff is easy available for free on the internet. And I know where to find the best stuff! Softcore porn is almost extinct and TV has become racier and more hedonistic. A film selling itself on sex would have to be more than just competent in the story and character department.

If this is what matters to you I am afraid that Basic Instinct 2 is pretty much the exact same as the original with the same character arcs and developments. The new location and a fresh crop of characters to kill is really all it's got to offer.

This time around Catherine Tramell is causing havoc in the streets of London and 'accidently' causes the death of a famous football star by driving her car into the Thames. She's not sorry and shows no sympathy. Sent for a psych evaluation she meets Dr. Michael Glass who convinces the judge she has a 'risk addiction' and will not stop pushing the limits to her madness until it costs her her own life.

Glass must be a convincing man as Tramell is soon scot-free to do more evil deeds. And Glass, despite being as reserved and collected as a man can possibly be, like Nick Curran before him, falls head first into a wildly complex plot that bears more than just a shadow of a resemblance to the first.

But this time we go a little bit deeper into the devious mind of Catherine Tramell. As a writer myself (simultaneously really crap and unbelievably brilliant) I really dig her style. She lies and deceives and manipulates people in diabolically genius ways for her own inspiration. She hides it from everyone but when you look in her eyes you can see the fire of a brilliantly evil mind blazing away. She's a great character and Stone pulls it off perfectly. She may be pushing 50 but she's still gorgeous and in my opinion she looks better in this than she did in the first.

What Basic Instinct 2 lacks is a defining set-piece or action scene. It's most all talk and has none of the car chases or panic the original had. Michael Caton-Jones, who's career in film has been extremely unbalanced brings a slick edge to movie and makes it a bit darker than Verhoeven's approach. The world of Basic Instinct 2 is set in a London filled with shining glass and steel surfaces by day and dark shadows by night.

Jerry Goldsmith was set to score the film but due to his untimely death the duties were passed onto John Murphy. But worry not, all of Goldsmith's wonderful themes return and although Murphy tries to make it his own by adding his own developments, almost every cue still belongs to Jerry. It's a great score and one of those that stays in your head forever.

It's easy to criticize Basic Instinct 2. It's easy to call it loads of names. But the first film suffered from this exact same problem, but the audiences of today are just far more savage and unforgiving. See past these problems and, like before, you'll discover a film that the rest of the world seems to be missing.

I never saw the original, never saw Sharon Stone before. I went to this movie because the incredible attacks on it, here and other forums, made me curious: how bad could this thing possibly be? I went to the theater expecting to see the worst movie ever made — a disaster, a train-wreck, a career-ending fiasco.

But Basic Instinct 2 is far, far from that. In fact, it is a highly entertaining and even intelligent film noir. Sharon Stone was great — sexy and funny (and no, not unintentionally funny; she seemed to be having fun with the character) . I would urge everyone who hasn't seen it yet to do so, and judge for yourself. It's not only not awful, it's actually pretty good. (On the other hand, another psychotherapist-patient movie I rented, called STAY, with Ewan McGregor and Naomi Watts, was truly terrible — and yet was praised to the heavens on IMDb. The lesson? You've got to see things for yourself.)

Just got back from a Monday night showing of Basic Instinct 2. We had maybe twelve people in the theatre, all couples. I was with my single mom friend Jennifer who has somewhat provincial tastes (she loves chick flicks!). The plot was silly, and the lines were some real groaners. But what else is new? Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone had horrible lines too, and the plot was ludicrous in the first installment. The sequel was bad enough to chase off two rather offended looking couples who scurried for the door halfway through the screening. Yes, the film is bad. But what did anyone expect? It's chock full of sex, murder, and double entendres. Sharon Stone is past her "sell-by" date to play a seductress nobody can resist, and she seems like Joan Crawford in one of those B-pictures the flailing diva did late in her career (Strait-Jacket or Trog anyone?).

