Cele|bitchy

Morrissey blasts the royal wedding, calls royal family “benefit scroungers”
Kate Middleton looks cool as a cucumber in her last (?) pre-wedding appearance
Justin Timberlake on casual sex: “It’s a really good idea until it becomes a bad idea”
Jennifer Aniston’s “natural beauty” secret: Radiesse fillers, not Botox?
Katie Holmes issued front page apology by Star Magazine
Jessica Biel thinks Gerard Butler is “crazy” about her, which Gerard denies
Angelina & Brad’s child care costs: $1 million per kid, per year?
Kate Middleton & Prince William’s latest Testino photo: gorgeous or fug?
Khloe Kardashian: “I’m tired of pretending that I’m happy with my weight”
Robert Pattinson’s shiny brown suit: a bold choice or a bad call?

Morrissey blasts the royal wedding, calls royal family “benefit scroungers”

Posted: 28 Apr 2011 08:56 AM PDT

One of my favorite things about a big royal story - like the wedding - is that British celebrities are often called on to "explain" the royal family to America. I saw a recent interview with Helen Mirren where she was trying to explain her republican politics while still being respectful about the royal family. Robert Pattinson also was called upon to discuss the royal family, and he seemed to identify with Kate Middleton, of course. Then, there are people like Morrissey. Morrissey hates his homeland, and he hates America and he hates pretty much every country except Morrissey-Land. Note: we covered Morrissey's last controversy, where he referred to the Chinese people as a "subspecies" and then refused to apologize for it. So he gave an interview to BBC Radio 4, and he went off on the royal family:

Morrissey once sang “the Queen is dead.” Looks like he wouldn’t have been too upset had the metaphor been reality.

The legendary rocker, first of seminal 80’s band The Smiths and now a well into a prominent solo career, has been nothing if not outspoken since rising to stardom, often taking on contemporary English society. With the Royal Wedding just a day away, Morrissey shot out at his nation’s ceremonial rulers.

“Why would I watch the wedding? I couldn’t take any of that seriously,” he said in an interview with BBC Radio 4. “I don’t think the so-called Royal family speak for England now, and I don’t think England needs them.

“I do seriously believe that they are benefit scroungers, nothing else,” he continued. “I don’t believe they serve any purpose whatsoever. I’m not an anarchist, but I believe that people don’t want the Royal family — the so-called Royal family. They’re not royal to me, but they’re royal to the media for some reason.”

In his 1986 epic “The Queen Is Dead,” which launched the album of the same name, Morrissey shot broadsides against the family. Addressing Prince Charles, who was then recently married to Princess Diana, he sang, “I said Charles, don’t you ever crave/ to appear on the front of the Daily Mail/ dressed in your Mother’s bridal veil?”

In 2006, Morrissey, who has lived in Los Angeles since the mid-90’s and sang “London is dead” in the song “Glamorous Glue,” said of Charles, “The very idea of Charles being King is laughable. You might as well say that Ronnie Corbett will be king one day. I think that would give people more pleasure.” Corbett is a Scottish comedian who stands just five foot one.

[From HuffPo]

In the scope of Morrissey's greatest racist, misanthropic hits, this interview sounds kind of subdued. I actually imagine there are quite a few British people who would agree with him.

If you want to hear Morrissey's words for yourself, there's audio here, at the BBC. I found a partial clip of the interview on YouTube, but since I didn't want to listen to the whole damn thing, I don't know for sure if this includes his royal family comments. I do know that towards the 5:40 mark, he talks about David Cameron. At the 9 minute mark he starts bashing Britain as being too-American.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Kate Middleton looks cool as a cucumber in her last (?) pre-wedding appearance

Posted: 28 Apr 2011 08:10 AM PDT

Man, does Waity know how to play it or what? Here it is, less than 24 hours before she's the centerpiece of one of the biggest media events ever, and she's still making sure people get photos of her. These are new pics of Kate outside of Clarence House (William and Charles' official residence) yesterday. The bride wore white. White jacket, soft pink cowl-neck sweater, skinny little legs in skinny jeans and flats. I like the outfit quite a bit. She looks very… put-together. She doesn't look nervous either. I think we're seeing a new side to her - goodbye geisha and hello royal superstar. Isn't it funny to think that in all of the buildup to the wedding over these past few months, there was so much emphasis on "easing" Kate into royal life and how it was going to take her YEARS to really enter the huge media spotlight? Because nowadays, I think Kate is calling more shots. I think she's more prepared for all of it than everybody expects. THIS is what she spent nine years preparing herself for. Nine long Waity years, and it's a whole new Kate.

