Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue 2009 : Bar Refaeli

[Juliax]

The cover looks very cheap and trashy indeed. But then again, I dont like Bar anyway. Gimme boyfriend Leo and next time Ill make the cover lol.

Anywhoo, Hilary and Cintia totally saved this issue for me now that there is no Marisa in it.

 

[Day]

I wish they had picked different pictures for Cintia. I love the first one but I'm not fond of the one of her in the hat. I think they had a lot of better choices from seeing her outtakes.

But, I'm still so glad to see her and Hilary there. They clearly stand out in the best way possible.

 

[obsvr]

Although most of us are quite disappointed with the cover, I'm pretty sure there's a lot of guys out there were drooooliiing over it Also, I cant help but to notice the resemblance between her and gisele okay maybe that's just me

 

[Street_a_Licious]

All the girls except Cintia and Hilary have extremely boring faces. I guess you just have to loook sl*tty...

true, those 2 totally stand out against the rest.

 

[Mugo]

si.com

images of brooklyn decker (andy roddick's fiancee) and irena shiek in the 2009 issue.

i wish the whole body paint phenomenon would just go away. its so tacky.

i wish the whole SI swimsuit edition would just go away. it is unbelieveably tacky and commercialised. I managed to get hold of one last year (quite hard to get hold of in the UK) and couldnt believe how much of it was crammed full of junky ads. Although some of the models in it are very attractive, the shoots do nothing for me, and are far too predicable and run of the mill. move on, nothing to see here.

 

[iluvjeisa]

I agree the pose on the cover is tacky, it's very difficult to not come off as an uberslut with that. I guess it's the whole purpose with SI anyway, it's a shame it has to look this way during the process. Bar looks rather like a tanned and fleshed out Sarah Jessica Parker to me....not that hot, despite the bod.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

Why is there no nudity in this? They've obviously tried to get as close as they can to that with flesh coloured ultra tiny bikinis.

Exactly, they might aswell posed nude.

 

[Street_a_Licious]

^for that, we got Playboy, Hustler & Penthouse.

girls in bikinis and posing in exotic locales got a certain draw to it.

 

[sethii]

I suppose it would loose a lot of coverage in the mainstream media if they were nude.

 

[Stamoholic]

Hilary is probably my favorite in this issue, but I'm going to rock the boat and say I don't think Hil and Cintia were so amazing and everyone else sucked.
I think that's just TFS talking because we all love our more HF girls

Honestly, I say this with much love , but Cintia posed in the same bland was as the rest of the girls - moody sexy face and pulling at her briefs.

IMO, the big issue is that SI is just not the same right now as it used to be.

The history of SI is amazing. It has had some of the greatest models of all time in it's pages ( Crawford, Tiegs, MacPherson, Brinkley, Seymour, Porizkova, on and on) and it used to be a magazine with amazing swimwear and amazing photography.

What is SI missing now that it used to have? My opinion, four simple things:

1. SUPERMODELS! The supermodels could work SI like no ones business. The girls today... not so much. HF girls are great at posing but no man wants to see them in swimwear. The "commercial" and swimwear models today, though, are not so great at posing, it seems.
The supermodels had both areas covered - they were great posers and were sexually attractive to straight men. SI has really felt the death of the supers, IMO. They need to get their hands on Gisele! lol!

2. Range of Emotion. In the SI issues of the past, the girls used to show lots of different emotions ( this was under the direction of the great Julie Campbell). They would do the sexy face, sure, but also the seductive look ( a look " in the eyes" not the body), and the girl-next-door-look. The girls today just do the FHM sexy face and it's dull. Can you imagine if Christie Brinkley or Kathy Ireland had never smiled in SI?
The models need to show more emotion again, IMO. It's more interesting!

3. Movement and action. It seems in this issue most of the girls are simply plonked in their location, and are pulling at their swimwear... dull. SI used to have the girls jumping, running, cooling off in the sea, riding on boats, etc. They should bring this back for 2010!

4. Props. I don't mean cheesy ones, but props that fit the environment, like Kathy Ireland with the big fish! They just make the shot more interesting. Why have they totally scrapped them for these new issues?

Sorry for this long moan, but I am a huge fan of the old SI's of the 70s to early 90s, so I get upset when I see them downgrading in quality so much

I don't think this issue is awful, but IMO it's doesn't do justice to the magazines history.

I don't like the cover, but I think it would have worked if the photog had got level with Bar so the shot didn't make her look so giant, and she had not pulled her briefs SO far down.

This is my two cent on SI 09!

 

[Holland Hurrican]

Hilary would deserve more than 3 shots

 

[FashinKid90]

The cover is horrible

 

[matthaeus123]

my scans

 

[matthaeus123]

same

 

[Stamoholic]

^ Your scans are great, Matt! So glad you decided to do them!

 

[matthaeus123]

more will come later hopefully.

 

[angel222]

Bar's got breast implants doesn't she? It sure looks like it.

 

[matthaeus123]

I wish she didn't have so many pictures in the issue, it got kinda annoying

 

[kroqjock]

^^Actually, you're mistaken. Bar and Brooklyn share the same amount of pics inside the issue (six pics each to be exact). No one in the issue has more pics than the others.

Here's another complete batch of UHQ scans for Brooklyn Decker, Irina Shayk, and Tori Praver.








Scans courtesy of VampireHorde


If anyone else wants to take on the task of scanning the rest of the ladies in the magazine, feel free to do so.

 

[Street_a_Licious]

lol, i can't believe that one swimsuit on Irina costs 1,5k!