Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
I heard them described as "everybody go to hell" pants on TV.
Alicia Vikander was flawless in the film "Ex Machina" and that didn't even involve any flashy clothing.Because she was naked.But you knew that was where I was going.Still: pretty dress.I am Laslo.
Pretty girl. Butt ugly dress.
love that dress beautiful.Cam's pants are fierce too-love them!
A throwback of sorts. It demonstrayes you dont have to go to plunging necklines which divert attention away from the fashion. It reminds me of the Partridge Family bus.
"That dress is so gorgeous we can’t stop looking at it. And isn’t that what you want people saying about your red carpet dress? Darlings, it is." This is the problem with having a bunch of gays dressing women- you want people looking at the *girl* not the dress, which apparently never occurs to them.The dress has no reference to her body, other than the passing fact that she has brown hair. Other than that it might as well be a burka that could have been worn by almost any other woman at most any other time with exactly the same effect. The side split seems like a last minute after thought when someone got a look at the whole underwhelming result and took a pair of scissors to it hail mary to try to inject some SA. Its like slapping a rear spoiler on a Ford Taurus. Too little too late. The pants are great though. I expect the NY Times to endorse them in a signed editorial later today.
Tasteful, modest by red carpet standards. Would that more women would get the message.
Agree with Michael McClain. Not even Grace Kelly in her prime could make that dress "gorgeous."
A quilt with powdered sugar on it?
The problem is overselling it before one sees it. It is a pretty cool dress. The shoes didn't live up to it though.
I try to picture Mrs. Tank, who is still 5' tall and 105 pounds, putting on that dress, looking in the mirror, and leaving the house. It just doesn't work.Those pants only work if you're 6' 4" and 250 pounds. Who's gonna say otherwise?
The pic of Alicia Vikander walking up stairs was excellent. As for the dress. It was pretty, but as quinn said, had no connection to her beautiful figure. It needed some features that drew attention to her shape and hinted at more
That dress looks like something doctors would use to induce seizures. As if we needed more evidence that "fashion" is a joke played on society by imbeciles and dolts.
Cam fleeing an animal rights protest.
I flipped through them to see what actresses I could identiry. The ones I recognized all look better in their film attire, except Julianne Moore looked okay.Best dress was Hannah Bagshawe, taking a different technique of camouflage. It's a dress you can't see on the horizon, as opposed to a chameleon dress.The actresses I can actually distinguish, who don't merge into one generic actress, are Julianne Moore, Julia Roberts, Anne Hathaway, Meg Ryan and Jennifer Aniston.
Helen Mirren stole the red carpet.
samanthasmom said...Helen Mirren stole the red carpet.So then the carpet DOESN'T match the drapes.I am Laslo.
Oh and Sandra Bullock.
"Cam Newton wore some amazing pants."I thought I knew what the word "amazing" meant. I guess I was wrong.
Cam Newton is spectacular.
A Linoleum dress for your red carpet moment. Nevertheless I liked it - whether because it was truly new or because it really looked good, I can't say.
How do you walk in those shoes? Who would want to?
I say both are ridiculous.
My main concern in life was dis-robing gorgeous creatures like that. Her job was to construct that look. My job was in the deconstruction. "Mac Meda" with apologies to the Pump House Gang.
I thought the "sag" awards were won by Susan Sarandon. Gravity is winning.
Camouflage pattern from WWI. You can see something like this on German helmets, etc. Woman is pretty, but dress is silly.
Tailor to Cam during the fitting. "Mr. Newton, break or straight?" "Neither. Ankle length please." Are "high water" pants a "thing" now?
It looks like a collection of patches fashioned together into a dress. Not sure that is the best dress of the night. And if it is, yikes.
Good lord, what a disappointment. I was actually looking forward to a great dress. That thing is awful. You can't see that poor woman's shape at all. It looks like a carpet in a display at the local furniture mart. The pattern is an awful, distracting jumble and the sequined material looks terrible. Trying way too hard.We just had an Althouse blog discussion of Grace Kelly. Now this is what a dress should look like:https://agnautacouture.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/grace-kelly-life-cover.jpg
It looks like carpet swatches mixed with chain mail.
I just found another fabulous picture of the dress from the SAG awards:http://regmedia.co.uk/2011/06/02/dazzle_tarian.jpg
Actually, I loved the dress when I saw the first photo. But then I saw the second photo. The bottom third is horror show. The fourth photo confirmed it. The dress, not the legs. That front panel looks stiff as a board.
As for cam, he spent 500 dollars for those pants. Maybe Bernie sanders is right about income inequality in this country. If you are going to spend that much on pants maybe there are rules that need to applied that regulate what the pants look like. You could do zebra stripes, for example. But not zebra stripes AND gold bows. wuld queer eye for the straight guy approve those pants?
"Cam Newton is spectacular."Cam is Frenchy Fuqua without the goldfish.
The dress is interesting. The girl is gorgeous. The girl makes the dress.
I clicked the link in rhhardin's comment - and I thought most of the dresses looked actually frumpy. Many of them made the wearers look wide, matronly, and unattractive. Meh.
I kind of like the glittery dress fabric, and the dress looks OK from the waist up. From the waist down, though, it's just two rectangles sewn together in a not particularly flattering cut. The slit is awful. It looks designed to show that there's something with human legs between those two rectangles. The shoes are too elaborate (and high-heeled) and look as though they're competing with the dress for attention. And being black instead of picking up one of the lighter colors in the dress, they create a dark dead zone behind that slit.Why do movie stars think they have the taste to dress themselves? With a few exceptions, they look just awful when they pick out their own outfits. Back in the bad old studio days, skilled stylists dressed the stars, and the stars usually looked good.
