Cele|bitchy

---

• ‘Breaking Dawn 2′ trailer shows Bella as protector: exciting or dumb?
• Eva Mendes wears a 1950s-inspired, flowery shift dress: lovely or dated?
• Angelina Jolie shows off her magnificent Maleficent horns in an English cow pasture
• Did Vanessa Paradis walk away with a chunk of Johnny Depp’s $300 million fortune?
• Kristen Stewart. 22, named “the highest paid actress in Hollywood” by Forbes
• Emma Stone in black Gucci for the Paris ‘Spider-Man’ premiere: awful & terrible?
• Bristol Palin’s show trashed by critics: “weirdest reality show in recent history”
• PETA slams Kim Kardashian for wearing (fug) python boots: fair criticism?
• Arnold Schwarzenegger’s new silver goatee: hot or hell no?
• Benedict Cumberbatch makes his runway debut in London: sexy and Cumb-tastic?

‘Breaking Dawn 2′ trailer shows Bella as protector: exciting or dumb? Posted: 20 Jun 2012 08:54 AM PDT Here are some new images from the issue of Entertainment Weekly that we previewed last week. These photos, of course, are geared to give the first real glimpse of Edward Cullen and Bella Swan’s new progeny, Renesmee (Mackenzie Foy). Many of you commented last week on what a ridiculous name (it’s an amalgamation of Bella and Edward mothers, Renee and Esme) has been bestowed upon this half-vampire child, and I agree. But it’s not outside the realm of ridiculousness that has already been spawned by Stephenie Meyer’s vegetarian vampire universe, so it makes sense at least in that regard. Now the new trailer has debuted for Breaking Dawn: Part II, and it’s not nearly as funny as that teaser from a few months ago in which Bella stalked Bambi. Still, it’s worth watching just to marvel at the fact that nothing really happens in this sequel (as far as the book is concerned), yet the movie will still make hundreds of millions of dollars. Here’s that trailer: Get More: Movie Trailers, Movies Blog So the Cullens will now officially “go to war” with the Voltari, but those of us who have (unfortunately) read the book know that the actual “battle” that takes place is a real buzzkill. But they make them run in this trailer! That’s exciting, I guess. Not really. Yet I find it amusing when Jacob greets vampire Bella, who looks exactly the same as human Bella with red eyes. Of course, she’s still Bella. Because she’s played by Kristen Stewart, who doesn’t have a very large range as an actress even though she’s the highest paid in Hollywood. This movie will be insufferable, and it won’t even have the campy, headboard-crushing humor of the first installment. What a shame. Oh, and here’s the amusing moment when Emmett, played by Kellan Lutz, attempts to arm wrestle with Bella and fails miserably. My own (nonexistent) money is on Lutz being the fastest member of the Cullen clan to disappear into obscurity once this franchise finally ends. Bye bye, Lutzy. Photos courtesy of EW.com

Eva Mendes wears a 1950s-inspired, flowery shift dress: lovely or dated? Posted: 20 Jun 2012 08:47 AM PDT Here are some new photos of Eva Mendes flower-shopping in Los Feliz, California yesterday. Eva has been getting pap'd on a regular basis ever since she and Ryan Gosling got together. I'd have to check, but it feels like it averages out to about two or three paparazzi-friendly outings a week, and when in LA, Eva is almost always photographed solo. Do photographers stake out her house and then just follow her around as she runs her errands? Or does she (or someone else) call some photographer and say, "Eva will be at Starbucks at 10 am"? I don't know. I really don't. I do get the feeling that Eva is now dressing for the paparazzi, though. Meaning that she's trying to put together cute ensembles because she knows she's going to be photographed. For yesterday's errand – picking up flowers – Eva chose a flower-printed shift dress. This is maybe one of the cutest things I've ever seen Eva wear. I'm not crazy about her penchant for silky Hammer pants and button-covered sweaters, but I do like this. She looks like a 1950s housewife. What does it say about me that I like that look? As for the flower-purchase… do you think she's just buying flowers to beautify her nest for herself and for Ryan Gosling? Or is she going to be entertaining? I only buy flowers these days when I'm feeling blue and I want to perk myself up. I've been side-eyeing the potted orchids at my local Kroger too – should I buy myself an orchid? I should. Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

