Cele|bitchy

---

• Hayden Panettiere in aqua blue at the Critics Choice TV Awards: cute or total mess?
• Angelina Jolie shows her horns in the first image from ‘Maleficent’: amazing?
• Kris Jenner put Kim Kardashian on birth control when Kim was 14 years old
• Kate Winslet’s latest act of stone-cold bitchery was on a Virgin Atlantic flight
• Megan Fox steps out with Brian Austin Green: does she look preggers yet?
• Kate Upton shows off her figure for the July issue of GQ: gross or cute?
• Kristen Stewart in beaded Balmain for ‘SWATH’ Sydney premiere: pretty?
• Woody Allen out with his daughters: creepy or normal loving dad?
• David Gandy asked about arrogant models & he says: “I don’t get on with Gisele”
• Rielle Hunter’s new memoir reveals John Edwards had multiple affairs

Hayden Panettiere in aqua blue at the Critics Choice TV Awards: cute or total mess? Posted: 19 Jun 2012 08:59 AM PDT At the Critics’ Choice Television Awards last night, there were a few hits and plenty of misses. Hayden Panettiere dressed down in a Keepsake “Lost Without You” aqua blue dress that showed off a bit of skin. The dress looks great on her figure but is also very dated. I have no idea why she wore nude peep-toed shoes with this dress either. Her hair and makeup look pretty good though even if she does look slightly too tan at this event. Hayden also has a great smile, which makes any outfit look prettier than it really is. Emmy Rossum fared much better (she was up for Best Actress in a Drama Series) in a Donna Karan gown that had a one-shouldered design and wrapped around her body in a dramatic manner from the back view. The gold, metal-like fabric provided a nice contrast against Emmy’s light skin and dark hair, and the bold pink lipstick is an unexpected touch that also works well. I also love the side-swept hair, which fits the mood of the dress. Natalie Zea … EGADS. I don’t even know where to begin here, but those of you who watch “Justified” (and this past season of “Californication”) will know that Natalie is a gorgeous woman with tons of sex appeal and (relatively) natural beauty. On last night’s red carpet, she worked very hard to destroy all of that. Is she trying to be Cleopatra? The dress itself isn’t a disaster, but those dramatic, overdone earrings and harsh makeup really complete the transformation into a terrible, terrible look. Poor Natalie. Lucy Liu won the award for Best Guest Performer in a Drama Series (“Southland”) and looked very feminine yet ravishing at the same time. Lucy wore an Atelier Versace gown in light pink with lots of lace and ruffles. Her loose chignon and soft, girlish makeup set off the look perfectly. I still can’t believe she’s 43 years old. Kate Walsh looked incredibly bland on the red carpet last night. There’s nothing wrong with this yellow dress, but she could have dressed it up a bit with an updo and more dramatic makeup. Charlie Hunnam was there too in a black suit and black tie. It’s a bit monochromatic, and I sort of miss his longish hair from way back. Still, the man is adorable. Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and WENN

Angelina Jolie shows her horns in the first image from ‘Maleficent’: amazing? Posted: 19 Jun 2012 08:26 AM PDT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. This is the "first image" of Angelina Jolie in character as the biggest, baddest villainess EVER, Maleficent. Maleficent is the villainess of the Sleeping Beauty story, and the "retelling" of the classic story is being done by Disney – a live action dark fairy tale in the vein of Snow White and the Huntsman and all of those other live-action fairy tale reboots that have been coming out lately. I'm actually looking forward to this one, though. For several reasons: 1. HER HORNS!!! I love Maleficent's horns, and if you really look at those things, they are beautifully crafted. This gives me hope that the costumes will be awesome. Think about the magnificent capes, cloaks and sacks Angelina will get to wear! THEN ADD HORNS. 2. Angelina is good at playing "big" scenery-chewing characters. I would actually argue that big characters are her strength, whereas she isn't great at playing Jane Average. 3. The cast has come together, and it's looking really interesting. Elle Fanning is Princess Aurora, and the cast now includes Miranda Richardson, Juno Temple, Imelda Staunton, Sharlto Copley and Sam Riley. 4. Disney is pouring money into the production, which will film in England. It feels like everyone involved wants to take the time to make a really good film. 5. Angelina Jolie is simply a great Villainess. She's been playing one for years and years in the tabloids. Anyway, we won't get to see Maleficent until March 2014 – a really long way away. But production on the film has officially started, so maybe we'll have a teaser trailer by the end of the year? Maybe. Hopefully. Photos courtesy of Disney and WENN.

