Sorry - I was just applauding what Singlular1 said when he nailed it first. 
I found her incredibly unattractive in The Dark Knight to the point where I found the whole Bruce-vs-Harvey competition over her ridiculous. I can understand why they wanted to get away from Katie Holmes (who is hot but came off as a bit vapid), but Gyllenhall wasn’t attractive physically or intellectually, despite how everyone in the movie makes her sound like god’s gift to men. Anne Hathaway did the best job by far of being desireable, both physically and mentally/emotionally.
To be fair, though, I haven’t seen (or remembered) Gyllenhall from anything else though. But all the pictures posted here just confirms my feelings. Her face just looks really frowny and down-in-the-dumps all the time. I didn’t find Marion Cotillard in TDKR to be hot on the level of being the head-turner she’s supposed to be, either, though I’ve seen her in other places where she’s looked smokin’.
Well I guess we can all thank Mr. Sarsgaard for doing the rest of us a favor. Honestly, I think he should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize or something for saving the rest of the men of the world from her - cause God her face looks like a war zone.
To be fair, she hasn’t looked quite as predator-ish in some of her recent movies as she did in TDKR (clearly she got her look/posture a little together after the widespread criticism) but she’s still hard on the eyes. And since the question was in reference to her replacing Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes in such a blockbuster (as the “visually beautiful” love interest of BOTH Batman and Harvey Dent), I think our opinion DOES count a whole lot. Hollywood often asks moviegoers to suspend belief when watching their films, but watching her play Dawes was just asking too much of the audience. And if nothing else, Hollywood will think twice before they put another polarizing looking actor/actress in such a role again.
Tell me. What do you think of Martha (the secretary who works at the FBI)? Would you consider her to be average looking? Or maybe pretty? Or maybe ugly? We have had some arguments about that on this board previously.
4 years too late to point this out, I guess, but wow that link is NSFW.
I’m going with Daniel Tosh’s comment about her being the “Best looking Gyllenhaal brother” and leaving it at that.
That is a good one–you barely notice her slumpiness.
I guess I just don’t understand what men mean by “ugly”, at least as applied to major Hollywood actresses under 40.
Y’all seem to be actually angry with her for not sufficiently pushing your “hotness” buttons. How do you get from “She’s not my type” to “She looks like Miss Piggy!” “She looks like this picture of a grotesquely deformed face!” “Her face looks like a war zone!”? I do get that plenty of guys might find her to be not their type, I just don’t get why it seems to piss them off to the extent of hurling insults at her.
You make it sound like you think you’re actually guaranteed a certain number and frequency of boners in your life and Maggie Gyllenhaal has wrongfully deprived you of one of them by not looking the way you prefer actresses to look.
Agreed, Kimstu. It’s ridiculous.
I think maybe on this board in particular, the uber-nerds are angry that their precious comic book movie was besmirched by a human woman, as opposed to their comic book nerd vision of what a pretty girl is.
Eh, I can see having strong views about what an actor in a particular role should look like (I, for one, have never seen a portrayal of Miss Marple by anybody that I thought adequately resembled my conception of Miss Marple).
I just can’t understand how some guys get from “She didn’t really fit the role” or “She doesn’t really appeal to me” to “She’s hideously ugly and looks like a monster, hur de hurp durp”. 
Never too late to add a spoiler box to make a link comply with the two-click rule, so I did.
Thanks, twicks.
I especially liked the comment about how Peter Sarsgaard saved the rest of the world’s men from her, because presumably this multi-millionaire talented woman would otherwise be so desperate for companionship that she’d resort to forcing the unwilling men on this message board to sleep with her.
I think it’s more like people don’t like having some sort of aesthetic pushed down their throat that isn’t what the piece requires. It’s like when Kate Moss was shoved down everyone’s throat - that whole heroin sheik thing. These women, these characters, represent certain things. The slumpiness, the quirkiness; it reminds me a lot of girls I knew who were always playing the “poor innocent me role” role even when they were doing things like being deceptive and playing two guys off one another just for the attention; or hooking up with another girl, even though they aren’t lesbian, just for the attention. That’s probably getting a little too deep, but that’s what that whole look and bearing makes me think of.
There’s a movie in there someplace - heroin sheik versus drug czarist. Roles for both Maggie and Kate.
Chic:smack: That was a pretty amusing response though; I’m kind of glad I made the error.
She’s very attractive & sexy in a smart/funny/confident way. I get the feeling that if you had her on your side at a party, you could start an awful lot of trouble (and have a lot of fun).
Then again, I’m just seeing roles she’s played & she’s a professional actress who works on improving her craft daily. I’ll never know the “her” from the character in the script.
Someone mentioned it before. I think she’s old school hot. 1920’s hot. You could totally see a Rudolph Valentino character falling head over heels and running off with her to Paris.
By today’s standards, she’s sort of odd-looking. But, also already mentioned, she gives off a ‘come hither’ vibe that makes it all work together.
Other dudes seem to angrily disagree, though.
Some of the posts in this thread wouldn’t be out of place on FARK. With that in mind, I’ll just leave this link right here.