Angelina Jolie shows off her magnificent Maleficent horns in an English cow pasture Posted: 20 Jun 2012 07:33 AM PDT Yesterday, we got to see the first promotional image of Angelina Jolie in character as Maleficent – go here to see. I loved the gorgeous, scary, dark, sinister, beautiful image that they chose, and I think it bodes well for the film. Plus, who doesn't love to see a woman rocking some horns? With that in mind, here are some brand new photos of Angelina filming in an English countryside today – note all of the cows. Was Maleficent's first gig as a cattle rancher or something? “Maleficent: Texas Ranger”. So many questions. CB was surprised by how BIG Angelina's horns are. Once again, I think it bodes well – Maleficent is known for her elaborate horned headpieces, and it's cool that they're sticking so close to the character. As for the rest of the costume… brown sacks!!! Brown capes. Brown cloaks. I told you so. This film is going to be full of sacks and cloaks and capes and MAGNIFICENT HORNS. I wish I could wear horns in my daily life. Can these paparazzi jags get a decent telephoto lens or what? Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

Did Vanessa Paradis walk away with a chunk of Johnny Depp’s $300 million fortune? Posted: 20 Jun 2012 07:05 AM PDT These are some photos of Vanessa Paradis in Cabourg, France over the weekend. Obviously, she was flying solo at the Romantic Film Festival, but she did look happy and… free? A source told People Magazine that everything about her separation "was all decided before she got on that plane.” Which brings me to the questions I have, and I think a lot of people have: just when did everything go to hell between Vanessa and Johnny Depp? There have been rumors about them for a year, and those rumors really heated up in the past six months, with allegations of affairs (mostly on Johnny's part) and financial dealings (did Vanessa already get a settlement?) and a constant back-and-forth in the media. I really don't know WHEN they split, but I suspect that it's not the version we're getting right now. People Magazine has a quote from a source close to the couple claiming that Johnny and Vanessa have been trying to work things out for months – “They’ve tried for months to save the relationship… but have known for weeks that it couldn’t be saved.” For weeks? My guess is still "months". Anyway, The Mail has an exhaustive piece about the split, and since there's some new information in there, let's just go ahead and go through it: They were said to have been living separate lives from months before it was finally confirmed that Johnny Depp and Vanessa Paradis had split. And while the break up was only confirmed yesterday it seems that the French singer was preparing to move on and move out weeks ago. Vanessa, 39, was seen house hunting at a number of plush properties in Beverly Hills at the end of May. The Café de Flore star visited a number of properties with price tags of between $7million and $11million. Vanessa appeared glum as she looked around the properties on May 23 and there was no mistaking the strain of the relationship breakdown has taken its toll. The French star was seen looking at a number of properties in Malibu and Beverly Hills including a seven bedroom home which is listed at $7,995,000. As late as last month Johnny Depp had denied there was any rift between himself and Vanessa, despite reports stating that they were living separate lives dating back to January. A source told The Sun last night: ‘It's so sad. Johnny and Vanessa gambled that they could move to California and be on long stays on film locations for his career. They bet that things would continue there as they had in the south of France. They lost that bet. She went seven years between albums and films, while he became Captain Jack Sparrow in the Pirates films.’ Reasons for the split have ranged from career obligations pulling them apart to claims Depp had a fling with his Rum Diaries co-star Amber Heard. The blonde bombshell, who came out as bi-sexual in 2010, was seen boarding Johnny’s private jet to Las Vegas in April, fuelling rumours of a relationship between the co-stars. Yesterday Depp’s publicist confirmed the split in a statement that read: ‘Johnny Depp and Vanessa Paradis have amicably separated. Please respect their privacy and, more importantly, the privacy of their children.’ Depp is worth an estimated $300million and the family have divided their time between their homes in Meudon, in the suburbs of Paris, two in Los Angeles, an island he bought in The Bahamas and their villa in Le Plan-de-la-Tour, a small town 20 km from Saint-Tropez, in the south of France. [From The Mail] The real estate stuff is so interesting because, for the past year, Johnny Depp has reportedly been buying up properties in England and Los Angeles like they were candy. I guess part of the settlement with Vanessa is that she'll have her own place in Los Angeles, where she and the kids can stay when they're visiting Johnny at work? I wonder how the custodial issues are going to work out in the end – especially because Lily-Rose is already a teenager. Oh, and I suspect Johnny is worth more than $300 million. Which was probably a factor in the settlement? Photos courtesy of WENN.

