 |  |  |  |  |  |
| | | | | |
The Fashion Police.net The anti-fashion fashion blog | |||||||
| |||||||
  | |||||||
Tag Archives: shressCelebrity Style on Trial: Jessica Biel’s red “shress” at the A-Team premiere
We think Jessica Biel is one of the prettiest young actresses in Hollywood right now. We also think she’s one of the bravest (this week, at least), because let’s face it: it’s not every woman who would think, “You know, I’m going to dress to blend in with the carpet. But just so I don’t blend in too much, I’m also going to show my knickers.” But Jessica did. And now we want to hear what you think about that. Fashion crime, or damn fine? Tell us! Sponsored Dresses of the WeekMark Fast for Topshop: Sheer dresses on the high street
We’re hoping this goes without saying (although, honestly, you can never really be too sure these days), but if you ARE going to buy into the “look, I’m barely clothed!” trend, please, for the love of Gaga, wear something underneath these “dresses”? Or even over them. That might be better. Also: don’t you love how the sleeves add an extra £85 to the price, but not much actual coverage? Awesome… Get them at Topshop. Rochas sheer dress: possibly the worst case of Daylight Robbery ever recorded
This dress is £2,590 / $3,878. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO US? Surely the Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes here? Wait, though, there’s more. In fact, it would appear Rochas is the most dangerous criminal around when it comes to brazen acts of Daylight Robbery: Rick Owens tulle insert jersey dress: for days when the wasp-waist look just isn’t extreme enough
The Fashion Police will confess to being more than a little perplexed by this particular case. Because the photo above is actually a bit misleading. This dress is not, as it appears, corseted to within an inch of your spine its life, but held together with sheer panels to either side. Kind of flattering if you happen to be the exact same colour as your backdrop – not so much if you have even the slightest hint of a stomach roll when you sit down. Between the jersey and the sheer they’ve made darned sure there’s nowhere to hide… And at the same time there’s something about the dress – it might be the cut combined with the length, we’re not sure – that’s a bit… mumsy? It just doesn’t seem to sit right. What do you think? Could this be worn in a way that was actually quite flattering? Or would you too be just a little self-conscious in so revealing a cut? Rick Owens tulle insert jersey dress, £258 from The Outnet. Wear or Die: Shressed to Impress
Readers, we’re taking you out for the evening. Fancy party, posh frocks – you know the drill. And don’t worry, it’s all on The Fashion Police – even the clothes, in fact, because here’s the rub: you’re going to have to wear one of these two dresses from our jail. Yes, it’s time for a game of Wear or Die, and that means you either choose one of these to wear or… you die. Simple. (We’d really rather not have to kill you, though, so we’re hoping you’ll play along. Seriously, what’s a bit of VPL amongst friends, anyway?) As for the dresses, Option A is by Shakuhachi, while Option B is Gareth Pugh. Which would you choose, if you had to wear one… or die? Shress Alert! ASOS Lace Trimmed Petticoat Maxi Dress
Yes, this definitely reminds us of those transparent ponchos you see people wearing in theme parks in the summer, only it comes in the shape of a maxi dress, and won’t actually be of much use in the rain. Still, if you’re feeling particularly indecisive, it could be a good way to wear two looks in one – three if you count the whole “underwear as outerwear” thing that’s going on there. It’s £75 at ASOS.com. What do you think? Shress Spotting: Tamara Ecclestone forgets her skirt
Forget something, Tamara? Like, say, your skirt? We maintain this isn’t actually a dress. It’s a long top with a lace bottom. We’re also not digging the way the top half is designed to look like it’s about to fall off, revealing the bra underneath. Still, at least there IS a bra underneath. And knickers. Sometimes you have to be grateful for small mercies… Look, ma! No pants! Maurie and Eve’s singlet with chiffon Look, no pants! Important Announcement: attaching a piece of chiffon to tank top does NOT make it a “dress”. We repeat: does NOT make it a dress. Apparently there’s some confusion about this, although, to be fair, that confusion doesn’t come from Maurie and Eve, who were at least honest enough to describe this garment simply as a “singlet with chiffon”. We’re still confused, though. Why would you need a singlet to be “with chiffon”? If you wear something like jeans, or even leggings, with it, in a bid to make it a little more respectable, the chiffon part won’t be particularly noticeable, but if you wear it as shown, well, you’ll look like you forgot to put your pants on, for that singlet should in no way be mistaken for a dress. We’re forced to conclude, then, that this garment is another one of the great unsolved fashion mysteries of our time. If you think you can solve it – and, more importantly, wear it – however, it’s $121 and you can buy it here. | |||||||
