Kirsten was supposedly the subject of a blind item yesterday. Drugs and rehab. Breakup and not being forthcoming about reason for breakup. Actually a very dull blind. But if you're a fan, thought you'd want to know.

PP Here:

I just wanted to clarify that I was joking when I listed Eva Mendes as not attractive.
Of course she is!!
That is a fact!! Lol.

I guess I just (unfairly) compare Helen Mirren to Martha Stewart. They are both around the same age-range, however Helen looks like she could be Martha's mother!

Sorry Helen.

Anonymous wrote:Helen Mirren? Are you kidding me? If I look half as gorgeous as her at her age, I will be winning at life. Holy hell, I'd kill for her body NOW

Helen Mirren looks amazing. The PPs list is a little off. I think Eva Mendes is gorgeous too. Agree with a lot of the others though.

If I'm going to look at you on a screen for two hours, you should either be stunningly beautiful or stunningly talented.

Helen Mirren? Are you kidding me? If I look half as gorgeous as her at her age, I will be winning at life. Holy hell, I'd kill for her body NOW

For a celebrity she is average. I have always believed this to be true.
But perhaps her talent overrides her looks.

Other average looking Hollywood actresses:

• Sandra Bullock (her nose)
• Helen Mirren (she just looks really old to me)
• Maggie Gyllenhal
• Jennifer Aniston (thin lips, big nose + ugly chin)
• Kate Hudson (great body but average face)
• Reese Witherspoon (ugly chin)
• Eva Mendes

Just kidding.

She put on some weight for Fargo, and has since lost it, But I think the weight suited her.

She's a lot prettier than I am.

Glad the Kiki posts are back. Now I can move on with my day.

Very pretty. Beautiful skin and eyes. Symmetric face, shinny, blond hair. This is the classic American look. Why would someone think she's not pretty.

She's pretty enough to play "girl next door" parts and she is a talented actress.

She has a great body.

Anonymous wrote:I think she's just pretty, not gorgeous or beautiful.

This. But, I loved her in the Virgin Suicides. She's a decent actress.

She seems pretty down to earth and is not afraid to challenge America's unrealistic standards. I am so glad I am Danish and not American. You guys are crackpots. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-31870...od-actress-led-depression.html

Yet, she dates attractive men not short, balding, scrawny dudes. And she likely gets roles, in part, because she is reasonably attractive - someone that people want to watch on screen.

She chose a

profession in which looks typecast you

. No one wants to see a flabby middle aged lady in a leading romantic role with a hot hollywood hunk. It is what it is.

Yeah, but another disturbing thing is exactly how ridiculously high the bar is for female stars. If you are not a model or ex-model or something close, you are apparently unwatchable in a lead role. "Reasonably attractive" sure, perhaps that is a realistic category, but the pool of acceptable is clearly much smaller than that. (And this is not the case for male romantic leads - which are far more diverse - though that is as it should be (but just should be for everyone).) And this conversation just underscores this. Kirsten Dunst has perfect skin, very regular features, thick hair, very slim. She is objectively "pretty" even if she isn't necessary "your cup of tea" or attractive to a poster personally. How is this even really an argument?

She made an appearance on Graham Norton recently and I thought she looked gorgeous. I never used to think she was super attractive but she looked just so pretty during that appearance. But all that aside, I think she's a good actress and seems like a nice person.

She's pretty. Definitely in the top 8% of the human race . Have you looked around? It's disgusting out there.