Kristen Stewart. 22, named “the highest paid actress in Hollywood” by Forbes Posted: 20 Jun 2012 06:06 AM PDT I keep telling you, Hollywood is going to make Kristen Stewart out to be the next Angelina Jolie. Megan Fox's attempts were a bust. Zoe Saldana was a non-starter. But Kristen has the staying power, and she incites controversy and fan flame-wars like no one else save Angelina. And now Kristen is even taking over one of Angelina's old positions: that of "the highest-paid actress in Hollywood." Forbes released their list of "Highest Paid Actresses" yesterday, and Kristen is positioned at the top – above such actresses as (in descending order): Cameron Diaz, Sandra Bullock, Angelina, Charlize Theron, Julia Roberts, Sarah Jessica Parker, Meryl Streep, Kristen Wiig, and Jennifer Aniston. Incidentally, Kristen is the only actress on the Top Ten who is under the age of 30. It's a brand new Hollywood (except not really)! Studios are notoriously stingy when it comes to paying young actors for the first film in a planned franchise. Forget about the $10 million they would have had to shell out to get a big name — an up-and-comer is lucky to get $800,000. That changes dramatically when it comes to the third and fourth films in a series. Suddenly, the star becomes indispensable and the studio has to pay up. That's why Kristen Stewart has vaulted to the top of our annual list of the highest-paid actresses in Hollywood. At this point, could anyone else play Bella Swan in Twilight? Probably not; if the studio tried to switch in another actress, fans would revolt. So for the last two Twilight films, Stewart has been able to demand an estimated $12.5 million per film, plus a share of the profits. Her two co-stars, Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner, get paid the same, but Stewart earned more than them this year because of Snow White and the Huntsman. Stewart's earnings between May 2011 and May 2012 totaled $34.5 million, helping her rank 43rd on our Celebrity 100 list. (The list measures a combination of money and fame.) At 22, Stewart is the youngest woman on our list by 16 years. The next youngest is Kristen Wiig who is 38. Last year Stewart ranked 5th on our list of the Highest-Paid Actresses tied with Julia Roberts. This year Roberts ranked 6th. Women are still paid less than men in the movie business. The 10 actresses who make up our list earned a total $200 million compared to the $361 million brought in by our top 10 men. To determine who the highest-paid actresses in Hollywood are, we considered upfront pay, profit participation, residuals, endorsements and advertising work. We talked to manager, agents, lawyers and other in-the-know folks to come up with our estimates. We did not deduct for things like agent fees or the expenses related to being a celebrity. [Via Forbes] Damn, that's a lot of money per lip-bite and eye-roll! Still, I'm kind of surprised that Kristen's flat-rate for the Breaking Dawn films was only $12.5 million – which is probably why she's making so much more in the backend. Other stars might have asked for the money upfront, in a flat-out payment of $20 million or even $25 million for the sequels. But Kristen must have a really smart business manager to get a backend deal, because everyone knew after Twilight and New Moon that the franchise was only going to expand even further. Anyway… I'm kind of proud of Kristen. I'm glad that such a young woman is having such success in Hollywood, and that success hasn't made her a total mess. Photos courtesy of WENN.

Emma Stone in black Gucci for the Paris ‘Spider-Man’ premiere: awful & terrible? Posted: 20 Jun 2012 05:36 AM PDT OMG, these photos are so BAD. Poor Emma Stone. Poor Andrew Garfield. I really do feel like The Amazing Spider-Man is going to be a blunder – perhaps a well-made, well-executed blunder, but the box office is going to suck. That's just how I'm feeling right now, and God knows, I've been wrong before. Anyway, these are photos of Emma and Andrew at the Paris premiere of The Amazing Spider-Man. I think their styles are telegraphing the film's bad performance. While I'm not strictly opposed to a stylish man wearing a maroon Balenciaga suit on a red carpet, that man better be Robert Downey Jr., not Andrew Garfield. Instead of looking stylish, I think Andrew looks like a cartoon. He simply doesn't photograph well – I know I say that about a lot of people, but seriously. Andrew is a good-looking, talented young man, and he's simply not photogenic. As for Emma… she went for this completely horrible Gucci. This is making me long for the Elie Saab jumpsuit from the UK premiere, and I really didn't care for the Saab either. SHE LOOKS AWFUL. She was once a beautiful, spunky, ginger standout. And now she looks like every other too-skinny Hollywood blonde. The blonde hair washes her out. The black washes her out. The blood-red lipstick is a mistake. This whole thing is a catastrophe. Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.

