Kristen Stewart’s new newest look

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the only people who know you are aging millennials who know you from a trilogy you were in 15 years ago, you are not currently A-List. A-List is Leo,Matt Damon, Cruise, Emma Stone, Reese Witherspoon tier. Stewart is just a dime a dozen washed up child star; a middle aged actress who has to stoop to these antics for some attention. It’s sad, really.

Nobody in modern-day society considers 33 “middle aged. “

Mid 30s has always been middle aged; in Hollywood it’s basically ancient for an actress. She was a dime a dozen cute teen; Hollywood is done with most attractive and can’t act women by mid to late 20s.

You're in the wrong decade.

Nicole Kidman is in her 50s
Sophia Vergara is in her 50s
Charlize Theron is 48
Jodie Foster is in her 60s

The list goes on and on and on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the only people who know you are aging millennials who know you from a trilogy you were in 15 years ago, you are not currently A-List. A-List is Leo,Matt Damon, Cruise, Emma Stone, Reese Witherspoon tier. Stewart is just a dime a dozen washed up child star; a middle aged actress who has to stoop to these antics for some attention. It’s sad, really.

Nobody in modern-day society considers 33 “middle aged. “

Mid 30s has always been middle aged; in Hollywood it’s basically ancient for an actress. She was a dime a dozen cute teen; Hollywood is done with most attractive and can’t act women by mid to late 20s.

You're in the wrong decade.

Nicole Kidman is in her 50s
Sophia Vergara is in her 50s
Charlize Theron is 48
Jodie Foster is in her 60s

The list goes on and on and on

Do you consider 33 middle aged?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the only people who know you are aging millennials who know you from a trilogy you were in 15 years ago, you are not currently A-List. A-List is Leo,Matt Damon, Cruise, Emma Stone, Reese Witherspoon tier. Stewart is just a dime a dozen washed up child star; a middle aged actress who has to stoop to these antics for some attention. It’s sad, really.

Nobody in modern-day society considers 33 “middle aged. “

Mid 30s has always been middle aged; in Hollywood it’s basically ancient for an actress. She was a dime a dozen cute teen; Hollywood is done with most attractive and can’t act women by mid to late 20s.

She is a Chanel ambassador. That is a big deal. She's gorgeous, A list, trend setting, and hardly middle aged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the only people who know you are aging millennials who know you from a trilogy you were in 15 years ago, you are not currently A-List. A-List is Leo,Matt Damon, Cruise, Emma Stone, Reese Witherspoon tier. Stewart is just a dime a dozen washed up child star; a middle aged actress who has to stoop to these antics for some attention. It’s sad, really.

Nobody in modern-day society considers 33 “middle aged. “

Mid 30s has always been middle aged; in Hollywood it’s basically ancient for an actress. She was a dime a dozen cute teen; Hollywood is done with most attractive and can’t act women by mid to late 20s.

You're in the wrong decade.

Nicole Kidman is in her 50s
Sophia Vergara is in her 50s
Charlize Theron is 48
Jodie Foster is in her 60s

The list goes on and on and on

Do you consider 33 middle aged?

No, obviously not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the only people who know you are aging millennials who know you from a trilogy you were in 15 years ago, you are not currently A-List. A-List is Leo,Matt Damon, Cruise, Emma Stone, Reese Witherspoon tier. Stewart is just a dime a dozen washed up child star; a middle aged actress who has to stoop to these antics for some attention. It’s sad, really.

Nobody in modern-day society considers 33 “middle aged. “

Mid 30s has always been middle aged; in Hollywood it’s basically ancient for an actress. She was a dime a dozen cute teen; Hollywood is done with most attractive and can’t act women by mid to late 20s.

You're in the wrong decade.

Nicole Kidman is in her 50s
Sophia Vergara is in her 50s
Charlize Theron is 48
Jodie Foster is in her 60s

The list goes on and on and on

Do you consider 33 middle aged?

