Roberts is fugly. And anyone who says otherwise is wrong. She’s always been fugly, and folks have finally admitted to this now that she is aging badly. And she’s a crappy actress. (I don’t like her. Can you tell?)
Barrymore actually looks better now that she’s over 30. I didn’t think much of her when she was 20 myself, but is much better nowadays.
Lohan is pretty. She’s the definition of high-maintenence, but definitely pretty.
Liu is attractive, but has a stick-figure body. Same story with Charlize Theron. Both are cute, but not hot.
Anderson became nasty around the time of boob job number three. While buying a bust bigger than all of Dolly Parton makes her look silly, the whorish makeup job makes her look, well, whorish.
Sorry, but Charlize Theron is one of my faves. Concur on the rest. Been thinking that about Julia Roberts ever since the vomit-inducing “Pretty Woman.”
Worst. Movie. Since. “Plan Nine from Outer Space,” which actually had a more plausible plot.
I used to work in Century City and Beverly Hills. It was not unusual to see actors walking around, shopping, in line at Starbucks, and the like.
What was striking was how ordinary most of them looked. The “Beautiful Women” are above average, no more than that. You can see women who are equally beautiful and even more beautiful on any Saturday at the Santa Monica Promenade. Make-up, lighting, agents who keep unflattering photos out of the media and audience credulity combine to create the illusion that the women who are “products” of the entertainment corporations are, in some way, more beautiful than the women in our lives.
I guess this serves some human need or it wouldn’t be this way.
Extremely famous women I’ve seen very close up (though in full makeup etc):
Renee Zellweger – I’ve seen prettier women walking down the street.
Catherine Zeta-Jones – beautiful, but not surprisingly so
Nicole Kidman – see Catherine Zeta-Jones
Angelina Jolie – apparently there’s just a limit to how much beauty can be reflected in a photo, and she exceeds it, because in person she was way beyond what I even thought possible
Recent Comments
Aunt Moe: I find my fellow Dems exhibiting that same behavior. Because Obama hasn’t delivered the world on a...
Southern Quaker: When men reject the salvation of Christ, even their prayers are numbered among their sins. See what...
Bruce Henry: “So, if ACORN is guilty of massive voter fraud (it isn’t), and the Obama campaign was...
The Dark Avenger: What’s your point, Frank, that there was an attempt at revolution some 40 years ago here in...
Southern Quaker: No, Frank, in other words you’re pulling this out of your a##. There’s no evidence of...
Don’t forget Paris Hilton. That bobble head noggin of hers creeps me out.
Wrong,
Wrong,
Wrong,
Wrong,
Right.
With you on all of them, except Ms. Barrymore. And I would put her in the “cute” category, but not “beautiful”
Roberts is fugly. And anyone who says otherwise is wrong. She’s always been fugly, and folks have finally admitted to this now that she is aging badly. And she’s a crappy actress. (I don’t like her. Can you tell?)
Barrymore actually looks better now that she’s over 30. I didn’t think much of her when she was 20 myself, but is much better nowadays.
Lohan is pretty. She’s the definition of high-maintenence, but definitely pretty.
Liu is attractive, but has a stick-figure body. Same story with Charlize Theron. Both are cute, but not hot.
Anderson became nasty around the time of boob job number three. While buying a bust bigger than all of Dolly Parton makes her look silly, the whorish makeup job makes her look, well, whorish.
Sorry, but Charlize Theron is one of my faves. Concur on the rest. Been thinking that about Julia Roberts ever since the vomit-inducing “Pretty Woman.”
Worst. Movie. Since. “Plan Nine from Outer Space,” which actually had a more plausible plot.
Ew. Kim Kardashian? That’s appalling.
I used to work in Century City and Beverly Hills. It was not unusual to see actors walking around, shopping, in line at Starbucks, and the like.
What was striking was how ordinary most of them looked. The “Beautiful Women” are above average, no more than that. You can see women who are equally beautiful and even more beautiful on any Saturday at the Santa Monica Promenade. Make-up, lighting, agents who keep unflattering photos out of the media and audience credulity combine to create the illusion that the women who are “products” of the entertainment corporations are, in some way, more beautiful than the women in our lives.
I guess this serves some human need or it wouldn’t be this way.
I do hate getting on that Kardashian bandwagon, but dammmmn!
And anyone else pissed at Santana Moss right now?
Kim Kardashian?
When you’re idea of a beautiful woman is a blow up doll you really need to get laid.
I saw some nudes of Pam Anderson pre-surgery and she was pretty damn hot.
After the surgery and the dye job, not so much.
Extremely famous women I’ve seen very close up (though in full makeup etc):
Renee Zellweger – I’ve seen prettier women walking down the street.
Catherine Zeta-Jones – beautiful, but not surprisingly so
Nicole Kidman – see Catherine Zeta-Jones
Angelina Jolie – apparently there’s just a limit to how much beauty can be reflected in a photo, and she exceeds it, because in person she was way beyond what I even thought possible