"the dark knight"/maggie g. debate

finally saw it in hd last night on hbo and viewing again now.

late to the party, i know, but was was tremendous. and ledger was simply captivating. just brilliant. what a loss to film making.

lastly, maggie g. is simply NOT attractive in any way, shape or form. if i saw a woman who looked like her on the street i wouldn't look twice.

seriously, i can't understand why she has any supporters in terms of whether she's good-looking. a terrific actress? certainly. but she certainly fit this role as badly as katie holmes did.

if they could be morphed into one actress this role would have been ideal in the last two batman flicks. you know who would've been ideal? anne hathaway.

but maggie is talked about in "dark knight" as though she is stunning. and even those who find her oddly sexy must admit she is no beauty, right?

 

Actually, I think Anne Hathaway would have been over the top.
But agree with Gyllenhaal. Incredibly average.
but since you saw it in HB, can you tell Hockeybeat we said hi?

 

I just mentally high-fived shockey and I know why.

 

fixed. thanks. ;D ;D ;D

 

I agree that she was miscast in the role. Don't get me wrong. I do think she is a sexy woman. But she was an odd replacement for Katie Holmes and she didn't look the part.

 

I found her pretty hot in Stranger Than Fiction.
Dark Knight, not so much.

 

She's cute and confident. That, to me, equals sexy.

 

Sad Turtle is not cute. Or sexy.

 

She was bland and boring, kinda just there. I had no feeling whatsoever when they killed her off, and I'm not sure the producers, writers or directors were going for that.

 

i agree.

when there is this much debate over when an actress is hot or not, i contend it means she is not. "eye of the beholder" candidates do not belong on my "hot" list.

in terms of beauty, it's case closed as far as i'm concerned. but "sexy" can be debated, i suppose. beauty? not so much. maggie is as far away from "beautiful" as shrek.

this role demanded beauty. again, there are many references in the flick to her being drop-dead gorgeous. to me, that makes it terrible casting.

maggie g. has "character actress" looks. this role demanded well above that.

 

I just don't think the role should have existed. Batman Begins and Dark Knight are supposed to take place early in Bruce Wayne's career as Batman. Even if you assume he's portrayed as being 30 (and I figured him to be around 26-28, but that's certainly debatable), Rachel Dawes (who I presume to be approximately Bruce's age) is way too young to be an assistant D.A. It's just a ridiculous role to begin with.

As far as Maggie G. goes, she's just homely and didn't pull off the role at all.

 

Back in the days when I read him, Bill Simmons did this thing where he riffed on people who not only brought nothing to the table, but who actually TOOK THINGS OFF THE TABLE with their performances.

All silverware and some glasses were missing when Maggie was done.