I vote very hot. It’s her eyes, for me. She always looks very focused, aware, and intelligent. It’s like she’s constantly thinking “Why yes, I am currently seeing into the depths of your soul and dissecting your innermost desires, all of your fantasies are ridiculously transparent to me. Yes, I am also into playful spanking and frolicking nude in the surf.”
Maybe I read to much into it.
:eek: Yes. A little boyish? Maybe. But if I met a grown man with a face like that, I’d be surprised. Possibly also go a bit gay.
I think she is not hot because her body is not in proportion: small boobs and thick hips and thighs. Nothing wrong with that per se but she doesn’t fit the mold for an typical attractive body, if that’s the only criterion used.
I would reserve “ugly” for people who actually have something wrong with them (and probably not even use it then) and Sandra Bernhardt; people I don’t find attractive I would call “plain”.
Personal opinion: Yes, Claire Danes is a good lookin’ woman.
A very average looking person. Because she’s a Hollywood celebrity, she gets a whole lot projected onto her, and she also gets photographed in a way that’s designed to influence your perception of her – usually positively, but not always. Still, why shouldn’t a leading actress be just average-looking? I think it’s weird that “actress” has to equal “sex goddess.” Or course, I know for commercial reasons why this is, but from an artistic perspective, what’s the reason?
Hot.
I read a review once that mentioned something to the effect of “that you get the usual pleasure of watching two very attractive people fall in love”. Of course that only goes for romantic movies, but when you are imaging yourself in the situation it’s not bad to imagine a more attractive you.
I think “movie star” = “sex goddess”
“Actress” can mean more than that; Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, Hillary Swank aren’t the hottest women around…