Cele|bitchy |
- J.Lo on her kids: “I try to keep what was good about growing up lower middle class”
- Angelina Jolie in black Jenny Packham at the SAGs: trash bag fug or stunning?
- Christina Aguilera embarrasses herself at Etta James’s funeral
- LeAnn Rimes’s casual airport look: too summery or simply pretty?
- Rooney Mara just replaced Blake Lively in that Steven Soderbergh movie
- Katherine Heigl’s ‘One for the Money’ crashes at the box office: is her career over?
- Rose Byrne & the ‘Bridesmaids’ ladies: worst dressed of the SAGs?
- Duchess Kate & Prince William are putting off baby-making until 2013
- Lea Michele and The Glee women at the SAGs, who was the most overdressed?
- Michelle Williams in asymmetrical Valentino at the SAGs: budget or cute?
| J.Lo on her kids: “I try to keep what was good about growing up lower middle class” Posted: 30 Jan 2012 09:02 AM PST
So cue the staged photos of Lopez looking loved-up with her douchetastic younger lover, Casper not-so Smart. Kaiser covered those over the weekend and she very aptly summed up the collective response to this relationship: “Why? The dude isn’t even hot.” (I’m paraphrasing.) We’ve heard other rumors that Lopez is ready to marry Casper, that she wants his babies, and that she’s setting him up with a hefty allowance and a paid (vague) position on Idol. Well in an appearance on The Today Show this morning, (video is below) Lopez got flustered when Matt Lauer asked her about potentially marrying again, saying it was “too fresh,” but she didn’t rule it out. I’m going to include People’s coverage of this, because it’s safe to assume this is straight from Lopez’s camp:
[From People] So Marc was a downer for her so she’s bringing her boy toy around and visiting their old haunts in order to wipe the slate clean. I did get the impression that she still loves Marc and was even a little embarrassed talking about him, like you get when you’re talking about a new lover. So is she keeping the door open for a reconciliation? Is this whole split and “taking younger lovers” thing a publicity stunt for their new reality show? Many of you say you think it is. I don’t think so, but I’m naive like that. Toward the end of that interview, Lopez laughingly tried to claim that she was trying to give her kids the same kind of upbringing she had except “in a bigger house.” I got a huge kick out of this and I just need to quote her on it:
Do you remember that ridiculous baby photo spread she did in People Magazine with the $3,000 stroller? She posed in couture gowns while holding her twins and showed off an elaborate nautical themed nursery with chandeliers. (Marc and J.Lo later sued the stroller company for $30 million for using them in ad campaigns.) Do you remember how her kids fronted a baby Gucci campaign?! I get what Lopez is saying in theory, but how does that translate in practice actually? Does she deny them anything? Does she teach them that they have more than almost anyone else in the world? What are they learning from going on vacation with mommy’s much younger boyfriend? I would buy these lines coming from Jennifer Garner, but Jennifer Lopez, not so much.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy         Photo credit: WENN, Fame and Gucci      |
| Angelina Jolie in black Jenny Packham at the SAGs: trash bag fug or stunning? Posted: 30 Jan 2012 08:32 AM PST Just shoot me in the face now, because Angelina Jolie wore a shiny black (trash bag) sack dress to the Screen Actors Guild Awards, and I LOVED IT. The dress is Jenny Packham, and yes, this is a look we've seen on Angelina many times before. Initially, when I saw the dress, I thought it was leather, and it reminded me of the iconic black leather Versace gown she wore to the premiere of Mr. and Mrs. Smith in 2005. Of course, Angelina has worn variations on the black sack gown many times before, but that doesn't mean I can't still love the look on her, right? This shiny gown is Jenny Packham, and it's not leather. It's some kind of treated fabric made to look like "liquid metal". It's an interesting treatment for a dress, and it suits Jolie. Plus, I like her styling here. Big hair (my favorite on her), big vintage jewelry – she wore "a bracelet and earrings by House of Lavande, a Platt Boutique bracelet, Gucci shoes and a Louis Vuitton bag." Some of said that this is more of a premiere look for Jolie, and I don't disagree. This is exactly the kind of thing she often wears to her own premieres. But for an awards show, does that mean this look is too "dressed down"? I don't think so. CB told me that she thought Angelina's forehead looked Botoxy when Angelina was talking to Guiliana Rancic, but I had my Brangeloonie goggles on, so I missed that. I did think Brad looked a little bit… puffy/shiny? I suspect him of Botox more than her, but I'm speaking from my Jolie-specific girl-boner. Still, I was sad to see Brad lose the SAG award, but I think it might be a good sign that Jean Dujardin won and not George Clooney. It means Clooney doesn't have this bitch sewn up, and the Best Actor race is still a contest. Which means Brad will have to campaign even harder. Brad and Angelina should just f–king elope. Stop talking about marriage, and just do it. All for the sake of the Oscar campaign. Photos courtesy of WENN.    |
