This dress is what we call a “crotch warmer”: the front serves no other purpose other than to cover the crotch and no more, while the back flows out, preserving a small sense of modesty. It’s the kind of dress you’d wear if you wanted something long and dramatic for a special event, but really, really couldn’t stand the thought of not showing off your (admittedly great) legs.
Gemma Arterton seems pretty pleased with her choice here, but what do you think, Fashion Police jurors? Stunning, or an arrestable offense?
I have to admit, I like this – I have no idea why, because it seems like it should be a fashion crime. Kind of looks like a costume though, the kind you’d see in a comic book or sci-fi movie.
Lock her up! There is no excuse for a mullet dress.
The sad thing is, the dress would be really great if it were a complete dress. The mullet front really does ruin it.
Damnit, I want to love it because I think she’s great but honestly…it’s a wee bit tacky.
Is she doing panto this year then?
What do you mean, great legs??
Ridiculous!
a bit Mariah Carrey i think…definitly arrest worthy
I like it
Although the dress isn’t very impressive, the colour is lovely!
I think the real issue here is the shoes! Holy cow! At least(?) they match the belt…
i love every part of this, and i love her. i have an enormous girl crush on her, she can do no wrong.
I think that anyone who wears a dress like this ends up looking tarty. Not a good look for a premier, especially one being attended by Royals methinks!
So it’s a mullet dress? Except it’s party in the front business in the back.
So it’s a mullet dress? Except it’s party in the front business in the back.
Maybe it would have been really lovely if she had decided on what length to have it…
I think she can get away with it but not to many people could.
I love this dress but i think it should be about 3 inches longer in front