Not beautiful
-
MyMovieTVRomance — 13 years ago(November 28, 2012 12:00 AM)
You're pretty darn rightfor me, it's the way she moves and talks more than anything. Especially in love scenes. Without getting all naked and graphic, she manages to arouse me, just by the way she tilts her head and kisses in those scenes, esp. if she happens to murmurs something in that oft seductive voice of hers too!
Please excuse typos/funny wording; I use speech-recognition that doesn't always recognize! -
andyvanm — 13 years ago(September 22, 2012 06:53 AM)
No ,she was gorgeous ,in today's world they promote horse faced actresses such as Sarah Jessica Parker ,Julia Roberts .etc..Greta Garbos face was perfection and not because of Hollywood makeup tricks ,it was her bone structure that passes the test of time and tastes.
-
TheMysteriousLady — 13 years ago(September 22, 2012 11:48 PM)
I didn't think she was anything special when I first saw her a few years ago in "Ninotchka," but now, several films (and years) later, I think she's the most beautiful woman I've ever seen. It's not just purely physical - it's her voice, her mannerisms, her attitude, the ideals she represents - the whole package.
Which of her films have you seen? -
TheMysteriousLady — 13 years ago(September 23, 2012 12:19 AM)
Also check out this picture of Garbo.
http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Garbo, Greta/Annex/Annex - Gar bo,%20Greta%20%28Kiss,%20The%29_04.jpg
Those were her REAL eyelashes! -
generalusgrant — 13 years ago(December 19, 2012 10:13 AM)
She was gorgeous, far more beautiful than other great "beauties" of that era like Joan Crawford, Dietrich or Jean Harlow.
I'm not biased or blind either. I'm a straight female who can see beauty when she encounters it. -
Qwithaq — 13 years ago(November 15, 2012 02:01 AM)
I agree that Garbo was pretty plain looking. I don't think she was beautiful at all. There are moments (like the pic of her on IMDb with the Fedora on, and there is something about her eyes) when she looks pretty but never beautiful. I think she was a decent actress but I feel like most people exaggerate her acting talents as well as her looks. I just don't get it: I don't really see anything all that extraordinary about her. I guess she just isn't really my cup of tea.
These violent delights have violent ends -
joyce-miller777 — 13 years ago(January 05, 2013 06:30 AM)
Have you ever watched her in silent movies when she was in her early 20s? She was gorgeous, even by today's standards. Her face changed and became more hard looking in the 30s. She was still pretty, but IMO, she was no longer gorgeous.
-
FranLovesBetteD — 13 years ago(January 05, 2013 07:51 AM)
I agree that her face was absolutely breathtaking in her silents. I think she was still gorgeous in the '30s, although -at least for me- her looks in period movies wasn't much becoming. Then again, her face in that famous screen test from 1949 is mesmerizing.
Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop -
JaneThree — 9 years ago(September 08, 2016 06:36 PM)
Joyce Miller, that's helpful. I believe it then. In the 1930s, she does nothing for me. She obviously is photogenic. She has bone structure, big eyes. But her other features - nose and mouth, aren't anything, IMO. But I'm going by the 1930s Garbo.
-
soleil_9992000 — 12 years ago(April 08, 2013 12:08 PM)
She had a stately kind of beauty and an understated sexuality. Her appeal is not immediately obvious to some people. I found her magical on screen in her ability to convey emotion with her face and eyes. She had mystery. I can appreciate different types of beauty. Her bone structure had a cool formality and dignity that doesn't translate into prettiness or cuteness. She didn't look sweet or obviously sexy. It took me awhile to appreciate her, but one day I saw her in Anna Karenina and then Camille and could understand why people were mesmerized by her. Part of her appeal comes from her demeanor, her "aura" if you will, but it's a unique combination of qualities that makes her special.