Kris Jenner put Kim Kardashian on birth control when Kim was 14 years old Posted: 19 Jun 2012 08:11 AM PDT Yesterday, I did a summary of some of the highlights of Oprah Winfrey's interview with the Family Kardashian-Jenner. As you might imagine, the majority of the interview seems to be with and about Kim, although Khloe and Kourtney were allowed to speak at times. Well, Oprah (or OWN, same difference) released another clip from Oprah's two-part Famewhore Exclusive, and this one is a doozy. I feel like a lot of people are going to be yelling about this, and… you know what? I think I'm going to have end up defending Kim Kardashian. Kim Kardashian, in the first of a two-part interview on Oprah’s Next Chapter, said she was “almost 15″ when her mother Kris Jenner got her on birth control. Kim said the parenting decision came as a result of her desire to explore her sexuality with her boyfriend, a family friend. “When I did want to have sex the first time I was almost 15,” Kim said, adding her liberal mom was open to discussion about the topic, and even got her on birth control. She continued: "I was like, 'I think I'm going to, or I want to,' and she was like, 'OK, so this is what we're gonna do, we're gonna put you on birth control,' and she was like, really open and honest with me." The revelation came as a surprise to the veteran journalist Oprah, who said, “Wow,” before moving onto the next question. [Via Radar and The Mail] So… Kim was almost 15 when Kris Jenner put her on birth control – I'm assuming Kim means The Pill. And Kim and Kris talked about Kim's teenage sex life openly and honestly. So… what's the controversy? Isn't this the kind of decision that you want a mother and a teenage daughter to make together, without the intervention of anyone else? I think that in this ONE issue, Kris Jenner is completely blameless, and I'd even venture to say that this is an example of Kris being a great mother. …Of course, critics of this "open and honest, let's put our teenage daughters on The Pill" parenting method will probably draw a direct correlation between Kim being put on the pill and her sex tape. Right? I'm always so bad at predicting what will irk the anti-birth control league, but I feel like someone is going to make the link – "The Pill = Sex Tape, Famewhoring, Reality Programming". And I don't have an answer to that, except to say that I wish more teenage girls had parents who discussed birth control with them in honest and realistic terms, and that The Pill doesn’t have to equal a sex tape. Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.

Kate Winslet’s latest act of stone-cold bitchery was on a Virgin Atlantic flight Posted: 19 Jun 2012 08:10 AM PDT Clearly, Kate Winslet relieved herself in the cornflakes of an editor of either Radar or Star Magazine, because this is SECOND "Kate Winslet is a massive bitch" story to come out in a week's time, and both stories originate in the Star/Radar family. Last week's story was all about Kate being rude to the locals of a small Massachusetts town where her new movie, Labor Day, is filming. Locals ran to Star Magazine to claim that Winslet was throwing bitchfaces at everybody and that she wouldn't even deign to wave or smile at any of the dozens/hundreds of people who were looking forward to meeting her. This week's story is all about Kate being rude to yet more fans – this time on a Virgin Atlantic flight. Quick sidenote: Virgin Atlantic is the British airline company owned by Sir Richard Branson, who is the uncle of Kate Winslet's boyfriend/lover, Ned RockNRoll. This sidenote was just to let you know that Kate and Ned were probably traveling for free, because that totally makes a difference in the story: Kate Winslet is one of the biggest movie stars on the planet, but RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned the actress isn’t very friendly off-screen and even brushed off two teenage fans. While flying on a Virgin Atlantic flight on June 11 from London to Boston, fellow first-class cabin fliers Susan Roberts and her two daughters Katie, 17, and Jenny, 14, noticed the Titanic star sitting just ahead of them and