She's pudgy, not pretty and not much of an actress. The idea of her as an action star is a joke. Whom did she blow to get to where she is?
sharePUDGY IS SUBJECTIVE...AS IS PRETTY...AND ACTING FOR THAT MATTER.
I THINK SHE IS BEAUTIFUL AND TALENTED.
What's the appeal indeed
shareThere are actresses successful mainly because they are very pretty and can get men fall into love with them, and enough to pay and watch their movies, like Jessica Alba, Katie Holmes, Jennifer Connelly, Alice Eve, Phoebe Cates, Alexandra Daddario, Denise Richards, Brooklyn Decker, Megan Fox, Scarlett Johansson, Kristen Stewart, Elle Fanning, Alicia Silverstone, etc., etc., the list goes on and on.
But those actresses are usually not favoured by people not in love with them, and the critics, some critics are extra hard on them just to avoid the suspicion of favouritism.
I think Florence Pugh is not that, but appealing enough that men feel mildly attracted, women feel not threatened. And also because of that she has better range, can play more than just pretty girls.
I think it is mainly that.
She's very pretty, and I think her figure is perfect. Especially in an action movie, very skinny actresses beating up much bigger guys always looks ridiculous. She can just about pull it off.
And she can definitely act. Her Russian and American accents are pretty good.
I adore Florence and I love her figure, although I wouldn't say that a curvy, and not especially muscular, actress/actor is especially more convincing as an action star than a very skinny one.
Lean and muscular (i.e. strong, athletic and fast), rather than curvy and soft, makes the most sense for action stars as far as women go.
That said, I love Florence in pretty much everything else (and she was okay in Black Widow, even though, as I say, I don't think she's the *ideal* body-type for that type of role).
I haven't seen much of her work, but I'm very impressed by what I've seen!
I've really only seen her in "Midsommar" and as Yelena in the Marvel movies, and she's great in two extremely different roles. In one she's deadpan funny, offhandedly sexy, and has seen it all... and in the other role she goes through all the nuances of the fragile-to-crazy spectrum. That's a lot of range for a young actor.
She's superb in Lady Macbeth, which I guess was her breakout role, and the recent The Wonder too. The woman can definitely act. I suspect the OP is being blinded to her abilities by the fact that he doesn't think she's attractive. And, well, whoopy-doo.
shareShe looks pretty or cute in some roles, rather plain in others. Looks on that level can be very useful to a versatile actor, because they can play both attractive and unattractive characters, and Pugh has already proven her versatility. Beautiful actors are stuck playing beautiful characters, and always look ridiculous when they try to ugly up for a role*.
Oddly enough, the place I've seen her look the least attractive is in the Marvel films, where they didn't know how to dress her or photograph her. She was hilarious and sexy in her role, but looked pretty bad. Elizabeth Olson also looks pretty bad in the Avengers films, it's like the people at Marvel Films don't know how to photograph actresses.
* With the exception of Charlize Theron in "Monster", where I scoffed at the casting until I saw the movie. Yikes!
She looks pretty or cute in some roles, rather plain in others. Looks on that level can be very useful to a versatile actor,
Thank you! I was making the same point on a recent thread about Tom Hanks's career! He was a 6/10 on the handsomest day of his life, but has stayed popular for about forty years now.
Actors don't need to be beautiful, most of the popular actors of the last century haven't been knockouts. But for some reason, people expect them to be, at least if they're female.
Agreed on ALL points (even though I still get annoyed when traditionally sexy/beautiful actors are cast in 'ugly' parts, even if, as you suggest, Theron was perfect for Aileen Wuornos in pretty much every other respect).
shareWho says she's not much of an actress? She's been brilliant in everything I've seen her in (esp. Lady Macbeth, Midsommer and Little Women, and is one of the most watchable actors, of any gender, right now, and I'm so looking forward to her playing Princess Irulen in Dune, which is, IMHO, great casting, even though the wonderful Virginia Madsen will be hard to top IMHO).
And apart from that annoying nose stud (*sigh* why do so many late Millennials and Gen Zers think nose studs are remotely appealing or attractive, or do they consciously want to look less attractive?), she looks great, and whilst she's far from 'pudgy' thank goodness that today's beauty standards have got *one* thing right, which is the move away from ultra-thinness, which was the unfortunate single beauty standard for much of this century until recently.
I don’t know but I’ve only seen her in Midsommar. She’s ‘girl next door’ at best. I wouldn’t kick her out of bed but she’s nothing to get excited about.
Acting talent seemed perfectly serviceable, nothing special but I need to see her in more films.
What happened to striking beauties like Sandra Bullock appearing in movies? Or actresses who were happy to get their tits out like Virginia Madsen, or tits and bush like jennifer Connelly? Hell, Sharon Stone got her whole slinge out FFS.
Hollywood has become toxic.
I think she is a star because the media is trying to say “she’s the next big star” and people buy into it
shareShe's a good actress and, whether you like her physical appearance or not, that's the only thing that matters.
share