Sunday, April 09, 2006
i could say kim sharma resembles the genus equus more than homo sapiens. but that would be oversimplifying things. i mean, whoever heard of a horse going to a spray-on tanning studio? and an indian horse at that? but let me not be so insulting any more...to the horse, i mean.
as for perizaad, i think she ought to go back and look at bollywood calling and stop trying to take herself or her couture so seriously.
dahlings, i'm tempted to say something about a 10-lb bag of onions from the local grocery store, but in the interest of not getting too personal, i will refrain from doing so.
Posted by dna at 6:43 AM
okay, okay, i admit that bit about dino (as in dinosaur) morea and the cretaceous era is a little obscure, but in the interest of alliteration, i couldn't resist it.
but what in the name of t. rex is dino wearing? and is this what "fashion week" is represented by? i'm going to see a circus next week, and i'm sure all the clowns there have picked up a fashion hint or two from this ensemble, but other than the bozo pictured here, i can't imagine any sane person walking the streets, much less the ramp, in something like this. unless of course they want to laugh their pants off.
Posted by dna at 6:33 AM
hair horror alert: high risk.
ornithologists of the world rejoice. the definitive guide to birds of the world (abridged version) has just been published, and what's more you can wear it anywhere. and look hawt, hawt, hawt. at least that's what bobby deol would have you believe in this latest fashion disaster he's strutting around in. to say he's gone cuckoo would, i think, be unkind to the cuckoo, don'tcha think?
Posted by dna at 6:18 AM
i can kind of, sort of understand the dazed look on amrita arora's face. i mean, have you ever seen the bloodsucking count of transylvania emerge from his coffin and immediately sport dazzling smiles for the camera? it takes time to adjust your blinkers to the light, y'know.
so yes, i can understand the dazed face. but what about the caked face? is the art of make-up lost in bollywood? can you not lay foundation to your face without making it look like you're hoarding dough for your birthday cake for next year? are our actors so underpaid? then again, i don't know that amrita does work and does get paid. i, at least, have not seen her on screen in the recent past. as for what she's got on, i'm not sure what it is. part gold-plated armor, part garden fence-trellis, complemented by a bedhead full of hair is not my idea of haute couture. but if it pays her bills, i'm the last one to object. maybe then she can have her cake (off her face) and eat it too.
Posted by dna at 6:03 AM