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.
But what do you guys think?
November 15, 2012 at 5:30 am by Emily
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?
November 13, 2012 at 4:30 am by Emily
“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?
November 12, 2012 at 10:30 am by Emily
From New York Daily News:
All eyes the other night were on Robert Pattinson, who couldn’t keep his hands off his little trampire.
Stewart, however, was so noticeably self-conscious about the PDA that it became dinner theater.
“Maybe she’s just not that into you R-Pattz.” one onlooker joked to his table mates as they all marveled over Stewart’s evasiveness. The few diners there agreed that Stewart who famously cheated on her boyfriend of roughly four years last summer didn’t reciprocate.
“Move on!” said one spy, who suggested Pattinson should be more like Leonardo DiCaprio, who’s well known for loving and leaving lingerie models.
Joined by Sienna Miller, nightlife impresario Nur Khan and Lindsay Lohan’s BFF Gavin Doyle, the star crossed couple arrived separately to a dinner party at Graydon Carter’s Beatrice Inn.
R-Pattz popped in around 10 p.m. He was nursing a beer and chatting with pals when a casually dressed Stewart, who’d stopped off to change out of the A.L.C. leather dress she’d worn to a midtown screening of “On the Road,” arrived half an hour later.
Immediately, diners at a nearby table felt a chill in the air. “She just took his hand off her butt!” exclaimed one nearby diner as Stewart held Pattinson’s paw, seemingly to stop it from roaming. Later, Stewart sheepishly turned her head when he moved in for a smooch.
According to a spy, Stewart said: “Don’t kiss me.”
Despite their chemistry — or lack thereof — Stewart and Pattinson headed uptown to Khan’s club The Electric Room after finishing dinner around 1 a.m.
On Wednesday, Stewart appeared on “Today” to promote “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn — Part 2,” in which she stars with Pattinson.
When host Savannah Guthrie asked Stewart about their relationship, the elusive actress said: “I’m going to let people watch whatever little movie they think our lives are … keep ’em guessing, I always say.”
There have been several reports like this lately: Rob and Kristen are out together, he’ll try to be affectionate, and she won’t have any of it. That’s sad, isn’t it? It’s sad if this is a real relationship because he loves her but she obviously isn’t into it anymore, and it’s sad if it’s a staged relationship because he looks kind of like a loser. There’s just no winning in a relationship with Kristen Stewart, is there?
November 11, 2012 at 2:00 pm by Emily
It’s almost time, friends. It’s almost time for the end of the Twilight saga. Breaking Dawn, the second part, comes out this month, and after that, no more. It’s hard, isn’t it? SO hard.
Now, I don’t know if you’ve heard about this or not, but Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, and pretty much everyone that was ever involved in the movies has been talking about this big, secret ending for a while now. Apparently, they changed the ending. There was no word on if it was a small change, like if Edward changed his shirt or something, or if it was a big change, like Bella freaked out and killed everyone and then learned how to be invisible and also ate her baby (spoiler alert: that does not happen).
But in one of the many, many appearances that Kristen’s been doing lately, an interviewer took it upon himself to just go ahead and mention what exactly the new ending entails. And Kristen was hilariously not pleased.
Here’s the amusing, spoiler-filled clip:
I’m, surprisingly, Team Kristen all the way on this one. What a bitchy little interview. If you’re in the position to be interviewing Kristen Stewart about this movie, you should know that the ending is supposed to be a secret. And if you can actually get this awkward girl to joke around with you, then you don’t act like a bitch about it. And yeah, it’s not a major spoiler, but come on, guy. Just shut your bitchy face.
I have to say, though, the news about the new ending makes me even more excited to see the movie. Can you even imagine, that little walk down memory lane?
November 10, 2012 at 10:00 am by Emily
Yeah, because no. It’s really, really bad – I’d say it makes her look like she’s got a unibrow, which, sorry to all of the unibrowed people out there, is never a good look, but it’s too far down, so she looks like she’s got some kind of malformation of her forehead and eyebrows and eyelids. It’s like she was going for a Vulcan look, but the makeup artist heard “vulva” instead, and made a vagina out of black eye makeup atop the bridge of Kristen’s nose.
Anyway, this is what Kristen looked like for a recent ‘On the Road’ thing, and while I like her dress alright, and the fact that she’s standing next to that hot-hottie-hotterson, Garrett Hedlund, the eye makeup is just simply atrocious, and there’s really no reparations that can be made for such a thing.
Let’s just forget about Kristen Stewart for the day (way hard, I know) and start fresh tomorrow morning, can we do that?