Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferox13
I have a feeling that critics said Sissy Spacek wasn't ugly enough in the original either.
|
I'm glad you were able to tell I meant to type, "I'm
not saying Sissy Spacek was ugly". I suppose I need to proof read better; especially since we can't re-edit our posts after a certain time.
I would be very surprised if, at the time Carrie came out, any big paper critics said Sissy Spacek wasn't ugly enough for the role. Sissy is unusual looking. They didn't need to "ugly" her up. She just went makeup free, and played the wall flower to a tee. I would never watch Carrie and think she was too pretty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urgeok2
played as 'plain' instead of ugly ..
There is a funny Hollywood notion that has always existed that if a girl isn't blonde with big tits and a plunging neckline then she's plain.
just mess her hair up a bit, loose clothes and glasses and 'poof' ugly!
I always thought that was stupid.
Want to see a hot Spacek, check out Prime Cut
|
That is so true. That's exactly what "Hollywood" tends to do. It really drives me nuts because there are extremely talented actors who don't have model looks, and they fit the role better. If anyone in Hollywood thinks I wouldn't want to see a film unless there were good looking actors in it, they are mistaken. I prefer to think the vast majority of my fellow audience members think the same way.
In Prime Cut you can see her good facial symmetry, great skin, intelligence, and not to mention youth goes a long way in obvious areas. Despite survey averages, sexiness and attractiveness are subjective. I wouldn't be one of those saying Sissy Speck is a stunning hot beauty.