No, obviously not.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She and Dakota Johnson are the same person. No personality. No appeal. No talent. They act like they are better looking than they actually are- so maybe that is their appeal- that they have self-confidence without reason?

Maybe you should ask yourself why you think that one only deserves self confidence if they happen to meet your definitions of goodness?

Kristen Stewart has mad a lot of money off of her supposed lack of personality, appeal, and talent. She likely has a much more comfortable life than you and could not care less about what you think. I don't know much about her tbh and I haven't seen many of her movies (very few actually) but the audacity of feeling like you are entitled to walk up to another person and tell them they do not deserve to have confidence is really kind of shocking.

No what’s shocking is someone being upset over the criticism of an untalented, extremely LUCKY actress, who is clearly seeking publicity.

She looks awful and can’t act. I wouldn’t say about a normal, PRIVATE person, but when you blast videos of yourself in an attempt to sway the public to go watch your crappy acting, all bets are off.

If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

NP. Your little takedown? Was that supposed to be “the heat?” Aww. Bless your heart.

No, the “Heat” is people not seeing her movies. It’s already happening and is bound to get worse. She ruins every film she is part of with her bad acting. We’ve figured that out, so if a casting agent is going to disrespect us, the audience, by casting her, we won’t go to the film.

Hollywood types don’t seem to get it. We’re sick of you casting your lame, untalented kids. We’re sick of them writing the scripts. Hire top people, not your friends’ children. Stop or cannibalise the industry completely. The audience are fine with you and your nepotistic crap.

Sure. That’s why her latest film gets an 85% positivity rate among viewers on Rotten Tomatoes. 93% among critics. But sure, no one likes her films.

First off, fewer people are seeing films than before and Hollywood is really struggling. Practically no one can get financing anymore. Secondly, people might like a film that has Kristen Stewart, but it’s despite of her. For god’s sake: SHE CANNOT ACT!!!!!!!!

Let’s turn to someone with more knowledge and credibility than you. From Manohla Dargis, one of the NYT film critics, on Stewart’s acting skills:

“Watching Kristen Stewart is always an adventure. A performer who makes good movies better and dreary movies tolerable, she has a restlessness that has made her one of the more interesting attractions in American film. She has a gift for making a character’s inner life transparently readable, and while she can be subtle and withholding, it is her fascinatingly unquiet presence that draws you in, an itchy intensity that can keep her (and you) on edge. Pauline Kael wrote that Jane Fonda’s “motor runs a little fast” — so does Stewart’s.”

You’re joking, right? Speaking of struggling finances, no one is worse off than journalists and newspapers. They have no circulation anymore and tons of competition with bloggers, etc. They’re casualties of the internet, unable to compete with changing times. AI will only make it worse in terms of bogus reviews.

Would I trust a critic in 1980? Sure, of course. But today, if you pay them a little, and I do mean, a little, they’ll publish anything you want them to say.

Kristen Stewart cannot act. I don’t care how much (or rather how little) she or whoever is trying to promote her paid Manhola Dargis to say otherwise. She cannot act!

You seem like a person who is deeply unhappy with your life. I hope you find peace. In the meantime, Kristen will continue to roll around in her millions and Manohla will continue to have her words read by thousands. And there’s nothing you can do about it, not if you protest until you’re blue in the face and spittle flies from your mouth.

The NYT and its film critics especially are completely irrelevant these days. They aren’t rolling around in money. Their entire industry had fallen apart over the last thirty years. I agree a few THOUSANDS might read Manohla, but not the MILLIONS who used to read Ebert. There’s nothing Manohla can do about it. That’s why she writes whatever some producer tells her to write.

As for KS, she got extremely lucky with Twilight, but her acting range is limited to sulking and looking constipated. Her career has stalled and she’s getting old. Meanwhile she’s gotten used to living the good life and wants to keep it up, but can’t. Like the whole movie industry, she is completely clueless about what the public wants.