were saddened when they were snubbed by Kate. “My two daughters asked for an autograph about half an hour into the six and a half hour flight and she told them she would come back later and visit. Well, that never happened,” Susan exclusively told RadarOnline.com. “It was very sad that she couldn’t be bothered.” However, Susan said a flight attendant did come back to tell the girls Kate would autograph a book for them, but that she would have to make the exchange — which she did for them. “I am sad that she told the girls she’d visit with them. She could have just said she didn’t give autographs and the girls would have understood,” Susan explained. “They would have been disappointed but not disillusioned.” The experience has changed Katie and Jenny’s affection for one of their favorite actresses, Susan said. “My daughters have dumped their Titanic and The Holiday DVDs vowing never to watch her movies again,” Susan revealed. Susan also told RadarOnline.com that she’s flown Virgin Atlantic in the past and usually has great service, but that with Kate on the flight the attendants were preoccupied in making sure her every need was met and other passengers were ignored. “It was also sad that the usually excellent service through Virgin Atlantic was nonexistent as the flight attendants spent the majority of their time providing Ms. Winslet with food, tea and alcohol and the rest of the first class cabin was left to fend for itself,” Susan said. “The flight attendants even blocked the aisle where Kate was sitting.” As RadarOnline.com previously reported, fans in Massachusetts claim they were also snubbed by Kate, 36, as they eagerly awaited her arrival on the set of Labor Day. “Kate was so rude, she never once acknowledged any of us, I was devastated,” hopeful fan Shanna Swan told Star magazine. “She gave dirty looks to people in my town who waited hours to see her.” [From Radar] OK, I didn't quite get the thread of this random woman's complaint. She went up to Kate and asked Kate to come and meet her children. Kate said "Sure, whatever" and a few hours later Kate sent a stewardess back to the woman and her daughters with an offer to autograph a book, which the woman accepted. But the woman was pissed off that her daughters didn't get to actually meet Kate, and she's whining about the flight attendant doing the autograph exchange? Seriously? Once again, I'm not a huge Kate fan or anything, but I don't really think this incident is some example of her stone-cold bitchery. However, I am fascinated by the details about the flight attendants waiting on Kate exclusively – that's because of her connection to Richard Branson, correct? Well, well, well. Looks like dating Ned RockNRoll does have one benefit. Is it worth the trade-off? You get to travel in style for free… but you have to date Ned RockNRoll. Also: Kate was just named a Commander of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth. It’s called a CBE, but I don’t think her title changes or anything – it’s not a knighthood or anything, is what I’m saying. So Kate’s not a Dame yet. Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

Megan Fox steps out with Brian Austin Green: does she look preggers yet? Posted: 19 Jun 2012 08:00 AM PDT A few years ago when Megan Fox was still playing up her sexpot image for the Transformers franchise, I probably would never have believed that there would come a day when we’d be on “Megan Fox Womb Watch,” yet we’ve been in this limbo for months now. Rumors of Megan’s alleged pregnancy with husband Brian Austin Green began to circulate in late March. A few weeks later, E! News unoffically broke the news as well even though Megan refused to confirm it, and then Megan shut down an ET interview when the interviewer got pushy about the subject. Then in mid May, Star published a story about how Megan is already five months pregnant, which would mean that she’d be nearly six months pregnant by now, right? Now here are some photos of Megan over the weekend with Brian, and Fame/Flynet isn’t even playing around anymore — they’ve labelled these photos as depicting a “pregnant” Megan. Honestly, does she