Everyone in this keeps mentioning how beautiful she is, but was she really more beautiful than the lead actress Elisabeth Darmot Walsh? I mean, maybe recently in real life with her red hair and sexier roles. But in that episode? She's supposed to be the pretty one compared to the lead and I don't buy it.
shareI didn't think she was remarkably beautiful, compared to the other one. That's the trouble with TV, it can't always measure up to the author's imaginings. I didn't think the girl in Five Little Pigs, who also is supposed to be a stunner, was really that remarkable either.
shareSome of it can be casting directors failings.
However EDW (Now on Doctors) looks somewhat dowdy in the role but does look sexier in modern day things whenever I have seen the odd ep of Doctors (Not often)
Kelly looks better nowadays too but in this role she looks even worse. She's more seductive than truly pretty. She needs the modern make up and her big beautiful red hair. But here she just looked like a bland tall girl with awkward looking eyes.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't get it, either. She is supposed to be a beauty in all her roles and I find her on the homelier side, actually
shareI agree. Especially given how absolutely stunningly lovely Elisabeth Dermot Walsh is. My husband and I couldn't help but marvel at how authentic she looked for the period, reminiscent of Vivien Leigh (whom my own mum actually resembled). Now THAT'S a true beauty!
shareI think she did look very pretty in this. I remember seeing her once in an early episode of Prime Suspect (can't remember which one, but it was about an accountant from a country club who was murdered and involved local governmental corruption) I couldn't believe that it was the same actress who played Mary Gerard in Sad Cypress; in the Prime Suspect episode she was very annoying.
I think Kelly Reilly looks very beautiful as Mary Morstan in the Sherlock Holmes. She is just as attractive Rachel McAdams and Noomi Rapace who got more showy roles.
share