Finally, instead of coming up with an intelligent comeback, you’ve made completely irrelevant and plainly wrong assumptions about a total stranger. How the hell do you know what my financial or personal situation is? The only thing I’m sad or miserable about is how incredibly crappy films have gotten, how easily bought critics are and what bad performers make it to the big screen. I used to love going to the movies and now I hate to because of bad actresses like KS. The industry is murdering itself. It’s painful to watch.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. It’s Kristen that I said was rolling around in her millions. And she is.

Manohla Dargis has thousands and thousands of people read what she writes, yes. And you have about six on here. That seems right, given the quality of each author, respectively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She and Dakota Johnson are the same person. No personality. No appeal. No talent. They act like they are better looking than they actually are- so maybe that is their appeal- that they have self-confidence without reason?

Maybe you should ask yourself why you think that one only deserves self confidence if they happen to meet your definitions of goodness?

Kristen Stewart has mad a lot of money off of her supposed lack of personality, appeal, and talent. She likely has a much more comfortable life than you and could not care less about what you think. I don't know much about her tbh and I haven't seen many of her movies (very few actually) but the audacity of feeling like you are entitled to walk up to another person and tell them they do not deserve to have confidence is really kind of shocking.

No what’s shocking is someone being upset over the criticism of an untalented, extremely LUCKY actress, who is clearly seeking publicity.

She looks awful and can’t act. I wouldn’t say about a normal, PRIVATE person, but when you blast videos of yourself in an attempt to sway the public to go watch your crappy acting, all bets are off.

If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

NP. Your little takedown? Was that supposed to be “the heat?” Aww. Bless your heart.

No, the “Heat” is people not seeing her movies. It’s already happening and is bound to get worse. She ruins every film she is part of with her bad acting. We’ve figured that out, so if a casting agent is going to disrespect us, the audience, by casting her, we won’t go to the film.

Hollywood types don’t seem to get it. We’re sick of you casting your lame, untalented kids. We’re sick of them writing the scripts. Hire top people, not your friends’ children. Stop or cannibalise the industry completely. The audience are fine with you and your nepotistic crap.

Sure. That’s why her latest film gets an 85% positivity rate among viewers on Rotten Tomatoes. 93% among critics. But sure, no one likes her films.

First off, fewer people are seeing films than before and Hollywood is really struggling. Practically no one can get financing anymore. Secondly, people might like a film that has Kristen Stewart, but it’s despite of her. For god’s sake: SHE CANNOT ACT!!!!!!!!

Let’s turn to someone with more knowledge and credibility than you. From Manohla Dargis, one of the NYT film critics, on Stewart’s acting skills:

“Watching Kristen Stewart is always an adventure. A performer who makes good movies better and dreary movies tolerable, she has a restlessness that has made her one of the more interesting attractions in American film. She has a gift for making a character’s inner life transparently readable, and while she can be subtle and withholding, it is her fascinatingly unquiet presence that draws you in, an itchy intensity that can keep her (and you) on edge. Pauline Kael wrote that Jane Fonda’s “motor runs a little fast” — so does Stewart’s.”

You’re joking, right? Speaking of struggling finances, no one is worse off than journalists and newspapers. They have no circulation anymore and tons of competition with bloggers, etc. They’re casualties of the internet, unable to compete with changing times. AI will only make it worse in terms of bogus reviews.

Would I trust a critic in 1980? Sure, of course. But today, if you pay them a little, and I do mean, a little, they’ll publish anything you want them to say.

Kristen Stewart cannot act. I don’t care how much (or rather how little) she or whoever is trying to promote her paid Manhola Dargis to say otherwise. She cannot act!

You seem like a person who is deeply unhappy with your life. I hope you find peace. In the meantime, Kristen will continue to roll around in her millions and Manohla will continue to have her words read by thousands. And there’s nothing you can do about it, not if you protest until you’re blue in the face and spittle flies from your mouth.

