The cover looks quite interesting, although I absolutely hate the "wannabe sexy" look on Portman's face. I am aware of the fact the haircut is for a movie role, but she looks terrible with it...
Originally posted by mikeijames@Jan 18th, 2004 - 6:42 am are there no more fashionable women or does vogue serve no other purpose than forwarding hollywood starlets' careers?
I honestly don't see a problem with actresses on covers of magazines...I think they are equally as beautiful, and plus - it's what sells, and that's a huge issue. A person who walks by may pick up the mag 'cause they like who's on the cover, for instance for Natalie Portman, or Jen Aniston. However, the normal person probably hasn't seen or even knows of models, except for maybe popular ones like Kate Moss or Naomi C. I agree that's what models are there for, to I guess grace magazine covers...but they're also there to model clothing for runway shows and advertisements.
As for the cover, I'm sorry, but I just don't like it. Not a huge fan of Natalie with the short hair, although I love her with long hair. She does have a very pretty face.
I don't mind the occasional celeb pic. But when every friggin cover of Am Vogue is Renee, Natalie, Nicole, Halle. Its just boring Also they don't even put any originality or creativity into the pics.
she looks cute, even her hair&make up is ok, dress is not too bad either
i mean we've seen much worst actresses on Vogue covers..
still is this a pillow behind her head? why not leaning on something more elegand or interesting
imo, technically this is a bad picture for a cover
i dont mind the actors... and even think it is sort of funny like models we dont need you - you dont do anything but have a pretty face and least these actors have talents.... that is just my opinion though and not that serious of one.....i do love models and think they are best on covers. her expression IS strange.... and dont like that hair. i also had a dream about her recently which was strange....