But for some damn reason I can't totally dismiss the film. As unimaginative as it was, I still had an absolute blast. Sharon Stone may be 48, but her boobs are probably only sixteen years old at best. I'm sorry, but I admire the hell out of her for having the balls to try and pull this one off. And guess what? She kind of does. Her voice is lower, she has to wear a lot of make-up, but Catherine Tramell is still in there begging to come out. She's still hotter than half the stars in Hollywood half her age, and reigns as the "Queen of Mean" (maybe even more so after hearing what all she's done after being famous).

I had a hard time buying a shrink would fall for her. But then again in the first installment, why would a homicide detective? Paul Morrisey looks great, and does all he can to make sure his character is more subtle than the cocksure Michael Douglas San Francisco detective from the original. It's a more restrained journey, but he's English and a psychologist. In a way it's a nice contrast to the first. And how in the hell did they get Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis? They both turn in their usual fine performances providing exactly what the script demands of them (not much, but they make the most of it).

Most of all, I just had a really good time. It's not a brilliant film by any means, but I was never bored. The movie, Sharon Stone, and David Morrisey all look good. I liked Catherine's new fixation with auto-erotic asphyxiation (belts around the neck right before orgasm). It's simply a vanity project for Stone, but she still has some sex appeal left even at nearly half a decade. Sure it's all like some kinky car crash, but you can't take your eyes off it. I'm trashy for saying it, but I liked it. It very well may be a hoot to call it "the worst film of the year" or "top pick for a Razzie", but in the final analysis it entertained me. Don't believe the hype, it's still a fun adult erotic thriller. And I for one can't wait for the inevitable "unrated" DVD. It'll sit happily nestled between my copy of the original and Catwoman. Somehow it seems to fit right in - not as great as the first, but not nearly as bad as Stone's turn in the Halle Berry flick. Because at least here she looks good, and happy to be back.

This picks up about a year after the events in "Basic Instinct". Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now in London. While having sex with a soccer player while speeding about in a car going at 110 miles/hour (don't ask) she goes off the road and ends up in the Thames. She survives--he doesn't. The police hire psychiatrist Michael Glass (David Morrissey) to see if she's mentally competent to stand trial. Naturally she starts playing with his mind instead and plenty of murders and sex follow.

This movie was doomed before it even opened. It took forever to get a cast and director, script problems were constant and the cast was not happy (Morrissey complained about the movie often). Still it's not too bad. It's a lot like the first--there's a lush music score, beautiful locations, plenty of sex and nudity (this had to be edited for an R), a nicely convoluted plot and good acting--but there's no impact. It feels like a retread of the first. People are being killed here with a choker leash (I believe)...just like people were being killed by an ice pick in the first. In one cute moment Stone picks up an ice pick and looks at it longingly. She's also playing mind games with a man and might be getting him implicated in murders. The similarities are too apparent.

This is also VERY R rated--there's plenty of explicit sex talk, male nudity (Morrissey looks a lot better nude than Michael Douglas), female nudity (Stone still looks great) and some bloody murders. The acting is good across the board. Stone is just fantastic here; Morrissey looks miserable but is OK; Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis are good in supporting roles.

So--this isn't at all bad but feels like a remake of the first. Still I recommend it. People just attacked this because Stone is not well liked and they thought it was stupid to do a sequel to "Basic..." 14 years after it was made.

Let me be up-front, I like pulp. However it is like one of these "easier dives" that you see at the Olympics. It has to be marked down a little because it is easier to give a cheap thrill than drag you inside the world of, say, a late medieval painter.

This is only a two hour ghost train ride and while often (or more accurately, most of the time!) ludicrous and unlikely it always goes forward and it always entertains. If not always in the right way. Check out the memorable quotes section for a chuckle.

(However quite why it has been given a "Worst Film" Razzie is baffling - I bet there was a thousand worse films made in 2006, but this film got the treatment because it was viewed as a fashionable victim.)

Head case and popular novelist Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now over in London writing a novel, but death and destruction follow her around like flies follow a horse during a spot of hot weather. God heavens, she can't even visit the toilet without tripping over at least two corpses and I am sure if she opened the closet in her vast penthouse flat one would come tumbling out in grand Hollywood style.

Yes, clearly a very dangerous lady to be circling around (if you like your pulse to be above zero), but is she personally responsible? I mean why would anyone put two-and-two together and start thinking she might be a murderer? Equally her reaction to such accusations seems very casual. However is this just a personality disorder (some form of b/s risk addiction) or further evidence of her guilt?

