Fug or Fine the Cover: InStyle With the Oz Ladies


fug-or-fab

This actually may already be off newsstands, so oops, but:

Mila Kunis looks as pissed as if she just read one of the movie’s reviews right before stepping in front of the camera; Michelle Williams looks as if somebody just told her a joke and she’s trying not to laugh and ruin the shot; Rachel Weisz looks like she either didn’t care for the joke Michelle Williams just heard, or just can’t stand the other two and is only there because she’s being paid to be. I suppose a cover where the three of them are all wacky joviality and back-slapping would be weird in its own way, but rather than being wonderful, there’s something deeply frosty and uncomfortable about this — not to mention that Rachel, who is gorgeous, doesn’t look great; Michelle’s eyes may or may not be in focus, which is distracting; and Mila, again, just seems mad at me and I can’t figure out why because her crazy-ass giant fuchsia hat looks like the best part of the movie.

Also, not for nothing, whatever they’re wearing looks like it was on the clearance rack at JC Penney. From last spring.

But people tend to like InStyle‘s occasionally chilly aesthetic better than I do, so vote the heck out of it.

Am I being too harsh?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
react:
Leave a reply

Comments (50):

  1. Steph J
    +3

    I don’t love what they are wearing…but I love all their faces!

  2. Chasmosaur
    +12

    On first glance, Rachel Weisz looks like Brooke Shields. Brooke Shields is a lovely, lovely woman, but I don’t think Rachel Weisz would appreciate the comparison somehow.

    And why do all of them have to have the sideswept hair?

    • Alameda Peg
      +2

      I totally see the Brooke Shields thing now that you say it.

    • Breda
      +9

      The brunettes are like single quotes around Michelle Williams’s head. It’s weird, especially as they’re the only dark parts of the photo.

      • Princess Buwwercwup
        +2

        Ha ha! I was thinking something similar, only with hair curtains.

  3. cathy
    +20

    3 wonderful beautiful and talented women and this photo really does them no justice. bad work, in style.
    and they are in a movie with very fun and colorful aesthetic and instead of giving that a nod, you put them all in this stupid bland pinkish colors? BAD!

  4. ringthing
    +8

    I’m not a lover of pastels so I think all the dresses are ugly – and I’m not a fan of the way Rachel & Mila’s hair is sideswept in opposite directions, so thy look like they’re framing the air above Michelle’s head – but over all, their faces look ok. With so much retouching done on magazine covers, everyone kind of looks the same anymore, sort of over lightened and featureless.

    • renee w
      +8

      The mirror opposite hair bothers me as well. I usually don’t mind symmetry, but I can’t with the hair bookends.

    • Chelsea
      +3

      Haha, the hair symmetry is exactly what I came here to comment on. Glad I’m not the only one! :)

  5. clampers
    +4

    I love JCPenney…

  6. Aimee
    0

    While it is all a little chilly and pastel for me. What really bothers me looking at this is the fact that Rachel is 5’7″ and Mila is 5’4″ yet they have made the photograph look as if they are the same height. I can’t even notice anything else for this fact.

    • MKKS
      +14

      Yeah, looks to me that the 3 clearly weren’t together when the photo was taken and they got photoshopped. Like a Kardashian Kristmas photo.

      • msd
        +3

        Exactly my thought. It’s like those Vanity Fair photshoots where half the people are in L.A and the other half in NY or London or whatever and then everything gets pieced together in Photoshop later. In fact, the whole cover seems very Vanity Fair Hollywood edition circa 2010, with cheaper dresses.

    • Rayna
      +6

      “All this I could forgive, but, Debbie – PASTELS???”

      • Art Eclectic
        +1

        The quote I was thinking when I looked at that cover was “Florals. For Spring. Groundbreaking.”

        Great minds, etc… ;)

    • LibraryChick
      0

      Surely it’s possible for Mila to wear heels and Rachel to wear flats? I know there are other ways to achieve height similarity without Photoshop. I still remember watching a “making of” segment on the movie Circle of Friends. Staff had to dig a small ditch for Minnie Driver so Chris O’Donnell could look taller when she walked beside him.

  7. Elizabeth in SF
    +3

    Mila: Dude, your people are the ones who dressed us.
    Rachel: No worries, I’ll have my husband “discuss” the comment with him later.
    Michelle: Ohhhh, that is going to be so fun to watch.

    Having seen the movie, yes, Mila’s giant hat is *fantastic*. Michelle makes Glinda seem less tooth-rottingly sweet (or possibly I just love Michelle and Glinda gets a free pass as a result). Rachel gets to commandeer all of the rhinestones and most of the feathers in Oz for some truly glam outfits. The 3D is a bit contrived in places, but the opening credits are so well done, I’d suggest you see it in 3D just for those.

    • Elizabeth in SF
      +1

      Pooh. My original comment was supposed to begin with:

      *photographer makes snotty comment that all three look like they’re going to Aunt Hilda’s annual Easter brunch snoozefest*

      Angle brackets around text make HTML sneeze funny. Sigh, I know better than to do that.

