December 14, 2009

Pin It

Widgets

I'm confused

because Rachel McAdams, one of the most talented women in young Hollywood, is gracing the January cover of American Vogue. But...


1. Why does she look so old? I had to double take for fear that it was Sharon Stone.
2. The hair. the make-up. The styling. None of it's working. Anna okayed this?
3. Would they have put Meryl Streep in a cardigan? Probably. But she's 60. Even scary Sharon Stone would've been sleeveless.
4. Britney Spears is on the cover of American Elle in January. I have a dear place in my heart for Britney, but if her busted weave can look better than Rachel McAdams on the cover of a major fashion magazine... we've got a problem.
5. Has anyone else noticed a significant decline in the quality of covers at Vogue? I find myself disappointed month after month.
6. "When size 4 is too big: A curvy model's struggle to fit in". Ha. I can only imagine this has to do with Uncle Karl banishing some poor girl from his beloved Paris. It could only end with a swift smack by a leather-clad hand, his heart as black as the designer shades masking his emotionless face. But I still love him.

UPDATE: FYI - The dress she's wearing is Dolce & Gabbana from Spring 2010

58 comments:

  1. Oh God. I cannot even believe what I'm seeing. I completely, one hundred percent, totally agree with you that American Vogue has really been letting me down lately. I've put all my time, money, and resources into Austrialian, British and Paris Vogue because of this very problem. Rachel McAdams is one of my favourite actresses - this cover does her zero justice. Please tell me what they were thinking with that HAIR!

    ReplyDelete
  2. i agree - she totally looks like shite (shite standards for RAchel anyways). i love her dearly though. the makeup is awful too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. At this angle, it's hard to tell that it's actually Rachel. The whole cover seems like it's from the 80s. I agree the covers a few years ago were more elegant but it's looking more like 'Good Housekeeping'

    ReplyDelete
  4. PREACH! everything you've just noted is exactly what i was thinking... why did they highlight her mole/blemish? its very madonna '89 and not in a good way...

    ... i do think that the most unnerving part of this portrait is that she is virtually unrecognizable. i mean legions of young girls/women identify with rachel b/c she seems so down to earth and approachable... this photo has done the unthinkable and made her look cold and calculated.

    american vogue... *sigh* i want to believe in you but this is not the cover to begin the year...

    xo.
    princesspolitico

    ReplyDelete
  5. You were spot-on with the Sharon Stone comparison. She's one of the most beautiful, youthful, vibrant young actresses in Hollywood at the moment, and they made her look twice her age.

    ReplyDelete
  6. what's up with the hairdo? Inspired by Ursula from Little Mermaid :(

    ReplyDelete
  7. i find american vogue so hollywood-ized and i agree: she could look about 100000x better than that

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree.
    I don't like the styling at all, I mean it's Vogue!?
    What the h*ll is she wearing?
    X, fashionnerdic.

    ReplyDelete
  9. She looks bland and unordinary. Disapointing consider she's blessed with an impeccable face..

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with everything you said, the hairdo kind of reminds me of Medusa hahaha

    ReplyDelete
  11. i totally agree with you! and jess is right, american vogue is too hollywood-ized. i wanna see model covers like the old times.

    http://herarmoire.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  12. eeesh! this cover is NO GOOD- she is beautiful regardless, but she could have looked so much better!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. totally sharon stone! but remember that rachel is about 35 (so jealous of those genes!). the cardi definitely ages her and the pose is unflattering.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I do like the colours in the outfit, but not the outfit itself. I agree... none of it really works.

    I think Rachel McAdams is stunning. And as most of you have said, this cover does not do her justice.

    ReplyDelete
  15. i agree, the outfit belongs to much older woman. and the hairstyling didnt help at all :P

    ReplyDelete
  16. I agree!

    however I really really like her.
    I think shes gorgeous!

    http://moneyinmycloset.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  17. OMG!!! this is just so wrong. I so agree with u. The hair, the styling, the make up... none of them is working at all. she looks like my mum's age now.

    and the cover isnt really Vogue either, they can do so much better =(

    @Niki B: have u sorted out how to get that aussie designer's dress that u like yet?
    xx

    http://nicholandbrooklyn.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  18. Love Rachel McAdams, but sadly not in this photo. This is awful, I can't believe Anna ok'ed this. And way to hit the nail on the head, she totally looks like Sharon Stone! I guess that can be good or bad depending on how you look at it, but still!

