I'm confused. How does the lack of creativity in Hollywood relate to the economic recession?
it wasn't the lack of creativity i was mocking. it was the apparent shortage of hairstylists and the switch from satin to what appears to be a swaddling cloth.
Are you talking about the cover or the movie?? I think Vogue just decided not to go for a "period" cover and wanted something more trendy--btw, that top is $498. I know, I looked at getting it. BTW, I also want to point out that the new Vogue is 798 pages of fashion rather than the older Vogue's measly 754 pages. And you know Vogue is 65% advertising.
now you're just being contrary. but if we're talking stats here, last sept was 840 pgs, so they're actually down 50 ad pgs in 08. which is a pretty big deal given fall fashion is The Ad Issue. and i'm sorry, honey, but that is a strange top! give me satin any day.
I think we're all missing the point here. you are supposed to be arguing the relative attractiveness of each actress, not what they are wearing.
Yes, I am being contrary. You deal with my in-laws and see what psychosis comes out of it!!As for relative attractiveness, Keira is way hotter than Kirsten.
yes, but keira needs to eat. hell, they both do.
they ain't no rachel weisz
Kirsten is dead behind the eyes. Keira needs to eat a sandwich with mayo. I want Natalie Portman!
I take offense to the "they both need to eat" remark. Some people are naturally skinny.
but, meggie, in the immortal words of your own husband, you weigh what- 200 lbs?
UGH. He seriously guessed that I weighed 135. I didn't tell you though... He said during an IM a couple of weeks ago, "You're not getting fat" completely out of the blue. I know I'm not getting fat so where did THAT come from!
I will eat a burger on keira and kirsten's behalf. I'm just that giving.
burgers with keira and kirsten would make a trendy name for a celeblog.
Post a Comment