Thursday, February 09, 2006

Now when they get Colin Farrel to do this, I'll be impressed


I don't mean the man's pose, one of the women's, preferably Scarlett Johansson who is in the front.

What is that man doing there? If you want to have 2 women nude on a cover, something that I'm not in a position to judge, go for it! But if a man's going to be in the photo, he needs to get it off as well! This is something that needs to be written into law, this kind of stupidity has been going on too long.

Not that I really want to see this guy nude, whoever he is. He isn't particulary attractive, rather ordinary. I mean you have at least one totally useless actress in the photo (Keira Knightley) who is famous soley for being hot, (I've never seen the other one in anything so I can't judge her), but they put these women with some ordinary looking dude! With his clothes on! Why didn't they get someone young, with a fine tight body, no lines on his face and NO CLOTHES ON!

Will there ever be any justice in the world?

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is a bullshit pic. It has no redeeming value and is about as erotic as a witches shrivelled tit. There is nothing sexy in the way they're posed (that's even assuming those are their bodies). Who want's to see them portrayed as if they're plastic anyway?

I have no knowledge of Keira Knightley, but I've seen Scarlett Johannsen in 3 films: The Man Who Wasn't There; Lost in Translation; and The Girl With the Pearl Earring. She's an actress of quality who also happens to be a delicious; that is when she's not covered in make-up, which is how she portrays herself to the world at premieres and interviews, etc. To see her at her best I suggest you make the effort and see her in these films. I recommend her especially in The Man Who Wasn't There. It's a small part, but she plays to perfection, a young, adolescent, and sexually aware girl - woot!

As for the guy in this pic, I'm lost for words.

What does it all mean? Is it supposed to represent something? With the wealth of good erotica around these days, I can't even see adolescents finding enough in it to 'throw one off the wrist'.

I'm looking from the pic to your profile portrait. Now there's a sexy lady!

Regards,
Monty.

Michelle said...

It is kind of bland isn´t it? I have to say I´ve only seen Keira Knightley in 2 films and both of them were terrible, so perhaps it´s more her choice of film than her acting ability. I know what it´s like to have to make something of a terrible script, plot, direction and everything else that goes with a film or play or any kind of performance. Well I don´t have a whole lot of experience with it but pretty much eveything I´ve been in has been crap so I should know something about it.

Anonymous said...

Now you've gone and fucked up the theory I outlined in the following post that you only answer my comments if you feel slighted in anyway. Bollocks!

I ought to feel guilty, or embarrassed at least. Surprisingly, I feel none of these.

MuppetLord said...

Apparently the guy is Tom Ford. He is in it because a 3rd actress decided not to pose naked.

existsnomore said...

I've seen 3 of Knightley's films and she's exactly the same in each one, so I'd say she's very good at playing herself.

That pic left me feeling vaguely disturbed. I think it's because those actresses are supposed to be powerful women, being famous and all, yet I'm seeing them naked. Powerful people wear clothes.

Anonymous said...

I have no idea if this comment will be seen, but I've only just got round to reading posts that featured in this Carnival of the Feminists.

This photo is made even more disturbing when you know how it was shot. Tom Ford, the guy, was not in the photo - he was photoshopped in to look like a dirty perve. Keira and Scarlett wouldn't have known he was going to be added into the photo.