Bristol Palin’s show trashed by critics: “weirdest reality show in recent history” Posted: 20 Jun 2012 05:05 AM PDT I’ll be honest, I haven’t yet seen Bristol Palin’s new reality show, “Life’s a Tripp.” I tried to get access to it, but I’m away from home so I couldn’t DVR it and it’s not available on demand or on iTunes. Judging from the clips that People had up last week, and the scathing reviews, I kind of dodged a bullet on that one. Almost all reviewers agree that it’s awful, and they have a lot of the same complaints. Many outlets are calling Bristol out for bitching about being a single mom and completely ignoring the fact that she has massive means at her disposal. (An issue I take with a lot of reality shows, incidentally, particularly “Teen Mom.”) In one scene that was previewed on People, Bristol cries to her 17 year-old sister, Willow, begging her to stay in L.A. in the amazing home they somehow landed (for the show, surely) in order to basically serve as a babysitter for Bristol’s three year-old son, Tripp. I get that Bristol doesn’t know many people in L.A., but she could easily find a daycare or babysitting service for the child. (And in a subsequent scene, Bristol and Willow are shown shopping alone, which begs the question: who’s watching Tripp?) That’s not what this show is about. It’s about manufactured drama and inane dialogue, like so many other reality shows. Only this one fails miserably, according to every account I’ve read. I’ll quote Yahoo!’s Shine here, because they do a good job of summing up the consensus on this show from multiple reviewers: In the first episode, Bristol moves from Wasilla, Alaska to Los Angeles, allegedly to “show Tripp what’s out there.” (Because three-year-olds are so interested in the wider world.) She moves into a pre-fab Beverly Hills mansion and is joined by her 17-year-old sister Willow, who has come to help with the babysitting. The episode ends with an incident that was widely publicized during the show’s filming, in which Bristol goes out to a bar, rides a mechanical bull and gets in a fight with a heckler. The man calls her mother “a whore.” The following exchange in which Bristol concludes that he must be “a homosexual” did not air. (See the video here.) The critics point out that Bristol’s parenting challenges aren’t quite the same as most people’s. Her childcare issues, writes Robert Lloyd in The Los Angles Times, “stem from not wanting to hire ‘some random baby-sitter,’ not from a lack of wherewithal.” Lloyd also points out that we see Bristol and Willow shop for groceries and clothing, “without Tripp…presumably looking after himself back at the mansion.” Lori Rackl of the Chicago Sun-Times notes that “The trio move into a Beverly Hills mansion where Bristol has to teach Tripp things like the difference between a bidet and a water fountain. No one said being a single mom was easy.” Perhaps more disturbing for fans of the adorable, scene-stealing Tripp, Bristol’s son with her teenage-years boyfriend Levi Johnston, is the single mom’s willingness to torch Tripp’s dad on national television. Alessandra Stanley, reviewing the show in The New York Times, writes that “the show’s promos show Bristol putting Johnston’s memoir ‘Deer in the Headlights,’ on a range and firing at it with a rifle, saying, ‘This is for all the single moms.’” Stanley says that “Much of the narrative revolves around Bristol’s attempts to shame her ex-boyfriend into seeing his son.” Here are the takeaways from the critics: The New York Times “That big sister-little sister dynamic [between Bristol and Willow] has some real-life resonance, but the “Teen Mom” poignancy is undercut by the palatial surroundings.” The Washington Post “Even if you have a lasting grudge against all things Palin, there’s no payoff here. It’s a new low for anyone who makes the mistake of watching.” The Los Angeles Times “We’re left with a show about two sisters, temporarily billeted in a Beverly Hills mansion, mostly complaining about Los Angeles, each other and their lives.” Chicago Sun-Times “With the exception of the bull-ride-gone-bad scene, Bristol’s day-to-day life isn’t very interesting. Neither are the occasional shots where Sarah Palin pops up to offer homespun wisdom and maternal advice…. What we’re left with are Bristol and Willow shopping, squabbling and engaging in vapid conversations. In other words, the Alaskan Kardashians.” [From Shine.Yahoo.Com] That “Alaskan Kardashian” argument resonated through a the critiques, but many wrote that the show in no way lived up to the Kardashians. EW’s commentary is particularly scathing: But whatever you were expecting from Bristol Palin's reality show, I can't imagine that anyone was expecting Life's a Tripp to turn into one of the weirdest — and most uncomfortable — reality shows in recent history. Because the show is not a catchy piece of pop propaganda like Sarah Palin's Alaska. Nor is it a "My Funny Famous Family" riff on The Osbournes. Nor is it a show about the struggles of parenting, like Teen Mom or pre-controversy Jon & Kate Plus Eight. Instead, the season premiere of Life's a Tripp saw Bristol Palin trying to go full Kardashian, to pitch herself as a character who is simultaneously approachable and decadent. She failed, quite visibly. Besides Mother and Daughter Palin, almost no one seemed to want to be on screen. [From EW] As Yahoo explained, the scene where Bristol Palin asked a heckler if he was a “homosexual” (because, in her mind, that was relevant to why he was trash-talking her mom) was edited so that part was taken out. We all saw the video already, Lifetime isn’t fooling anyone. That guy is currently suing Lifetime, and Bristol, for using his footage for the show without getting his sign-off. That’s not the only lawsuit the show is facing. Do you remember the rumors that Bristol’s reality show was originally going to feature the Massey brothers, including Bristol’s DWTS castmate Kyle, all living together in L.A.? According to a new lawsuit, the entire concept of a Bristol Palin and Massey brothers reality show was conceived and pitched by the Massey family, who got cut out of the deal without compensation. Angela Massey issued a statement that explains their side of the story: “It is unfortunate that after months of trying to resolve this matter the professional way, we were left with no other course of action than to take legal action to protect ourselves. If you read the entire complaint, and particularly pages 8-11, you will see how we created the show, registered the show and did all the leg work to bring this idea to TV and to the defendants, who stole our concept.” Maybe this show would have been watchable if the Massey brothers were involved. As it is, it sounds like a big contrived mess. I doubt that all the episodes will even air.

