Helen Hunt almost unrecognizable in “I see you”

[Anonymous]

Face fillers. Sadly women are not allowed to age gracefully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has no lips and her eyes are barely there.

It's very specific lighting and makeup choices. I wonder if it was in service to the story being told.

In the film, she’s supposed to be a desirable woman.

Yikes! They really missed the mark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has no lips and her eyes are barely there.

It's very specific lighting and makeup choices. I wonder if it was in service to the story being told.

In the film, she’s supposed to be a desirable woman.

But what was going on in that scene, in particular? (I don't know, myself.)

[Anonymous]

Honestly, people look like such freaks with the work they have done that she looks great in comparison, especially since she wasn't a knockout to begin with.

Don't forget: she's 58!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those pictures are not the most shocking views of her face in the movie. The scene where she is with her lover, she looks like a wraith although she and Todd (Sam Trammel) are supposed to be the same age.

Wow! This looks like a female Voldemort!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those pictures are not the most shocking views of her face in the movie. The scene where she is with her lover, she looks like a wraith although she and Todd (Sam Trammel) are supposed to be the same age.

Wow! This looks like a female Voldemort!!!

Yes badly done fillers plus wrinkly in all the other parts. Poor work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her skin is awfully smooth. I would say she hasn't had surgery but she has had botox at least.

I agree. Botox or some other kind of injectible?

I really don't think so. Look at the linked photo above- deep expression lines across the forehead wouldn't happen with Botox.

Aftermath of injections/fillers.

Fillers just age super, super poorly.

Not seeing that at all. I think she just looks like she "needs" a lower facelift by standards we expect of Hollywood actresses.

She clearly had fillers. Never, ever get fillers - they will age poorly.

Perhaps I know a lot of youngish looking folks but she looks old for 58. Even here, she looks old.

[Anonymous]

Leave poor Helen Hunt alone! This is what menopause will do to you.

[Anonymous]

You people are crazy. She looks like she aged normally, WITHOUT fillers. That’s why she looks bad. She hasn’t done anything/much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She has done something to her mouth! In recent pics of her, it’s looks like her top lip is caving.

There was definitely something going on with her upper lip in the Mad About You reboot. I found it extremely distracting. It got better toward the end of the season…was wondering if maybe it was Botox wearing off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You people are crazy. She looks like she aged normally, WITHOUT fillers. That’s why she looks bad. She hasn’t done anything/much.

She has most definitely had fillers, which has made her age worse than if she had aged "normal." For the life of me, I don't understand why women still seek facial fillers - they are FAR worse than natural aging when it comes to the test of time. Just. Don't. Do. IT!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are crazy. She looks like she aged normally, WITHOUT fillers. That’s why she looks bad. She hasn’t done anything/much.

She has most definitely had fillers, which has made her age worse than if she had aged "normal." For the life of me, I don't understand why women still seek facial fillers - they are FAR worse than natural aging when it comes to the test of time. Just. Don't. Do. IT!

Disagree. 44 in the first pics and 58 in the "after" is a pretty huge difference in aging time to compare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are crazy. She looks like she aged normally, WITHOUT fillers. That’s why she looks bad. She hasn’t done anything/much.

She has most definitely had fillers, which has made her age worse than if she had aged "normal." For the life of me, I don't understand why women still seek facial fillers - they are FAR worse than natural aging when it comes to the test of time. Just. Don't. Do. IT!

Disagree. 44 in the first pics and 58 in the "after" is a pretty huge difference in aging time to compare.

You must have gotten facial fillers and expect people to think you're "aging naturally." The last photo in the black & white top is undeniably facial fillers. People can clearly tell -- we know you're not having a permanent severe allergic reaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are crazy. She looks like she aged normally, WITHOUT fillers. That’s why she looks bad. She hasn’t done anything/much.

She has most definitely had fillers, which has made her age worse than if she had aged "normal." For the life of me, I don't understand why women still seek facial fillers - they are FAR worse than natural aging when it comes to the test of time. Just. Don't. Do. IT!

Disagree. 44 in the first pics and 58 in the "after" is a pretty huge difference in aging time to compare.

yes, Its a 14 year age difference!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You people are crazy. She looks like she aged normally, WITHOUT fillers. That’s why she looks bad. She hasn’t done anything/much.

That's what I think too. If you were doing fillers why would you be like, "oh. Leave the smokers lines. And I'm cool with no lips. I like deep forehead lines and crows feet, so no messing with that!" She's also jowly which shows less volume, not more.