By the way, in addition to releasing the new Testino portrait and the wedding program, Kate and Will also released a statement to the press. Oh, and their vows are interesting too:

Saying they are deeply touched, Prince William and Kate Middleton thank the public for the “incredibly moving” affection and kindness shown them during their engagement.

“We are both so delighted that you are able to join us in celebrating what we hope will be one of the happiest days of our lives,” the couple write in their official wedding program, released Thursday. Their message, signed “William” and “Catherine,” goes on to say: “The affection shown to us by so many people during our engagement has been incredibly moving, and has touched us both deeply. We would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone most sincerely for their kindness.”

The program features a new black-and-white portrait of the couple by famed fashion photographer Mario Testino. Both wear white open-necked shirts and big smiles.

Also included in the 28-page program are the details of the Friday’s 11 a.m. wedding service at Westminster Abbey, including what music will be heard. Among the selections: the hymn “Jerusalem” by William Blake and the traditional “Greensleeves.”

Such well-known hymns as “Love Divine All Love Excelling” and “Guide Me O Though Great Redeemer” – better known in modern Britain as the Welsh rugby anthem “Bread of Heaven” – are also on the schedule.

The bride will walk down the aisle to the choral anthem “I Was Glad” by Sir Charles Hubert Hastings Parry, composed for the coronation of William’s great-great-great grandfather Edward VII at Westminster Abbey in 1902.

The program also provides the wording to the couple’s vows. Kate, like Princess Diana in her wedding to Prince Charles in 1981, will not promise to obey her husband. Instead she will vow to “‘love, comfort, honor and keep” William. Because only Kate will wear a wedding ring, only William will say “With this ring I thee wed” as he slips the band on his bride’s finger.

[From People]

I wonder what William's vow will be? "I promise to not throw it in your face when I screw around"? But good on Waity for not "obeying" William. It's a small step, I suppose.

Seriously, look how much Kate is enjoying all of this:

Here's a photo of Harry escorting Kate somewhere (to make royal ginger babies?):

Photos courtesy of Fame.

Justin Timberlake on casual sex: “It’s a really good idea until it becomes a bad idea”

Posted: 28 Apr 2011 07:57 AM PDT

Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis are gearing up for the release of Friends with Benefits with the obligatory press rounds. Naturally, this tour will do nothing to quiet the rumors of potential romantic involvement between these two actors, especially since both of them are newly single after Timberlake finally ditched Biel and Kunis split with Macauley Culkin (who, sadly, will never do any better). Following his breakup, Timberlake has not been linked with a new love except the famewhoring Olivia Wilde, but we haven’t heard anything about that in awhile, and everyone seems to believe that he’s sweet on Mila despite the denials to the contrary. On a positive note, all of this speculation just might work wonders for this movie’s box office take, for there appears to be much more chemistry between these two than with, say, Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman, whose similarly-themed movie (No Strings Attached) did pretty well of its own volition. At any rate, Timberlake and Kunis stopped by “The Ellen Show” to discuss the movie and, generally speaking, the problematic issue of sleeping around with friends:

Ellen: Have you ever had a friend with benefits? Do you really think that could work?

Timberlake: It’s a really good idea until it becomes a bad idea, and it probably becomes a bad idea really fast.

Ellen: Yes. I think that it would be really hard to do that.

Timberlake: I think that everybody could probably agree with us when we say that, at some point, if you’re going to be intimate with someone at some point somebody’s going to feel something.

Ellen: Yeah, unless it’s not good stuff . . . if it’s bad, then no one’s going to develop any feelings.

Timberlake: They’ll develop a feeling, but it’s going to be uh, uh.

So do we still think there could be a possible romance brewing between Kunis and Timberlake? I’m of the opinion that the newly single Kunis is enjoying her independence after six years of dating Macauley Culkin, but I do think that Timberlake still wants to hit that. Repeatedly.

Here’s a video clip (courtesy of Popsugar) of the Ellen appearance:

Photos courtesy of Fame Pictures

Jennifer Aniston’s “natural beauty” secret: Radiesse fillers, not Botox?