PETA slams Kim Kardashian for wearing (fug) python boots: fair criticism? Posted: 20 Jun 2012 05:00 AM PDT PETA has had a hate-on for Kim Kardashian for years. Kim made all of the PETA's "Worst Celebrity" lists because Kim wears fur and leather and all kinds of animal-related gear. Plus, Kim is actively trying to remake her face into that of a cat, so PETA has really had enough with her. Back in March, a not-so-rogue PETA activist even flour-bombed Kim on the red carpet for her latest perfume launch – the activist supposedly yelled "FUR HAG" at Kim before dousing her in flour, although Kim was not wearing fur at the time. She was wearing leather though… but I guess "leather hag" sounds more like an issue in the gay biker community. Anyway, this is just a long way of saying that Kim and PETA aren't going to be getting along any time soon. Kim stepped out in Paris wearing these python boots (the photos in this post) and PETA issued a press release before the photos had even made the gossip blog rounds: Kim Kardashian and Kanye West have already won the title of PETA’s most hated couple for their fur-loving ways and now the undiscerning fashionista has ruffled the feathers of the animal rights group yet again, RadarOnline.com can exclusively reveal. The Keeping Up With The Kardashians star strutted down the boulevards of Paris on Tuesday in a pair of thigh-high Christian Louboutin python boots, which retail for $5,495 and are banned in her home state of California. “They’d go well with a Dalmatian-fur coat, which is also illegal to sell in California and immoral to sell anywhere else,” Wendy Wegner, a spokesperson for People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals tells RadarOnline.com in an exclusive interview, in a damning comparison to evil Disney character Cruella de Ville. The most recent scaly stand-off is the latest in a long line of collisions between Kardashian and PETA, which has included her being slammed in a giant billboard for wearing fox fur, and resulted in Kim being flour-bombed by a supporter during a red carpet event last March. According to the California Penal Code Section 653o it is unlawful to import python into California for commercial purposes, to posses with intent to sell, or sell within the state. However, it is not illegal to purchase python in another state and carry it over. After PETA called out Reese Witherspoon for carrying a Chloe Paraty python and leather purse last November and sent her an educational video about how cruel it was, the Water For Elephants star ditched the offensive accessory. It seems unlikely the tough-skinned Kim will do the same though as she’s shown a blatant disregard for their opinions in the past! [From Radar] I remember that Reese Witherspoon thing – go here for a refresher. Reese was carrying a gorgeous Chloe python bag in LA, and PETA climbed up her ass about it. Then, a few days later, PETA claimed that Reese had "given up" the bag, although I thought that story reeked of BS. I also remember being surprised that the state of California has a law on the books criminalizing the sale and purchase of python skins/leather. You can wear python stuff – you just can't sell it or buy it in California. It seems kind of random and not all that easy to enforce, but whatever. Obviously, Kim bought her boots outside of California, and she's wearing them in a completely different country, so I'm not sure what PETA's goal is other than to publicly bitch it ("raise awareness"). Also: Am I alone in being more offended by the horrendous fashion overall? The boots are fug, but the dress with the belt? That's hurting my eyes. Photos courtesy of WENN.

