The Scar

This message has been deleted by the poster

This message has been deleted by the poster

i don't know of any official "explaination" about the scar but in "8 women" you can see the scar again during the scene in which ludivine's character catherine pulls a key from the front of her pants. so in other words it must be real but what from? i don't know...

The appendix is on the lower right side of the abdomen. Besides the scar is much too big for that. Anyway, I whole heartedly agree with your assessment of her physique. The DVD, when it is released, should sell like hot cakes. However, it will take more than one hot, french actress to redeem her country.

a friend of an ex had a similar scar on his stomach. apparently caused by an intestinal disorder that had to be corrected and which made him a very sick. the operation happened when he was about 15-16 and the illness was life threatening... sorta... there are no cures for a guy being a moron.
i would assume, if i had to, that the same may have happened to ludivine. most likely a child illness which affected the intestines or stomach or perhaps even the reproductive organs and had to be operated on. that's not from a car accident and it certainly isn't from having her appendix removed.
as far as her body, yes she's beautiful but she's also a great actress... "that girl is really hot... she's got great b**bs..." oh joy i'm glad the obvious could be stated by the oh so very observant.
yes she's beautiful but dammit the girl can act... admittedly she's got a body that i could stare at and be amazed by for hours... she's a beautiful lady... but she CAN act. she's got real talent and i think that should be more of the focus don't you... i mean considering we are on a website about movies... not a porn site...
besides this i don't think that her country needs redeeming. our's, on the other hand, has a "president" who believes that it's not his responsibility to make sure that the things he states in speeches to the american people are true and based on actual factual information. instead it's okay to use info even our own sources call "dubious" or "not factual"... naw i think ludivine doesn't need to redeem anything about her country... but if she had to... i'm pretty sure her talent alone could win us over if our country ever gave her the chance.

A GI or reproductive problem sounds more plausible as the reason for the scar, squee411.
As to her acting ability, obviously Ozon thinks she has talent as he has cast her in three of his films or maybe there is some other reason. The real proof of her acting talent will be if she is honored for her work with various awards and award nominations.
As to our president, remember he is a politician from a political family. What was he supposed to do - put it up for a vote - "all those in favor of invading an islamic country this week for the purpose of showing them that they can't attack us and get away with it, please raise your hand." Saddam Hussein, Iraq, and weapons of mass destruction where convenient excuses. If, as a result of our slap on the Iraqi hand, terrorists contemplating September 11th style attacks think twice before acting, his action was justified.
The French lack of support in our effort was probably more aimed at Tony Blair and the British support for our war on terrorism. It seems like which ever side the British are on the French take the opposite stance.
Now, if political discussion is not enough for you, visit the The Magdalene Sisters message board and get involved in some heated religious debate.

Uh... the real proof of her acting talent will be if you watch her in a movie and enjoy her acting. I thought that in addition to being stunning, her acting was great. If someone else disagrees (even a member of the academy), thats fine with me, but it won't influence my opinion. I don't understand why you would let others decide something like this for you.

As for the political content of your post...
a) Are you thinking that Iraq attacked us, and would have gotten away with it if we hadn't invaded? If thats what you're thinking, I'm not sure what events you have in mind.

b) As for the slap on the wrist comment, the extremist Saudi terrorists involved in the September 11th attacks were part of a terrorist group that declared Saddam Hussein to be an infidel. So lets see... they attack us, we destroy their avowed enemy. This is supposed to discourage future attacks? Hmmmm.

c) Actually the British and French PEOPLE did not take opposite sides.. both were overwhelmingly opposed to the war. It was their governments that took opposite sides. A technicality maybe, but I think worth pointing out.

On to the Magdalene Sisters board... ;-)

sorry for taking so long to answer i went on vacation and completely forgot about this board... lol.

rich-66: "The real proof of her acting talent will be if she is honored for her work with various awards and award nominations."

not true, how many times have you been left scratching your head when an actor/actress/director/movie wins an award and noone seems to agree that the award should have been given? or on the other hand how many times have you seen a really great movie and no one nominated it for jack? so nominations and awards are not always a mark of talent.

- "all those in favor of invading an islamic country this week for the purpose of showing them that they can't attack us and get away with it, please raise your hand."

evidence was shown then and has been shown repeatedly AND the bush administration finally came clean and stated that iraq had no real ties to al-qaeda. in other words they had nothing to do with september 11th. the popular, albeit incorrect view, that they did has been disproven numerous times.

- "If, as a result of our slap on the Iraqi hand, terrorists contemplating September 11th style attacks think twice before acting, his action was justified."

see we're falling into the same trap that plagues palestine and israel... this shouldn't be a "tit for tat" situation and when we make it so i think we've proven we only send more young muslim men and women into the throngs of fanaticism. we create more terrorists in the process. we went to afghanistan to end the attacks against us. that was completely justified as the taliban had known ties to al-qaeda and they were harboring the man responsible for the attacks, osma bin laden. the only problem is we pulled troops out to be part of the invasion of iraq. we have failed in afghanistan and broken our promise to her people. we told the afghans that we would help set them free... we told the world that we would help them and wouldn't leave them behind... have you seen the situation in afghanistan lately? the only part that most would say is "safe" would be kabul but the rest of the country has fallen into the hands of the warlords. women and girls are being kidnapped and raped. the violence there is worse than when the taliban were in power (i'm not saying that the taliban were good, no i'm saying we should have done what we said we were going to do and not been twits). AND to top everything off there are reports that al-qaeda has moved right back in. i mean come on terrorists have moved into iraq... we didn't deter anything.

- "The French lack of support in our effort was probably more aimed at Tony Blair and the British support for our war on terrorism. It seems like which ever side the British are on the French take the opposite stance."

i think most french citizens would tell you the reason they disagreed with our government on the war was because they simply didn't agree with the war. it's silly to say that the french only were against the war because of their feelings toward the british. "if it wasn't for those darn brits and french and their stupid ego's everyone would've been for the war," how true do you honestly think that is? couldn't it be that the french and the germans were against the war because (gasp) they were against the war!

- "Now, if political discussion is not enough for you, visit the The Magdalene Sisters message board and get involved in some heated religious debate."

haha riiiiggghhhhhttt.