Well crap. I knew that it was only a matter of time before Kristen Stewart did something yucky-looking and totally greaseballesque that there’d be no way in hell I’d be able to support no matter how many backhanded compliments I’d saved up in the little artillery pile in my brain where basic math skills are supposed to exist, but here it is, and I wasn’t even expecting it.
This is what Kristen wore to the Variety Awards Studio in L.A., and the shoes, I get. They’re OK. I know that she often goes for the whole tomboy vibe, and she pulls it off well, so the shoes aren’t all that bad. I actually think my husband has the same pair, maybe. The pants aren’t all that great. They’re actually similar to a pair that I used to wear back in the fifth grade, and no, I didn’t go to a private school, I just happened to (and still do) like plaid. But these pants, no. No, the only place I’d be wearing these pants would be is to bed. The shirt’s just whatever, too. It’s nothing any different than what I wear underneath my sweatshirts and cardigans on the regular. Go nuts, girl. Do your thing. The watch, though? The watch that’s halfway up her damn arm? That’s just stupid. I don’t even understand that, and there’s no rational amount of justifying its existence and placement through my sometimes-rampant Kristen love.
And the hair. Don’t even get me started on that shit. I feel like if she turns around, it’s going to be a big old rat’s nest of snarls a la former Britney-weave. DON’T TURN AROUND, KRISTEN. It’s also as greasy as all get out. I get the whole natural, lovely, day-after-you-shampoo look, because oftentimes, my hair looks better the second day before washing, but this is just gross. This hair doesn’t scream “Natural!”, it screams “Putrid stench!” It screams … well, it screams:
And that about sums up everything with this picture. I can’t even say anymore.
Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson are going to be parents! According to a new report in Ok! magazine, Kristen has been begging Rob to start a family ever since they got back together.
Although Rob was really hurt by her affair with Rupert Sanders, he’s finally given in and the two are in the midst of baby making!
“Rob finally caved this week,” a source says. “They were talking about their future and Rob told her that as long as she stays true to him, he’s willing to have a baby with her.”
“She’s been on cloud nine ever since and can’t stop talking to her friends about it,” the insider says. “She feels like she’s getting a second chance at life. Now that they’re back in a good place and planning their family, she feels alive again. She says she started crying when Rob told her.”
Rob and Kristen play parents in Breaking Dawn Part 2, and it’s clear that being onscreen parents helped them realize that they want a family even more. But now that they’ve decided they want a child, the question remains: where will they raise their half-Brit baby?
“They’ve both agreed that they want to raise their baby in England,” the source adds. “Rob is very patriotic and he feels like an English childhood is the be-all and end-all. Kristen loves it there too and she feels her baby would have a better shot at a normal upbringing in Europe.”
Aww, too cute. Kristen and Rob, adopting that puppy trying to make their relationship work, and now there’s actually children being discussed. As for raising the child that does not yet exist in England, I agree. I think somewhere in Europe probably would be Rob and Kristen‘s best bet at having a normal lifestyle, and as long as Kristen could stay away from middle-aged men with buck-teeth who think it’s cool to make out in cars with girls who are almost still teenagers, then that child will definitely have a normal lifestyle and childhood. Or, at least as normal as being the offspring of Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson can be.
Ok, so let’s start at the beginning here. Kristen Stewart was doing an interview, and at one point the guy asked her if she’d ever be a Bond girl. Here’s what she said:
“I’m not sure, I would love to read a few graphs of the script. I choose my roles really instinctually (sic). I would really have to connect with the material.”
Right? And when she was pressed, she “I don’t know, maybe,” and when she was asked again, she said “yes, hell yes.” So we know that Kristen Stewart has either a vague interest in being in a James Bond movie or an understandably short fuse when it comes to persistent dudes giving interviews.
But you know what? It doesn’t matter? Because someone else did an interview with Daniel Craig, the current James Bond, and he was asked what he thought about Kristen’s Bond comments. And here’s how he responded:
“No,” Craig answers with disgust. “She’s in Twilight.”
Snap! But then he realized he was probably being a little too bitchy, so he clarified:
“No, I’m being nasty. I’m only saying that because it’s [Breaking Dawn Part 2] coming out this weekend so we’re in direct competition with them,” he admits with a chuckle. “I’m sure she’d make a great Bond girl.”
