Archive | celebrities RSS feed for this section

What’s going on with Reese’s forehead?

7 May

My husband and I were watching an interview with Reese Witherspoon on the 7pm Project (Channel Ten) last night when my husband drew my attention to something very strange about Reese’s forehead. (Watch the clip here) To put it simply, imagine her forehead is divided horizontally into two halves. Now, check out the top half. When Reese is speaking animatedly, it crinkles like a normal person’s. But – look at the bottom half – it never moves – even when the top half does. Actually, to be really precise, the middle of it never moves – you can just see that a little bit at the sides does wrinkle. How bizarre! Compare it to Robert Pattinson, who was part of the same interview (promoting their film ‘Water for Elephants) to see how a normal person’s forehead crinkles when they speak. Unless Reese has some magical powers over her forehead – then I smell a big dirty rat – called botox. OK – so the concept of an actress using botox isn’t really that earth shattering. What is unusual is how obvious the work is in this case. Once you notice it, the immovable part of Reese’s forehead is really distracting. Usually she has a fringe, which would cover this issue. But the fringe-free-do appears to uncover a lot more than just her forehead. I’ve never been a fan of the idea of botox. To me, it doesn’t make women (or men) look younger. They just kind of look smoother and more fake. But seeing Reese’s odd forehead seals the deal for me. It’s just too weird for words.  


A Royal Wedding Video to Make You Smile

18 Apr

I have a confession to make. I am quite excited about the upcoming Royal Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. Is that daggy? I suppose it is. But I’ve always had a bit of a Cinderella complex, which has translated into a slight obsession with royal weddings. As child, one of my most precious posessions was a little souvenir book about Prince Charles and Princess Diana’s wedding that I read and re-read about a million times. I adored Diana’s dress (photo below) – puffy sleeves, frilled collar and a 20 foot train. You’ve got to remember – it WAS the 80s. I also adored Prince Mary and Prince Frederik’s wedding. Remember how he cried when she entered the church. So cute! And Mary’s dress – gorgeous, regal, simplicity (photo below).
Clearly I can’t wait to see what Kate wears on her wedding day. I hope it doesn’t disappoint. But the other reason for my excitement is that I truly believe this wedding will help drag the Royal Family into the modern era. I suspect William is the first future King to have actually lived with his future wife before marriage. They’ve been dating since their early twenties and are nearing their 30s – so they’re entering into this as mature adults who know each other inside out. Kate is going into this with her eyes wide open. And – then there’s the Dianna shadow. I’m sure William is well aware of all the mistakes his Mum made (marrying too young, marrying a man she didn’t love, and then allowing her privacy to be invaded to an extreme level) and I’m sure he’ll do everything possible to avoid repeating history. Anyway, enough serious hypothesising. The other great part about the Royal Wedding is the hype and kitsch souvenirs that come with it – like royal wedding toilet paper – and this spoof video, which a British mobile phone company made using royal look alikes. It’s based on that wedding entrance dance video to Chris Brown’s song ‘Forever’ which was a global internet smash. Watch the Royal Wedding spoof by clicking here. I guarantee it will make you smile.

The arm-y of celebs with sleeve tattoos

5 Apr

There was a time when I thought tattoos were kind of cool and a little rebellious. So much so, I got one myself. I was 18 years old, had just finished my first year of Uni in country NSW, had an absolute blast – and wanted to commemorate that by getting a tatt with my best friend, Tracey. As a graduate of a single-sex catholic high school, that first year of living away from home had been a huge eye-opener. I got a little image of a flaming sun tattooed on the inside of my left ankle. My friend Tracey got a rose. Do I regret it? No. It’s pretty well hidden and I still look at it and think fondly of that time. But – it seems I wasn’t the only 18 year old girl to get a tatt in the early 1990’s. In fact, I now realise it was positively common-place. These days, you’re likely to find a lot of 30-something year old mums with tatts in discrete places – hips, shoulder blades and ankles. Rebellious? No. Cool? Not really. Although I have had fun with my nieces and nephews pretending my tattoo is a button, which when they touch it, starts my leg moving uncontrollably. But – when it comes to achieving ‘cool’ through tattooing, discretion has gone out the window. These days, it’s not enough to have one tattoo. You need a whole ‘sleeve’.
This point really hit home with me the other day, when I stumbled across this shot of Ruby Rose. Rose is no newcomer to tatts. I believe she got her first one at the age of 16. But – for a woman to have a full ‘sleeve’ – I think, takes it to a whole new level of popularity. My concern is this – just as the ‘discrete’ tattoo had its day, and has now become ‘passe’ – I think the ‘sleeve’ is also about to have its day, and will soon become a little ‘old hat’ as well. And – if you think getting rid of one little tattoo is hard, try getting rid of a whole arm-ful. Impossible, I would imagine. Worse than childbirth even. I think the ‘sleeve’ has climbed to the peak of the mountain called ‘cool’ and is about to start a rapid descent. You know you’re in trouble when the captain of the Australian cricket team has a sleeve (photo at end of post). I mean cricket is known as a ‘gentleman’s game’ – it’s a sport where they still stop for ‘tea’. It’s hardly the last bastion of rebelliousness. And Michael Clark isn’t the only Aussie cricketer with a sleeve; Mitchell Johnson (photo at end of post) has also ventured down the path of tattoo predictability by having a dragon inked on his arm. If he were Chinese, the dragon might make some cultural sense. He’s not – so it’s just cheesy. I think it was probably David Beckham that kicked the trend along. Well, I’m going to say that so I have an excuse for posting a pic of him looking quite fine! He started getting his arm tatts about 12 years ago. At that stage, tattoos were largely the domain of rock stars and sailors, so it probably was a little cool for a sporstman. I think he lost the plot a bit when he had his wife’s name etched in sanskrit on his arm – and they managed to put an ‘H’ into the name ‘Victoria’ so it translates as ‘Vihctoria’. But I think the real kiss of death came when the first ‘fake’ sleeve tattoo emerged a couple of years ago, allowing mere mortals to dip their toes into the sea of arm ink. I first saw one being worn by an Australian Idol contestant. So that gives you an idea of just how daggy they really are. It’s a stocking imprinted tattoo-style designs. They market them on the net for kids costume parties. It’s kind of like wearing ladies pantihose on your arm. Now, if that’s not uncool, I don’t know what is. 

