You know, there’s a question that’s been burning deep inside of me for quite some time now (and no, it’s not just the kidney stones, either) and I need an answer. I need one. Why do photographers feel the compulsion to Photoshop such hellacity into each and every one of the Kardashians’ faces? Putting all biases aside, they’re pretty enough girls. They do alright on their own. Why interfere in that with poorly-done computer-generated imagery when things are just fine the way they are? Because do you see the above ad for the Kardashians’ new lingerie collection at Sears? It’s flat-out awful. Just … bad. Of course, the lingerie is just fine, and even though all three of them are way bustier than they appear to be in real life, the girls’ faces are just too much for me to handle, and not in a warm, fuzzy way. It’s all way too much.
Khloe, though, for one? Well, she loves the way the photo looks. On Twitter she said, “OMG how fab is this new ad for Kardashian Kollection lingerie?!? Nothing makes me feel sexier, plus it’s all so comfy! Killing two birds with one stone! LOL.” Comfy? Lingerie is comfy? In what parallel universe is lingerie comfy? See, when I think ‘comfy,’ I think ‘granny flannel’ and ‘argyle knee socks’. ‘Yoga pants’ and ‘camisoles’. Definitely not abrasive lace that always rubs your cracks and crevices the wrong way, padded underwires that poke and prod and bruise ribs, or thigh-highs that don’t want to stay up on their own. But yeah. ‘Comfy’, right?
Incidentally, the shoot was done by Annie Leibovitz, whose work becomes more and more questionable as the days go by. Also, what’s with the spray-tanner, and why is it so heavily concentrated on their faces? Is someone trying to send a message here?
The ladies may be quite pretty, and everyone likes lingerie (though let’s not fool ourselves with words like ‘comfy’ here), but this ad? It’s just complete crap, much like the quality of lingerie sold at Sears probably is anyway.
March 14, 2012 at 10:30 am by Sarah
Hooray! Kourtney Kardashian is going to give birth to a little girl! Can you believe it? This newest Kardashian will be an asset to the Kardashian empire: she will inherit all. While Kim, Khloe, and Kourtney are getting too old for their shenanigans (will they ever get too old for their shenanigans though, or will we be seeing Kim famewhoring at 50?), this new generation shall rise up and bring this family to new heights. Or, wait, will people still care about the Kardashians in twenty years? Is it sad that I have to actually present that as a question because I really don’t know?
Regardless, I’m happy for Kourtney. I’m sure she’ll have fun with a little baby girl, and judging by the unbearable cuteness of Kourtney’s son, Mason, this little baby will be a stunner. BABIES.
Can I tell you something? I think that while Khloe is definitely the best Kardashian, Kourtney is the underrated Kardashian. The more I watch her – and oh, do I watch her – the more I like her. I thought she was solid on this season of Kourtney and Kim Take New York, and I think she actually seems like a really good mom. Anybody else?
Oh, and speaking of little girls, guess who else is having one?
Yep, Jessica Simpson has a bouncing baby girl in her uterus as well! Hoorays all around!
The fashion mogul, who is planning a March baby shower, recently visited L.A.’s Bel Bambini boutique to pick out clothing and accessories for her little one – and one observer noticed that Simpson, 32, was thinking pink.
“Jessica and her mom [Tina Simpson] and spent over an hour at the store,” the observer tells PEOPLE. “She took her time picking out the perfect baby items.”
She’s having her baby shower in March? Baby showers usually come pretty soon before the actual baby, right? Can we assume that Jessica is due in March then? All she’s said before is that she’s due in the spring, and judging by the size of her tummy, I can’t imagine this baby will still be in there in April or May. I’m going to go ahead and guess that if she doesn’t have that baby within the next month, when she does have it, it will actually be three or more babies. She’s huge. And adorable!
You guys. Babies. Who’s next?
February 22, 2012 at 12:30 pm by Emily
Because it was so good. Kim spent the entire episode going back and forth between bawling her eyes out and being a total bitch. It was a wild and crazy adventure, and if you love to trash talk the Kardashians, then it was something you must see.
If you didn’t see it though, it’s not a big deal. Not only did I watch it, but I watched and took notes so I could go over some of the highlights from the episode with you guys. Are you ready for this?
If you haven’t been watching, last night’s episode was the second part of the season finale. In the first part, which aired last Sunday, Kim met with psychic John Edward to try and get in touch with her deceased father. Both Kris (her husband, not her mom) and Kourtney were against this for religious reasons, but Kourtney ended up sitting in on the meeting. John Edward made both Kardashians cry by bringing up memories of their dad, but then he asked Kim if she was divorced. When Kim said that she had gotten a divorce, but that she was currently married again, John kept asking her, for her father, “did you learn from what this is?” And then Kim had a little break down. And now that we’re caught up, let’s jump into a recap of last night, shall we?
Kim tells Kourtney that she was crying so hard after the meeting with the psychic because “when he was talking about like, like the divorce stuff,” it made her realize that she’s not happy in her marriage. She says “I honestly feel like I can’t do this anymore with Kris.” Kourtney suggests that maybe she should give it time, maybe they should go home and actually live together like a married couple and not with another couple in a suite in a hotel. Kim insists that she can’t do it anymore.
