Cele|bitchy |
- Nicole Richie’s new bangsy, busty look: flattering, pretty or overdone?
- Bethenny Frankel on if she made $120 mill: ‘The number is irrelevant’
- Kelly Osbourne criticizes Christina Aguilera again: “I was never that fat”
- George Clooney & Stacy Keibler do their first red carpet side-by-side
- Why does Gerard Butler’s bulge look so… unimpressive?
- Enquirer: Elizabeth Olsen is living in squalor, refuses help from her sisters
- Linnocent knows she’s violated probation, she’ll bring her bail bondsman to court
- Giuliana Rancic reveals breast cancer diagnosis at 37
- Zachary Quinto came out as gay in honor of gay, bullied teen
- Rooney Mara covers Vogue, in character as Lisbeth Salander: interesting or rough?
| Nicole Richie’s new bangsy, busty look: flattering, pretty or overdone? Posted: 17 Oct 2011 09:33 AM PDT These are newish photos of Nicole Richie at the 2011 Environmental Media Awards (in mustard Keepsake) and a QVC FFANY Shoes event (in black Helmet Lang), all over the past few days. A few things, right off the top. First, BANGS. I actually don't think Nicole looks bad with bangs, but she's wearing them much too heavy. When they go that far below your brows, and they're THAT thick, it's time to grow at least some of it out. Looking at the bangs between the two sets of photos, they work better when her hair is down - it's more of a style than a trauma, like they are in the black photos. Next: her new boobs. I kind of forgot that Nicole had gotten implants until I spied her rack in this mustard dress. What's going on there? Is it a padded bra, or some kind of strapless contraption that's pushing her boobs up? Because they look pretty big there. So big, I thought she was pregnant. She's not (as far as I know) - she's just got new boobs and some fancy new bras to make her new boobs look great. As for the fashion - I'm rather blah on both of these outfits. Neither of them are bad or wonderful. But I do appreciate that Nicole takes the time and effort to put together whole "looks" - she really does care about red carpet appearances. One last minor thing: she has beautiful eyes, and there's absolutely no need for her to go all Duchess Waity with her eye-makeup. Too much, Nicole! Photos courtesy of WENN.      |
| Bethenny Frankel on if she made $120 mill: ‘The number is irrelevant’ Posted: 17 Oct 2011 08:58 AM PDT
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy Last Thursday, Rob Shuter at the Huffington Post called out Bethenny Frankel for maybe-lying to Fobes about the amount of money she made from selling her SkinnyGirl beverage business. Forbes declared in a June cover story that Frankel had made over $100 million from the sale. Shuter went through the quarterly financial statement from the company that purchased SkinnyGirl, and misread the amount of “good will” afforded the company, $8.1 million, as the total sales price. A later segment of the report suggested that Skinny Girl was purchased for around $32 million. Accountants and financial lawyers among you commented that the financial details were being misread, that it was impossible to tell from the report what the purchasing price was, and that celebrities and millionaires regularly misrepresent their wealth in order to sound richer. Shuter and Huffpo later issued a correction stating that the numbers had been misread. In response, Frankel tweeted that Shuter was a “freelance writer with false info to get attention” and claimed she paid more than $8 million in taxes. She never gave a precise number as to what she sold SkinnyGirl for, and the company that bought it, Beam Global, said that we should “not expect that a black and white lump sum ‘purchase price’ figure will be made available. Suffice to say, this was not an $8.1 million acquisition.” No exact numbers, then, but I suspect it wasn’t quite as high as Bethenny would have us believe and that she knows it. In an appearance on the Today Show this morning, Bethenny never gave a direct answer when Matt Lauer asked her if she made $100 million or not. She just hedged, called the publications that reported the $100 plus million figure “credible,” (as opposed to anyone who called her out on it) and said an exact number was “irrelevant.” She also defended her supposedly harrowing lost at sea experience that just happened to be captured on cameras for her reality show, but she talked around the accusations of the towboat operator who said it was a stunt.