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s new silver goatee: hot or hell no? Posted: 20 Jun 2012 04:28 AM PDT I have a confession to make: I love goatees. I think they’re hot. I’m not talking about those skinny, weak-looking excuses for goatees that are just lines of hair framing a dude’s chin area. I hate those! I’m not talking about a soul patch or a mustache or one of those Abraham-Lincoln looking monstrosities. I talking about a nice, fully developed goatee, as typified by this lovely photo of Colin Farrell. That just made me go to a nice place for a few moments, so I’ll post that photo here. So in theory I would like Arnold Schwarzenegger’s new goatee. Salt and peper and fully silver goatees are hot on dudes. Let’s gaze at Brad Pitt with a goatee for a brief moment, and imagine it tickling us in various places. I’m just trying to justify my goatee love and put off the inevitable photo of Arnie. Ready? Yeah, that wouldn’t do it for most of us. It’s the fact that the curtains don’t match the valance. Plus we know what a scumbag this guy is, as powerful as he is. I’ll say something though, before he dyed his hair orange brown and tried to work some high-waisted pants with a little Muhammad Ali t-shirt tucked in, he was looking pretty good with more natural hair at his son Patrick’s graduation earlier this month. I’m serious. Just imagine you know nothing about this guy, and that you’re old enough to consider it. I probably would, in a decade or so. Here he is at his daughter Katherine’s USC graduation. Still not bad. I like it trimmed up like that. Now mustache-heavy Tom Selleck, he does it for me right now. Even though he probably uses Just for Men for Beards. That’s more due to the man than the facial hair of course. Photo credit: FameFlynet and WENN.com

Benedict Cumberbatch makes his runway debut in London: sexy and Cumb-tastic? Posted: 20 Jun 2012 04:27 AM PDT I always think that my Benedict Cumberbatch posts are going to be throwaways. Meaning, I tend to think that no one but a handful of die-hard Cumby fans will care if there are newish photos or any kind of career updates on him. But then I'm consistently surprised by the interest in him, both good and bad. Some ladies want to curl up in his lap and have him recite a dirty sonnet. Some ladies want to let other ladies know that we – the few, the proud, the Cumberbitch’d – have horrible taste. Basically, Cumby has become a controversial figure around here. It's nice. Because now I get to write about him. So, these are some newish photos of Cumby. Last Friday, he participated in some kind of runway show/fashion event in London (dark suit, blue shirt, hair slicked back). Then, two nights ago, he went to the UK premiere of The Amazing Spider-Man (dark suit, white shirt, silk scarf). These are photos from both events. I prefer the ones from the fashion event – I think he looks really, really sexy with his hair slicked back. You can see his runway photos here – Cumby in SILK. Yes. There's video from the show too: More Cumby news… after he walked the runway, he undressed (sort of) in front of a reporter and a camera. It's both sexy and sweet/cute. His accent is so strong at one point, I really don't know what he's saying. But I like the way he says it. *Also two nights ago – Cumby won Best Actor at the Critics Choice TV Awards. Sherlock took home an award for best miniseries too. Which means that Cumby will be at the Emmys, I'm sure. And probably the Golden Globes. MORE CUMBY! *Cumby is very dedicated to Sherlock – he said in a new interview that he would be happy to play the character for another 15 years, and that he won't "give up" on the show. Good. It's a wonderful take on the classic character. You can read more of Cumby's interview here. *As many Cumberbitches know, he's playing the "villain" in Star Trek 2. It was thought that Cumby was playing Khan, but now the geeks aren't so sure. What we do know for sure: everyone involved with Star Trek absolutely loved Benedict. And that's it… that was your Cumby post for the week. Hope you enjoyed it. Photos courtesy of WENN.

You are subscribed to email updates from Cele|bitchy To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610