What n.n. said. It's the girl that is gorgeous, not the dress. Any dress would look good on her.
The Amish have a name for that dress - a rag rug. A collection of leftover material assembled into something useful.
Girl in a can. The dress isn't awful, but looks stiff and maybe a bit big.
The dress is fantastic, assuming Alicia Vikander is badly deformed or misshapen, as the dress successfully hides this fact.On the other hand, if her figure is normal ( or better ) then it is a horrid dress, as it successfully hides that fact.
And I thought you were going to go for Drudge's juxtaposition of Susan Sarandon and SAG.
Ha, it's like the old joke about the tailor.Only Bulaski the tailor could have created a pretty dress for a frump like you!
It's an OK dress, glamorous but a little busy (color-block-wise). It's pretty flattering in terms of fit, but she's a very attractive woman so that shouldn't be too hard. It's a nice dress and doesn't in any way detract from her attractiveness--in that sense at least it's much better than a lot of what you see on red carpets!
I hope Newton is getting paid to wear those pants. Maybe he's just messing with the Broncos who have to be laughing at those pants. And the saddle shoes are 2d grade girl footwear
It used to upset me to see that flood pants were considered high fashion (this seems to have started about 4-5 years or so ago) but I've given up on caring--for some reason fashion designers have decided that you should see dudes' ankles but I don't see that happening much at all on the street. Cam's the exception that proves the rule, to me--what a stupid look.
It is pretty funny coming from the team that pointed a baseball bat at Odell Beckham, called him a ballerina, a bitch, and bragged about exposing his "female blood" after a game with the Giants. Maybe Cam is in some kind of denial?
Cam Newton is Black. Cam Newton is a quarterback. We ain't never had a Black quarterback like Cam Newton. How can that ugly thing be a perfect award show dress if it don't show a bunch of tits?
Ex Machina was a terrific movie. I'm not sure if it was scifi or theology. Was Alicia Vikander a robot, a creation of God, or a God created by man. Your head could explode thinking about that movie........Anyway, in some scenes in the movie she appears as a partially metallic robot and in other scenes as a beautiful naked woman. If they can use CGI to make her appear partially metallic, couldn't those same CGI effects be used to make her perfectly beautiful. She's a good looking woman but she looked more beautiful in Ex Machina.
I think that dress is awful. It's so busy that you can barely see that there's a woman inside it. The point of a dress is to enhance a woman, not to drown her out.
Comparing Alicia Vikander, the actress, vs Grace Kelly - which is grossly unfair of course - She is pretty enough, but there is that lack of spirit, of vivacity, of a brain behind the eyes.That may be unfair too, but she presents as rather bland, and though the photographers aren't doing her any favors she isn't helping them out here either.
I don't watch these shows, but after each one my local paper will have 5 or 10 color pictures of women in these outfits. It's remarkable to me how bad so many of these mostly well above average looking women can be made to look. Even 9s and 10s can be made to look bad, between the dress, the makeup, the hair, the shoes. Most of the time, most of these (young) women would look better in a tight pair of jeans and a tight women's t-shirt, with their hair long and down.
Not the dress I expected to see when I clicked through.
It's like a Mondrian, but not as Mondrian.It'd be better if it was full-on Mondrian.
Alicia Amanda Vikander is a beautiful young woman, her beauty tansends that God awful piece of shit dress.Cam on the other hand has gone full gay wop.
I knew when I saw that dress, opinions would be quite polarized. I decided I liked it, although I prefer fashion a little more understated than this. Cam pants are quite interesting, too, just not really a great look.
I don't like that dress. It is ugly. The lines are good and the colors are good, but the colors as patches are not, because they disrupt the lines of the dress. That dress has a design which is in a cage-fight with itself. It offends me on several levels. She is very beautiful, but she would be even more beautiful in another dress - in many other dresses. There is little point in wearing clothes which are both non-functional and deliberately, expensively, artfully ugly when you are beautiful. Artistically, that damned dress is just WRONG. It's off! It's bad! I detest the pants also. A man that good-looking should have better-looking pants. Neither of those two people have any trouble drawing other person's admiring gazes. Their clothes should either be utilitarian, so they can be happy and comfortable in them, or utilitarian and attractive (where possible) so we can enjoy looking at them or just beautiful so we can enjoy looking at them. There are enough non-attractive people in the world (I am one) that those who are attractive should be permitted by clothes designers to serve their natural function as world-improving movable scenery.That is all. I have spoken.
Who cares about fashion. Don't you know the real story of the SAG Awards is D-I-V-E-R-S-I-T-Y!!
ps. Why in America is "diversity" just a codeword for "more black people?"
MaxedOutMama said...She is very beautiful, but she would be even more beautiful in another dress - in many other dresses.Or no dress. ( Just want to make sure she considers all her options... )
I quite liked the shoes. Dress, meh.
The dress isn't THAT bad but in all honesty, she makes the dress look good.
She is "werqing" it they said in the title.I don't know what that means, but it sounds obscene.She's got one of those figures that doesn't really need any clothes, so anything looks good on her.
You would need a body like Cam Newton to wear those pants. Otherwise, you would look like a clown.tits.
Cam Newton wore some amazing pants.Do those come in shorts?
I said the same thing in your SAG Awards post on Sarandon. I said Vikanders dress was the winner. Obviously Tom & Loremzo are copying me...
gay fashion review - nothing about how the dress makes *her* look, really. extreme heels!
That dress is so ugly, she'd look better wearing nothing at all.
Sally from Nightmare Before Christmas:http://data1.whicdn.com/images/52882973/original.jpg
Post a Comment