OK, I'm not going to think too hard about that last award last night. Instead, I'm going to move my mind to what the Oscars are really about - unusually pretty people looking their prettiest. So I throw the topic to the crowd - who made good fashion decisions, and who really missed the mark?
Personally, I thought that Amy Adams, Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer Aniston and Catherine Keener had the best dresses. As to the worst choice - well, Charlize Theron's gown was the ugliest that got a lot of screen time. But I imagine that Go Fug Yourself will be noting other aesthetic atrocities later today.
Posted by armand at March 6, 2006 11:01 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Culturei agree with you about theron's dress, and i think watts' was right up there for ugly three dimensional protrusion dresses. and while we're at it, was it just me or was salma hayek's dress designed for a b/c cup instead of a c/d; that strap over her left breast shifted everything over to her right so far that she looked almost deformed. not flattering. i liked a number of the white gowns, including kidman's and uma's.
oh, and i didn't think amy adams' dress was flattering at all, so on that we part ways.
oh, and by the way, the f*&king penguins? that's not a documentary anyway; it's a nature film, and a bad one.
Posted by: moon at March 6, 2006 11:54 AM | PERMALINKGo Fug says their coverage won't be up until at least noon PST. Guess they called in sick from work today.
Posted by: binky at March 6, 2006 12:29 PM | PERMALINKMy responses to Moon: Salma's dress was indeed something most unfortunate - and apparently designed to contort her breasts. It was most least favorite apart from Theron's.
Kidman's was beautiful - my favorite other than the ones I mentioned. Why didn't I include it in the original post? B/c she has an uncanny ability to look amazing at every Oscars so at some point continuing to point her out for particular praise seems to just point out that others aren't meeting her standards.
As to the Amy Adams dress - I guess I can see what you are saying about the fit. But if it was just on a model or hanging somewhere, well, on its own it's a gorgeous design.
Posted by: Armand at March 6, 2006 05:59 PM | PERMALINKEw. Kidman was awful. She is going for the head to toe Casper the ghost look. Uma, on the other hand...
Posted by: binky at March 6, 2006 06:14 PM | PERMALINKSo are you saying Kidman is too pale to wear white? I disagree - though we might be getting into where Moon & I disagree on Adams territory - while I think she looked good in the dress, I just also think it's a really pretty dress.
Posted by: Armand at March 6, 2006 06:39 PM | PERMALINKI didn't really care about the dress that much, but she is so pale (not a bad thing) but now her hair gets lighter and lighter, and her clothes too. What's the dealio? On the other hand, Rachael W. gives great eyebrow!
Posted by: binky at March 6, 2006 07:03 PM | PERMALINKOK, I found the scariest thing about the Oscars: shudder.
Posted by: binky at March 6, 2006 11:53 PM | PERMALINKa propos rachel weiscz (sp?), did anybody catch her in the times style edition two weeks ago? when did she become such a va-va-va-voom bombshell. like, wow.
Posted by: moon at March 7, 2006 01:09 AM | PERMALINKIf you mean when did she get gorgeous - was there a time when she wasn't? If you mean when did she get curvy - well, being around 7 months pregnant could have something to do with that.
Posted by: Armand at March 7, 2006 09:32 AM | PERMALINKyeah, i didn't care for her as much when she was younger. and while she was obviously pregnant at the oscars, she couldn't have been very pregnant during the times shoot, since she had a very traditional, very obvious throwback hourglass thing going on with a fairly flat stomach.
Posted by: moon at March 7, 2006 01:56 PM | PERMALINK