look knocked up to you? She certainly doesn’t look six-months pregnant to me. There’s a slight bump, but that could easily be explained away by posture or the way the dress moves. Regardless of the fact that Megan is already a tiny person and still looks super tiny, The Mail has also now decided that Megan is definitely pregnant as well and has based this decision on Brian’s “protective” stance — supposedly he’s covering up Megan’s stomach with his arm. That seems like a bit of a stretch, no? She is yet to confirm reports she’s expecting her first child but as husband Brian Austin Green put a protective hand on his wife Megan Fox’s tummy this weekend, it seemed their body language said it all. The couple stepped out for lunch in Los Angeles on Saturday with Brian striking a protective stance. But the actress looked serene holding her husband’s hand as she stepped out in a mini-dress and schoolgirl style over-the-knee socks. Faced with rumours she’s expecting, the Transformers star has made an attempt to stop undue speculation by covering up in baggy clothing whenever possible. But she went in favour of a more bodycon look for their luncheon in Los Feliz on Saturday. Megan, 26, layered necklaces over her blue mini, paired with a long grey cardigan that skimmed just below her hem. The actress looked stunning as ever, wearing light make-up while her hair fell in waves just below her shoulders. [From The Mail] Beyond the eternal “is she or isn’t she?” question, I have to say that this very simple outfit is absolutely stunning on Megan. I like the little dress paired with the longish sweater, and those stockings are adorable (yet not schoolgirlish), but I really love the boots. Megan looks so much better when she’s going for the casual, natural look instead of the plumped up, vixenish vibe that she usually wears for premieres. I don’t know whether or not she’s pregnant, but Megan really looks pretty here. Is she glowing? Who knows. Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet

Kate Upton shows off her figure for the July issue of GQ: gross or cute? Posted: 19 Jun 2012 07:59 AM PDT I just looked through GQ's completely NSFW slideshow for their July cover girl, Kate Upton, and while I admire this girl's figure, I found the photos to be kind of gross. Guess who photographed her? Terry Richardson. Yes. So the shoot is what you would imagine, only with more water everywhere and at this point I can pretty much draw Kate's breasts from memory. I'm guessing this Uncle Terry shoot was the same as the incident where Terry videotaped Kate dancing the "Cat Daddy" with extra jiggle. Anyway, you can read GQ's profile of Kate here, and here are some highlights: On her male fans: "I grew up in Florida riding horses, so for the majority of my life I was either in boots and jeans or a bathing suit. I understand why my male followers like me.… It's like any job. You find your strengths and play them up." Kate Upton on the most exciting thing she’s done since becoming famous: “For the GQ photo shoot, we were on that ride where the seat spins while the actual ride is spinning, and I’m wearing a one-piece. And all of a sudden the whole entire top falls off! I’m holding myself, laughing, turning bright red, but a lot of people are watching, so they kicked us out of the Santa Monica Pier—it was so embarrassing…You wouldn’t think that would happen with a one-piece!” Kate on the looming Jets quarterback controversy (Mark Sanchez vs. Tim Tebow): “I’m going to be less emotionally involved this year.” [Via GQ] In the GQ piece, Kate also talks about her cameo (or something) as a nun in The Three Stooges, and why she's cool with the Catholic Church being pissed at her. You know… whenever I write about her, I always try to emphasize how young she is – she's only 20 years old, and she's a self-made model (meaning she worked social media and whatever else she could to get attention when the fashion industry elites ignored her), and she's just a silly, good-natured girl. It's not that serious. Pretty blonde girl with big boobs acts silly and shows her nips to GQ. The end. Photos courtesy of Terry Richardson/GQ.