    I loved Rachel in Wedding Crashers, she looks stunning as a brunette.

    And I have to agree about the quality of Vogue covers, was definitely not impressed with the December issue.

    Thanks for your comments Niki, I'm still so behind in replying back to them! Will try to post pics from LA soon! xo

    ReplyDelete
  19. Very interesting obervations.
    Absolutely horrific styling job, even the hair isn't working for me. (Hello roots?)
    Anna's getting old or something, obviously... Replace her already and hire me as the PR exec :)
    As a fellow Canadian I ABSOLUTELY 100% RECOMMEND Vogue Austrailia. AMAZING. :) Needless to say I won't be buying this issue, I'll wait for my European subscriptions instead :)

    XO Veronica
    http://fashi0npassi0n.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  20. Vogue really sucks now! When I saw the Britney ELLE cover, I was (for once) positively surprised, but this is a joke! Vogue is turning into a lifestyle magazine - a really bad one!

    ReplyDelete
  21. I just found you blog, and I too LOVE Rachel!!
    She is so beautiful ~~

    xoxo

    ReplyDelete
  22. I adore Rachel, but I have to agree this cover is bad. Her hair looks like a bird's nest.

    ReplyDelete
  23. i totally thought sharon stone too! so weird...and not in a good way. yeah, vogue has been disappointing for awhile now...Bazaar is definitely my fave mag!
    xox
    c

    ReplyDelete
  24. yeahhhh she does not look all that great. The styling is terrible!

    ReplyDelete
  25. I kinda like it! I totally know what you're saying though, but I'm assuming they wanted to do more of a "vintage 40s look" but kinda failed to do so with the public

    ReplyDelete
  26. You're right, she does scarily resemble Sharon Stone. That would have been good in 1992, but now, not so much.
    Maybe Anna is losing her touch?? That's like the beginning of Armageddon though eh? Scary.

    As for Uncle Karl- I would stop eating to make him love me.

    ReplyDelete
  27. yeah , if anne okayed this, she was drunk. poor rachel is an absolute STUNNER and they have over vogueified the woman to look like an entirely different, older version of herself. Vogue covers were the best way back in the 30's and 40's. rant now over. !

    ReplyDelete
  28. I think magazines have been airbrushing these poor girl's faces to within an inch of recognition, i would rather see a flawed face then a fake looking one

    ReplyDelete
  29. I totally agree Niki. Rachel is one of my favorite actresses and she is truly gorgeous. However, this cover makes her look outright dowdy. SOMEONE, whether it be Rachel, one of the many stylist on the shoot, or Anna herself should've spoken up before this was published. - Natalya of Wear Necessities

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oh my, I didn't even recognize Rachel on the cover until I read what you wrote.... the outfit is way too conservative for her or anyone on the cover of Vogue. This is one of the reasons I stopped reading Vogue US. Their covers and editorials are starting to resemble Redbook and the like. At least Vogue Paris still sticks to putting models on the cover... The problem with putting celebrities everywhere is that you start mistaking the covers for US Weekly or People.

    ReplyDelete
  31. cute blog!!

    dont forget to follow me back :)

    ..MochaSista..
    *borwn is beautifuL*

    [http://mochasista.blogspot.com]

    ReplyDelete
  32. All really good points. It shouldn't be too much work to make Rachel look good, right?

    ReplyDelete
  33. i hate american vogue. french vogue is light years ahead. vogue needs a new editor MAJOR!

    ReplyDelete
  34. I TOTALLY agree with you! A lot of magazine covers are starting to look not so...great these days. I mean, Rachel is BEAUTIFUL and it looks like they tried too hard on her. Like someone above said, it shouldn't be too much work to make her look good.

    ReplyDelete
  35. She does look old; I think that hair color washes her out. And Britney on Elle? I'm definitely in shock.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Awww, I just adore Rachel. She is so cute and what a lovely actress. :)

    ReplyDelete
  37. i do like rachel mcadams, but that hair?!?!? and the covers have definitely not been as good lately.

    ReplyDelete
  38. She's 35?! No freakin way is that true!! Anyways, I just saw a story on this cover on ET and she looked much more her usual gorgeous self than how this photo turned out. Who knew it could be possible to age such a radiantly youthful person?

