Cele|bitchy |
- Katie Holmes, pre-divorce with C mag, doesn’t mention Tom’s name even once
- Princess Charlene & Albert’s CBS interview: hilarious, sad and cringe-worthy?
- Lea Michele in pink, prom-queen Pucci at the Fox party: busted & awful?
- Dina Lohan “dined and dashed” on a $2500 bill in the Hamptons, of course
- Jennifer Aniston has bangs, highlights in her new movie: cute or busted?
- Tom Cruise is going to be a New Yorker now too, he’s shopping for NYC real estate
- Natalie Portman: “In Hollywood, they consider me a smart woman”
- Katherine Jackson is in Arizona, hasn’t spoken to grandchildren in 8 days
- Bristol Palin’s son Tripp, 3, uses homophobic slur on TV, Bristol laughs
- Lindsay Lohan is like Rita Hayworth, says cracked-out ‘Canyons’ director
| Katie Holmes, pre-divorce with C mag, doesn’t mention Tom’s name even once Posted: 24 Jul 2012 09:06 AM PDT
Katie Holmes covers the September issue of C Magazine, and the interview took place on June 27, which is one day before she filed for divorce from tiny tyrant Tom Cruise. She looks gorgeous on the cover, right? I’m sure the shoot took place either at the same time or in close proximity to the interview, so I’m assuming that bit of a glint in Katie’s eye is rather telling. Also quite telling is the interview itself. As Kaiser noted in regard to Katie’s recent Elle feature, there’s quite a bit of telegraphing to be had from what is revealed by what Katie says (or in this case, what she doesn’t say). She’s definitely evasive here, but I have to wonder why she’s suddenly appearing on various magazine covers with very little to promote other than her suddenly single status. Perhaps that’s the answer, or maybe Katie talks about her Holmes & Yang line here and that’s just been left out of the excerpts revealed thus far:
[From Us Magazine] At this point, Katie was already free from Tom, and we just didn’t know it, and I love how she took such pains to avoid ever mentioning his name in the interview (and in fact, clearly didn’t want to talk about him when the journalist brought Tom up). It’s such a sharp contrast to her robotic, “He’s my man!“ W Mag interview from early in their relationship. Now about this photoshoot, which is quite lovely for the most part. I’m not sure what to think about that hat though.
Photos courtesy of C Mag    |
| Princess Charlene & Albert’s CBS interview: hilarious, sad and cringe-worthy? Posted: 24 Jul 2012 08:37 AM PDT
Poor, pitiful Princess Charlene. You guys always yell at me when I talk about how rough Charlene's life is, and how I don't envy it, but for real. I would not want to switch places with her. Charlene and her husband have a new interview with CBS, and it's… amazing. I have a different interpretation than Lainey, who thinks it was so awful, the interview shouldn't have even taken place. I mean, obviously, Charlene and Albert seem to kind of hate each other (hilarious) and they are not any kind of "fairy tale" or aspirational royal marriage or anything. But I laughed several times during the video, so it totally works if that was their goal. Wait, that wasn't their goal? LOL. Watch the interview and then we'll discuss it: My first thoughts were "OMG, what is Charlene doing to her face?" Many of you have claimed that Charlene has gotten a boatload of plastic surgery over the years, and while we can dispute "boatload," she's definitely getting something done. Her lips look so weird, especially when she's speaking. The whole thing reminds me of Nicole Kidman trying to speak normally through HER lip augmentation. After I got past Charlene's funky lips and actually began listening to what she's saying and her body language throughout the interview… she just seems over it. Maybe she was never really into it in the first place. But it feels like she's not even putting in any effort to convince us that she's in a good marriage. But then – OMG!!!!! – Charlene gets "stumped" by the question, "What's it like to be a princess?" and Albert SHUTS DOWN the interview? For real, y'all? And then when Albert and Charlene get the question about his mother (Grace Kelly), Charlene looks like she's going to projectile vom. Classic!! Around the 5-minute mark, Albert and Charlene start responding to questions about whether Charlene tried to pull a runner before the wedding and whether Albert's goons took away her passport and stuff. Charlene offers a meek denial, then Albert begins his denial, and Charlene just looks like she's going to throw up again, and I swear, she actually rolled her eyes at him. Amazing! Oh, and it looks like Albert is still trying to get the Ol' Baster in her. Poor Charlene. He just sees her as a broodmare, and he really doesn't seem to give a crap about her beyond that. Some photos of Charlene and Albert in London today:
Photos courtesy of WENN. |
| Lea Michele in pink, prom-queen Pucci at the Fox party: busted & awful? Posted: 24 Jul 2012 07:59 AM PDT
These are some photos from last night's "Fox All-Star Party" at the Soho House in West Hollywood. Lea Michele was arguably the biggest "star" there, so that tells you a great deal about the event. As for Lea's outfit… UGH. I just want to style her, head to toe, because whoever is styling her now must hate her. Either that, or Lea just has no idea what her strengths are, and she puts up a fight over everything. Lea's dress is Pucci – and it's completely wrong for a short, petite girl for a summer event. It looks like a dowdy, ill-fitting prom dress. The hair is a wreck too – Lea tried to copy Blake Lively's braid, but she failed miserably – and it's mostly because A) BANGS TRAUMA and B) the braid is just too messy and poorly executed. As for Lea's boobs – I don't even know. I thought they might be bolt-ons, but I think she might have just gained some weight back in her bust. PS… Is it just me, or does anyone else get "30 years old and masquerading as a 22-year-old" vibes from Lea?