The NYT and its film critics especially are completely irrelevant these days. They aren’t rolling around in money. Their entire industry had fallen apart over the last thirty years. I agree a few THOUSANDS might read Manohla, but not the MILLIONS who used to read Ebert. There’s nothing Manohla can do about it. That’s why she writes whatever some producer tells her to write.

As for KS, she got extremely lucky with Twilight, but her acting range is limited to sulking and looking constipated. Her career has stalled and she’s getting old. Meanwhile she’s gotten used to living the good life and wants to keep it up, but can’t. Like the whole movie industry, she is completely clueless about what the public wants.

Finally, instead of coming up with an intelligent comeback, you’ve made completely irrelevant and plainly wrong assumptions about a total stranger. How the hell do you know what my financial or personal situation is? The only thing I’m sad or miserable about is how incredibly crappy films have gotten, how easily bought critics are and what bad performers make it to the big screen. I used to love going to the movies and now I hate to because of bad actresses like KS. The industry is murdering itself. It’s painful to watch.

Mischa Barton anyone?

Mischa was never a Cannes-level actress. She was just on a shitty but popular TV show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the only people who know you are aging millennials who know you from a trilogy you were in 15 years ago, you are not currently A-List. A-List is Leo,Matt Damon, Cruise, Emma Stone, Reese Witherspoon tier. Stewart is just a dime a dozen washed up child star; a middle aged actress who has to stoop to these antics for some attention. It’s sad, really.

Nobody in modern-day society considers 33 “middle aged. “

Mid 30s has always been middle aged; in Hollywood it’s basically ancient for an actress. She was a dime a dozen cute teen; Hollywood is done with most attractive and can’t act women by mid to late 20s.

You're in the wrong decade.

Nicole Kidman is in her 50s
Sophia Vergara is in her 50s
Charlize Theron is 48
Jodie Foster is in her 60s

The list goes on and on and on

Jodi Foster and Kristen have worked together actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the only people who know you are aging millennials who know you from a trilogy you were in 15 years ago, you are not currently A-List. A-List is Leo,Matt Damon, Cruise, Emma Stone, Reese Witherspoon tier. Stewart is just a dime a dozen washed up child star; a middle aged actress who has to stoop to these antics for some attention. It’s sad, really.

Nobody in modern-day society considers 33 “middle aged. “

Mid 30s has always been middle aged; in Hollywood it’s basically ancient for an actress. She was a dime a dozen cute teen; Hollywood is done with most attractive and can’t act women by mid to late 20s.

You're in the wrong decade.

Nicole Kidman is in her 50s
Sophia Vergara is in her 50s
Charlize Theron is 48
Jodie Foster is in her 60s

The list goes on and on and on

Jodi Foster and Kristen have worked together actually.

Yes, well done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the only people who know you are aging millennials who know you from a trilogy you were in 15 years ago, you are not currently A-List. A-List is Leo,Matt Damon, Cruise, Emma Stone, Reese Witherspoon tier. Stewart is just a dime a dozen washed up child star; a middle aged actress who has to stoop to these antics for some attention. It’s sad, really.

she was the first American to win a Cesar award... Maybe you just not cultured when it comes to cinema. she's an indie darling

Wow! Her parading around in this outfit proves you’re wrong. She’s desperate to generate buzz and attention.

Her wearing an outfit you don't like proves that she isn't the first american to win a cesar? hahaha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the only people who know you are aging millennials who know you from a trilogy you were in 15 years ago, you are not currently A-List. A-List is Leo,Matt Damon, Cruise, Emma Stone, Reese Witherspoon tier. Stewart is just a dime a dozen washed up child star; a middle aged actress who has to stoop to these antics for some attention. It’s sad, really.

Nobody in modern-day society considers 33 “middle aged. “

Mid 30s has always been middle aged; in Hollywood it’s basically ancient for an actress. She was a dime a dozen cute teen; Hollywood is done with most attractive and can’t act women by mid to late 20s.

You're in the wrong decade.

