UK Vogue July 2016 : Renée Zellweger by Patrick Demarchelier

[zzzyao76]

vogue.co.uk

 

[Srdjan]

I know it's because she's promoting the new Bridget Jones, but it feels so random to see her on the cover.

 

[Nomar]

This looks really amateur.

 

[YohjiAddict]

She looks so rough. I know we complain a lot about how middle-aged women end up looking like CGI characters when featured in fashion glossies however just a bit more make-up or maybe a smile would do wonders for ths cover.

 

[Suhzie]

Jeez. She looks old.

 

[honeycombchild]

What a surprise! I for one am more than happy to see her look her age on the cover personally. I don't think she looks rough, she looks like how she looks, which in a world of over manipulation, I'm always going to be okay with.

I can't say I'm a huge fan of the cover itself, but it's nice to see someone fitting - and an image fitting - of the ageless issue at least.

 

[zoom]

Love seeing Renee again but surprised Patrick missed the mark by so far with this image. She looks worried and tight lipped. I know there had to be a better pic than this one.

 

[sixtdaily]

I don't like the color scheme. It looks like Vogue US and it's not a compliment.
Also why did they put a woman who f***ed up her face with botox for the "Ageless Issue"?! This makes no sense to me!

 

[sore]

Jeez. She looks old.

She is old.

 

[anlabe32]

She is old.

Those aren't nice things to say. People over 40 aren't necessarily old or undeserving of a Vogue cover.

Honestly, I would have never thought to see her on a Vogue cover again. She was never a favourite to begin with. That said, i'm pleasantly surprised and I think she's a refreshing choice after all the (untalented) youth we see all the time now.

Does that make this a good cover? No. They could have done way better.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

Never been a fan of her on Vogue.etc covers, and god knows she had many! But it's actually nice to see her, shame it's not better.

 

[narcyza]

Is it Vogue cover? Really? It's awful.

 

[Creative]

What a surprise! I for one am more than happy to see her look her age on the cover personally. I don't think she looks rough, she looks like how she looks, which in a world of over manipulation, I'm always going to be okay with.

Well, her face got more manipulation than any fashion image in the world.

I hate photoshop when it's obvious and poorly done, but when the one doing it knows how to use it... why not? It's like surgery in a way. Edit to say that this has a lot of Photoshop even if she looks sort of old.

I honestly HATE people getting covers because they are promoting something. Can't stand it. And more when the project is not even fashion related. UGH.

 

[Yohji]

I do wonder if the people who are complaining about her looking old or rough are also the same people who complain about overly photoshopped magazine covers.

 

[dodencebt]

I'm personally not a fan of the hair, especially not the eye makeup, which makes her already squinted eyes even smaller, and that God awful background. Maybe if it was blurred more the headlines would have popped better, but this way they're competing with each other and it bugs me.

I don't mind the fact that they didn't Photoshop her lines, but is this really what she looks like now? I remember seeing some red carpet photos a few months back and her face was pretty smooth. I mean she has been using Botox for years, she's famous for her stiff face - did she stop all of a sudden?

 

[Miss Dalloway]

I don't like the color scheme. It looks like Vogue US and it's not a compliment.
Also why did they put a woman who f***ed up her face with botox for the "Ageless Issue"?! This makes no sense to me!

Completely disagree, look at the HQ image of the cover, there is nothing remotely botoxed about her face. She has wrinkles around her eyes, lines on her forehead, skin texture.etc, so hardly a case of a woman who has messed up her face with Botox (not to say she hasn't done anything at all, but lets not accusse her of a face swap just yet!). Its just over blown by the tabloids. I think its wonderful they let her look her age on the cover, i just feel like the styling is pointless.

 

[sixtdaily]

Completely disagree, look at the HQ image of the cover, there is nothing remotely botoxed about her face. She has wrinkles around her eyes, lines on her forehead, skin texture.etc, so hardly a case of a woman who has messed up her face with Botox (not to say she hasn't done anything at all, but lets not accusse her of a face swap just yet!). Its just over blown by the tabloids. I think its wonderful they let her look her age on the cover, i just feel like the styling is pointless.

Look at her "smile", she can barely move her face ! And the fact that her hands cover half of her face says it all.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^ No it doesn't!!!! It just says she was told which pose to HOLD, its how photoshoots work, there are plenty of candids, and photos of her being perfectly able to smile. So sick of women being shamed for having plastic surgery, and the effects of the work they had done blown to hell and back, its 2016!!

 

[Creative]

I don't like the color scheme. It looks like Vogue US and it's not a compliment.
Also why did they put a woman who f***ed up her face with botox for the "Ageless Issue"?! This makes no sense to me!

Yeah, so funny. And no one is shaming her for having plastic surgery. Stop the victimism.

Saying there's nothing remotely botoxed about her face says it all though... She is the epitome of a botoxed face and she has always been.

 

[HeatherAnne]

Damn she looks terrible, not because she looks "old", but because she looks like someone who tried to fight age with plastic surgery fixes and just looks plain damn weird.