Dear Martha Plimpton: I love you. I love your humor and your talent and I love that your face still moves. But girl, you need to find a different style.
Dear Tamara Taylor: Can we just agree that the haircut was unfortunate and move on from there? You need to stop trying to make this hair "happen". It looks like a really awful wig.
Dear Zooey Dechanel: Are you Botoxing? Because it looks like you're 'Toxing or filler-ing. And that's very disappointing.
Dear Hannah Simone: You are so pretty. Ditch the bangs and your current stylist.
Dear Mindy Kaling: I LOVE YOU SO MUCH and I will totally watch your show about gyno issues but I really need you to stop wearing such unflattering dresses. Please.
Photos courtesy of WENN. |
| Dina Lohan “dined and dashed” on a $2500 bill in the Hamptons, of course Posted: 24 Jul 2012 07:14 AM PDT
I was about to start this post with "This is why Lindsay Lohan is the way she is" but I kind of think that's a cop-out at this point. Obviously, Lindsay, Ali and the other Lohan children would have been better off being raised by wolves, but that only excuses so much. So, Page Six decided to check in with Dina Lohan. What's Mother Crackhead up to these days? Dining and dashing. What is she, 15 years old?
THIS is where Lindsay Lohan gets her sense of entitlement, her sense of "everyone has to give me everything I want. FOR FREE." It's the age of entitlement, the age of I'm-a-celebrity-so-I-don't-have-to-pay. And what's worse is that society – for the most part – agrees with Lindsay and Dina. Lindsay doesn't have to pay for her crimes. Dina still gets invited to and COMPED at fancy restaurants. And when someone hands a Lohan a bill, what happens? Nothing. Literally. They don't pay, they don't leave a tip, and when someone complains, they just throw a cracked-out hissy fit. Also: is anyone else disturbed by the fact that Dina looks younger than Lindsay at this point?
Photos courtesy of WENN. |
| Jennifer Aniston has bangs, highlights in her new movie: cute or busted? Posted: 24 Jul 2012 05:54 AM PDT
These are new photos of Jennifer Aniston (and Jason Sudeikis and Emma Roberts) on the Wilmington, North Carolina set of their new film, We're the Millers. I guess we now know why Justin Theroux was wandering around New York City over the weekend – his love is in North Carolina, working. And she doesn't want him around. Maybe he'll visit? I actually discussed Aniston's casting a few months ago, shortly after Wanderlust ate it at the box office – apparently, the script has been making the rounds since 2002, and it's had various re-writes and various stars "attached" to the project at various times. I believe that the current script involved Sudeikis playing a drug dealer/drug trafficker who is trying to move a marijuana shipment across the border, and he "hired" Jennifer Aniston's character, a hooker, to play his loving wife. Then they hire some kids, all to pretend that they're a family above suspicion, so they can get the drugs across the border. So Jennifer will be playing a hooker pretending to be an all-American "wife". Which is… kind of interesting. I might have to give her some credit for moving outside of her normal, cutesy wheelhouse. Of course, I expect that Sudeikis and Aniston's characters will end up together in the end. Anyway, these photos show…? I guess Aniston and Sudeikis's characters are on the move. Aniston's character has bangs in this movie. Can you tell if those bangs are a new haircut for Jennifer, or are they those clip-on bangs? Is it a wig in total? I really can't tell anymore. As for her costume… it's not flattering. Which makes me like Aniston more – she's playing a character without a cute wardrobe. Of course, she’s still showing off her toned arms.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet. |
| Tom Cruise is going to be a New Yorker now too, he’s shopping for NYC real estate Posted: 24 Jul 2012 04:55 AM PDT
These are some blurry new photos of Tom Cruise in London yesterday. He was "taking meetings" about a new film project called All You Need is Kill. This is the "new" Tom Cruise that he wants us to see – the doting and loving father who books back-to-back movies, the powerhouse producer who doesn't let Xenu interfere with his business, the consummate professional who will move heaven and earth to see his youngest child. Are you buying that image of Cruise? Eh. In an interesting coincidence-or-conspiracy moment, upon Tom's arrival in London, Radar claims that The Church of Scientology will be distributing L. Ron Hubbard's 1980 book, The Way To Happiness, to Olympic fans. Radar says that the CoS sent out a fundraising letter to help pay for 2 million copies of the book to be distributed for free. Apparently, CoS passed out the book during the World Cup and they claim that as a direct result, it was the "least violent" World Cup ever. So, is that what Tom's really doing in London? But on to this interesting little story about Tom in New York City… over the weekend, Page Six reported that Tom has begun looking for a new apartment in Manhattan, and sources claim he definitely wants to spend more time there.