Nicole Kidman is in her 50s
Sophia Vergara is in her 50s
Charlize Theron is 48
Jodie Foster is in her 60s

The list goes on and on and on

All of the above can act and they are far better looking than Kristen. She got lucky with Twilight. It’s not going to happen again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the only people who know you are aging millennials who know you from a trilogy you were in 15 years ago, you are not currently A-List. A-List is Leo,Matt Damon, Cruise, Emma Stone, Reese Witherspoon tier. Stewart is just a dime a dozen washed up child star; a middle aged actress who has to stoop to these antics for some attention. It’s sad, really.

Nobody in modern-day society considers 33 “middle aged. “

Mid 30s has always been middle aged; in Hollywood it’s basically ancient for an actress. She was a dime a dozen cute teen; Hollywood is done with most attractive and can’t act women by mid to late 20s.

She is a Chanel ambassador. That is a big deal. She's gorgeous, A list, trend setting, and hardly middle aged.

Gorgeous?!? She looks like any other trailer park trash chick you’d see in any meth ridden section of America. Go to Beaver Falls, PA or WV and you’ll be blown away by the “beautiful” women who look just like Kristen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She and Dakota Johnson are the same person. No personality. No appeal. No talent. They act like they are better looking than they actually are- so maybe that is their appeal- that they have self-confidence without reason?

Maybe you should ask yourself why you think that one only deserves self confidence if they happen to meet your definitions of goodness?

Kristen Stewart has mad a lot of money off of her supposed lack of personality, appeal, and talent. She likely has a much more comfortable life than you and could not care less about what you think. I don't know much about her tbh and I haven't seen many of her movies (very few actually) but the audacity of feeling like you are entitled to walk up to another person and tell them they do not deserve to have confidence is really kind of shocking.

No what’s shocking is someone being upset over the criticism of an untalented, extremely LUCKY actress, who is clearly seeking publicity.

She looks awful and can’t act. I wouldn’t say about a normal, PRIVATE person, but when you blast videos of yourself in an attempt to sway the public to go watch your crappy acting, all bets are off.

If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

NP. Your little takedown? Was that supposed to be “the heat?” Aww. Bless your heart.

No, the “Heat” is people not seeing her movies. It’s already happening and is bound to get worse. She ruins every film she is part of with her bad acting. We’ve figured that out, so if a casting agent is going to disrespect us, the audience, by casting her, we won’t go to the film.

Hollywood types don’t seem to get it. We’re sick of you casting your lame, untalented kids. We’re sick of them writing the scripts. Hire top people, not your friends’ children. Stop or cannibalise the industry completely. The audience are fine with you and your nepotistic crap.

Sure. That’s why her latest film gets an 85% positivity rate among viewers on Rotten Tomatoes. 93% among critics. But sure, no one likes her films.

First off, fewer people are seeing films than before and Hollywood is really struggling. Practically no one can get financing anymore. Secondly, people might like a film that has Kristen Stewart, but it’s despite of her. For god’s sake: SHE CANNOT ACT!!!!!!!!

Let’s turn to someone with more knowledge and credibility than you. From Manohla Dargis, one of the NYT film critics, on Stewart’s acting skills:

“Watching Kristen Stewart is always an adventure. A performer who makes good movies better and dreary movies tolerable, she has a restlessness that has made her one of the more interesting attractions in American film. She has a gift for making a character’s inner life transparently readable, and while she can be subtle and withholding, it is her fascinatingly unquiet presence that draws you in, an itchy intensity that can keep her (and you) on edge. Pauline Kael wrote that Jane Fonda’s “motor runs a little fast” — so does Stewart’s.”

You’re joking, right? Speaking of struggling finances, no one is worse off than journalists and newspapers. They have no circulation anymore and tons of competition with bloggers, etc. They’re casualties of the internet, unable to compete with changing times. AI will only make it worse in terms of bogus reviews.

