Posts Tagged ‘crap’
“Layered stitching lends a repaired look to these slim, two-tone skinny pants from 3.1 Phillip Lim, while tied sleeves and a sweater overlay add a clever element.”
Got that? These pants have a sweater SEWN ON to them! You can’t take it off if you get cold. It’s just there to add a clever element.
$595 at shopbop.
Before you complain about the $13,776 price tag, consider the close-up view of this vest:
“Take your ___ cues from ___ and wear this ___ style with ____ attitude – think ___ pants and ____ heels.”
Replace the missing words (the ones I found most irritating) with better ones!
P.S. My size is sold out.
It’s official: Monkeys are the new black. The earrings above are sold out at net-a-porter, even though they just appeared on the website. Shit! Time waits for no man at net-a-porter.
This monkey necklace is also sold out! You’ve just saved $1,220. Net-a-porter says: Amedeo’s monkey cameo is a wonderfully unique adornment. Wear it to lend antique appeal to summer tops and skirts.
I could argue that nothing would lend antique appeal to “tops and shorts” unless they were made in the 19th century but why bother.
Start curating your monkey-themed crap asap! Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Jane Pratt has finally launched her new online magazine and I want to know why something so awful and pointless can even get off the ground. Everything about it is stupid and bad.
And where’s Tavi?? Remember when this was going to be a joint project? Who is our Blogging Business Deal specialist? Please report back on this intriguing mystery.
Meanwhile, this awful Jane crap got me thinking about how there is really nowhereto go online if you want some entertainment for smart people. The Huffingting Post is just populist garbage, Jezebel is too full of itself and has too much attitude, The New Yorker isn’t visually appealing, Arts & Literature Daily has too many choices to sift through, pop culture websites are too geared toward the bourgeois hipster, etc etc.
Why can’t we have something good, with lots of thoughtful, funny, sophisticated, and provocative essays and photos?
I started talking about this to a friend, and tried to explain the target audience for this imaginary project. All I could think of was “you know, people like us: bitter intellectuals.”
He liked the sound of this overlooked market and so do I. I want to start an online magazine for Bitter Intellectuals. We’ll have a daily column about annoying words or phrases, obviously. We’ll have reviews of movies and music, critiques of other blogs, advice on stuff that grown ups care about, debates about politically incorrect subjects, merciless satire, personal stories of defeat and humiliation, and so much more. With good art.
Who would like to get in on something like this? Who has any experience in starting a no-budget venture? Who wishes there was a place to go online where they would never see words like “social-networking” or “game-changing” or terms like “tresses” or “locks” instead of “hair?” Most important, who has the enthusiasm to make me follow through on this?
Alex Wang expects you to pay $395 for a pair of jeans with a swipe of paint down the sides.
“These dirty-wash straight-leg jeans feature foil accents at the sides. 5-pocket styling and single-button closure. Mild distressing and worn edges.”
As if, Alex. You are THIS CLOSE to being Cunt of the Week™.
I would pay $1,595 for these shorts if ___________.
Jen Kao at Shopbop.
“Levi’s red 1st giant fit jean from the first Levi’s red collection in blue denim.
This jean is the oversized fit of the 3 different fits from this collection.
The features of this jean are the cinch back, the low 1 back pocket and the huge seat that flows into the extra wide ergonimic legs.
This pair has never been washed and was worn consistently for around six years before having to be put to bed in the archive due to the smell that it gives off once it gets slightly warm.
Size: 32″ W x 32″ L
* Please be aware that this product is second hand and has been worn. Although it’s been treated with love it may show signs of wear and tear – we hope you understand that this isn’t a fault, it adds to the individual story of each piece.”
Get them here.
I admit that I missed the beginning and since it was around 2 in the morning, I was somewhat medicated, ahem. But oh my god, what a piece of shit! Surely it rates as one of the worst movies of the decade and I don’t mean the kind of bad that’s so bad it’s good.
Who is this cunt Douglas Buck and why do people give him money to make films? Before we explore this mystery, let me give you a brief rundown on Sisters:
Lou Doillon, looking more like a horse than ever, is a nutcase who all but emits NUTCASE in neon letters over her head. A doctor played by Stephen Rhea as though striving for a bad acting award, is obsessed with the horse, as is Chloe Sevigny, who plays a reporter but looks like a lesbian college freshman. Weird flashbacks crank up the confusion, and the low budget is like a whole separate character, dominating every scene, Finally, Lou or someone stabs the doctor (or someone) and Chloe puts on Lou’s cheap wig to signify that she is nuts, too.
Back to Douglas Buck, the director. His IMDB credits are pretty sketchy. A forthcoming movie called “The Theatre Bizarre” features characters called “the Writer, Homeless Woman, Junkie Girl” and “Mere Antoinette.” He is credited as one of 6 directors. Even better, a movie he made in 2003 called “Prologue” has this logline:
A young woman returns home one year after losing her hands in a savage attack. She cannot remember who her assailant was, but a trip to the local post office leads her towards the truth.
Why, Douglas? Why are you so insistent on making awful puerile crap? Is this what you went to film school for? I can’t think of one good excuse for you unless you’re donating your fees to cancer research. I’m not saying you should lose your hands (in a savage attack); I’m just saying you’re a fucking cunt.