Kristen Stewart in beaded Balmain for ‘SWATH’ Sydney premiere: pretty? Posted: 19 Jun 2012 07:32 AM PDT Kristen Stewart and Chris Hemsworth were in Sydney, Australia yesterday (today?!?) for the Australian premiere of Snow White and the Huntsman. I don't know where Charlize Theron was – I saw photos of Charlize getting on a plane, and I thought she would be at this premiere too. But Kristen is enough. Kristen is who we want to see. Sort of. For the premiere, Kristen wore this Balmain "gown". That's how it's being described – a "gown". Look at the details though – this is a (fancy) tube top/bustier and an awkward skirt. If it was actually a gown, I might like it. If the House of Balmain had actually made an executive decision on the best length for the gown, I would have liked it even more. This is neither a full-length gown, nor tea-length. It falls somewhere in between, and that's awful. The effect it gives Kristen is that she's short, stubby and in need of a tailor. Now, all that being said, I do like the idea of the dress – dark green with lots of silver beading, strapless and showing off her figure. All of that is a good idea, it's just the execution that leaves something to be desired. I do love her hair like this, though. Some will say it's not fancy enough for a red carpet, but I really like that she tried a big, high, messy bun. From the neck up, I have no complaints. Her skin looks gorgeous too. And I'm throwing in a little Chris Hemsworth, because I know how to keep my bitches happy. Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News.

Woody Allen out with his daughters: creepy or normal loving dad? Posted: 19 Jun 2012 06:46 AM PDT Yesterday we ran the story that Woody Allen’s only biological son, Ronan Farrow, had tweeted a happy Father’s Day message in which he quipped “or, as they call it in my family, happy brother-in-law’s day.” Ronan’s mom, Woody’s ex partner Mia Farrow, then retweeted the message, adding “Boom.” I thought that might be the end of my interest in this story, because I don’t want to think too hard about Woody grooming one of Mia’s adopted children for his own purposes. (Woody’s wife Soon Yi Previn is now 41, but she was barely legal when she started “dating” Woody, who was a father figure to her by some accounts. Kaiser wants me to point out that they didn’t live together, though, and that Soon Yi was never his daughter, legally or otherwise.) Then someone posted a link to this Vanity Fair article from 1992, which I couldn’t put down, all eight pages of it. If you have some time to kill, it’s fascinating. As many of you mentioned it makes me concerned for Woody’s current daughters, adopted with Soon-Yi and pictured here. Some hold the opinion that Mia accused Woody of sexually abusing their seven year-old adopted daughter together, Dylan, at the time of their breakup because she was hurt and outraged that he had taken up with barely legal Soon-Yi right under her nose. There have been accusations that Mia coached Dylan to claim that Woody abused her. The case against Woody in this Vanity Fair article is convincing. It’s of course only one side of the story, and Woody was ultimately not convicted of abusing Dylan. Given his behavior with Soon-Yi, I didn’t find this other story hard to believe. Here’s part of the article, which I would recommend you read in full if you’re interested in this case. (Note that “Satchel” is Ronan Farrow’s given name.) Calling attention to someone's birthday-party behavior may seem trivial at best. However, Dr. Coates, who just happened to be in Mia's apartment to work with one of her other children, had only to witness a brief greeting between Woody and Dylan before she began a discussion with Mia that resulted in Woody's agreeing to address the issue through counseling. At that point Coates didn't know that, according to several sources, Woody, wearing just underwear, would take Dylan to bed with him and entwine his body around hers; or that he would have her suck his thumb; or that often when Dylan went over to his apartment he would head straight for the bedroom with her so that they could get into bed and play. He called Mia a "spoilsport" when she objected to what she referred to as "wooing." Mia has told people that he said that her concerns were her own sickness, and that he was just being warm. For a long time, Mia backed down. Her love for Woody had always been mixed with fear. He could reduce her to a pulp when he gave vent to his temper, but she was also in awe of him, because he always presented himself as "a morally superior person." One summer day in Connecticut, when Dylan was four and Woody was applying suntan lotion to her nude