• Sat, Jul 16 2011

Gwyneth Paltrow Boldly Takes On ‘Ugly’ Role

In an article titled “A-Listers Get Ugly To Land Dream Roles,” The Huffington Post licks Gwyneth Paltrow’s balls for daring to appear less than gorgeous in her upcoming film, “Contagious.” They write:

“Breaking away from the beautiful Hollywood pack isn’t easy but for these ladies, who managed to shed their perfectly plucked and primped visages, the results were frighteningly epic. Now hoping to jump on the ugly bandwagon is Gwyneth Paltrow who sheds her always flawless complexion and perfectly coifed bombshell locks for a less than flattering look in her forthcoming Steven Soderbergh film, ‘Contagion.’”

So what did Paltrow do to ug it up, you might wonder? Did she go without highlights for a few months? Steer clear of the facialist? Chop her hair into a mullet?

No. What Paltrow did was this:

In other words, she looked a little sleepy.

Now, I don’t want to hate on the fact that it’s difficult for Gwyneth Paltrow to look unattractive. It is. She’s hot. But you can’t expect accolades for daring to look beastly when all you did was forgo foundation on certain parts of your face. Her hair is still nicely brushed out in the front, her brows are still attractively shaped, and other than the deliberate splotchiness, her skin remains wrinkle- and blemish-free.

I mean, come on, Paltrow. If you want credit for taking a risk with your looks, check out what Vanessa Hudgens is up to. Then we can talk.

What We're Reading:
Share This Post:
  • sheherbano

    so is it ‘contagious’ or ‘contagion’? :S

  • Patricia

    ummm… has everyone forgotten her in Shallow Hal? Playing a morbidly obese woman and as sensitively as she did was quite a departure from the usual glamor roles.

  • miinxi

    your link for what vannessa hudgins is up to is broken. Another? Im so curious now!

  • Louis

    she doesn’t need to play a role to be ugly, she is..