[From Bites.TodayShow.com] Either she made over $100 million or she didn’t. Don’t go claiming one thing all over the press for months and then act like it doesn’t matter and that people are stupid for calling you out on it. She concluded by referencing Giuliana Rancic’s breast cancer and saying that “this is garbage. You worry about your health, your family and this is garbage.” Again, she’s fine with putting out numbers about her supposed wealth when it’s to her liking, but when people ask her a direct question about it none of it matters and it’s all “garbage.”    |
| Kelly Osbourne criticizes Christina Aguilera again: “I was never that fat” Posted: 17 Oct 2011 08:34 AM PDT A few months ago, Kelly Osbourne rather gleefully declared that Christina Aguilera's weight gain meant that "Christina is becoming the fat bitch she was born to be." This came after years of alleged and not-so-alleged back-and-forth between Christina and Kelly, and I should point out - it does seem like Christina started it when she really started criticizing Kelly's weight years ago. Back in August, when Kelly first called Christina a fat bitch, Christina was only slightly larger, mind you, because as we've seen over the last week and a half, Christina has really been boozing it up hard, and it's written all over her face and body. When Kelly and the rest of the Fashion Police crew were discussing Christina's weight gain and general disastrous appearance during the Michael Jackson tribute, Kelly once again took some shots at Christina.
[From Us Weekly] CB thinks Kelly is full of it for declaring “I was never that fat.” Because Kelly was as heavy as Christina at one point, although to give Kelly some credit, she wore her extra weight a lot better (I’ve included older photos of Kelly at the end of the post). I think Christina's frame is more petite, so her weight gain is more noticeable. Also: Kelly is a size 2/4 currently? Just like Kim Kardashian and Kirstie Alley, I suppose. Here are some photos of Kelly when she was as heavy as Christina - the ones where Kelly has black hair are from 2007, and the blonde spiky one is from 2009. Kelly's body then looks pretty similar to Christina's body now. Photos courtesy of WENN & Fame.    |
| George Clooney & Stacy Keibler do their first red carpet side-by-side Posted: 17 Oct 2011 08:33 AM PDT Well, this should appease all of those critics who claim that George Clooney and Stacy Keibler's relationship is some massive conspiracy involving an overzealous publicist, a massive amount of Photoshop and every media/gossip outlet in existence, all working in concert to make Stacy “happen.” Yes, George Clooney and his lover Stacy Keibler walked the red carpet together, at last. Stacy has been invited to his premieres twice before - in Toronto and LA - but she wasn't allowed to walk WITH Clooney. At last night's New York Film Festival premiere of The Descendents, Stacy finally got her moment with Clooney, in front of God and twenty million cameras. For the occasion, I have to say, Stacy looked pretty good. One of the things I enjoy about Clooney is that he generally chooses ladies who are not "fashionable" in the Vogue sense. When he makes some lady his "girlfriend," usually they're pretty busted in the sense that they don't have anyone doing their hair and makeup, they don't really know how to dress for a red carpet, and they tend to dress like Vegas cocktail waitresses (which they sometimes are). Stacy was like that too - her first red carpet appearance as a "girlfriend of" was pretty bad - remember that Frederick's of Hollywood-style dress? And her hair and makeup have been bad for a while. But last night was definitely a step in the right direction - Stacy wore a very sexy, flattering, black Versace gown that looks great on her figure. The makeup is much better, and the hair… is still kind of busted, but it's not anywhere near as bad as it was. So… they're together. Stop claiming that it's some massive conspiracy. He's hitting that. The only conspiracy is about how long Stacy can keep her cray-cray tamped down. Will she make it past the awards season? Photos courtesy of WENN & Fame.    |
| Why does Gerard Butler’s bulge look so… unimpressive? Posted: 17 Oct 2011 08:33 AM PDT Last week, no one seemed to care about Skinny Gerard Butler and his Pecks of Tautness. (sidenote: "Taut" is one of the words that I need to use more, right?) Why didn't you care? Why didn't you love him enough to comment about his pecs and his thunder-concealing wetsuit? Anyway, as we've been chronicling over the past year, Gerard Butler has slowly and steadily lost the chunk. Specifically over the past few months, he's been training for this surf movie, Of Mavericks and Men. Gerard plays the surfing elder in this one, and yet it seems like he's the lead, considering he's getting endlessly pap'd in various stages of dong-y undress. These are newish photos from the weekend, and Gerry looks… well… From the waist up, I love him, even with the uneven scruff. I like his naturally curly hair, I like how good his arms look, I like his taut pecs and just how healthy and great he looks. And then I get to what's below the waist… …Now, I don't want to be one of those "OMG, it looks so small in a wetsuit!" people, but really, his bulge is unimpressive. If Jon Hamm was in this wetsuit, his bulge would be assaulting and then seducing our eyes. The Hamm Dong would be slithering half-way down his leg. Gerry just looks… like the dong doesn't match his big frame. I'm just saying… if you're going to make a movie in which the male characters are in wetsuits all the time, maybe you should do something to ensure that we're not taken out of the film because we're staring at the unimpressive bulge. That being said, I would (as always) still hit it. After all, it is the motion of the ocean, not the size of the boat. Photos courtesy of Fame.    |