Then Kim and Kris have a talk and discuss their issues. They agree that they need to spend more time together than they had been, and that during their last few days in New York, they should hang out and have fun. At one point, Kim says to Kris “I don’t know, sometimes I just feel so like dead inside.” Great sign, right?
January 30, 2012 at 5:30 pm by Emily
No, no – we don’t wish that Johnny Depp and Vanessa Paradis would snap it off (generally). But in light of all of the lost love in the world, we decided to compile a list of 5 couples that we wish the ultimate demise upon: the big breakup. What with Seal and Heidi Klum calling it quits, and Johnny Depp and Vanessa Paradis (and, of course, you can’t forget – sniff, sniff – Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries), we thought it prudent to really stick it to those who deserve it, rather than those who should just be together for the rest of their lives for the public’s sake.
In no particular order, The List:
#5 – Courtney Stodden and Doug Hutchison
OK, no one’s going to disagree with me on this one, right? Their relationship, frankly speaking, is weird and unnatural and honestly, pretty damn gross. Not that I, you know, sit around and fantasize about celebrities having sex (I do have other things to do, my friends), but even trying to think about these two in the sack takes my appetite away. And that’s a hard, hard thing to do these days, guys.
#4 – Ryan Gosling and Eva Mendes
Because, duh. Who wants to continue seeing these two sucking face all over chic European countries and West Coast bistros? Not this girl, that’s for damn sure. Ryan needs to go back to his roots of down-home sweetness and women with genteel manners and … I don’t know, f-cking hoop skirts or something. Eva Mendes is just not where all that is at.
#3 – Jennifer Aniston and Justin Theroux
I don’t know about you guys, but it seems to me that Jennifer only dates a high-ish profile man is when she’s in the throes of promoting one of her films. As far as I know, she doesn’t have anything important coming down the line as of yet, so I fully expect these two to completely drop off the radar sometime in 2012. Plus, Jennifer Aniston is just (more) annoying (than usual) when she’s dating anyone, really. Sorry, girl, but some people just aren’t meant to be.
*Image courtesy of Celebuzz
#2 – Jennifer Lopez and Casper Smart
Again, I don’t want to wish ill upon anyone and their, you know, “true love that transcends age, generation, and backup dancer syndrome,” but this is just silly. I realize that J. Lo is a big girl and can string along a young kid if she wants, throwing money at him all the while like she’s the female P. Diddy, but they’ve only been dating for something like weeks now and I’m already sick of hearing about them. Go and celebrate and get married and disappear forever, guys, or break the hell up and get off my mind.
#1 – Kourtney Kardashian and Scott Disick
I don’t know, is it in poor taste to wish relational demise upon a woman who’s expecting a child? I don’t think so, considering who she’s with. I’m not a big Kardashian-lover as it is, but if there’s anyone who’s bad news, it’s the American Psycho-looking Scott Disick, who always seems to be just one mildly angry outburst away from relapsing into full-blown alcoholism and mirror-smashing. You wanna raise your kiddos around a ticking time-bomb, Kourt? I sure wouldn’t.
What about you guys – anyone in Hollywood you’d like to see cut their ties this year? Anyone on this list you hope lasts, you know, forever and ever?
January 24, 2012 at 7:30 am by Sarah
Ugh. This is bad. This is so, so bad. This is definitely the worst Christmas card the Kardashians have had so far, and I’d know. We ran almost their entire collection here last year around this time.
So here it is. And for all of you lucky bastards out there who just love 3D, and who’re so rich (like the Kardashians) that you have stupid, senseless things around your house like 3D glasses, the shoot was done in 3D, TOO. You should probably play the lottery tonight, you know. This type of serendipity just doesn’t come along that often.
Me, I’m still trying to figure out the theme here. Is it “Have a Bad Photoshop Christmas”? Is it “Let’s pretend Kourtney has even half the ass that Kim does so happy holidays you bastard”? Is it “Ho! Ho! Ho! How ’bout we make Kris Humphries SOOOO JEALOUS that he missed the Christmas card by a few weeks by making the (cottage) cheese stand alone?” I don’t know. Maybe. My guess is that they were going for Marrakesh “classy” this time, but it never fails to amuse me that they confuse “classy” with “klassy,” and really, how appropriate is that?
December 19, 2011 at 3:30 pm by Sarah
Did you know that Barbara put the Kardashians (all of ‘em) on her Most Fascinating People list this year? Well, back when she made the list, she didn’t realize how “fascinating” (and by “fascinating,” I mean “crummy, turncoat moneygrubbers”) they were – at least until Kim’s marriage to Kris Humphries imploded for entertainment purposes.
Barb was a guest on Dave Letterman‘s show last night, where she talked about feeling hoodwinked by the tumultuous trio and realized that she couldn’t trust them. If you can’t view the above video, here’s the crux of Barbara’s comments:
“They [the Kardashians] were the first ones we interviewed [for the Most Fascinating List] and we did them in September. We said, anything going to happen? ‘No no no, you can do it now because nothing’s going to happen.’ Then Kim gets married. Then Kourtney gets pregnant. Then Khloe’s moving to Dallas. You cannot trust the Kardashians.”
I’m just surprised that someone as well-spoken and tactile as Barbara WALTERS only just now realized that you can’t trust those who shit where they eat. Christ.
Forget the Lion King – it’s the Kardashians who are dangling at the bottom of the food chain.