Emma Watson gets oiled up for an environmental charity: gross or cute?

Emma Watson posed for a charity coffee table book called Natural Beauty, and these are some of the photos from her shoot. The project was done by photographer James Houston (not Uncle Terry) on behalf of Global Green USA, which is one of the bigger environmental advocacy groups out there today, and one supported by a number of celebrities. Emma wasn’t the only one to pose – Adrian Grenier, Brooke Shields, Christy Turlington, Elle Macpherson and many others also posed – but Emma’s photos are getting the most attention because… you know, she’s not wearing any clothes and they poured a bunch of oil on her and handed her an orchid, which she then crushed (?). You can read more about the project here.

There’s video too:

In case you couldn’t tell, I don’t really know what to make of this. I mean, sure, I guess it’s a decent idea to make a coffee table book in which beautiful men and women take off their clothes and pose with flowers and such, and I guess it’s nice that the profits go to Global Green USA? But it just feels random. And it feels like they were working WAY too hard to get the ladies to take off their clothes. “OOooh, the environment! Let me take off my panties!”

Also – here’s the trailer for Emma’s new film, The Bling Ring (directed by Sofia Coppola). I think it looks okay, but there’s an element of… I don’t know? Like, it could easily seem like a Lifetime movie.

Photos courtesy of Natural Beauty.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

47 Responses to “Emma Watson gets oiled up for an environmental charity: gross or cute?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Agnes says:

    these are awkward, to say the least. she still looks like a kid to me.

  2. Kayla says:

    The last photo looks a bit disgusting to me.

  3. Summer says:

    Why do they have to go naked for a good cause? wft.

  4. Arba says:

    The last one is a little much but I do think she looks quite beautiful in the others!

  5. Poke em all says:

    The bling ring teaser looks meh. Emma can’t act like a bad girl. not yet.

  6. serena says:

    Emma looks beautiful in the shoots but the movie seems very stupid.

  7. Amelia says:

    Close. Your. Damn. Mouth!!!
    Someone go and get Rachel Weiz to teach a class on how to look awesome and sexy without resorting to pouting.

  8. mkyarwood says:

    I don’t think it’s so bad for her to be in a Lifetime-esque movie. Most actors don’t start off in a successful franchise…

  9. gee says:

    I can’t tell if I’ve been corrupted by the internet or if that last one is supposed to gross me out.

  10. Christina says:

    Emma Watson is a British Natalie Portman. Mediocre actress who can be as naked and oiled as she likes, but will still have all the sex appeal of a slice of white bread.

  11. Maya says:

    You know, I really want to like Emma Watson but…I can’t. Something about her just annoys me intensely, and I find her pretty underwhelming as an actress. Just me or does anyone else feel the same way?

    ETA: Okay, I see I’m not the only one :)

    • Poke em all says:

      Well, I remember when she got that pixie cut two years ago she was oversaturating the magazin covers and kept talking about her post Harry Potter world and her hair and her ‘education’. It was very annoying.. like anne hatheway annoying. And every time she wants to promote something she annoys the hell out of me.
      and now here comes the bling ring movie… I’d better buckle up.
      I’m probably going to get murdered in my sleep by her lunatic fans for saying these. oh well.

    • Katharine says:

      Emma Watson started out well as Hermione, a part probably fairly close to her personality, and used to give decent interviews (levelheaded, valuing education). But I’ve found her to be a rather wooden actress in Ballet Shoes, My week with Marilyn and The perks of being a wallflower – in the latter, unconvincing as a “wild”, carefree teenager. She’s a bit over-exposed as a celebrity (and in this pictorial) : I don’t dislike her, but I am starting to find her annoying.

  12. paper says:

    saw a video of this shoot. she’s not actually naked, got like a flesh colored tube top thing on. was disappointed.

  13. Belle Epoch says:

    I think she is still young and somebody talked her into doing a shoot like this to show her “range.” But she just looks unkempt, not like she’s in some tropical lagoon being sexy. I blame the handlers – she was trying to give them what they wanted but they blew it.