Tom has never really been a New York guy – whenever he's not working on a film set, you mostly hear about him in LA, or you don't hear about him at all, because when Tom flies under the radar, no one has any idea where he is. I always think of it as Tom's "boy time" – and I would love to know if David Miscavige also "went missing" during those times too. Anyway, as for Tom's new New York lifestyle – this too is part of The New Tom. It wouldn't surprise me at all if we learned that Tom had quietly hired some crisis-management firm or a war-time consigliere/publicist to advise him and help him with his post-divorce counter-attack and media blitz, the effects of which we're seeing now. This is Tom's "It's All About Suri And What She Needs" counter-attack. It's one of his most effective counter-attacks, so let's see how it plays out.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet. |
| Natalie Portman: “In Hollywood, they consider me a smart woman” Posted: 24 Jul 2012 04:35 AM PDT
Natalie Portman covers the July issue of Madame Figaro, and the cover shot is absolutely robotic looking, isn’t it? She looks like a (really tired) porcelain Natalie doll, which probably just means she’s highly photoshopped, but it also seems like the woman is in dire need of a lengthy nap. Perhaps baby Aleph is still a wee bit fussy and keeping Natalie up at night. Anyway, I’ve been trying to figure out what Natalie is promoting with this magazine cover because she doesn’t have any movies scheduled for release although her IMDb page reveals that she’s got three projects currently filming (including the Thor sequel and an untitled Terrence Malick projct). So I suppose Natalie is just reminding us that she’s still around and hasn’t retired from acting just because she had a baby. That makes sense, I guess. Here are some interview excerpts:
[From Madame Figaro] I’ve always figured that Natalie struggles with having her comments misinterpreted and has attempted to guard against that dreaded evil with such guarded statements. She barely seems candid at all in her responses, but it’s hard to deny that she really is an intelligent person (and Ivy League scholar, blah blah) and perhaps doesn’t always sense her own vague air of pretention. Obviously though, she’s no Goop because, you know, Natalie actually graduated from college. Zing. As far as this photoshoot goes, the interior shots are much better (and more relaxed looking) than the cover.
Photos courtesy of Madame Figaro     |
| Katherine Jackson is in Arizona, hasn’t spoken to grandchildren in 8 days Posted: 24 Jul 2012 04:34 AM PDT
We haven’t covered this story yet as it’s complicated, there are a lot of different versions floating around, and I was hoping it would be resolved without incident. Not so much. As you may have heard over the weekend, Michael Jackson’s mom Katherine, 82, went “missing” for over a week. Katherine is the primary caregiver for Michael’s three children: Prince, 15, Paris, 14, and Blanket, 10. A missing person’s report was filed on Katherine, an investigation ensued and has since been closed. Jermaine issued a statement that Katherine was resting in Arizona with her daughter, Rebbie, “following doctor's orders to rest-up and de-stress, away from phones and computers.” Paris tweeted late Monday that she hadn’t spoken to her grandmother in 8 days and that “something is really off , this isn't like her at all.” Radar claims that the idea to whisk Katherine off for a week at “a spa” was Janet’s idea, who felt that the situation at home was too stressful for Katherine. TMZ confirms that the “chaos” at the house led to Katherine’s removal, but more than that Michael’s siblings want to challenge his will, which leaves 20% to Katherine and virtually nothing to them. E! has an article outlining all that’s at stake in this, and what would happen if Katherine was removed as the children’s guardian. Meanwhile Michael’s children have a security team and are being cared for by a nanny. On Monday Jermaine, Randy and Janet went to Katherine’s Calabasas home in an attempt to remove the children, but security guards blocked them, Prince refused to go and the cops were called. The kids still haven’t spoken to their grandmother, according to Paris’ most recent tweets. However, paparazzi agency X17 claims that the children knew Katherine was leaving. They also have a photo of her playing Uno with family. Here’s more on the latest, thanks to Radar:
[From Radar Online] What a mess this is, and how unfair it is to the kids. They lost their dad, and now their aunts and uncles are trying to take their grandmother from them in order to get their mitts on their late dad’s money. They’ve been placed in a very tough spot, and good for them for standing their ground. From the interviews I’ve seen with Paris, she comes across as very mature and even humble. I hope those kids stick together and refuse to be manipulated. They should inherit their dad’s money as he intended, but obviously their relatives want it for themselves. As for Katherine’s health, she was at “a spa” not a hospital. Paris tweeted some insight about her grandmother’s condition. “the same doctor that testified on behalf of dr murray saying my father was a drug addict (a lie) is caring for my grandmother… just saying.” What kind of doctor cuts their patient off from a phone or Internet for over a week? Who prevents their own mother from contacting the kids she’s supposed to be caring for? Maybe I’m wrong, maybe there’s more going on behind the scenes than we know, but it looks like a money grab from here.
