Sharon Stone Still Looks Hot In A Bikini At 52

She’s best known for that scene in Basic Instinct – and it appears that Sharon Stone still lives by the maxim if you’ve got it, flaunt it, on the set of a recent movie.

The star stripped down to a tiny bikini in low-budget comedy Five Bucks A Day, directed by Calendar Girls and Made In Dagenham British film maker Nigel Cole.

In fact, the budget seems to have been so low that the props department couldn’t afford to loan Sharon a handbag.

Well, that’s one explanation for why she has a packet of cigarettes and a lighter tucked into her bikini bottoms.

Most onlookers would be forgiven instead for marvelling at the 52-year-old’s still toned body.

Five Bucks A Day also stars Christopher Walken, Alessandro Nivola, Amanda Peet and former Superman star Dean Cain.

Although made in 2008, it only got a limited release last year, but is now out on DVD.

Meanwhile, Pixie Lott has been lined up to star Ms Stone’s daughter in forthcoming new movie Sweet Baby Jesus.

The 19-year-old said of the film, in which she co-stars with Adrien Brody and Bette Midler: ‘It’s crazy, isn’t it?

‘It’s a comedy about a man named Joe who accompanies his pregnant girlfriend Mary to Bethlehem, where the villagers assume they are the second coming.’

Sweet Baby Jesus is expected to start filming within the next couple of months and comes out next year.
Coincidentally, Sharon stars alongside Brody in another forthcoming film project.

Waco, based on the real-life events sparked by cult leader David Koresh in 1993, also stars Kurt Russell. It’s due out next year.

Sharon Stone Gets a Lawsuit

Sharon Stone is being sued by a construction worker for having a hidden death trap in her home. On August 25, 2006 the worker claims that while he was working, he fell over a bunch of plants that concealed a steep ditch. Since then, he’s been moaning and groaning over the physical and mental strain he’s been through.

While that particular job was memorable for Krause, a rep for the onetime Oscar nominee tells us that “[t]here’s no record of this individual being on the property and likewise there’s no record reporting this individual being injured on the property.

How utterly convenient. Who’s side is telling the truth? If someone as loud and obnoxious as this worker guy got injured, I’m sure someone would have found out about it, but then again? If he fell into a ditch and had to survive on eating bugs and snakes for three days until he was able to construct an escape route, then maybe I wouldn’t have a record on him too.