Emily Browning is not...


...sexy. She is kind of pretty facially, but the body is just not enticing.

reply

[deleted]

I tried to watch and I gave up after about half an hour. My own personal opinion (as in, I'm not looking for a debate lol) is that she looked too young. I know, I know, she has hips, she's like 20-something, I get it. I still thought she looked like a 13 year old and it was extremely uncomfortable to watch. I'm sure that was part of the point of the movie, and I have nothing against people who enjoyed it, but I couldn't for this reason.

reply

I agree with you. That might have been part of the reason I didn't think she was sexy. She's not a bad looking girl and maybe a decent actress, but I just didn't think she was the right choice for the role.
We are now into the 7th page of comments about this. What I originally thought was a passing comment has turned into a major debate. I have not changed my mind one bit but I am oh so sorry I started this.

reply

I agree, I think she's not sexy at all. I don't even think her face is pretty.

reply

To each his own, I guess. But I find Emily to be gorgeous, having the kind of face and body I prefer over all others.

reply

I think she looks really beautiful in the nude, but the film itself is not the slightest bit erotic, and very uncomfortable. Maybe it's because I've been a fan of Browning since A Series of Unfortunate Events, but I think it's because the film draws you to pity her so much in spite of her eccentricities like burning the money even when she needs it badly.

reply

Her face was beautiful but her body.. good God, when she was (spoiler) lying in bed naked during the scene with the one abusive man on top of her she looked about 10 years old body wise. Her body was completely underdeveloped, those didn't even look like breasts but 'buds'.

reply

She was 22 and that is a pretty common body type for a woman that age. I like her fair skin and petite body.

reply