Posted: 28 Apr 2011 07:37 AM PDT

For a little while now, some people were wondering what Jennifer Aniston has been doing to her face. I noticed it off and on - when she was promoting some stuff last year, her face looked so tight that when she spoke, she looked like she was wincing in pain. But I've thought Aniston has been experimenting with fillers for a while - you can see it in Marley & Me, where all of sudden her cheeks looked super big and tight. Over the past year, though, lots of people have been asking, "Botox? Fillers? A subtle facelift?" Now OK! Magazine might have an answer. It sounds like their "insider" source is someone at Aniston's filler-injection doctor's office, though:

Jennifer Aniston is often described as one of Hollywood's most natural beauties and at 42, she's staying gorgeous without any surgical face or eyelifts - and sans Botox!

"I didn't like the hard aftereffects," Jen admitted after trying the treatment once.

"Aging naturally is beautiful," says Jen, who exercise and eats well to keep herself healthy and looking good. But of course, that doesn't mean she's just letting nature run wild. A source close to Aniston tells OK!, "She's had Radiesse."

According to the insider, Jen has the fuller injected into key areas of her face. "She has it done long the marionette lines [the vertical lines that extend from the bottom of the nose to the chin]," says the source. "It is also injected ever so slightly into her lips to give fullness - but not a fake bee-stung look. It is done strategically to look natural and subtle and lasts up to eight months or so."

And Radiesse has an added benefit that Botox doesn't: it actually helps speed up the productioon of natural collagen, a building-block of healthy skin, by up to 20 percent - even the first time you use it.

[From OK! Magazine, print edition]

OK also claims that Aniston gets laser treatments and chemical peels, and that she drinks 12 glasses of water a day. Sure. "Water." As for this advertisement for Radiesse, I tend to think it's probably true. I think Aniston has Filler-Face, not Botox-Face. And while I think it's kind of funny that she still gets to be called a "natural beauty" who is "aging naturally," I applaud her for going in for more subtle work. It could be much, much worse. But this way, her supporters get to scream about how she's NATURAL and we're all haters while the rest of us are examining the photo evidence.

In other Aniston news, her (alleged) stalking of Bradley Cooper has taken the cover of this week's InTouch Weekly. Now, Bradley Cooper's people already denied any romance with Aniston in last week's Us Weekly. But don't let that stop Team Aniston's press machine! According to In Touch (via Jezebel), Aniston has been "throwing herself” into the relationship with B-Coop, and she's been texting Bradley all the time, which is apparently her pattern, according to an insider: “she has a pattern of texting and emailing with guys for months, and by the time they see each other again, they’re serious.” According to the same source, though, Bradley is trouble because he is a “known fame-seeker who uses his charm and good looks to get close to A-List actresses, only to cut and run.” Um, really? Because he maintained a steady relationship with Renee Zellweger for nearly two years, he's some kind of famewhore who will only date certain people for attention? Oh, wait. The source was talking about Aniston, right?

Photos courtesy of Fame, WENN & CoverAwards.

Katie Holmes issued front page apology by Star Magazine

Posted: 28 Apr 2011 06:54 AM PDT

Back in January, Star Magazine ran a front page cover story (image below) suggesting that Katie Holmes was a drug addict. The inside story (detailed here if you’re interested) was about how the auditing sessions in Katie and Tom’s Scientology cult could be addicting like drugs. The real details of Scientology’s scary brainwashing practices are more shocking than a drug addiction, but I understand Star going for a bait and switch cover with a more accessible angle. The cult stuff has been covered quite a bit before.

Well “Katie” aka the Sci Goons, sued Star Magazine for $50 million for libel as a result. That was back in early March. Since then, Star canned their editor and it doesn’t seem like a coincidence. Star has now issued a front page apology for insinuating that Katie was addicted to drugs and they’re giving an undisclosed donation to a charity of her choice. I was assuming Katie’s charity would be Scientology-related, but according to Reuters it’s the “Dizzy Feet Foundation,” which Katie co-founded and helps give dance classes to underprivileged youth.

Star Magazine just issued a MASSIVE mea culpa to Katie Holmes — publishing an apology on the COVER of its latest issue … after the tabloid printed a headline suggesting Katie was a drug addict.

Katie filed a $50 million defamation lawsuit against the magazine last month, claiming Star’s January headline — “ADDICTION NIGHTMARE! Katie DRUG SHOCKER! — was “untrue, unethical and unlawful.”