Would I trust a critic in 1980? Sure, of course. But today, if you pay them a little, and I do mean, a little, they’ll publish anything you want them to say.

Kristen Stewart cannot act. I don’t care how much (or rather how little) she or whoever is trying to promote her paid Manhola Dargis to say otherwise. She cannot act!

You seem like a person who is deeply unhappy with your life. I hope you find peace. In the meantime, Kristen will continue to roll around in her millions and Manohla will continue to have her words read by thousands. And there’s nothing you can do about it, not if you protest until you’re blue in the face and spittle flies from your mouth.

The NYT and its film critics especially are completely irrelevant these days. They aren’t rolling around in money. Their entire industry had fallen apart over the last thirty years. I agree a few THOUSANDS might read Manohla, but not the MILLIONS who used to read Ebert. There’s nothing Manohla can do about it. That’s why she writes whatever some producer tells her to write.

As for KS, she got extremely lucky with Twilight, but her acting range is limited to sulking and looking constipated. Her career has stalled and she’s getting old. Meanwhile she’s gotten used to living the good life and wants to keep it up, but can’t. Like the whole movie industry, she is completely clueless about what the public wants.

Finally, instead of coming up with an intelligent comeback, you’ve made completely irrelevant and plainly wrong assumptions about a total stranger. How the hell do you know what my financial or personal situation is? The only thing I’m sad or miserable about is how incredibly crappy films have gotten, how easily bought critics are and what bad performers make it to the big screen. I used to love going to the movies and now I hate to because of bad actresses like KS. The industry is murdering itself. It’s painful to watch.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. It’s Kristen that I said was rolling around in her millions. And she is.

Manohla Dargis has thousands and thousands of people read what she writes, yes. And you have about six on here. That seems right, given the quality of each author, respectively.

I’m not an author and I’m looking for followers. I write on this for fun, not to generate income.

Again, you seem to be stuck in a 1980 mentality about the media and marketing. The internet destroyed those industries. Smart, high quality people don’t go into them because they don’t pay well. People don’t watch commercials anymore and very few read the NYT. (Mostly Boomers.) So, you get not too bright, not very creative people conducting bad ad campaigns because they are incapable of doing good ones.

Hollywood got caught into it, too. Between the nepotism and straight to tv, watch at home movies, movie stars and films have been downgraded to tv stars and tv shows. There’s hardly any difference between a lifetime movie and a Hollywood one in terms of talent and soon the budgets will follow. In fact, they already have.
L

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did you see the video of her walking in public in panties and a top?

She’s clearly thirsty for press. When was the last time she worked?

Her haircut is awful, and she’s flat as a pancake.

I don’t get it. She’s not a sex symbol like a kardashian…lacks the beauty and curves.

And she’s not a great actress. She should find some small indie films to make. Maybe she can strike gold with a good script?

Or she should reboot twilight and just accept that she’s a one hit wonder…as long as she has hot guys around her.

If you like the Kardashians, Kristen Stewart is definitely not your cup of tea (I personally cannot understand the people who consider Kardashians sex symbols). At the same time, I agree that Kristen Stewart looks uncomfortable in these outfits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you see the video of her walking in public in panties and a top?

She’s clearly thirsty for press. When was the last time she worked?

Her haircut is awful, and she’s flat as a pancake.

I don’t get it. She’s not a sex symbol like a kardashian…lacks the beauty and curves.

And she’s not a great actress. She should find some small indie films to make. Maybe she can strike gold with a good script?

Or she should reboot twilight and just accept that she’s a one hit wonder…as long as she has hot guys around her.

If you like the Kardashians, Kristen Stewart is definitely not your cup of tea (I personally cannot understand the people who consider Kardashians sex symbols). At the same time, I agree that Kristen Stewart looks uncomfortable in these outfits.

The Kardashians and Kristen Stewart are two sides of the same Hollywood nepotistic coin.

We could just have celebrities picked for their talents and looks, rather than who their parents know. You know, like in the olden days.