Cele|bitchy |
- Katie Holmes goes casual in jeans & a great black coat for ‘Evita’: looking better?
- Kim Kardashian was flour-bombed on the red carpet last night for no reason
- Has Megan Fox really spent $60,000 on plastic surgery?
- Beyonce has asked Christian Louboutin to make some baby shoes for Blue Ivy
- Cate Blanchett appears on a magazine cover without retouching or Photoshop
- Gabriel Aubry’s pickup line: ‘you’re purtier than Kim Kardashian.’ Would you pass?
- LeAnn Rimes finally sells her Nashville home at a huge loss: why?
- Are Michelle Williams & Busy Phillips more than just platonic best friends?
- Jake Gyllenhaal is tormented by photos of his long lost love, Reese Witherspoon
- Oprah & Rosie’s bitchfight continues, Rosie told Oprah to “drop dead”
| Katie Holmes goes casual in jeans & a great black coat for ‘Evita’: looking better? Posted: 23 Mar 2012 08:53 AM PDT
Since everyone has been loving Katie Holmes's multiple photo ops in New York City this week, here are some more photos. Earlier, we saw photos of Katie bringing a pajama-clad Suri Cruise out to dinner at a nice restaurant, and yesterday we saw Katie attempting the fedora as she looked especially zonked-out. She looks much more alert in these photos for whatever reason. Maybe she got some sleep. Or maybe she was just having a nice night out with her mom, and without Suri. I guess Suri got to stay at home with a nanny? Probably. Katie and her mom went to see a Broadway show – Evita, with Ricky Martin. You can see more photos of Katie here. Once again, I like Katie's outfit. As I've said, I always wonder where Katie goes when we don't see her for months at a time, but I'm starting to think that she's allowed to do a lot of online shopping, right? Because she never wears the same thing twice. And her style eye… well, it's developing. I'm not crazy for the blouse (it's okay), but I like the jeans a lot and a LOVE the shiny black coat. I would wear the hell out of that coat. And in case you think that Katie has spent her entire trip to New York immersing Suri in adult things (dinners out, etc), People Mag had a nice story about Katie and Suri painting their own ceramics. According to People's source, Katie as doting on Suri and they had a nice mother-daughter energy. Last thing: do you think Katie bones any of her bodyguards? One of them looks like Jeremy Renner with a shaved head. I would hit it.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet. |
| Kim Kardashian was flour-bombed on the red carpet last night for no reason Posted: 23 Mar 2012 08:30 AM PDT
These are photos of Kim Kardashian at the launch of her new fragrance, True Reflection, last night in Hollywood. Unfortunately for all involved, Kim's Kat-face was not the biggest story. While she was talking to media outlets on the carpet, Kim was assaulted! She was flour-bombed, to be specific. I didn't know "flour-bombing" was a thing – I've seen and enjoyed when gay activists "glitter-bomb" anti-human-rights politicians, but why "flour-bomb" a cat-faced reality star? An unnamed woman "dumped a bag of flour" on Kim's head, and it got all in Kim's hair and clothes (and the red carpet). The woman was taken into custody by the LA County Sheriff's Department under a charge of "non-criminal battery" although Kim later declined to press charges (or seek any medical treatment, ha). Kim temporarily left the red carpet, got cleaned up in her hotel room, then returned looking much the same. Kim told E! News, "That probably is the craziest, unexpected, weird thing that ever happened to me… Like I said to my makeup artist, I wanted more powder and that’s a whole lot of translucent powder right there.” Here's some video, but the angle isn't great: Oh, it just occurred to me: do you think this could be some kind of PETA thing? But PETA is big on red paint, and they usually only do it when the celebrity is wearing fur at the time. Kim wears fur sometimes, but she wasn't last night. She was wearing leather, though. Hmm… Anyway, in our post-9/11 world, please don't throw white powder on people. If you want to glitter-bomb an anti-gay politician, I'll cosign that. But flour-bombing a cat-faced reality star? Meh. UPDATE: According to E! News’s witnesses, the flour-bomber mumbled something about fur. So it probably was some kind of PETA thing. You’d think they would have claimed it by now, though.