body, he alarmed Mia's mother, actress Maureen O'Sullivan, and sister Tisa Farrow when he began rubbing his finger in the crack between her buttocks. Mia grabbed the lotion out of his hand, and O'Sullivan asked, "How do you want to be remembered by your children?" "As a good father," Woody answered. "Well, that's interesting," O'Sullivan replied. "It only lasted a few seconds, but it was definitely weird," says Tisa Farrow. On August 4, Woody was in Connecticut to visit the children, and Mia and Casey went shopping, taking along Mia's two most recently adopted children—a blind Vietnamese girl named Tam, 11, and Isaiah, a seven-month-old black baby born to a crack-addicted mother. While they were gone, there was a brief period, perhaps 15 minutes, when Woody and Dylan vanished from sight. The baby-sitter who was inside searched high and low for them through the cluttered old farmhouse, but she couldn't find them. The outside baby-sitter, after a look at the grounds around the house, concluded the two must be inside somewhere. When Mia got home a short time later, Dylan and Woody were outside, and Dylan didn't have any underpants on. (Allen later said that he had not been alone with Dylan. He refused to submit hair and fingerprint samples to the Connecticut state police or to cooperate unless he was assured that nothing he said would be used against him.) Woody, who hated the country and reportedly brought his own bath mat to avoid germs, spent the night in a guest room off the laundry next to the garage and left the next morning. That day, August 5, Casey called Mia to report something the baby-sitter had told her. The day before, Casey's baby-sitter had been in the house looking for one of the three Pascal children and had been startled when she walked into the TV room. Dylan was on the sofa, wearing a dress, and Woody was kneeling on the floor holding her, with his face in her lap. The baby-sitter did not consider it "a fatherly pose," but more like something you'd say "Oops, excuse me" to if both had been adults. She told police later that she was shocked. "It just seemed very intimate. He seemed very comfortable." As soon as Mia asked Dylan about it, Dylan began to tell a harrowing story, in dribs and drabs but in excruciating detail. According to her account, she and Daddy went to the attic (not really an attic, just a small crawl space off the closet of Mia's bedroom where the children play), and Daddy told her that if she stayed very still he would put her in his movie and take her to Paris. He touched her "private part." Dylan said she told him, "It hurts. I'm just a little kid." The she told Mia, "Kids have to do what grown-ups say." Mia, who has a small Beta video camera and frequently records her large brood, made a tape of Dylan for Dylan's psychologist, who was in France at the time. "I don't want to be in a movie with my daddy," Dylan said, and asked, "Did your daddy ever do that to you?" According to people close to the situation, Mia called her lawyer, who told her to take Dylan to her pediatrician in New Milford. When the doctor asked where her private part was, Dylan pointed to her shoulder. A few minutes later, over ice cream, she told Mia that she had been embarrassed to have to say anything about this to the doctor. Mia asked which story was true, because it was important that they know. They went back to the doctor the next day, and Dylan repeated her original story—one that has stayed consistent through many tellings to the authorities, who are in possession of the tape Mia made. The doctor examined Dylan and found that she was intact. He called his lawyer and then told Mia he was bound by law to report Dylan's story to the police. Mia, who never sought to make the allegations public, also told Dr. Coates, who is one of three therapists Woody Allen has seen on a regular basis. Coates too told Mia that she would have to report Dylan's account to the New York authorities, but that she would also tell Woody. Mia burst out crying, she was so afraid. Ironically, the next day, August 6, Woody and Mia were supposed to sign an elaborate child-support-and-custody agreement, months in the negotiating, giving Mia $6,000 a month for the support of Satchel and Dylan and 15-year-old Moses, the other child of Mia's whom Woody had adopted on December 17, 1991. Mia believed Woody's sessions with Dr. Coates had definitely improved his demeanor with Dylan, but because of her concern about Woody's past history, she had insisted that he not have unsupervised visitation until Dylan and Satchel were through the sixth grade, and that he no longer be able to sleep over at her country house, as he had so far insisted on