MovieChat Forums > Little Children (2007) Discussion > Kate Winslet about 100 times better look...

Kate Winslet about 100 times better looking than Jennifer Connelly


Really she is much more beautiful. Jennifer Connelly looks like a man or a 12 year old boy. She is as skinny as a refugee in Afghanistan. Kate is much more beautiful a better actress, and doesn't act like a b!tchy ice princess. My mom and I can't stand Jennifer Connelly. when my mom first saw thew movie she said...Ugh, not that huzzy. Why do men think Jennifer is more beautiful????

IMDB is a place for pathetic people who have no lives

reply

For what it's worth, I think both Kate Winslet & Jennifer Connelly are incredibly sexy, but I don't find either one to be particularly beautiful.

Interested in collaborative work on a new type of film rating system? Contact me

reply

i have always thought Connelly as hot. To this 32 year old male there is no question. Connelly is a 9.5 and Winslet is a 7

reply

I think Kate is very beautiful.

I also believe in making an informed decision. So, until Jennifer shows us her ta-ta's as much as Kate has, I cannot say which one is more attractive.

reply

You should check out Mulholland Falls. Jennifer has several topless sex scenes in it, and she was in her prime back then (though I think she's still gorgeous now). Be warned, though, it's not a very good movie.

Movies I've seen in 2010: http://www.flixster.com/movie-list/2010-movies-6

reply


@OP Their both beautiful women in their own way, trying to compare them is like asking who was the better musician, Bach or Beethoven?

reply

Eh? I thought this was going to be a thread about why Kate's character was described by her lover as less attractive than his wife...and I was ready to get on board that it seemed wrong...but...I guess you just hate Jennifer Connelly...which I can't really get down with. I think Kate is by far more attractive, but Jennifer Connelly is very pretty...if a tad too skinny.

reply

This is one of the problems with this movie. Kate Winslet is too good-looking to be the 'plain housewife'. Perhaps they could have made her up to be plainer, like they did in "The Reader". But her lips and eyes are too captivating for the frumpiness required for this role.

While I'm on the subject . . . that scene in the laundry room . . . Wow!

reply


Kate Winslet is very beautiful, more so than Jennifer Connelly. But they 'frumpied' Kate up for the role, and her body is a bit dumpy here.

I found it amusing how they kept showing Jennifer in bed wearing impossibly sexy hip hugger panties, as she stuck her barely-there butt towards the camera lol!

Basically, both women are beautiful...and ugly...here in their own way.
But I prefer Kate, as she's more like a 'real' woman.





"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus."
"Didn't he discover America?"
"Penfold, shush."

reply

I think if I had a choice between the two of them, I'd probably die from a coronary before I picked.

Jaan Pehechan Ho

reply

Connelly's not more beautiful than Kate, which is implied in the movie. Kate has the requisite curves, wheras Jennifer is too thin.

reply

Both women are exception looking...Just in different ways.

Even given different tastes, I don't know how it's possible to say Jennifer isn't positively breathtaking because, well, she IS. I can't argue with her appearing to be on the frail side nowadays. If you look back to older movies she's done such as Inventing the Abbotts for instance, she had a lot more shape going on. As a straight chick, if I were transformed into a straight man tomorrow, I'd want some curves.

Kate is classically gorgeous. She does appear a bit older than her actual age to me, but I think I'm one of the few that feels that way. Her body is simply incredible. I'm built very similarly to her, so maybe I'm just saying that for my own benefit though, haha.

Anyway, I don't think these two are the right women of choice to be pinned against each other in a attractiveness debate. It's just too subjective and impossible to choose.

reply