Photos courtesy of WENN and Fame/Flynet. |
| Has Megan Fox really spent $60,000 on plastic surgery? Posted: 23 Mar 2012 08:28 AM PDT
When a fresh-faced girl starts to make it big in Hollywood, a certain level of change is expected. Actresses often start learning new makeup and hair tricks after spending a great deal of time in the prep chair before shoots. They also tend to drop weight as well, whether the loss is intentional or due to stress and other factors. I think at the beginning, weight loss had a lot to do with Megan Fox’s transforming (har har) look, but it was about 2010 (more specifically, the Jonah Hex red-carpet photo shown above) when I realized that something was truly amiss. As in, this girl is addicted to cosmetic enhancement, which is a terrible shame because she was so naturally beautiful from the very beginning. Of course, most females can relate to aesthetic insecurities, so it’s not like I can blame Megan for being overly concerned with her physical appearance — especially in the pressure cooker that is Hollywood. Yet it’s hard to ignore the visual evidence from Megan’s most recent red carpet appearance, which saw Megan promoting a low-key role in Friends with Kids with an even more tweaked up appearance than when she was promoting blockbusters. Even though she should be focused on improving her public image (and arguably, her acting abilities as well), she can’t seem to stop altering her appearance. Instead of making herself more desirable, Megan just looks exhausted and (paradoxically) older than her 25 years. Just for reference’s sake, this is Megan’s “starting point” in 2004 before her first nose job (CB thinks she may have had a total of three nose jobs by now):
Now a story in this week’s In Touch claims that Megan has really shelled out for elective enhancement since she began her career. According to their expert, Megan has indulged in an eye lift and Botox; a nose with a narrower bridge and more sculpted tip; cheek implants and/or fillers; plumped-up lips ($1200) and mole removal; and either laser skin resurfacing or chemical peels (maybe both). Who knows if this is all true. At least some of it is, and it’s impossible to dance around the topic in a delicate manner when In Touch concludes that Megan has spent $60,000 on plastic surgery:
{From In Touch, print edition, April 2, 2012] Obviously, Megan’s had a bunch of stuff done, but has she really spent $60,000? I question whether she can afford to do so. Yes, she got paid $800,000 for Transformers and $5 million for Jennifer’s Body, but then you have to account for taxes, agents, publicists, and the like. She also bought a nearly $3 million home right before her Hollywood value crashed mercilessly into the ground. Still, Megan also made some money doing endorsements like Armani, so it’s not like she’s broke. Here’s a rather lengthy photo comparison that shows the evolution (devolution?) of Megan’s face over the years. Once you stack the photos up next to each other, the differences are stunning. 2004:
2005:
2007:
2008:
2009:
2010:
2011:
2012:
Photos courtesy of WENN                |
| Beyonce has asked Christian Louboutin to make some baby shoes for Blue Ivy Posted: 23 Mar 2012 08:02 AM PDT
In the above photo, you can see Beyonce (and her one giant earring) taking little Blue Ivy for a walk in NYC last week. I noted at the time that I loved that both Beyonce and Blue were wearing flats, and that Blue's little gold flats were particularly adorable. What I didn't know at the time was that those gold shoes were by Marc Jacobs, and they probably cost more than my annual health insurance. And according to In Touch, Beyonce has asked designers to create even more itsy-bitsy baby shoes for Blue. Blue is going to have Louboutins!
[From In Touch Weekly, print edition] Here's the thing: I don't doubt this at all. Just like I didn't doubt the stories about all of the jewelry that Blue is already accumulating. I really do believe that Beyonce and Jay-Z live like that, that they don't even blink an eye at dropping thousands of dollars on a sapphire-encrusted bottle. And you know what? It's their money. I think it's tacky and wasteful to spend that kind of cash on something that a baby will outgrow in a few months, but it's their choice, their call. Here's what I really think has happened though: I think it's mostly about loss of perspective. Like, Beyonce has spent so many years in the lap of luxury, she simply doesn't know that she could buy some cute, reasonably-priced baby stuff at Baby Gap. It wouldn't even occur to her, because she's had Christian Louboutin on speed-dial for so many years.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet, WENN and Pacific Coast News. |
| Cate Blanchett appears on a magazine cover without retouching or Photoshop Posted: 23 Mar 2012 07:53 AM PDT
Cate Blanchett appears on the cover The Economist. You can read the interview with Cate here – it's a lovely piece, albeit a bit boring. It's all about how she put her Hollywood career on hold to focus on her great love, the theater, and how hard she works running the Sydney Theater Company. But what is getting the most press for this cover story is the actual cover – an un-retouched photo of La Blanchett, wrinkles and pores and all. Isn't it refreshing? Obviously, Cate is a 42-year-old woman who looks great for her age (or any age). But it's just nice to see a woman in her 40s on the cover of magazine without her looking like a victim of excessive Photoshopping (or plastic surgery, since Cate eschews tweaking).
I wish more magazines would do this. And I wish more actresses were up for it. I look through red carpet and candid photos all day, nearly every day, and let me tell you something, ladies: you almost always look younger and fresher when you're photographed "naturally". Yes, in candids, we can see your wrinkles, the bags under your eyes, and maybe you feel naked without a face full of makeup – but I almost always think that you look younger.