These photos are from 1-26-12. Credit: WENN.com and FameFlynet |
| Bristol Palin’s son Tripp, 3, uses homophobic slur on TV, Bristol laughs Posted: 24 Jul 2012 04:29 AM PDT
The last we heard about Bristol Palin, her reality show was being moved to a later time slot on Lifetime after dismal ratings and even worse reviews. Bristol’s show, “Life’s a Tripp,” was faring so poorly that it was replaced by re-runs of “Dance Moms.” We didn’t cover that story, because it seemed inevitable to me and I was relieved not to have to think about Bristol and her “career.” Well “Life’s a Trip” is still airing and Bristol is still making headlines. In the latest episode, her son Tripp, 3, called his aunt Willow a “f*ggot” when she tried to discipline him. We know Willow has also used that anti-gay slur, as she wrote it on Facebook in an argument against a guy who was mocking her family, calling him “so gay” and “such a f*ggot.” Here’s more:
[From The Huffington Post] Kids repeat what they hear at home. I’ll admit that my son has used the other F word, the more common one, with consequences, but if he’s ever heard this one he knows not to say it. I once explained to him that it was wrong for his friends to call something “gay” in a derogatory way after he asked about it. It’s doubtful Bristol has had that conversation with her son. We know her position on same sex marriage rights. This isn’t the most open-minded family. This makes me wonder why producers decided to leave that segment in the show. It’s for ratings obviously, but if Bristol wanted it cut she could have made a case for it. (Note that they did not cut out a part of Bristol’s argument with a heckler in which she asked him if he didn’t like her mom because he was “a homosexual.” This was reported incorrectly by some outlets.) In Bristol’s mind, Tripp saying that word is probably about the same as a kid using a mild swear word. She wasn’t horrified, she was laughing. After I wrote this story I found a blog Bristol wrote in which she claimed that Tripp used the other F word. Of course she blamed the media for claiming he said it, writing “I guess the temptation to label my three year old son is just too great for the lefty papers to resist.” It’s about her parenting, it’s not about her little kid, but I wouldn’t expect her to grasp that. Watch her kid say the word again and tell me he said “f#$@,” not “f*ggot.” It sounded like it ended with a “t,” not an “er,” but whatever. The Palins are always victimized by the media.
|
| Lindsay Lohan is like Rita Hayworth, says cracked-out ‘Canyons’ director Posted: 24 Jul 2012 04:27 AM PDT
When I was a recreational drug user (years and years ago), I used to buy from a dealer who lived in a really sketchy part of my college town. Not only was it the sketchy part of town, but the dealer's apartment was basically the stereotype of a "drug den". My friends and I used to refer to it as "The Shady Place". I was just struck by that memory when I was looking through these photos of Lindsay Lohan leaving Mr. Chow's last night in LA. Lindsay is a walking Shady Place. Everywhere she goes, she turns the place into a den of crack, drama and sketchiness. My guess is that she got high before she went to Mr. Chow's, then she did some lines in the bathroom, so she's riding high in these photos. You know the Cracken is working again, right? She just finished her first week of The Canyons, that micro-budget film in which LL plays a washed up hooker (typecasting!) who pretty much has sex in every other scene, I think. Well, the film has a Facebook page and director Paul Schrader decided to blow some crack smoke up Lindsay's ass (she charges extra for that):
[Via The Canyons Facebook page] Ann Margaret? Gena Rowlands? Faye Dunaway? RITA HAYWORTH? Jesus take the wheel. Does anyone else get the feeling that The Canyons is less a "film" and more like a bunch of shady people getting high together and saying, "Dude, you are SO like Steven Spielberg." And, "I know, girl. You're like Rita Hayworth. How much for a beej?" Because honestly, I don't see how someone sober can look at this crack-face and say, "OMG, Rita Hayworth."
Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet. |
| 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 | |