| Enquirer: Elizabeth Olsen is living in squalor, refuses help from her sisters Posted: 17 Oct 2011 08:28 AM PDT Elizabeth Olsen is now on the tabloids’ radar whether she likes it or not, and I’m guessing that she’s not thrilled about it at all. Lizzie, who was blurbed in the October issue of GQ, admitted that she chose her low-key approach to acting (i.e., becoming an indie actress) after watching sisters Mary-Kate and Ashley get chased by the paparazzi on a daily basis. Smart move, right? In addition, the Enquirer has also heard from a source that has confirmed what I already suspected; that is, Lizzie very much wants to succeed without any help from her already famous twin sisters. However, the Enquirer also sounds an alarm that Lizzie is living in relative squalor compared to the twins, who have recently sold out of their $39,000 fug backback and have been touted by Newsweek as “America’s Next Billionaires.” In sharp contrast, Lizzie lives on the Lower East Side of NYC in a “seedy” neighborhood close to the Samuel Gompers houses that comprise hi-rise public housing towers. The Enquirer seems a bit reactionary here at best:
[From Enquirer, print edition, October 24, 2011] Well, okay. The thing about New York, however, is that everything is so compact that (in some cases) really high-end neighborhoods are literally around the corner from the ghetto. And no matter what, living in NYC is an expensive endeavor. So even though Mary-Kate and Ashley have allegedly offered to purchase a $1 million apartment for Elizabeth, the truth of the matter is that it wouldn’t be much of an upgrade, space-wise. Yes, she’d probably be in a much better neighborhood and might even have a nice view, but we’re still probably talking about a one-bedroom apartment. So I’m inclined to believe that Lizzie doesn’t mind doing the “starving artist” bit for awhile until she can afford a better place on her own. And if she continues to draw the buzz like she has with her Martha Marcy May Marlene performance, it won’t be much longer until that happens. In addition, this story has made me reconsider the question of whether Elizabeth has been the victim of too much Photoshop and/or some overzealous cosmetic tweaking. At this point, I think she might have had an early nose job but hasn’t tweaked further. If she can’t afford to live in a better neighborhood, then how on earth could she manage regular visits to a surgeon? After all, Lizzie’s not making huge money at this point doing these indie movies, and she’s refused to join the commercial blockbuster route with the “Sex and the City” prequel. By the way, that last bit is seriously awesome. Photos courtesy of WENN and Fame        |
| Linnocent knows she’s violated probation, she’ll bring her bail bondsman to court Posted: 17 Oct 2011 07:54 AM PDT Linnocent's cracked-out court extravaganza is still scheduled for Wednesday, and until then, I'm guessing Radar and TMZ will continue to have endless reports about The State of the Cracken. Hint: it involves bruises, hustling and the smell of sulfur. Go here and here for recaps of what's gone down over the past few days - including Linnocent's completely idiotic tweet-justification/whine about how everyone is being mean to her. Anyway, Radar has a new report about how "hard" Linnocent is working right now to get a chunk of her community service done before the court date, and Radar's legal source says something that I suspected - that even if LL is found in violation of her probation and "sent to jail," she's still going to have bail set. In fact, Linnocent is including HER bail bondsman in her crackie court entourage:
[From Radar] So, if Judge Sautner does find Linnocent in contempt of her probation (I have no idea what the technical term is, but I think "in contempt" works really well in this situation), what kind of sentence could be handed down? TMZ says that the possible sentence could be for more than 120 days - likely more than a year and a half. But how would that work with a bail situation? She would be sentenced to a year, let's say, and bail would be set. So she would "check in" and then be immediately released on bail, and then what? Would she ever have to go to jail? I don't really understand this part of it, but you can read more at TMZ here. The whole crackie court extravaganza begins at 10 a.m. PST, which is 1 pm EST, where CB and I are. I think we'll probably do an open post, and we'll update with any relevant information. Photos courtesy of WENN & Fame.    |
| Giuliana Rancic reveals breast cancer diagnosis at 37 Posted: 17 Oct 2011 07:32 AM PDT
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy I was just considering whether I should get my first mammogram. We’re hearing so much about this very prevalent cancer during this month of breast cancer awareness, and it makes me wonder if it’s something I should look into. Now that I’ve heard that E! correspondent Giuliana Rancic was diagnosed with breast cancer at 37 (she’s a year younger than me), I’m definitely considering it. Rancic revealed her diagnosis, which was made in August, this morning on The Today Show. She explained that she had a mammogram prior to her third round of IVF treatment after her doctor insisted on it. Luckily her cancer was caught it very early, but it sounds like she’s gone through so much in the past few months. She’s set to have surgery and radiation over the next few weeks.
