Cele|bitchy

“Spiderman is incredibly homoerotic” links
Ralph Fiennes in talks to play the villain in the new James Bond film
Kim Kardashian is allegedly “amazed & unhappy” by the Halle-Gabriel situation
Gisele Bundchen says sunscreen is poison

“Spiderman is incredibly homoerotic” links

Posted: 04 Feb 2011 11:52 AM PST

I didn't know Spiderman was this homoerotic! [The Blemish]
Rihanna probably ripped off a world-famous photographer. [PopBytes]
Benjamin Millepied: Golddigger. The NYT makes it so. [LaineyGossip]
Jesus, 30 Rock was so good last night. [Pajiba]
Oh, holy hell. Julie Bowen simply cannot dress. [Go Fug Yourself]
Alexander Skarsgard in black. Nice. [A Socialite Life]
Howard Stern apologizes to David Letterman. [PopEater]
No more White Stripes. [Agent Bedhead]
Poor Anderson Cooper. [Dlisted]
What to Expect when you're expecting the Super Bowl. [Evil Beet]
I kind of hate that Justin Bieber was kind of cute on The Daily Show. [Celebuzz]
Is Lady Gaga's music racist, simplistic, condescending garbage? [IDLITW]
Jenny McCarthy appearing on Millionaire Matchmaker? [LimeLife]
Name something that gets passed around. Kate Hudson! [Seriously? OMG! WTF?]
Rachel Bilson should try to be more interesting. [The Frisky]
Amber Heard is in Esquire. Who? [Yeeeah]
Naomi Campbell's married boyfriend got stung by a jellyfish. Sure. Right. Whatever you say, Naomi. [Pop Sugar]

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Ralph Fiennes in talks to play the villain in the new James Bond film

Posted: 04 Feb 2011 11:04 AM PST

I'm so tired today that I typed in "James Bong" and I just sat here for a full minute thinking "Is that his name? That doesn't sound right." Bong, James Bong. Double-O *toke*. Anyway, earlier this week, the rumors were floating around about Javier Bardem possibly/probably being cast as "the villain" in the new James Bond film, which will begin filming in a few months. Javier has not confirmed or denied anything, and some say that he probably won't end up taking the part, which means my little homoerotic dream for Daniel and Javier to fight each other in a vat of baby oil is likely gone. But homoerotic James Bong fantasties will never die! The Daily Mail's gossip guy reports that Sam Mendes (who is directing the new Bond film) has approached Ralph Fiennes to play a villain. Oh, be still my heart. LOVE it. Also - there's a chance that Ralph and Javier could both be in it, but playing separate villains. Damn… James Bong producers have been reading my dream journal.

Ralph Fiennes is being lined up as one of the stars of the next James Bond movie. I can reveal that his Hollywood representatives are in discussions with the producers and director Sam Mendes about a role in the film that so far is known only as James Bond 23.

Mendes, who will direct Daniel Craig as Bond and Judi Dench as M, has spoken to Fiennes about taking on what has been described to me as 'a darkly complex' role. Fiennes is not interested in the usual run-of-the-mill action picture, but he was intrigued when he was told of Mendes's 'revolutionary' plans for Bond 23.

'It's the first of a new generation of Bond films, and the ideas Mendes has push the film into darker territory where the characters are modern, mature and challenging,' a film executive in Los Angeles connected to the production told me.

At the moment, the situation with Fiennes is purely at the discussion stage. I was told Fiennes was approached because 'the part is one of extreme complexity and only an actor of great ability and dexterity can take it on — and Ralph's name is top of our list'.

From what I can gather, it's not the same part that's being talked about for Javier Bardem.

I'm told a couple of other major names are being courted for roles in the picture. At one point Kevin Spacey was spoken to about doing Bond 23, but he was alreadly gearing up to play Richard III, which Mendes is directing at the Old Vic from June 18.

Fiennes has just been filming the role of the prime minister in David Hare's BBC film Page Eight. Before that, he filmed his final frame as Lord Voldemort for the last Harry Potter movie. Next weekend, he travels to Germany, where his much anticipated film version of Coriolanus, featuring Vanessa Redgrave and Gerard Butler, will have its world premiere at the Berlin Film Festival.

Mendes and Fiennes are old friends, by the way. The actor led the director's Royal Shakespeare Company production of Troilus And Cressida more than two decades ago. The play also featured Simon Russell Beale — who also may pop up in Bond 23.

[From The Daily Mail]

Ralph is excellent at playing villains. He just has a serial killer vibe on screen, which is weird, because he also comes across as so fragile and delicate and beautiful. Or is that just me? He's fragile but psychotic, I guess. Or, he's able to project that.

No all Sam Mendes has to do is cast Michael Fassbender and Jon Hamm, and they'll have to rename the movie James Bong: Panty Explosion.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Kim Kardashian is allegedly “amazed & unhappy” by the Halle-Gabriel situation

Posted: 04 Feb 2011 10:07 AM PST

The ongoing Halle Berry-Gabriel Aubry drama has included some choice comments about Kim Kardashian, who Gabe dated very briefly back in November of last year. I think the whole thing lasted a couple of weeks, although none of it was really confirmed. What's been missing from all of the reporting is Kim Kardashian's take - she hasn't said anything about Gabe or Nahla or Halle, which makes me have some kind of strange respect for her. It's almost like she doesn't want to get involved in the trashy melee, which is shockingly smart (for Kim). But The Chicago Sun-Times (via The Superficial) has a gossip piece about how Kim is feeling about the situation behind the scenes:

I've learned that Kim Kardashian is both amazed and extremely unhappy that her name has been dragged into this muddy melee.