| Christina Aguilera embarrasses herself at Etta James’s funeral Posted: 30 Jan 2012 08:31 AM PST Christina Aguilera was invited to Etta James's funeral. I mean, I'm assuming she was invited, and she didn't just show up and drunkenly hijack the funeral with her screeching. Not only was Christina invited, she performed "At Last" – Etta's standard and one of her most beloved songs. While Etta's performances of "At Last" were always sung beautifully and simply, allowing the emotion of the song and singer to come through, Christina treated the song like a drunken vocal exercise, of course, and began scream-singing immediately, like she always does. Like she was up there with an invisible stage full of Divas Live, and Christina wanted to make sure that you only heard her voice. This isn't a debate about whether or not Christina CAN sing. She can. It's about HOW she sings, the lack of emotional connection to the song, the "LOOK AT ME, I'M SINGING THE HELL OUT OF THIS SONG, BECAUSE IT'S ALL ABOUT ME" quality to all of her recent public performances. Here's Christina's performance: Ugh. If you think that was a good version of the song, you need to invest in better quality music. Incidentally, Christina still managed to create a minor controversy with this performance. No, she didn't drunkenly flub the lines (like she did when she sang the National Anthem), nor did she drunkenly bust her ass on the stage (like she did at the Grammys). No, people are wondering if Christina might have had some kind of loose-bowel situation during her performance. Gross, I know, but there are photos (which we don't have access to) – go here to see the closeups at The Blemish. Many seem to think it's urine, but I'm going to say it's sweat. Sweat mixed with body makeup, because Christina looks like she just rolls around in a vat of orange foundation. Photos courtesy of WENN.    |
| LeAnn Rimes’s casual airport look: too summery or simply pretty? Posted: 30 Jan 2012 08:30 AM PST Here are some new photos of LeAnn Rimes. I really don't have to write much more than that, right? You ladies love LeAnn posts, and it's not even about what I write. With that in mind, I'd just like to say that I kind of like LeAnn's dress here. I understand that she's in a warmer climate, but it seems wrong for January. Still, if she wore this in June, I would still think it was a pretty dress. I like it when LeAnn doesn't wear some freakish "look at me, I'm dressin' provocatively, y'all" getup. Anyway, these photos are of LeAnn's arrival at LAX – she had been in Dallas for some reason:
[From The Mail] If you'd like to see those photos of LeAnn woofing down a hot dog, go here. She was criticized for deep-throating the dog, but I didn't really understand the criticism. It just seemed like she was simply EATING, you know? She wasn't rubbing the hot dog on her bolt-ons or anything. And shouldn't we be encouraging her to eat? Photos courtesy of Fame.    |
| Rooney Mara just replaced Blake Lively in that Steven Soderbergh movie Posted: 30 Jan 2012 08:05 AM PST Several weeks ago, a particularly interesting piece of casting news broke – Blake Lively had been cast in a lead role in a Steven Soderbergh-directed film. It was believed that Blake was Soderbergh's choice to play a pill-popping military wife in The Side Effects, and the cast was rounded out with Channing Tatum (as Blake's husband) and Jude Law (as Blake's therapist/lover). It would have been a really big deal for Blake, if she delivered even a solid-to-good performance in a Soderbergh film. Unfortunately, last week, everything seemed to fall apart. Producers went public saying that Blake was not cast in the role, had never been officially cast, and that the film could not be financed with Blake in the lead role. What happened? It's up for debate. Some blame producers, some blame Soderbergh's unconventional casting habits, some blame Blake's history as a not-so-stunning actress. Whatever happened, it does look bad for Blake, though. And it looks even worse now – Blake is officially OUT. Guess who's in the role now? Rooney Mara. There isn't an "UUUUUGGGGHHH" big enough.