Katie’s rep tells TMZ, the lawsuit is now water under the bridge … that it’s been settled … and Star’s publisher American Media even made a “substantial” donation to Katie’s charity.

As for Star’s in-mag apology — it reads in part, "Star did not intend to suggest that Ms. Holmes was a drug addict or was undergoing treatment for a drug addiction. Star apologizes to Ms. Holmes for any misperception …”

Katie released her own statement today, saying, "I'm pleased that this lawsuit could be resolved amicably and accept American Media's apology."

[From TMZ]

At least the money is going to decent charity. Maybe Star will clean up its act a little under Radar Online editor David Perel, who is taking over for former editor Candace Trunzo. I hope they stay trashy but get a little more truthful.

Star Scan via CoverAwards.

The cover in which they apologize (see title across the top)

The cover that Star was sued over from January, 2011

Katie is shown out in Beverly Hills on 4/27/11. Credit: Fame

Jessica Biel thinks Gerard Butler is “crazy” about her, which Gerard denies

Posted: 28 Apr 2011 06:41 AM PDT

Another week, another Jessica Biel-Gerard Butler story. Can I just say something? Jessica is really pissing me off. I wanted to have sympathy for her post-breakup with Justin Timberlake, but Biel is grating on my last nerve with all of these "rumors" and "insider dish" stories about how Gerard Butler is so hot for her. Her publicist already leaked to Us Weekly that Gerard was really trying to bone her, which he denied. Then she leaked some more stuff about how much he wanted her, and how she loves their friendship and didn't know if she should give it up, and then, last we heard, she managed to get a story into People Magazine about how she and Gerard bought "cupcakes" for the entire crew. At this point, she'll just do anything to have her name put together with Gerard's. And before you start yelling at me and saying that Gerard is a slut, I KNOW. I know he probably hit that. I also know that he's probably knee-deep in Shreveport biscuits. Gerard does not pine away. He is not looking for a relationship, and he certainly isn't hard up for Jessica's stalker ass.

So… the latest story comes from Star Magazine (story via Jezebel). According to their source, Biel's publicist, Gerard is "crazy" about Biel and he has been "practically glued to her side.” Take it away, Gossip Cop!

"Jessica & Gerard GETTING CLOSE," reads a headline from Star, recycling an old rumor that Jessica Biel and Gerard Butler are now a romantic pair.

According to a supposed "insider" for the tabloid, Butler "is crazy about Jessica and has been practically glued to her side" while they shoot their rom-com Playing the Field in Louisiana.

Biel allegedly told Butler she just wanted to "be friends" at first, which has supposedly made the actor "chase her even more."

It's not "an official romance yet," says Star, but the pair has been spotted "buying sandwiches" at a local deli and doing karaoke at a nearby hotspot.

However, despite such scandalous sandwich-buying (oh, my!), the magazine's story about a budding relationship between the co-stars is way off-base.

Butler and Biel are NOT romantically involved.

A source close to Butler tells Gossip Cop the actors are working on Playing the Field together – and that is all.

[From Gossip Cop]

I wonder is Gerard is scared of her. If I was a dude and I was on Biel's radar, I would be terrified of her. She's got that Fatal Attraction vibe (to me at least). I know dudes always say that Crazy is good in bed, but I don't even believe it in this case. I think when Biel is trying to land a boyfriend, she's crazy, but when she's got a man, she's just clingy and vanilla and boring.

Since Biel is trying so hard to land somebody, let's help her out. Who should she try once she realizes that Gerard has no interest whatsoever in dating her? Strong possibilities: Jake Gyllenhaal, Zac Efron, Penn Badgely, Alex Pettyfer (God, could you imagine?), Bradley Cooper… oh, I've got a good one! David Arquette! He's wounded, she's desperate. They could really make a go of it.

Photos courtesy of Fame & WENN.

Angelina & Brad’s child care costs: $1 million per kid, per year?

Posted: 28 Apr 2011 06:00 AM PDT

This story comes on the heels of the non-story that the Jolie-Pitt children are being raised by an educating, bilingual nanny army. At the time, I thought "meh" because we all know that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have nannies, and having high hiring standards just seems like a smart choice. Now InTouch Weekly is dialing up the Scandal-Meter by getting into specific (alleged) numbers for the cost of the Jolie-Pitts' childcare. InTouch (via The Mail) thinks that Angelina and Brad are paying about $1 million per child, per year. Let's see the breakdown, shall we?