doing, but stay in a guest cottage across the pond. [From Vanity Fair's archive, 1992 article] Again, this is wholly Mia’s side. She’s responding, via the press, to allegations by Woody that she made up the details about Dylan’s molestation because she was a crazy vindictive spurned woman. I believe this story and find it pretty chilling. Again, this man seduced Soon-Yi, but he claims he was never much of a father figure to her and wasn’t around her much. It all sounds like excuses after the fact. After we published that story, I found these recent photos of Woody hugging up on his two adopted daughters, Manzie Tio Allen and Bechet Dumaine Allen, in Beverly Hills on Friday. I’m one of those affectionate moms and I often hug my son. I don’t think it’s weird to hug or kiss your kids. I also found this older photo of Woody out with the girls as young children, and he’s holding both of their hands. I can’t get a definitive age for his daughters, but they look to be about 14 and 13 now. From what we know of Woody’s history, and about the other allegations against him, I just get a strange impression of this. He knows he’s being photographed, so why doesn’t he hug up on his wife instead of his daughters? It’s possible he hasn’t seen them in a while and is greeting them here. Photo credit: FameFlynet

David Gandy asked about arrogant models & he says: “I don’t get on with Gisele” Posted: 19 Jun 2012 06:32 AM PDT Yesterday, I covered some excerpts from a longer David Gandy interview that I didn't realize existed. Gandy sat down and did a pretty in-depth piece with The Mail, and I totally missed out on his comments about Gisele Bundchen and how much he dislikes her. So… hopefully, this post will earn David some points with the crowd who claims that he's a vacuous ego monster, which I don't think he is. I think he's OCD, anal retentive, and probably neurotic as all get-out. That's not egotistical, but it is monstrous in a completely different way – as in, I bet he's a handful as a boyfriend. Anyway, you can read the full Daily Mail interview here, but here are some of the funny I-Hate-Gisele parts: David doesn't do gratuitous sex with gorgeous girls: 'I've only had three serious relationships." David is asked whether he's seen "that supermodel vacuum of narcissism, arrogance, mobile phone throwing and absolute superiority over the rest of the less attractive human race": He raises an eyebrow. 'You see it. I don't get on with Gisele. We don't see eye to eye, we argue and we don't enjoy working with each other (they have shot three campaigns together). Like I say, we are very privileged but what we do isn't saving lives, it isn't brain surgery. And I'm not going to get on with anyone who takes it for granted or thinks they're someone special. My advice to any young model is very simple. Just don't believe your own hype.' On David Beckham as a model: 'I wish him, Jude Law and Brad Pitt would stick to the day jobs. It's hard enough for male models as it is, so give us a chance, boys. Butt out.' He grins. 'I have to admit, though, Beckham is good. I'm a fan of Brand Beckham. He's done incredibly well.' His personal life: He says he is not vain, just businesslike. He spends 45 minutes a day training, eats anything but saturated fats and white processed food and – being known for being macho – doesn't have to worry too much about messing up his face. His hobbies are all a bit James Bond: cars, watches (he has an old Omega and a TAG Monaco as worn by Steve McQueen and a Seventies Breitling) and antique furniture, which he turns into modern pieces. 'I collect huge French clocks and old carpenters' consoles which I turn into tables.' His friends: In the modeling world, his friends include Yasmin Le Bon and Helena Christensen. He also appeared in an Absolutely Fabulous Sports Relief special with Stella McCartney and Kate Moss. 'Stella stood out for me as someone I really admire. She works hard, she's down to earth and doesn't take herself seriously. And Kate was great. She's funny and she's one hell of a model.' [From The Mail] I wanted to put the context of the Gisele comment in there, because I think if you know what David said in context, he sounds like an even bigger bitch. And I say that with a laugh, because I love him. I love when men let their inner bitches out and start bad-mouthing their coworkers. And what David is saying is so interesting – yes, he's confirming that he and Gisele don't get along, but within the context of the conversation, he's basically saying that they don't get along because she's an egotistical monster who thinks modeling is the most important thing in the world. I love him. Photos courtesy of WENN.

