Post: #26

delete

Post: #27

Kirsten Dunst in Spider Man was also mind boggling. Maybe it's to cater to the plain Janes.

Post: #28

(05-21-2015 02:20 PM)Pride male Wrote:  Kirsten Dunst in Spider Man was also mind boggling. Maybe it's to cater to the plain Janes.

She's better than Maggie Gyllenhaal.

Post: #29

(05-21-2015 02:48 PM)Kristoph Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 02:20 PM)Pride male Wrote:  Kirsten Dunst in Spider Man was also mind boggling. Maybe it's to cater to the plain Janes.

She's better than Maggie Gyllenhaal.

I remember back in the early days some PUA dude was making headway with her

Post: #30

^Where did her boobs go?

Post: #31

Maggie reminds of an older down syndrome version of Ellen DeGeneres

Post: #32

I just met a woman who's 40 (born dec 1974) and looks about 25-30. needless to say she's not into sun bathing. we should promote a tan shaming week for fair skinned girls, they should go around carrying an umbrella like belle époque ladies to protect themselves from excessive sun exposure and prolong their window of attractivity.

Post: #33

Post: #34

(05-21-2015 05:04 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

The Asian

Post: #35

37 and lookin 67. Damn she wasnt very good looking to begin with but she hit the wall at lightning speed for sure.

Post: #36

The good news is, maybe they can recast Carol from the walking dead.

Post: #37

"This Story Maggie Gyllenhaal Just Told Perfectly Explains the Hollywood Sexism Complex" - Mother Jones Headline

Reality is that people, both men and women, don't want to see a wall victim on the big screen unless she's a prosecutor or a grandma.

Post: #38

This broad hit the wall soft spot first coming out of the vaginal canal. Bitch has always been ugly physically and detestable personally.

Post: #39

(05-21-2015 05:38 PM)tarquin Wrote:  The good news is, maybe they can recast Carol from the walking dead.

I'd take Carol, no question. She's at least 10 years older than Turtleface and still is better looking.

Post: #40

Her cheekbones were too low to have any longevity in the business. Sad, and shallow to say, but compare, well, just about any other female actress above the age of 40.

Post: #41

(05-21-2015 01:01 PM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  

omg this made my day LOL

Post: #42

looks like shit now, but was very hot 10 years ago(i thought)



go watch stranger than fiction, she looks great in that. like shit now though.

Post: #43

(05-21-2015 12:52 PM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  Michael Caine hit the wall when he was 69 years old and that was the last time he got the girl in a film.

Are you referring to "Quills" (2000), where Caine purchases young teen Amelia Warner then uses and abuses her until she runs off with a boy her age?

Post: #44

Donnie Darko where she was early 20s.

Post: #45

----------------------------------------

Post: #46

^ ah forgot about that one. Good call. Good film, too.

Post: #47

Gyllenhaal: no charisma, average looks, projects no likeability, half her scenes verge on flat affect.

Hollywood Guy 1: "She'll appeal to audiences! Let's make her a star!"

Hollywood Guy 2: "Cut her hair short first."

Cinema logic in the 2000's.

Post: #48

Meh. Always thought she was a good actress, but was just too plain to ever become a top-billing superstar (really - as if no one's gonna notice replacing the still fuckable Katie Holmes with her). Would happily have banged her Donnie Darko-era self though.

Post: #49

On Katie Holmes' tits:

Post: #50

I always thought of her as a 5.5 after I first saw her in Batman. It would be laughable to see her play a girl in her 20's. She could easily pass for a young Grandmother (especially with that hair).
She just has a weird face and the alcohol theory seems to explain it.