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie spend a staggering $10 million (£6.1 million) on childcare for their brood, it was claimed today. The superstar couple rack up huge child care, travel and food bills every month looking after their six kids. As well as spending $5 million (£3.1 million) on private jets, the Hollywood pair splashed out $900,000 (£541,000) last year on a nanny for each of the children.

Feeding adopted Maddox, nine, Pax, seven, Zahara, six, Shiloh, four, and biological twins Knox and Vivienne, two, meanwhile costs around $36,000 (£22,000 ). And having a nanny for each of them costs up to $900,000 (£541,000).

A source told a US magazine In Touch: ‘They spend more than a million dollars on private tutors who travel around the world with them. They [even] once spent $500,000 (£301,000) for one stay at the Waldorf [Astoria hotel in New York].'

The couple also spent an estimated several million dollars on first-class airfare and hotel bills for the youngsters. Representatives for Pitt, 47, and Jolie, 35, were not available for comment. The news comes just days after it was revealed that the couple were on the hunt for a new nanny.

The pair are apparently prepared to pay a £90,000 a year salary for the lucky applicant. They will also be required to travel between California, New Orleans and France, as well as other film locations around the world.

As well as a degree in education or child development, Brad and Angelina are demanding the nanny should speak at least two different languages, as well as the native tongues of their children.

Brad’s parents, Bill and Jane, recently moved in to the family’s Chateau Miraval estate in France to help the couple raise their large brood - meaning the nannying position may not be a lifetime role.

A source told The Sun earlier this week: ‘The whole family is going to move there as soon as the renovations are done. At the moment they have six nannies - one for each of the kids - and the plan is to get rid of the helpers and rely on Bill and Jane. The annex they will live in is an old building which used to be used as a dovecote. It’s big enough to have a sitting room, kitchen and a couple of bedrooms. It will make a lovely little cottage for them.’

[From The Mail]

Let's see… other costs: kids' clothing, per year is allegedly $100,000. $5 million spent on private jets in a year (why not?) and $600 a day on cars. Oh, and each kid gets a $7000 birthday party. And don't forget the high cost of gerbil maintenance. That could easily run you a cool million per year, adjusting for the requisite gerbils-of-doom cost of living adjustment. The gerbils know too much. But it's easier to pay them off and maintain them rather than kill them off.

And no one is discussing the cost of Zahara's empress maintenance!

Photos courtesy of Fame.

Kate Middleton & Prince William’s latest Testino photo: gorgeous or fug?

Posted: 28 Apr 2011 05:19 AM PDT

Above is the latest Mario Testino photo of Kate Middleton and Prince William. This image will appear on the official royal wedding programs, which were just released to the public. Testino took their official engagement photos, and he has a long history with the William, Harry and with their late mother (Testino was the last portrait photographer to shoot Diana). What do you think of the image? I'm surprised with how wonderful Kate looks in black-and-white. It really suits her. As for William…well, the Photoshop is heavy on this one. Plus, they "somehow" managed to crop the photo around William's hairline. It's like a royal decree: the prince's hairline must not be shown in official royal portraiture!

Also - it feels like Kate is leaning in, trying to get closer to the camera. Like she pushing William out of frame… or is it just me? Body language reading aside, I will give them props - this is a lovely image for the wedding program.

If you'd like to see more of the program, you can go to The Mail - they've got hi-res copies of all of it. Here are a few pages, including another Testino portrait.

Testino photos courtesy of The Mail.

Khloe Kardashian: “I’m tired of pretending that I’m happy with my weight”

Posted: 28 Apr 2011 05:01 AM PDT

Khloe Kardashian covers the new issue of Us Weekly, for no reason other than her weight. Apparently, there was some issue last week because on some episode of one of the Kardashian shows, Kris Jenner told Khloe that she was negatively affecting "the Kardashian brand" because Khloe was eating cookies and she's bigger than her sisters. It was pretty rough. Anyway, this was enough to score Khloe the cover. Ugh. I mean… I like Khloe, but I really wish all of the Kardashian women would stop trying to become spokeswomen for positive body image, because all of them fail at it, spectacularly. All of them lie about their sizes, all of them have body image issues, and their mother doesn't help matters, at all. Here's an excerpt from the cover story:

It’s not easy being the “biggest” Kardashian sister. In the new issue of Us Weekly, out Wednesday, Khloe Kardashian admits red carpet events with older sibs Kim and Kourtney can take their toll on her self esteem.