Cover courtesy of Intelligent Life, photos courtesy of WENN. |
| Gabriel Aubry’s pickup line: ‘you’re purtier than Kim Kardashian.’ Would you pass? Posted: 23 Mar 2012 07:37 AM PDT
Ok, so that’s not exactly what Gabriel Aubry allegedly said to a woman who spurned his advances, but it’s close. We know that Gabriel maybe fake-dated Kim for a while to make Halle Berry jealous when their split was still fresh. He may have liked Kim or at least admired her dermatologist’s handiwork, because he used her as an example of beauty in what sounds like the lamest pickup line ever, until you hear another line he reportedly used:
[From The National Enquirer, print edition, April 2, 2012] So if an incredibly beautiful tall, gorgeous (I could go on) hunk of man like Gabriel Aubry moseyed up to you and said either of these things you wouldn’t go home with him or even give him your number, would you? More than these lame lines, it’s the neediness aspect that makes even the best specimens look unattractive. I once went out with a guy who looked like Keanu Reeves, but he just called me so much and seemed so into me that I couldn’t reciprocate. There’s a fine line between being open and accessible as a potential boyfriend and just seeming like you can’t cope and are clingy. I hope none of this is true at all, though. Aubry seems like a nice guy, but not like he’s this stupid or needy. Even if he is, there are plenty of women who would look up at that, smile and thank their lucky stars. L.A. is a different story. It’s like its own little world. This might be true, though. “Beautiful” Kim Kardashian is said to be the one who dumped Gabriel back in late 2010, right before she started dating Kris Humphries. Memories. Here’s Gabriel doing what he does best, being a hot dad. These photos are from yesterday. Gabriel took Nahla to The Grove, so he knew he’d be photographed.
      Credit: Owen Beiny / WENN.com |
| LeAnn Rimes finally sells her Nashville home at a huge loss: why? Posted: 23 Mar 2012 07:31 AM PDT
I had forgotten that LeAnn Rimes had a home in Nashville, Tennessee. Because she's country, y'all! Or at least she was country before she started screwing around on her husband with a C-list actor, then stalked the married C-list actor until his marriage was beyond repair, married the C-list actor and then completely remade herself into a pretty standard-issue LA Girl, complete with an emaciated body and wonky bolt-ons. So now that she's all about being an LA Girl, LeAnn decided to sell her Nashville mansion, which she had extensively renovated when she was married to Dean Sheremet. The funny part? LeAnn has been trying to unload her Nashville property for three years! LeAnn shelled out an unknown amount for the property, and then on top of that she shelled out something in the neighborhood of $4 million to simply renovate the property. Meaning that she had already put something like $6-7 million into the home, and she had it on the market for $7.45 million. It just sold for the bargain-basement price of $4.1 million! Yikes. She just ate a HUGE loss. I wonder why? From what I can tell, the mansion was nice enough – you can see photos of the place here. I like the kitchen and the master bedroom a lot, but you've got to wonder if the place was over-priced for the area. So, why did she eat the financial loss again? LeAnn's net worth didn't change that much after her divorce from Dean – she gave him a lump-sum settlement, from what I remember, and the settlement didn't put that much of dent in her estimated $30-40 million fortune. Of course, since then, she married Eddie Cibrian, whose career is probably best described as "failing." And LeAnn and Eddie take a lot of expensive vacations and she buys him lots of expensive toys. Still… she's got money, right? So why is she acting like she was desperate to let the Nashville property go? Couldn't she afford to wait out the market until she could make her investment back? And to add further speculation to the "Why is LeAnn acting like she needs money?" situation, LeAnn is really, really trying to get that gig on The X-Factor. She sent Eddie out to confirm that she is in "talks" with Simon Cowell over signing on to the budget reality competition. Fergie already turned Simon down. Nowadays, the names getting the most buzz are LeAnn, Britney Spears (gah!) and Stacy Keibler as host. OMG, imagine Stacy and LeAnn on the same show! Epic.
Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet. |
| Are Michelle Williams & Busy Phillips more than just platonic best friends? Posted: 23 Mar 2012 04:59 AM PDT
As I said during this past awards season, I liked the idea of Michelle Williams bringing her BFF Busy Phillips as her "date" for the big events. I think they are truly best friends, and I think their friendship transcends Hollywood press and photo ops and image consulting and Oscar campaigns. I like that Michelle brought a girl-date who would be a lot of fun, and she wouldn't have to think about the sexual politics of everything. So, what's the problem? Well, first of all, Busy was Michelle's date for everything! Like, Busy went everywhere with Michelle throughout January and February. Busy has a husband and a daughter, and it started to feel a little bit weird that Busy was always "on call" for Michelle. Second problem: Michelle's Oscar campaign seemed to include a "second virginity clause" where Michelle acted like she was much too delicate to even allow a boy to touch her fragile body. In plain terms, she acted like her grief over Heath Ledger had re-virginized her. And it was sketchy. Still, Busy and Michelle's friendship took no hits. Michelle lost out on most awards, but whatever happened, Busy kept Michelle's spirits up. Plus, Busy is a good enough friend to know that she could never look better, style-wise, than Michelle. So Busy always under-dressed. Perfect date! But just how perfect? Dun dun dun. The Enquirer claims that there are now "rumors" about Michelle and Busy's "close" relationship:
[From The Enquirer, print edition] I think they probably are nonsexual-girlfriend soulmates. They seem to have a lot of love for each other, and I hope (hope hope) that it goes both ways between them – that Michelle listens to Busy's problems as much as Busy is listening to Michelle's problems, you know? So… yeah. Whatever. I don't think Busy and Michelle are anything but best friends. As for Michelle being "reluctant to dive back into the dating scene"… for the love of God. She's had several boyfriends since Heath died! Why is Michelle pretending like that never happened? The jig is up!
Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet. |
| Jake Gyllenhaal is tormented by photos of his long lost love, Reese Witherspoon Posted: 23 Mar 2012 04:41 AM PDT
I've been thinking about Jake Gyllenhaal for most of this week. Ever since Reese Witherspoon announced her pregnancy, in fact. Remember Jake and Reese? They were so cute. Almost too cute to believe. I can't believe they managed to stick it out for… something like two years, right? Jake was the first dude Reese dated after her divorce from Ryan Phillippe (Jim Toth was the second!), and it's widely believed that Reese dumped Jake when the time came. Allegedly, Jake was devastated. He had grown close to Ava and Deacon, and people said Jake really thought Reese was "the one". Their split happened more than two years ago…and what has happened since? Reese rebounded immediately with Jim Toth, and they got serious very quickly. Engaged within a year, married and now expecting their first child together. Jake dated Taylor Swift for a few months (cuddlefesting!) and maybe Olivia Wilde for a hot minute. Oh, he tried to get with Minka Kelly, Rashida Jones and Anna Kendrick too, I think. I haven't heard of Jake associated with a lady in a while, though. So… is Jake still hung up on Reese? Can he simply not will himself to love like that again? OK, now I'm just making myself laugh.
[From The Enquirer, print edition] OMG! It's such a vicious cycle. Jake is tormented by images of his long-lost lover, Reese, so he tries to blot out any memory of her. Meanwhile, his cuddlefesting love, Taylor Swift, is haunted by their time together – time that Jake only spent thinking of long-lost Reese. EPIC. PS… Who else read Lainey's blind item and thought "Dimples" was Jake? Right?
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and WENN. |
| Oprah & Rosie’s bitchfight continues, Rosie told Oprah to “drop dead” Posted: 23 Mar 2012 04:15 AM PDT
A few days ago, we discussed the bitchfight that erupted between Oprah and Rosie O’Donnell after the OWN network dropped Rosie’s show after six disappointing months of declining ratings that were never that good to begin with. Naturally, Rosie took the cancellation personally even though there were a million different ways that she’d acted out towards her staff; she also obviously contributed to her show’s demise by abruptly changing the format and ignoring all advice to the contrary. Of course, it didn’t help that Rosie’s show was scheduled during her target audience’s dinner hour, but we could argue both sides of this issue forever and it wouldn’t change the fact that Oprah made a business call, which was well within her authority to do. As for Rosie? She should’ve realized who was boss when Oprah was photoshopped thinner than her on O Magazine. Anyway, this week’s issue of the Enquirer provides more details about Rosie’s brief reign of terror and even quicker downfall at Oprah’s employ. It’s not a pretty picture:
[From Enquirer, print edition, April 2, 2012] Obviously, Oprah really dropped the ball if she didn’t even bother to talk to Barbara about her experience with Rosie before handing the former “Queen of Nice” her own show. Then again, Oprah has been rather desperate from the beginning to see her network succeed, and Rosie was supposed to be the big rainmaker after Oprah’s name didn’t instantaneously do the trick. Like I said before, Oprah was only thinking about business when she fired Rosie, but TMZ reports that Oprah has taken steps to help the 30 staff members who were recently fired from OWN by providing them with “extremely generous” severance packages and providing them with a recruiter to help get them on track to finding new jobs. Oprah didn’t have to do that, and Rosie would’ve never done that.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and WENN     |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Cele|bitchy To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