    ---
    Win an amazing prize pack care of The Body Shop Canada in Being High Maintenance, not Bitchy's Holiday Giveaway Bonanza!! http://highmaintenancewoman.blogspot.com/2009/12/part-3-of-holiday-giveaway-bonanza-body.html

    ReplyDelete
  39. I love Rachel...but not this cover. I dont read American Vogue anymore because of this...I think the Haute Shopper said Redbook hahaha...so true.

    Love.Your.Blog!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Thought i was the only one thinking that ... Yey!

    Nina

    ReplyDelete
  41. Another one to add to your little army that agrees with you! http://laineygossip.com/Rachel_McAdams_Vogue_cover_January_2010.aspx?CatID=0&CelID=0

    ReplyDelete
  42. I think that the HAIR makes her look 20 years older and the PINK LIPSTICK..totally not the color I would choose for her...I think the floral print top under the dull black cardigan does not do her any justice...WOW..who knew she can look so old...

    -xxlivelovelaugh

    www.xxliveloveloaugh.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  43. In my opinion she was never a knock out in terms of looks. Not saying she is ugly, but she doesn't have that Whoa factor to her

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hello Friend, I love love love your blog, it‘s very interesting!!! I really like your style!! i‘ll visit you many times for sure honey.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Ohhh, you can visit my new fashion blog, today i‘ve published a very nice post, I write the link for you:



    http://www.mydarlingbubu.com/



    KISSES FROM SPAIN HONEY

    ReplyDelete
  46. OMG! Yes. I saw this cover and I was like um what? I love Rachel, the girl rocked pink hair for goodness sake. They should have styled the hell out of her, she could totally pull it off.

    That size 4 thing cracked me up, its probably not suppposed to, oh well!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Haha this is so true. Such a stunning young girl and they've made her look like a 50 yr old who's trying to look younger. Bad move Vogue, bad move. x
    http://www.thevestimaniac.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  48. I hate it. end of story.
    bitch needs to take a laxative or dozen.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I totally agree

    She looks horribly old in that shot, it's the styling of the florals and her awful hair...

    Style on a String :: Because style has nothing to do with money.

    ReplyDelete
  50. i LOVE Rachel McAdams Favorite Actress yes i said favorite[i Love all her movies] BUT SHE does look really old i almost didn't recongize her..Maybe it would've looked better without the cardigan..

    ReplyDelete
  51. I agree, I love Rachel McAdams but I don't like that cover at all!
    Emilie

    ReplyDelete
  52. Ouch! I don't think she looks old at all. I guess my tastes are different. After all, it wouldn't have bothered me if Sharon Stone herself was on the cover. The article headlined "When size 4 is too big - a curvy model's struggle to fit in" does touch on important issue, but it sounds a bit too supportive of the unhealthy painfully thin look. Also, if they were going to do such a cover splash on "Looking Forward, Looking Back - The Decade's B and Best Dressed", I would have loved to see a photo of Lady Gaga on the cover. There are certainly enough photos of Lady Gaga out there for them to have found one. No offense intended to Rachel McAdams. I'm still reeling a bit from the question "Why does she look so old?".

    ReplyDelete
  53. ok, she doesn't look bad...BUT so blah. still beautiful but bland like she's posing becos her husband is running for congress. i am not impressed.

    vogue america has been letting me down lately. is anna losing her touch??

    if i see lindsay lohan or miley cyrus on the cover, im officially boycotting

    ReplyDelete
  54. American Vogue covers have been a major disappointment going on a few years now. It's a fashion magazine damn it!! It supposed to inspire fashion! This is no example of that. More suited to a scary Chatelaine featuring Sharon Stone lol (love that more than you can imagine)

    Vogue has been featuring Hollywood stars photoshopped beyond recognition for too long this has to stop!!

    There are too many amazingly inspirational models and photographers in existence to allow a pinnacle fashion magazine to continuously produce these disturbing images (lol)

    It's an insult. Their motivation is to sell more magazines. Are we going to buy that? Fashionistas of the world unite!!
    Bring fashion back to fashion magazines!

    Oh yes, there is nothing Vogue about this cover.

    Love your blog
    x

    ReplyDelete
  55. you're completely right. rachel macadam is gorgeous but this cover definitely didn't do her any favors. hopefully they'll find some better stylists in the future.

    ReplyDelete