“They are 5-foot and 5-foot-2, so I look massive next to them,” Khloe, who is 5-foot-10, tells Us. “Everyone expects me to be 9 feet tall and weigh 200 pounds [when they meet me].”

26-year-old Khloe — whose mom Kris Jenner even criticized her weight in a recent episode of Khloe and Lamar - has “struggled with her weight since she was 8 years old,” a family friend tells Us. “She was always taller and developed much broader shoulders than her petite sisters.”

Khloe’s mom Kris Jenner said Khloe was negatively affecting the brand by eating cookies. Then Khloe’s brother called her “big” and told her she needed to work out. Also, Khloe had photoshoot, during which she felt self-conscious. It was all too much for Khloe, who fell down on the kitchen floor and cried. “I’m so f-cking fat,” she said, and sobbed.

“I’m so tired of trying to pretend that I’m happy with my weight.”

And the E! reality star, happily married to basketball star Lamar Odom for over a year, says she first gained weight following Kris’ divorce from her late father, famed OJ Simpson trial attorney Robert Kardashian Sr.

“My brother [Rob] and I were always heavy. They gave us food to keep us comforted. All we did was eat crap,” she recalls.

Classmates and even her mom’s friends noticed that Khloe’s older sisters Kim, 30, and Kourtney, 32, stayed skinny despite the family turmoil. “I had older women tell me, ‘You should really work out,’” she explains. “It really got to me.”

Her initial response? A teenaged Khloe hit the gym, working out three times a day and eating tiny meals. She went from a size 12 to 0.

“I started to get a positive response from people when I was losing weight,” she admits.

[From Us Weekly and Jezebel]

Jesus, now she is claiming to be a size zero? Is she saying she is NOW a size zero, or that she used to be a size zero? While Kim is claiming to be a size 4? ORANGE BITCHES PLEASE. As I've said before, I don't care what size you are. BUT DON'T LIE TO ME. Don't ask me to buy your BS. Just keep your mouth shut.

By the way, Khloe ended up defending her mom about the cookie incident by saying that Kris was speaking to her as her manager, not as a mother. Ugh.

Us Weekly cover courtesy of CoverAwards. Additional pics by WENN.

Robert Pattinson’s shiny brown suit: a bold choice or a bad call?

Posted: 28 Apr 2011 04:35 AM PDT

I don't critique men's fashion enough around here. That's going to change! With this one post. It makes sense to start small with Robert Pattinson, who is by all accounts much, much prettier than most women. Plus, Sparkles was recently voted the Best Dressed Man in Britain - a decision I did not hate. Sparkles also has all of the tools to be quite stunning on the red carpet too - he has that beautiful face, he's tall and slender with lovely shoulders. He should be able to wear the hell out a suit.

So what's the problem? Nothing, really. I mean, in these photos from the Berlin premiere of Water for Elephants, I guess I could nit-pick him to death. He needs to stand up straight! He's got that tall-guy thing of slumping his shoulders, and he gives the impression that he's still not really comfortable in his own skin. Then there are his loveable, crazy-ass faces. He's very animated on the red carpet, but that's not a complaint. I love his crazy faces.

Perhaps my problem is with wearing a slightly shiny BROWN suit on a red carpet? For the most part, I kind of applaud his decision. Most men don't like brown suits. Most celebrity men wouldn't choose brown for a red carpet. The descriptors aren't good: dirt, mud, sh-tty, drab. Sparkles is unique, and he's a fashion-risk taker, only not really. Look at the suit - he actually put some thought into it and it's tailored for his body. Plus, I just like that there are celebrity men who think it's nice and appropriate to wear a suit and tie for the red carpet. It's so quaint!

So… while I'm not a huge fan of this suit on him in particular, I applaud the choice.

By the way - I keep meaning to embed this video. It's Reese Witherspoon and Sparkles interviewing each other for Moviefone. I love when they were talking about costumes and Sparkles talks about his wide hips! I love him for admitting it, and I love how Reese tries so hard not to laugh at him.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Cele|bitchy

Cele|bitchy

No comments:

Post a Comment