[From Deadline] So, is that it? Rooney Mara is "better" than Blake Lively? Rooney is a better actress, sure. But I simply LIKE Blake more. Blake is a professional, she carries herself like a young actress who is simply happy to work, and Blake's interviews don't make me want to punch her in the face. I hope Steven Soderbergh likes being disrespected by an entitled, snotty little girl, because Rooney Mara has no appreciation for the opportunities she's had as an actress, and she has a history of being an unprofessional brat. Also, I don’t buy Rooney as capable of playing “sexy”. She’s milquetoast, asexual and bland. Sigh… I was really hoping Rooney wouldn't "happen" in Hollywood, but she ended up with an Oscar nomination (BEST ACTRESS?!?!!?) and now this. It's so depressing when people with terrible personalities succeed in life. Photos courtesy of WENN.    |
| Katherine Heigl’s ‘One for the Money’ crashes at the box office: is her career over? Posted: 30 Jan 2012 08:00 AM PST These are photos of Katherine Heigl and Josh Kelley this weekend in Paris, and — surprise, surprise — they brought Katherine’s mom, Nancy, along for the trip and collectively did a little Sunday morning shopping at the flea market. Poor Josh. For many spouses, it’s only a natural reaction to recoil at spending time with in-laws, but he seems to take it in stride. Or maybe he just has no choice? At any rate, Katherine has much more pressing issues to deal with than whether or not Mom should be hanging around during what could be a romantic getaway. Her latest movie, One for the Money, performed terribly at the box office with a mere $12.6 million opening weekend. Of course, it looked like a hideous movie from the very beginning. Yet for years now, Heigl’s been making really awful movies that have miraculously fared well at the box office regardless of quality. From a global perspective, 27 Dresses grossed $160 million, and The Ugly Truth brought in $205 million. It wasn’t until Killers that Heigl’s reputation began to catch up with her at the box office, and part of that movie’s failure could be the miscasting of a shirtless Ashton Kutcher. Of course, Heigl likely gathered most of the blame in that instance because of her admittedly crappy attitude while promoting films and while delivering an Emmy speech. NY Mag has weighed in on Heigl’s image problem, and it’s pretty brutal stuff:
[From NYMag] Moviefone has also chimed in on the Heigl problem by discussing a One for the Money Groupon promotion that failed to help matters even while targeting Heigl’s key demographic of age 25-to-35 women who would ideally still be fans of her work on “Grey’s Anatomy” and also be familiar with Janet Evanovich’s literary source material. Moviefone has concluded that the issue is partially a matter of Heigl “need[ing] to find better material,” such as a villainous role in manner of Julia Roberts in My Best Friend’s Wedding. Still, they advise her to take significant time off before attempting to make a grand return to Hollywood’s good graces. I cannot help but feel badly for Katherine in some regard. Yes, she’s a mouthy tart but has acknowledged as much in an effort to make amends. However, Heigl hasn’t found it easy to change the public perception of herself as a diva. Even her recent frank and levelheaded essays about motherhood and marriage have generated some discussion but seem largely like a PR maneuver and last-ditch effort to repair a badly damaged reputation. It’s the same problem that Megan Fox ran into a few years ago when her mouth got ahead of her career. Sure, both Katherine and Megan are guilty of acting like brats when it comes to badmouthing their own movies, but are they really worse than some of the guys who do the same thing? I mean, Robert Pattinson is notorious for crapping all over the Twilight franchise (which has made him many millions and turned him into a household name), but he is widely celebrated in that regard. When he does it, it’s funny. Yet when women like Katherine or Megan do it, well screw them, right? Here’s more of Katherine and Josh at the flea market working in a snuggle while Mom stepped out of the picture for a moment. Unfortunately, Katherine’s styling continues to be an issue with unflattering hair and sunglasses doing most of the damage in these photos. Fortunately, Katherine did decide to leave Mom at the hotel so that she and Josh could enjoy a romantic dinner and trip to the Eiffel Tower on Saturday evening. I hope they at least booked Mom a separate hotel suite as well. Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet         |