[From US Weekly] That’s pretty shocking. Giuliana explained on The Today Show she was initially against getting a mammogram and tried to argue against it to her doctor. She does have an aunt who is a breast cancer survivor, but explained that she went through prior testing for the breast cancer gene and she’s not a carrier. For as much as I don’t like Giuliana, she’s doing a incredibly good thing here by reminding us to get checked. All the pink ribbons and very helpful reminders I’ve been seeing these past month were not as convincing to me as hearing Giuliana tell her story. Giuliana and her husband Bill are shown on 10/14/11. Credit: Fame    |
| Zachary Quinto came out as gay in honor of gay, bullied teen Posted: 17 Oct 2011 07:19 AM PDT In an interview with New York Magazine over the weekend, Zachary Quinto came out of the closet - or the glass closet, considering most people thought/knew he was gay, and the interview was just the first time he had confirmed it. Many of us praised Quinto for confirming/announcing his homosexuality in such a low-key way - this wasn't some People Magazine cover, or some tabloid report that Quinto wanted to get ahead of. As it turns out, Quinto did come out publicly for a very specific reason - to do his part for hope and acceptance for gay youth in the wake of a gay teenager's suicide last month. Jamey Rodemeyer was 14 years old and he was the victim of gay bullying, and he committed suicide just a few months after filming an "It Gets Better" video. Quinto wrote a blog post about his rationale:
[Quinto's Blog post (with minor edits)] I buy that Quinto came out for the reason he's giving now - because he didn't want to live in the glass closet when there are young gay kids out there really struggling and looking for positive (gay) role models. I hope Quinto continues to speak about bullying, and I hope he will turn out to be a positive force in his community. Here’s Quinto’s It Gets Better video: Photos courtesy of Fame and WENN.    |
| Rooney Mara covers Vogue, in character as Lisbeth Salander: interesting or rough? Posted: 17 Oct 2011 06:54 AM PDT Rooney Mara covers the new issue of Vogue (on stands on Oct. 25), and much of the photo shoot does seem Girl With a Dragon Tattoo-themed. As I was reading the Vogue interview with Mara, however, I started to get mad. I couldn't put my finger on why I was getting so upset, though - I think it's a combination of things. First, I really liked the Swedish films, and fans of the books should definitely try them, because the adaptations are very faithful to the books. I also think Noomi Rapace did an amazing job as Lisbeth Salander, and I think she should get more credit for her work, her take on this now iconic character. It feels like Rooney Mara is getting so much credit for "getting the part" - when the part was already OWNED by a wonderful actress, Noomi. With this Vogue cover story - which isn't just a profile of Rooney, it also features a lot of David Fincher - it feels like people are already over-hyping Rooney and the project before anyone knows if it's any good. And I'm seriously worried about the film, as I've said before. You can read the full Vogue piece here, and here are some highlights:
[From Vogue] I have to say, I want to think Mara is capable of playing this part, but I think if she falls flat, it's not going to be her fault. It's going to be David Fincher's fault. Throughout the interview, there's a lot of discussion of the violence and Fincher's take on rape scene and who Lisbeth is as a woman, as a victim, as a moralist, and none of what he says inspires confidence in me. The genius of the Lisbeth character is that her physical and emotional strength is revealed in layers throughout the trilogy, and it's those strengths that propel the story forward. It just seems like Fincher is more concerned with making a violent, sexy, stylized film than telling Lisbeth's story, or doing justice to this amazing character. See, I went through all of that and I didn't even mention Rooney Mara's bangs trauma. Photos courtesy of Marcus Piggott & Mert Alas/Vogue, slideshow.    |
| 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 | |
