Some might argue that a long brown/mauve dress is far too dowdy for the red carpet (or shiny floor, in this case), and has the power to make even Keira Knightley look a bit like a monk.
Others, however, might argue that NO dress is THAT powerful, and that Keira couldn’t possibly look bad if she tried. (Which, honestly, we think she sometimes does…)
Then, of course, there’s the issue of that very non-monk-like split, which Keira is using to YET AGAIN show us her chest. Just ONCE we’d like to see her wear something that doesn’t flash her breastbone. IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK?
Which side are you on? Is Keira guilty or innocent?
THIS MEANS WAR, says the red carpet Reese Witherspoon is standing on. Which honestly sounds like a bit of an overreaction to us. Reese, sweetie, it’s OK: sure, the dress isn’t doing your waist many favours, buy we’re not going to go to WAR with you over it, honestly. The most you’d get for this would be a caution, maybe not even.
Here’s Reese posing her little heart out in green sequinned Louis Vuitton, at the UK premiere of This Means War last night. Can you help set her mind at rest in relation to her sartorial choices, or do you ACTUALLY want to go to war with her over this one?
In other words: GUILTY or INNOCENT?
(We’re definitely giving her a caution for the too-big shoes, by the way. Yes, there’s probably only a half-size in it, but we’re reached the end of our patience with this. Celebrities: BUY YOUR OWN SHOES. We know you can afford them. And really, who’d want to put their bare feet into a pair of borrowed shoes, knowing that other celebrities had sweated into them before you? Not us…)
You can TELL that Madonna is the boss of this movie, can’t you? Nothing says “don’t mess with me” like big, pouffy shoulders. Madonna’s are by Marchesa, and she’s been getting a lot of praise lately for dressing in a way that’s a little more “age appropriate”, which is one of the most depressing phrases in the fashion lexicon. We wouldn’t expect Madonna cares much about whether people think she’s age appropriate or not, though, and honestly, good for her: she gives us hope that there’s still fashion after 50, and after all, why shouldn’t there be?
Andrea Riseborough, who stars as Wallis Simpson in Madonna’s W.E, is feeling shressed. Sorry, there was apparently just no way we could avoid making that particular pun. At least we got it out of our system, though.
Andrea may not be feeling shressed, then, but she is certainly all shressed up for the NYC premiere of the film, wearing a dress with a sheet skirt, dramatic crumb-catcher front, and strange frilly bit at the front. Yes, that is a technical term.
Now, look, you don’t need us to tell you what we think about shresses for the eleventy-first time. Suffice it to say that every time one appears on the red carpet, an alarm goes off at the Fashion Police HQ, and our officers slide down a pole, like firemen, and get into the, er, FashMobile, to track them down. OK, not really. It would be cool, though, so please always imagine us doing that every time you see a shress on the red carpet.
Back to Andrea: we will probably never be fans of sheer dresses, but it looks like the celebrities of the world are going to continue wearing them, for the forseeable future at least, so let’s hear your verdicts on this one: innocent or guilty?
So, floral print: summer-staple, super-feminine, blah blah blah. You can fill in the rest yourselves, can’t you? Florals appear at around about this time every year (“Florals? For Spring? Groundbreaking.”) and we know from experience that while some of you just can’t get enough of them, some of you can’t even read the WORD “floral” without starting to type the word “granny” or “curtains”.
What about floral denim, though? Not a new idea, obviously, but we spotted these Citizens of Humanity floral skinnies at Shopbop this week, and couldn’t decide whether they were cute, or whether they looked like pyjama pants.
We make no apologies for showing you this pair today, though, because, well, look at them. There’s just no way we could have ignored the existence of these, is there?
Inspired by the cars of the 50s, with their big fins, flame-effect wings and generally OTT design, these shoes are… well, they’re just a little bit crazy, aren’t they? Are they crazy in a good way, though, or in a bad one, though? That’s the question before you now, ladies and gentlemen of the Fashion Police jury: you can click here to look at Shoeperwoman’s gallery and see some more of the styles if you wish, but don’t forget to come back and tell us whether you find them innocent or guilty of the charge of committing crimes of fashion…
Oh, that Lady Gaga. She has a lot to answer for, doesn’t she?
As for this particular “something”, well, Gaga probably isn’t solely to blame for this one. Heel-less shoes, of course, have been around for much longer than the teacup-toting one has, and we’re sure the fact that Gaga has made heel-less walking one of her many talents is only partly responsible for the small, but growing, number of shoe designers who wake up one morning and think, “The heel! Take it off! Take it all off!”
The latest suspect to come up with this bright idea is Giuseppe Zanotti, and his creations are shown above. Now, let us be clear about this: we LOVE these shoes. To look at, that is. And OK, sure, they look a little bit like some kind of strange electrical appliance from space. (We know that’s a weird comparison, but we can’t help it: they remind us of one of those egg whisks, or hand blenders, or whatever – can you tell we’re not cooks? – that stand up by themselves.) But still, they’re pretty amazing, and prettier, somehow, than many of the other heel-less wonders we’ve come across on our beat.
But still. The lack of a heel is something that it takes a little while for the eye and mind to adjust to. For us, it’s just not happening. Our eyes keep on searching for the heel that isn’t there, our minds keep on telling us there’s something missing, and no matter how patiently we explain that, “Yes, mind, but it’s supposed to look like that. It’s art. You must not understand fashion!” it will still keep searching, and insisting that there’s something not quite right here. Apart from the fact that they’re $895, we mean.
What about you? Do you love heel-less shoes? Do you love these ones? Well, what are you waiting for? Click here to buy them!