For reasons I cannot fully understand or explain Stone is assigned to psychiatrist Michael Glass (David Morrissey) for evaluation rather than taken down the cells following another "lover found dead in mysterious circumstances". Thankfully (for Stone) he is far crazier than any of his patients and has a troubled home/working life of his own. In the blink of an eye the relationship changes from doctor to patient and then it is hard to tell because it all becomes something of a revolving blur.

In to this heady mix comes Roy Washburn (a strange Welsh sounding David Thewlis) who tells the love struck doctor - in his capacity of policeman of many years standing - that the lady in question may be dangerous. I mean, hold the front page. However Glass is now too glassy-eyed to realise or care. Like a dizzy boxer in front of a prime-time Mike Tyson he ripe for the big take-down, however not before finding that Washburn might have a secret or two himself.

Now comes Millena Gardosh (Charlotte Rampling) a fellow psychiatrist and a rare example (in this film) of someone who isn't barking mad or else a murder suspect. Presuming that she has actually watched the finished film she must look back with nostalgia when her underwear came off with the ease of Stone's - thankfully (for us at least) those days are long gone. Strangely she doesn't think Stone is quite as dangerous as everyone else - or else she doesn't think the script is good enough or her cheque large enough to do any proper acting.

After several laps of the track roughly outlined above it comes to a climax that mixes provincial rep with a cliff-hanger/twist, that while as farcical as the rest of the movie, gives us enough elbowroom for Basic Instinct 3 - highly unlikely this may be at this point in time.

I have to say that this was an excellent thriller! I cannot believe the bad reviews I read about this one! Maybe it is because people expect something exactly the same for a sequel. Well, this one is partly a blast from the past, and partly an independent movie from the first, as it should be.

The strong points of the first one were of course that at the time explicit sex, and language alluding to it was new. Now it is harder to shock without getting vulgar. I think the sex in this movie is more shocking than in Monsters ball, and still has a point for the plot (that is, Katherine manipulating her characters). The Hitchcock style filming of wide sweeping coastal scenery was another strong point of the first, but is compensated by the slick looks of the more classy English atmosphere in Londen.

Both movies had excellent dialogues, and left the story open for multiple twists. I think this one is even better with that: did Katherine do it, the doctor, or the cop? They all had motive and opportunity. Of course, her expressions leave little clues about the probability it must have been her all along, but...

The only BUT this movie would have is it did not have a knockout scene like the famous one with Katherine not having her underpants on. That indeed is hard, impossible,to beat. But the point is, was this a good movie in itself? I think it was very good. Good dialogues, good setting, good plot, and good acting. I think Sharon Stone did well with choosing an English cast. English are known for not showing their emotions, or even having problems dealing with it. This charged the movie up. I don't know how I will look when I am 48, but for her age, Sharon Stone looked GREAT in this one and showed once again she is a hell of an actress! Highly recommended!

Perhaps my maths is out, but as Michael Douglas was born in 1944 that means he must have been 48 in 1992, the same age or maybe a couple of years older than Stone in Basic Instinct 2. The difference is that Michael Douglas was really ugly in 1992, while Sharon Stone still looks pretty good to me. When BI 1 came out, it was almost universally panned - I remember when my friends came back from the cinema they were saying things like, "The plot makes no sense" "Michael Douglas is just so ugly" "they've got a psychiatrist who wears glasses to look clever," and "the dialogue is so lame and flat it's unbelievable." Then a lot of bisexuals started to complain about BI and no one could see why anyone would bother to complain about such a movie. Then it seemed to capture the public imagination, in a way that Basic Instinct two will never be able to do - we've moved on as a culture and we expect more.

BI2 is just as enjoyable as the first movie. Yes, it's corny and implausible in every way, and the dialogue is just as silly. The London setting made a good backdrop for the action. It would perhaps have been better to make BI2 about five years after the first movie, instead of fourteen years later, but this way we get to see Stone as a veteran seductress of the witch variety, which I think is the way her character would develop in the fourteen year gap between movies.

