Maggie Gyllenhaal in Lingerie

She has no talent when all she’s good for is showing her Vajayjay on the movies.
Her tits and vajayjay are so ugly like her fugly face.

What were provocateur thinking? are they Anti America like this cruella deville.

SOME OF YOU NEED TO GET SOMETHING CLEAR….IS NOT HER BODY THE ONE IN QUESTION IS HER BASSET HOUND FACE….ALL THAT TOGETHER…..IT LOOKS LIKE MY GRANDMA HAD A BAD FACELIFT AND TRIED TO GET SEXY PICS FOR GRANDPA……

EEEEEEEWWWW!

Kate Moss is trash and Maggie is trash too.

I would compare what she is doing to what Witherspoon has done. Witherspoon has accepted being the international face of Avon Cosmetics. That is commercial but pretty okay since Avon is a prestige brand and one can endorse it with dignity. Witherspoon can pick what she endorses since she makes big money for her acting. In contrast, Gyllenhaal doesn’t command much in the way of salary for her acting. She probably feels she needs lots more dough. So she is willing to endorse a brand that superficially appears aimed (at least to me) at Lesbians and whores. Hardly a prestige brand. Poor Maggie. A kid to raise and probably not enough money. So she has to stoop to endorse this crap.

Maggie is not beautiful and Jake is not handsome either. If you saw the photo of him standing at the front of the bunch of runners in the Chilmark race you could see how ordinary he looks when not made up for photo shoots or the movies. He had a buzz cut, his face looked too narrow and nondescript and his legs were really spindly. It made it clear that most movie stars’ “hot” appearance is the work of a good makeup artist.

160: word!

I see the connection now….sucky acting…fugly and a stuck up twat.

NO.

And freaky ****.

The first photo reminds me of her movie with James Spader, “Secretary” - that was so funny and erotic…different definitely. She’s perfect for the campaign!

My wife gets the creepy crawlies with Maggie and she’s not buying this product.

This woman is a flaming **** of an actress and she has the dna of a frog. She also looks like a mutated jackedup clone of Kristin Dunst and Julia Stiles. She’s a ***** but then again she plays a ***** in various movies she does. Good to see many people having high standards. I dont think Maggie is in her 20’s when she looks 58.

She looks awful.

Sorry,

Body is o.k. but the rest is not; sad puppy dog eyes and basset hound face. Maybe with more flattering makeup but that’s pushing it a bit….

I will have to agree that Maggie Gyllenhaal is not physically attractive, but I can understand why she was picked for the Agent Provocateur. She may not be a glamazon, but she exudes raw sensuality, and she seems like someone who is comfortable in her body.

There is nothing wrong with the Edgy meets Retro look, but it’s all in how it’s executed, and I have to agree with some of the people on here that the makeup could have been a LITTLE less harsh, ESPECIALLY on the lips. The lighting and the angles in some of these pictures did absolutely NO favors for Maggie.

The angle in which she’s holding her head in picture 2 makes her face look a bit flat, and it basically doesn’t flatter her at all. Instead of holding her head up, I think I would have had her tilt her head down more, and have her head turned more towards the camera. A devilish/coquettish expression may have also helped a little bit more here. The lips seem a bit dark at that angle, so I would have asked the makeup artist on hand to add a little more highlight since the color seems so harsh. I also think that they could should have left the turban out.

Picture 4 does absolutely NOTHING for me. The harsh lighting does nothing for Maggie here, especially with her head hung down - the way the light is hitting her face seems to age her. I think she should have had her head tilted UP instead of DOWN. Perhaps they also could have had her head turned to the right while tilted up to showcase the pretty barrette in her hair. They should have just scrapped that one - they should DEFINITELY do that one over.

The only thing that I see wrong with picture 5 is the fact that she’s so devoid of expression. I think I would have also had the lips a little more glossy for this picture as well. Perhaps a more coquettish and/or playful expression would have definitely added to this photo.

I’d have to say that picture 3 is the best in the bunch, as it highlights her pretty smile and expressive eyes. It’s playful and very coquettish, and they’ve also done a fantastic job of highlighting her beautiful breasts and bottom.

Maggie’s fantastic legs take center stage in picture 1 and I find that INCREDIBLY alluring and very sexy! The makeup and lighting is MUCH more flatting here, and I like the way that they enhanced her pretty blue eyes. Nothing bad to say about this picture at all.

In summary, I would say that this wasn’t a BAD shoot, but it wasn’t the greatest. I think there’s some tweaking here and there that could have been done, and that they should have looked over before publishing these pictures - they would have been PHENOMENAL if they would have taken more time.
I hope they do this over, or at least do a little bit more.

She is the sexiest woman. I have a huge crush on her. Watch her movies and you will see how amazingly beautiful and talented she is.

I THINK SHE IS BEAUTIFUL!! You people are stupid. The funny thing is, is that if they had a picture of you and her next to each other every guy would pick her. You are all so used to the air brushed supermodels, that have tons of platic surgery, that you never take time to look at the actual beauty. She’s hot… im putting her on my desktop picture.