Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Unless she's channelling Ursula, not sure how she's on theme.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Boring makeup boring hair boring dress.

And if she did something over the top, people would be b itching about how she's gaudy, nouveau riche, etc.

Don't get me wrong, it's still gaudy with the neckline, but a very boring look overall. I get people shouldn't hate on her for no reason, but this is the Met gala and presumably she lobbied to be the main sponsor. Her look is disappointing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Boring makeup boring hair boring dress.

It's the point. In recent weeks, she's had a series of high profile hit pieces criticizing her enjoyment of ill-gotten riches, and her penchant for cosmetic enhancements and sartorial get ups. This is her answer: I can be boring too. Except that the bosom will out and she couldn't resist the mermaid look.

I get what you're saying, but to me the antidote to those stories is to show up looking elegant and discreet. This look doesn't move her reputation forward at all.

Ha. This IS her version of elegant and discreet, PP. She is at heart a vulgar person, and her body is a little wide for the usual "slim elegance" looks. If she were to cover that bosom with a flowy top, she'd look fat. She's also very warm and kind-hearted in real life, BTW, so I don't want to be too mean. I don't mean vulgar in a moral sense, but in a visual sense. She just doesn't understand subtlety and restraint.

Me again. She has such a ready smile usually. I think the news really got to her, and she's feeling the pressure of being a sponsor. The Vogue photographer is usually so good at capturing the best of every attendee - either they wanted her to look bad, or she's so stressed out she can't relax or smile on the red carpet.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if this is on theme, but Carey Mulligan's dress has a cool effect.