US GQ April 2007 : Lindsay Lohan by Terry Richardson

[julesrules815]

ewness!!!!

edit:

 

[Luxx]

There is something so profoundly wrong about a girl barely out of her teens being trussed up like a stripper and placed on the cover of a magazine whose readership demographics are primarily males 30 and up. I just wanna scrub the makeup off her face, put a sweater on her and give her a hug. This is the exact opposite of sexy.

It never ceases to amaze me how mens magazine editors forget that true sexiness is always found in effortlessness. This reeks of trying too hard. Sex is knowledge, sex is grace, sex is power. It has little to do with plastic tops and pulling your pants down. Even the most revealing photo is rendered unattractive if the subject lacks that certain something extra. This just leaves me cold. Maybe it could have worked with an older actress someone with a little life experience in her eyes. Poor Lindsay just looks lost.

 

[testinofan]

i hate she but the cover is nice.

 

[alix*]

SourcE: lind-lo.com

 

[tigerrouge]

While I personally agree that true sexiness arises from something deeper within a person, plenty of GQ readers won't say no to the 'visual junk food' of a nubile sex-object exhibiting no threatening sign of superior intelligence. And in that case, the cover is very eye-catching and works very well. Sometimes sexuality is profound - and sometimes it's simply one-dimensional. Different ends of the same spectrum, I feel.

These photos suggest to me a scenario of someone suggesting to their girlfriend that she "pose for a few pictures" for their private album. "Go on... no-one else will see them..."

 

[kissmesweet]

^^ sl*tty...

 

[gr77]

the photos are a bit too sl*tty but Lindsay looks great

 

[Diamond Star]

Terry Richardson + Lindsay Lohan...not good in my opinion, I think the photos are really bad

 

[light_sparkles]

I don't think she will ever be sexy, not now or when she is older.

 

[fashionandstyle1]

The only reason I clicked on this post is to see how horrible the cover would be...and boy was I right! It's repulsive and she should be embarrassed...oh wait, it's Lindsay so I guess she's proud of it

 

[LostInNJ]

I guess I'm one of the few that actually likes the cover...There is something that looks slightly sleazy about it, but it doesn't fully go there, so I'm in favor of it!

 

[kuba01]

The photo's are very Terry Richardson. Its sleazy, its cheap, its tacky and its over-sexed.

I think Lindsay and Terry are a good pairing and although the photographs dont appeal to me personally - they work. Theres something very 'right' about these pictures.

 

[Alpha Femme]

She looks 40.

 

[neni]

There was a video of that photoshoot on youtube a while ago and she looked amazing! So much better than in those pics.

I can't find it anymore, anyone have it, please ?

 

[novella]

I didn't think it was possible but the other pictures are worse than the cover IMO. It's on par with Terry Richardson's work but they're still so awful.

 

[iriswills]

hmm...

The photo's are very Terry Richardson. Its sleazy, its cheap, its tacky and its over-sexed.

I don't know. To me, these photos actually lack that genius Richardson touch. It's not sleazy enough, it's not cheap or tacky enough either. It seems over-sexed, but Lindsay does not even fulfill that role convincingly...which is odd, cuz I thought that she would.

okay, that was a bit mean to Lindsay...!

 

[o'sole]

Larger cover

http://bookweb.kinokuniya.co.jp/iimgdata/large/0838789.jpg

 

[neni]

Found the video

http://www.jakeldaily.com/2006/12/lindsay-lohan-sexy-video.html

 

[iluvjeisa]

This is Terry overtaken by a major star to do a better-than-the tabloids shoot complete with crawling on the mirrors shots, armed with a nice big bandage covering her wrist.

Interview weren't far off when they had Lindsay on the cover as Elizabeth Taylor. She doesn't have those eyes, but she's really photogenic.

 

[tigerrouge]

I think of Lindsay as some sort of tearaway Liz Taylor - or the version of Liz that this decade deserves.