Rielle Hunter’s new memoir reveals John Edwards had multiple affairs Posted: 19 Jun 2012 04:19 AM PDT Everything that I ever wanted to know about Rielle Hunter, I learned from her bats–t insane 2010 GQ interview and her completely delusional Oprah interview. But Rielle still has more "revelations" and "never-before-heard" details on her affair and continuing relationship with John Edwards, the father of her child Quinn (conceived when Edwards was married and running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination). So, Rielle has written a book called What Really Happened – a completely hideous book title, I just have to say. I guess Rielle feels vindicated because of how the John Edwards trial ended up – he was acquitted on one count, and a mistrial was declared on the other five counts, and the NC prosecutor says that they won't seek to retry Edwards. So… VICTORY. Now Rielle shall bring the crazy. Here are some excerpts from her book: Rielle spent her 20s doing blow: “I don’t like to think of myself as a stupid person but I have done a lot of things in my life that were just plain stupid. Snorting cocaine is stupid. Snorting cocaine for just under a decade, desperately attempting to recreate the euphoric high from the first line ever snorted is so far beyond stupid it may even qualify as criminal. Fortunately, I recognized this in my twenties and stopped. I then began to devote a huge amount of my time and energy to spiritual growth." Meeting John Edwards in 2006: “Seated at our new table, I was now directly facing the alleged John Edwards. He looked directly at me, not smiling. I returned his gaze, also not smiling. He rested his face in his hands and continued to glance at me during the rest of his meeting. This was weird. I knew this man,” Hunter reveals. After Edwards left the bar, Rielle says she ran into him on the street outside the hotel. “As he rounded the corner, he saw me and just lit up. I was very surprised to see him so soon, even though I had felt certain our paths would cross again. I could feel his joy when he saw me and I responded to it. Much to my own astonishment, ‘You are so hot!’ came flying out of my mouth. Not a usual greeting for me…His smile got even brighter.” The strong connection she felt: During the brief meeting on the streets of New York City, Edwards asked Rielle to call him at his hotel. After offering to help the North Carolina native with his presidential campaign, Edwards was responsive to Hunter’s offer. According to the book, “He replied, ‘I want your help. I need your help.’ ‘Do you email?’ I asked. He said, ‘No. I am staying here under the name Matthew Nelson. Call me.’ ‘How long are you staying?’ I asked. He replied, ‘Until tomorrow morning. Call me. Call me.’ And then he was gone. I had never in my life experienced anything like that meeting. It actually made me dizzy. There was a very strong connection, between us, I was certain of it.” John told her that he had other affairs: “He told me that he had an entire hidden life that had gone on for decades and that he was currently involved with three different women. One lived in Los Angeles, one in Florida and one in Chicago. Clearly this behavior of his was not going to change overnight.” Rielle didn't think Elizabeth was an innocent victim: “We were like a pair of teenagers,” she writes, “completely attached.” She claims that she never felt Elizabeth was an “innocent victim” and describes how John’s wife grew increasingly suspicious as Hunter followed Edwards around on the campaign trail. Edwards, she writes, told her that he and Elizabeth would have marathon fights and that the marriage had been in trouble for many years, “filled with issues that clearly neither Johnny nor Elizabeth wanted to address. They did not want to disclose the truth to themselves, much less the public.” Johnny isn't malicious: “I really don’t believe his lying about women was malicious. He used it as a defense to keep real feelings at bay.” The time she spends with John now: “It’s better and more complicated at the same time,” she says. “I have a deeper understanding of him as a dad and as person who puts his children first. And I believe he has more respect and deeper appreciation of me now.” [Via Radar and People Magazine] Interestingly, Rielle shopped this tell-all to all of the major publishers, and she was rejected by all of them. She ended up getting a "small Dallas-based company called Ben Bella" to publish it – my guess is that the publisher has Republican ties, although I have no evidence to back that up, and it’s not like the Republicans even need to promote this story, you know? So, do you think the book will sell? I don't. It would be different if John Edwards was planning to run for office again, or if he still thought he had a future in the Democratic Party, but surely he's not that idiotic, right? If he just keeps his head down and raises his children, no one will give a crap what Rielle says about him and their relationship. As for her claim that John admitted to having multiple affairs – well, I believe it. I think he was screwing around on Elizabeth for a LONG time. Photos courtesy of GQ.

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

You have read this article with the title Cele|bitchy. You can bookmark this page URL https://thisgirlreprobate.blogspot.com/2012/06/celebitchy_19.html. Thanks!