  14. Jill says:

    Child porn. Ok, she’s an adult but that’s what it looks like to me.

  15. L says:

    It’s based off a true story (that group that was robbing celebrities by tracking them on twitter/facebook etc)-that yes was already made into a lifetime movie. With the same name even.


    • Merritt says:

      Depending on how they chose to frame the story the Coppola version has the potential to be a good film. If it goes into the privilege these teens had when they thought they could get away with breaking into the same house multiple times. Not to mention delving into the types of celebrities they went after. Not exactly A list.

  16. Tania says:

    Wow. Am I the only one who thinks she looks really beautiful? I don’t like the last pic but I think she looks gorgeous in the others.

  17. jojo says:

    i really do not see the appeal with her. She’s kinda cute in a way, but its a child-like cute that isnt anything that screams ‘sex-appeal’.

    Why is she getting all the accolates for acting anyway? She was very mediocre in the potter films. The two guys were much more talented as actors than she was. I always cringe when hearing her try to over pronounce some of her lines for dramatic effect.

    Well, I guess ii is the way of hollywood nowadays i guess. The media picks a cute girl, props her up and rides her out as the next-best thing as long as they stay out of the police blotter. If Hathaway and Berry can win an oscar, there’s no hope of hollywood finding another streep that can actually act in movies anymore…

  18. lylaooo says:

    i´ve never seen her movies..i´ve never been interest but to me she looks beautiful!

    stop being such a drama queen´s..with the child porn and stuff!

  19. TheOneAndOnly says:

    Ed Begley and his wife are the few hollywood celebs I take seriously on environmental matters – they walk the walk as well as talk the talk from what i’ve read and watched; otherwise, hollywood celebs do little to reduce they own extravagant environmental footprints but they have no problem telling the peasants how to live; and these issues turn on hard science something hollywood is ignorant of; I can learn more about environmental issues by reading Scientific American than having my “awareness” raised by Emma Watson slathered in goo in some PSA.

  20. KellyinSeattle says:

    I don’t fine her beautiful or even very pretty. The oily shots are stupid; take off the Baby Oil.

  21. Azurea says:

    There isn’t anything different about these photographs than those in any high-end fashion shoot. Yeah, they’re pretty pictures — so what?
    Self-important artsy twits!

  22. B says:

    I understand that sex sells but why do women always have to be naked for it. I am getting mighty tired of all these actresses constantly trying to shed their “good girl” image. Let the work speak for itself. They all can’t wait to become fapping material for men.

  23. Levosity says:

    The last picture looks so disturbing. >.<

  24. Original A says:

    I like Emma, but I’m seriously wondering what’s up with her career. This Del Toro film is likely not going to happen for at least another four years or not at all (he has Crimson Peak already financed and the studio is so confident on Pacific Rim he’s already working on Pacific Rim 2). There’s only so long she can get away with playing teenagers…Shailene Woodley gets away with it because she’s brand new on the scene. She has a small supporting role in Noah, but apparently that role was originally Dakota Fanning’s (she had to drop out because of school & another film commitment). Jennifer Connelly, Russell Crowe, Anthony Hopkins and Logan Lerman all have larger roles in Noah….

    Anyway, my point is she has nothing officially lined up. Granted, IMDB is not always super accurate but it is still a little strange. I would understand Emma having a completely free schedule if she was overexposed, but she most definitely is not. It doesn’t help that she’s never really received rave reviews for any of her roles (excluding a few for Perks) and several of the prominent film critics called her out as being wooden in the Marilyn Monroe film.

    I do think she’s a moderately talented actress and that she conducts herself well, but she also seems like a prime example of an actress/actor that coasts by on their public perception (in her case, education, Harry Potter, and class) rather than talent.

  25. original kay says:

    she has a bad case of “dead hand”

    where’s Tyra when you need her?