…. Not only has Kardashian gone out of her way to deny any link to Aubry beyond a platonic friendship, but a good friend of the TV personality says Kim is particularly bothered because she feels Berry has repeatedly snubbed her — both at red carpet and private social events in Hollywood.

As for being around Nahla, Kardashian is said to be confused about that, "since Kim only saw the little girl once or twice. … She wouldn't even recognize Nahla if she saw her somewhere without either Gabriel or Halle with her.

[From The Chicago Sun-Times via The Superficial]

I want to believe this is crap. Kim wouldn't even recognize Nahla? Seriously? Not even from photos?!? And yes, Halle probably has snubbed Kim at red carpet events. A-listers tend to snub C-listers who are famous for porn and getting naked repeatedly.

Speaking of, what Kim is famous for, she has some new thoughts about her W Magazine nude pictorial and her previous histrionics:

They say hindsight is 20/20, and no one knows that better than Kim Kardashian. Though the 30-year-old sobbed during Sunday’s episode of Kourtney and Kim Take New York when W Magazine published “full-on porn” pictures of her in its annual November Art Issue, Kardashian tells UsMagazine.com she’s had a change of heart.

“Looking back, I love the photos,” she told Us at Thursday’s REVOLVEclothing.com event in L.A. “W Magazine is iconic so I’m really happy that I did it and that those are the photos.”

So what brought on the tears?

“It’s just that that’s not what I thought they were going to be,” she explained. “Obviously I’m comfortable posing nude — I’ve done that before, and I did that then for the magazine. But that’s probably not the direction I would’ve wanted to go if I thought that was going to be the case.”

(W Magazine fired back Tuesday, telling New York Magazine’s The Cut that “Kim Kardashian’s cover was conceived as an artistic collaboration with well-known artist Barbara Kruger, and was a meditation on the influence that reality TV has on contemporary culture.”)

In retrospect, Kardashian told Us she has no regrets about stripping down for the fashion mag — even if she did shed a few tears on national TV.

“When you shoot something, you hope that it turns out the way that you expected it to be,” she said. “But looking back, that was my initial reaction when I saw the pictures and I was just really upset. I do think the pictures are beautiful.”

[From Us Weekly]

You mean someone's reaction was hyped up and exploited for reality show ratings? You mean Kim is a drama queen? You mean that if you pose nude a million times AND make a porno, you should lose the theatrics about how a photo shoot is "full on porn"? Shocking!

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Gisele Bundchen says sunscreen is poison

Posted: 04 Feb 2011 09:55 AM PST

“Mother Superior” Gisele Bundchen’s sanctimony is well known. She’s said that breastfeeding should be a worldwide law, she’s bragged about giving birth at home without medication and she’s said that women who gain weight while they’re pregnant treat their bodies like “garbage disposals.” Like supermodel Miranda Kerr before her, Bundchen has an organic skincare line and has made some ignorant comments about it. Gisele recently drew the ire of dermatologists, doctors and melanoma sufferers by calling sunscreen poison. She claimed she never wears it and only goes out in the sun before 8:00 am. There are plenty of candid bikini photos of this woman that suggest otherwise.

Don’t hate her because she’s beautiful. Rather, people attack Gisele Bundchen, 30, for the controversial things she says.

The supermodel’s latest gaffe: claiming she doesn’t use sun tan lotions because all of the chemicals they contain.

“I cannot put this poison on my skin,” Bundchen — who has appeared in ad campaigns for Nivea Sun products — said at the launch of her own organic skin care range, according to the UK’s Daily Mail. “I do not use anything synthetic.”

Instead, the leggy beauty says she protects herself from sun damage by only exposing herself to rays before 8 A.M.

However, cancer experts have been quick to question Bundchen’s expertise on the matter.

“Sunscreen prevents damage to the skin and is of fundamental importance for the prevention of cancer,” said Dolival Loao, head of dermatology at Brazil’s National Cancer Institute. “This is not any poison, when a public person makes a statement like this, it creates confusion.”

[From US Weekly]

I don’t know why I’m bothering, but I’ll concede that some commercial sunscreen contains ingredients that can be considered harmful and even toxic. However, when pitted against the very real dangers of sun exposure, the risk from synthetic ingredients in sunscreen is minor. Plus there are very safe, organic, effective sunscreens with all natural ingredients for people who are concerned about chemicals in the products they put on their skin. (Here’s a list of safe and effective sunscreens from the Environmental Working Group. Their Skin Deep cosmetic safety website has more on the importance of sunscreen.)

Here’s are photos of Gisele at the beach this October, obviously after 8:00 am, with her son Benjamin, who is naked apart from a baseball cap. I guess we can assume she didn’t put any sunscreen on her baby, who she claims has been potty trained since he was six months old. This woman who lets her baby go out at the beach naked without sunscreen thinks it should be a crime to feed babies formula. Dumb and self righteous don’t even begin to describe her.

Update: Gisele has tried to clarify her statement. She calls this a “misunderstanding” and says “I do use sunblock but also I try my best not to be exposed to the sun when it is too strong… I definitely know the importance of using sunscreen and I try to look for more natural options.”

Photo credit: BauerGriffin

Pages

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Cele|bitchy

Cele|bitchy

No comments:

Post a Comment