Aussie cricket captain Michael Clark

Mitchell Johnson

David Beckham

The Jackie O saga continues – what happened to sisterhood?

1 Apr

Poor Jackie O. It seems to go from bad to worse. Earlier this week, The Daily Telegraph published a paparazzi photograph of her crossing the road while bottle feeding three month old baby. The Tele insinuated she was a bad mum for doing so. Today, the Tele has  found fit to publish an open letter from Annette Sharp to Jackie, apparently questioning why she returned to work a few weeks after the birth of her daughter. I haven’t seen the full letter – but it sounds pretty unfair. Obviously, this story has struck a chord with readers, which is why The Tele is continuing to harass Jackie O. According to Nine MSN, Jackie broke down on air this morning saying the comments have made her feel like a ‘second rate mum’. It’s just awful. Why can’t we just support the choices that other mums make? Or at least withhold judgement until we know the full facts. Wasn’t that what the feminist movement was all about – allowing women to choose to work – or not – as they see fit?

UPDATE – to Jackie O story below

29 Mar

Yesterday, I posted about my outrage over The Daily Telegraph’s inferred condemnation of radio personality and new mum, Jackie O, for bottle feeding her 3 month old daughter while crossing a road in Double Bay. Today the Tele has run a follow-up story giving Jackie’s side of the story. I for one think she should never have been put into a situation where she felt forced to explain her reasons for this. The way she parents her child is completely her business, and not the public’s. However, as you will see from the story below, it is just as I suspected – Jackie had completely understandable reasons for feeding her bubby on the street. So why didn’t the Tele talk to her BEFORE they published the photo? Well, you know the old saying – don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.

RADIO personality Jackie O went on air yesterday to explain her motivation for bottle-feeding her newborn daughter while crossing a Sydney street.
While her breakfast show partner Kyle Sandilands took a swipe at Confidential, O explained she was feeding her baby on a Double Bay street because she was running late and her daughter was hungry. The 2DayFM star, who conceived baby Kitty following IVF treatment, admitted the street was not the “most ideal place” to feed an infant. “We were running late and Kitty was screaming and I knew I had to feed her because, you know, what else can you do? When your baby’s hungry your baby’s hungry and I pulled out my express bottle and I fed her … whilst walking,” she said. “I’ll be the first to admit it is not the most ideal place. Of course 95 per cent of the time I’m seated . . The last thing I would ever want to do is jeopardise her welfare.”She’s my No. 1. This wasn’t a busy road. There was hardly anything around. It was a pedestrian crossing on a leafy street.”

What’s going on with models these days?

28 Mar

If a genie granted me the wish of looking like any celebrity of my choice – I would chose Megan Gale. To me, she is the epitome of one seriously HAWT woman. She recently came out of her catwalk retirement to walk in a show for Alex Perry. Seeing her strut her stuff was like witnessing a one-woman-party crashing the sad and lifeless place that most catwalk shows have become. (Watch it here on youtube).  She looked strong, confident and sexy because she smiled, she wiggled her hips, she showed off cleavage galore, a lot of personality – and (gasp) proved that women over 30 can still be smoking hot babes. Most importantly, she made me covet every Alex Perry dress she wore. And, after all, isn’t that the point of a fashion show – to sell clothes. The image of her strutting down the catwalk has stayed with me for a couple of weeks as I wondered why fashion designers didn’t use more models like Gale.
Traditionally, I know they’ve said they use skinny models because the clothes hang better on them. But why the sad faces? Why the absence of personality? The absence of curves? I guess the theory is that they want the audience to focus on the clothes, not the models. But compare the photo of Gale to the photo at the end of this post of a model in Paris wearing a similar type of dress. Which one would you want to buy? But it seems I’m not the only one who’s uninspired by the current crop of top models. Today, I read that designer Herve Leger (who no longer stages catwalk shows) has been quoted as saying ‘If I had to go back to catwalk presentations I would be in a panic… Already the models I find are too skinny, too sad. I knew the age of the super top models, Linda Evangelista and Cindy Crawford, who were always lively and smiling. Today you go between several défilés and you will see the exact same type of girl – it just doesn’t inspire me.’ Interestingly, Herve Leger is famous for his ‘bandage’ dresses (see photo at end of post) which also accentuate a woman’s curves, similar to Alex Perry. So maybe it’s a case where designers who concentrate on making women look ‘womanly’ also aren’t afraid of using models who are life-like – that is – they look alive. I just don’t get why other designer like to use models who walk like robots? I mean, who aspires to looking like that?

Fergie in Herve Leger