| Rose Byrne & the ‘Bridesmaids’ ladies: worst dressed of the SAGs? Posted: 30 Jan 2012 06:50 AM PST This is The Face of Bangs Trauma. There is NO NEED for a woman to do this to herself. Poor Rose Byrne. She's so beautiful and so talented, but her hair issues have destroyed her chances to ever become "someone to watch" on the red carpet. Plus, the girl has NO style. At the SAGs last night, the cast of Bridesmaids was out in full force. I sometimes feel like Rose is the odd girl out of that cast, maybe because she's the only non-American, maybe because she's known more as a dramatic actress, maybe because SHE HAS CODE RED BANGS TRAUMA. I don't know. Whatever is going on with her, it's not good. Rose wore this 2009 Elie Saab jumpsuit that is easily my choice for Worst SAG Outfit. It's not that I hate jumpsuits or anything – sometimes, a jumpsuit is a really cute red carpet choice. But this one, with the stiff, beaded, brocade material and the shoulder embellishments, it's all just awful. The cherry on top is the awful "Dutch Boy" hair. It's epic in its hideousness. Poor Rose. Compared to Rose, anyone else is going to look better, right? So why did Kristen Wiig still manage to mess up her look too? I like and respect Kristen so much… which is why I really want her to find a (better?) stylist. CB really likes Kristen's Balenciaga gown, and while the beigey color completely washes Kristen out, the gown itself is well-constructed and pretty. The biggest problem here is the hair and the giant choker. I don't hate Kristen as a brunette, but while she's darker, she shouldn't go so dark with her makeup too, because the effect looks really cheap. Go ahead an hate me, but I thought Melissa McCarthy was the best dressed of all of the Bridesmaids girls. She looked classy and simple. I would like to her in a brighter color, maybe. Her dress was Badgley Mischka – I'm glad Badgley Mischka gowns are returning to the red carpet, aren't you? And here's Maya Rudolph in Naeem Khan. I don't think this dress suits her at all – it's WAY too matronly. Maya is only 39 years old – this is the kind of dress I could have seen on Meryl Streep or Glenn Close, you know? Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame.    |
| Duchess Kate & Prince William are putting off baby-making until 2013 Posted: 30 Jan 2012 06:48 AM PST Headlines involving the words "Kate" and "Wait" are nothing new. In fact, there's a decades' worth of those headlines, but they all involve her waiting for the ring, Duchess Kate's only career goal ever. So this is slightly new – The Mail reports that despite centuries of royal history and the expectations of a decade's worth of waiting, Duchess Kate and Prince William aren't going to try for a baby in their first year of marriage. In fact, they probably won't even get to it in their second year of marriage.
[From The Mail] I really don't understand why Kate couldn't be pregnant AND working as a royal? Princesses have done it for years and decades and centuries, fulfilling their royal duties at the same time, if you know what I mean. Like walking and chewing gum, actively being pregnant and making appearances on behalf of the monarch doesn't seem like it's something so grueling, no one has ever done it before. Anyway, I guess the British people will just have to WAIT as Kate is slowly, methodically eased into her royal role at a snail's pace, and they'll have to wait until Kate and William are well into their 30s for them to produce a royal heir. Look, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with waiting until your 30s to start a family – there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and I actually do think it's very interesting to see that more "modern" trend happen in the royal family. But just know that in this, Kate and William really are breaking with tradition in a big way. Most royal brides produce an heir very quickly, and people were really expecting Will and Kate to start having babies, considering William made her wait so long for the ring. I also think Kate is misjudging her popularity – royal brides pop out babies quickly for PR reasons too, because everybody loves babies and babies "soften" the image of a princess and give her something to "do" (as in, "Kate is raising a family, that's what she does all day."). If Kate isn't pregnant two years out from the wedding, I think there will be a big backlash against her, honestly. Because what the hell does she do with her time? "Kate gets her hair done, and goes shopping, that's all she's done during two years of marriage." Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet, WENN.    |
| Lea Michele and The Glee women at the SAGs, who was the most overdressed? Posted: 30 Jan 2012 06:36 AM PST