Oh, Daniel, you usually have no problem telling us how you really feel! What’s the problem? Why did you take it back? It’s ok, we all know that Kristen Stewart would make a horrible Bond girl. Stick with your words, Daniel. Stick with your words.
So there’s been a lot of speculation about Rupert Sanders directing the ‘Snow White and the Huntsman’ sequel, and not bringing Kristen Stewart back for it, really only focusing on Chris Hemsworth and his storyline, and then there’s been the other story, that Rupert himself is scrapped and Kristen and Chris carry on as it was originally intended, and now we finally know the truth.
A lot of you guys didn’t appreciate the sheerness of the dress that Kristen Stewart wore to the Breaking Dawn premiere in Hollywood. Some of you were like me and thought that see-through formal wear is just never a good plan, but a lot of you thought that with the Grand Cheating Scandal of 2012, she should have been more conservative, or, you know, at least not wear a dress where we had to check and make sure that we couldn’t see her actual vagina.
So, uh, what do you guys think about what she wore to the London premiere?
Here’s the side view:
And the back:
I actually thought the dress she wore before was gorgeous, except for the lack of lining in the skirt, but this? This is the hottest mess. If you took the temperature of this mess, it would be a billion degrees. Celsius. That’s how hot this mess is. I hate that she’s wearing a formal jumpsuit, I hate that awful material, and, of course, I hate the sheerness. It looks like she ripped an outfit off a Golden Girl and forgot the lining. It’s f-cking terrible.
It’s that time, guys. The second part of Breaking Dawn, the last Twilight movie ever (probably), is being released on Friday. You know what that means? It means a lot of things, but right now it means that the official premieres are starting up, which in turn means that we get to start seeing official photos of Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson and everybody else, all dressed up. Isn’t that fun?
That picture up there was taken last night at the Hollywood premiere, and don’t they both look so gorgeous? What I’m saying is, doesn’t Kristen Stewart look so gorgeous? I’m not a fan of hers, but even I can admit when she rocks a look, and she is really, really rocking this. The hair, the makeup, that dress. Doesn’t that dress look amazing? I thought so, until I saw the whole thing:
The skirt is sheer, and that’s really sad. She still looks so, so good, and the dress is still lovely, but I just … I don’t know, I just can’t approve of sheer formal dresses. And it’s even worse, because this probably would have been Kristen’s best look ever, for me, at least, if that damn skirt wasn’t sheer. It’s a sad day, friends.
What do you think about her dress? Are you pumped for the premiere, or are you more excited that it will finally be over soon?
“Flop the roles. If Bella was a vampire and Edward was the human and you changed nothing but the genders, none of that criticism would exist. It would be ‘Wow, he just laid everything on the line for her. It’s so amazing, and it must take such strength to subject yourself to that.’ Also, the relationship is entirely equal.”
First off, no. This is all wrong. It doesn’t even make sense. People take issue with these books because Bella is a really dull character whose whole entire life revolves around her boyfriend who sneaks into her room to watch her while she sleeps and gets pissed if she talks to other dudes, and that’s sort of a bad role model for the young girls who fell in love with the books. That’s the whole point. Yeah, if you flip the roles then Bella would be the strong, powerful one with stalker tendencies and weird sex hangups, just like if you flipped the roles in the Hunger Games books then Katniss would be a corrupt asshole president trying to ruin Donald Sutherland’s life. Just because it’s a fact doesn’t mean that it’s at all relevant.
Also, no one would even say that. If you changed the genders, people would just be like “hey, look at that creepy bitch. Oh no, your boyfriend’s talking to some girl he used to hang out with when he was little? Better watch him while he sleeps so he doesn’t do anything shady.” It would still provide a bad role model for impressionable girls, just a different one.
And the relationship is entirely equal? Girl. Girl, no. Are you joking? Do you remember anything about the character you’ve played for the past four years? Because that character is not in an equal relationship. The relationship is weird, and it’s obsessive and uncomfortable and unhealthy, but it’s not equal.
Man, how psyched do you think Kristen is going to be when she doesn’t have to talk up Twilight anymore?