I’ve never personally found Maggie Gyllenhaal attractive, but that’s ok… there are many women I do find attractive that others don’t.
However, I happened to catch the latest Batman with Christian Bale and Heath Ledger a couple of days ago, and Maggie was the love interest of Bruce Wayne and Gotham’s DA (can’t remember his name).
To me, she doesn’t even border on attractive, so the movie lost credibility with me from the outset. She is tall, but her posture is terrible. She slouches horribly, rolling her shoulders forward. Because of this, when she walks in heels, she resembles a question mark. Her breasts also sag in a way that would indicate that she’s never worn a bra… finally, her face isn’t classic Hollywood beautiful, so close-ups on her don’t help.
I know I am sounding incredibly harsh and shallow, and I don’t mean to. It’s just that her character in the movie was supposed to be beautiful and turn the heads of every man in Gotham, and she wouldn’t get a second glance from me. I asked my wife what she thought, and she agreed that Maggie isn’t the most attractive woman to her, either and doesn’t understand why Hollywood has tried to paint her as a sexy actress.
So, what say you dopers? Is she attractive to you and am I just missing that something special that others see, or do you also question why so many find her attractive?
There is something that comes from within that puts a nice shine on her looks. That and the “sum of the parts” thing mentioned above. It’s a gestalt and then some.
It depends on the role fitting her persona too. See Stranger Than Fiction where there’s a good match. Her role in *The Dark Knight * is too glam. It’s like casting Denise Richards as a scientist.
Sorry. This is a good point, however I thought that most people would know what she looks like, and I just posted the OP because it was on my mind. I’ll dig out some pics that show her poor posture if I can.
However, based on the replies, it seems that many people **do **find her attractive, so I may be in a huge minority on this one.
These came from the first page of google photos that astro provided.
I have to say that the first few photos on that google page showed her in a much different light than I’ve ever seen her before. So, I can see how some people could see her in lingerie and give her the benefit of the doubt.
Here’s a kind of oddball glam pic. I looked at the pic for moment wondering where that weird flesh colored head pillow behind her came from, until I realized it was her shoulder. Creepy!
Not having seen her nude, I can’t be sure, but I don’t think she has sagging breasts, I think they are just, for want of more proper medical terminology, set low on her torso.
This is also true of me. I honestly think that part of the reason she was cast as the love interest in Dark Knight is that she is not conventionally attractive. She made a better contrast with the bimbos Wayne dallies with that Katie Holmes.
Plus, of course, the fact that Katie Holmes was unable to get out of her force field prison at stately Cruise manner.
Absolutely. She, or at least the roles she plays, has a sexiness that so many far more conventionally “beautiful” actresses cannot deliver. She’s in that same category as Sissy Spacek or Kate Winslet.
Her sexiness is in her attitude, not her looks. A picture doesn’t do justice, but on film, she gives all the signs of being sexy and smart. The Dark Knight doesn’t do her justice, either, since she wasn’t allowed to be herself.
If you want to rate her on purely physical appearance, you’re missing the point (not to mention, it’s a piss-poor way of judging how attractive someone is).
No Maggie is not attractive. She has a reallly weird face and that’s all it takes to ruin a woman’s attractiveness to me. Her ass and legs could make up for it, if they were any good. As they are, she’s not attractive.
.jpg){kind=link}