Dianna Agron never gets her fashion quite right, but her attitude is a breath of fresh air compared to Lea’s. Dianna was in fuschia ruffled Carolina Herrera which featured a deep v-neck draped neckline and a subtle ribbon belt. I thought it was a lovely dress but a little understated for a big awards ceremony. Still, she gets points for not going as big, or as fug as some of her costars. I loved her delicate braided hair, perfect peach makeup and gorgeous diamond accessories. Amber Riley was so hot in red at the Globes, but she really had a fashion misstep here in a black and pink lace Badgley Mischka dress featuring a giant bow across the front. What was she thinking? Does she have only bad fashion enablers around her? She paired it with a headband and those ankle strap heels which are so popular lately. The overall look was just fug. Jayma Mays stunned in sequin cap sleeve formfitting Reem Acra. It was an amazing dress and the only distracting detail was a v-shaped lace cutout in back. She sometimes dresses too girly and precious but she really killed it last night. Jenna Ushkowitz left a lot to be desired in this bizarre rainbow confetti print Rebecca Minkoff with cut outs around the stomach and back and a sheer skirt. Again, who is telling these actresses that they look good? Is this look supposed to be “whimsical”? Also failing to work a sheer skirt is Heather Morris, who paired this Masai Payan with silver platform heels. I think with those cat eyes, giant bauble earrings and off-the shoulder dress, Heather takes the prize for most overdressed. There was some seriously stiff competition among this group. And I can’t forget Jane Lynch, in a lovely cobalt blue v-neck David Meister with Lorraine Schwartz jewelry. I really liked that dress on her, which was conservative but striking. Did you see the bizarre juggle-off that Giuliana had with Jane? Giuliana was trying way too hard with the props last night. I loved how Jane said hello to her “mom, my aunt marge, my brother and sister who are watching today from the south side of Chicago.” That was cute. Update: I forgot Naya Rivera! She had on a pale blue and white swirled Naeem Khan sequin gown with a v-neck. I just thought the dress was too “cookie cutter.” I know I should like it, but maybe the colors are underwhelming. I would like to see her in something brighter and a little more daring.    |
| Michelle Williams in asymmetrical Valentino at the SAGs: budget or cute? Posted: 30 Jan 2012 06:16 AM PST Let's start with what I liked about Michelle Williams at last night's Screen Actors Guild Awards. I liked that she wore a bright color – this red/pink Valentino dress was vibrant, and the shade looked gorgeous on Michelle, who all too often wears pastels and pale, wispy colors that wash her out. I also loved Michelle's hair last night – she gotten it to a great honey color that suits her skin tone, and the length, especially in the front, is great on Michelle. I also love that Michelle's forever awards-show date is her BFF Busy Phillips. I know it's partly a strategic move, and let's not pretend that Michelle hasn't had significant boyfriends over the years and all, but I just like that Michelle and Busy always do awards shows together. Their friendship seems genuine and sweet, and I'm guessing Busy is a true girl-friend to Michelle. So, now on to what I dislike about Michelle's look at her appearance last night. While the dress was a pretty color, the asymmetrical length threw me off, as did the lace detailing on her shoulders. The worst, though, was the shoe choice. As the cameras panned down, it really looked like Michelle was wearing stripper shoes. Also: dear God, Michelle's little girl voice bugs me. It's so affected. She's making an effort to put present herself a certain way, that of an oh-so-fragile girl-woman, and the voice affectation is part of that. It drives me up the wall. Speaking of affectations and Oscar campaigns, I think Lainey has been right-on with her theory that Michelle is following The Natalie Portman Method of Oscar Campaigning – it's all about motherhood and being an "accessible" (FRAGILE!!) single mother for Michelle. So I'm including some photos of Natalie Portman from the SAGs too. She's too precious (and a mother!!!!!) to walk the red carpet, but she was still at the show to present Best Actor, and she deigned to pose for photos backstage. Natalie wore this Giambattista Valli haute couture gown that reminds me a lot of her Oscar gown from last year – similar shade, similar drapey design with some fluffy detailing at the bust. It's pretty. Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame.    |
| 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 | |