I don't know why many people have reviewed this movie as awful, I didn't pay attention to those review and I saw the movie lat night and it worth the price of the ticket. Sharon Stone's acting is great. One of the best Femme Fatale. She is in the 40's and still look hot. Great face and body. The history is good and, the acting is great, I would to see Sharon Stone. I think that the problem with the movies was that they last too long to film it, more then a decade. I would like to see a 3er part if there are plans of filming it.

I recommend this movie. Don't pay attention to the review and see it. And try to make your own point of view.

I give it 7/10.

Basic Instinct 2 it an appalling and atrocious film. It has some of the worst dialogue ever put on screen, and it loses all the sexuality the first one built its legacy on. However one of the things this film offers is pure entertainment and it delivers it in spades. As an audience I knew this film would be bad, but I never expected to be actually entertained by its with its tongue-in-cheek humour and shameful story. Stone again shows that she's still sexy, and I personally think that some of her scenes were brutally cut. David Morresey fulfilled his duties as a leading man very well. Dr. Glass was a far more interesting male lead than Nick Curren(Michael Douglas) and with Morresey adding a dark edge to his character.

Leave your snobbish critical egos at home and go and see this just for the fun of it all.

It was entertaining and suspenseful. Unfortunately too many disappointed commenters expected it to be a sequel to Basic Instinct, but it almost has nothing in common. I thought it was a sexy mystery that kept me interested the entire movie. It is for mature audiences that can appreciate some levity and artistic excess libido. Sharon Stone, while older is still hot for her age. The phallic shaped building in London (real building) symbolizes the real and surreal setting for the real and surreal relationships that Catherine has. The unconvincing opening scene with the car careening out of control could have been rewritten and re shot, but that can be said of most movies. It was a pretty good movie that I would watch again.

The same wealthy, sexy and perverse woman from the first installment is accused of murdering her partner and as a result, she starts visiting and courting at the same time, a young psychologist with a troubled past of his own. He tries to understand her peculiar character but the more he gets involved, the more he seems attracted to her in a seduction game which is apparently out of his league. As more and more characters around them continue to die without any traces, he gets into a lot of trouble as the protagonist of the first movie, ending up in a very unexpected position.

This movie tries to continue the first movie's story, using the same but much older woman antagonist but unfortunately is not able to be on par with it. Unlike its predecessor, this one does not feature as much action. On the contrary, it is slow paced and sometimes dull, focusing much more on the mystery than on the action. This is regrettable because it reduces the excitement this kind of movie could offer, making it less appealing. It's a good movie with good actors and a good plot but it falls behind in terms of action.

I've just saw "Basic Instinct 2" and i most confess, that it is not as good as the first one, but it still a good psycho-thriller for who love this type of movies and understand the point of it.

Sharon Stone did a great job in this movie, even if she won the Razzis award for it, but i think no other actress could made the role better than she did! The plot was OK, could be better actors in the main roles. The directing and the filming were good, I think that Michael Caton-Jones did a nice job with this film, and i will not forget that the score was as good as in the first movie.

Maybe some of the story events may seem without sens or some actions are simply "stupid" that a normal person would not do them, and i think that is the reason of the film misunderstanding, but the storyline is interesting and the idea of serial-killer sex-addictive psycho is the point of the entire movie, and i'm sure that the director transmitted it so well for those who understand it.

For me this movie is so underrated and i saw much worst movies than this one and I will say if there will be the third movie soon, i will go out and see it! and my advice for you all, don't judged a movie by their ratings or critical point of view, just go and watch them!

I totally agree with andyrrr from Chicago. This movie isn't that bad at all, and I hated the first one (except for that scene, of course). Now, it's easy to trash the movie without seeing it, just because of the exploitation of the first one. But even though this is no masterpiece either - the first half of the film fits into the stereotype very well - the second half is truly engaging, and does keep you guessing, as hard to believe as that may be. Really, I kept wondering till the end, and that's a hard feat to achieve. I have lost my respect for the Razzies Award because of this movie. Now I know the guy just wants the media attention and will stoop to kicking a 48-year-old (still beautiful) woman just to get his one day of fame.