      • Elizabeth in SF
        +9

        And now my original comment didn’t come through. I cannot Interwebz today.

        Movie fun. Hat genius. Movie dresses sequined and feathery. Magazine cover bleh.

        Coffee to be acquired.

        • Elizabeth in SF
          +20

          Wait. Yes it did.

          OMG. I apparently need a coffee so huge it comes with wheels on the bottom and a little pull-string. No more Interwebz for me.

  8. Nina
    +3

    The weird thing is that the pictures inside the magazine are quite funky and colourful. Why they chose to put these pastel princesses on the cover is beyond me!

  9. megger
    +5

    HOLY BALLS, WHY IS IT OFF CENTER?? IT’S MAKING ME CRAZY.

  10. TonyG
    +3

    The filter they used to soften the photo is bothering me.

  11. Alameda Peg
    +2

    Oh, I was hoping you’d do this cover! Not only does Mila look angry, it’s made her unrecognizable to me. She looks like she just got braces and is really ticked off about it.

    • scone
      +3

      Yeah, for me, Mila’s face is the one that’s the most messed up. And I think she’ gorgeous – but not here. I think Michelle looks okay, but she’s the only one. AND I don’t like the Easter Basket aspects of the whole shoot.

  12. BRice
    0

    I don’t love the cover but the feature fashion layouts were great. Very high end – more Vogue, Harpers Bazaar-ish than traditional In Style.

  13. Cristina
    +2

    Yeah, this is not good. Mila Kunis and Rachel Weisz look like slightly off versions of themselves (and I’m very sorry for Rachel’s hair). Michelle looks good, if not a little nostril-flare-y. Also, the text over Rachel’s hair is cracking me up.

  14. Robin
    +3

    It’s effective inasmuch as my 10-year-old daughter stared at it in the grocery store and began to muse out loud about how much she would like to have hair like the two long-haired ladies, gee, Mom, could we make my hair like that? So if they’re going for the preteen beauty aspiration market, win.

  15. Vandalfan
    +2

    The movie was not particularly an inspiration to feminism, as the original was. Actually, the costumes, for me, were the only redeeming feature. And as I looked at it, I imagined Glinda’s tiara sold to 10,00 little girls every month, starting this June.

  16. Sarah
    +1

    Well I think they all look great.

  17. aussie
    +1

    Soon as this landed I thought Michelle was channelling Molly Ringwald’s prom dress in Pretty in Pink…without irony.

  18. Janice
    0

    Somehow, I don’t recognize that picture as Rachel. I just saw her in Agora, but it’s like she had her face ironed, or the expression was squashed out of it.

    Mila I recognize but the picture looks a little out of scale, like they just blew it up to make her look taller.

  19. Margrrret
    +1

    I’ma hijack this thread for a minute… you may think the giant fuchsia looks like the best part of the movie- it was, and that’s not a compliment to the hat- but the whole outfit that went with the hat was ridiculously awful. It looked like a Sexy Pirate costume you’d get at a Halloween Store in a neighborhood with a large Persian-American population. They did not have shiny Spandex leggings in 1905. You would have something interesting to say about that.

  20. Sajorina
    0

    I own this issue! I bought it as soon as I saw it because gorgeous women with gorgeous hair that I love & admire are in it! The styling doesn’t really bother me, even though it’s not the best cover ever!

  21. M
    +1

    it’s an okay cover, btw have you see the Oz? it’s 10 out of 10

    • ErinE
      0

      really? I want to see it but the bad reviews are deterring me!

      • M
        +1

        it’s the best! the reviews I read didn’t get the depth the film has at all. it promotes some of the best values around – tolerance, patience, ability to work with what you got instead of whining, and avoiding hate as something that disrupts you in the long run

      • Vandalfan
        0

        Torture! There’s torture, of Glinda by the others. Ridiculous, and so inappropriate for a kid’s story. Just take away her magic, or something. It spoiled the beautiful visuals and costumes to me.

  22. Emma
    0

    “there’s something deeply frosty and uncomfortable about this”

    I actually feel that way about all the OZ publicity featuring all three women, and I think it’s largely because they’re all leading ladies and I can’t help but ASSUME they’re all competing, and resenting one another for sharing the spotlight. I’m sure that’s not actually the case. Maybe it’s because they all play witches.

  23. Faye
    +4

    These are three beautiful ladies, each lovely in their unique way. But somehow In Style has managed to make them look equally blah, washed out, and personality-less. Bad bad In Style.

  24. ErinE
    0

    I voted yes, but not because it’s serene. I think they were all channeling their inner witch, and that was the intention (taken from some of the interviews I’ve seen about their characters). I think the 3 of them sharing a cover is a little awk, but this works.

  25. AnniLau
    0

    Have you seen the April cover with Zooey Deschanel yet? She’s almost unrecognizable…and oddly Paulina Porizkova-esque.

  26. Tessa
    0

    Umm… why do they all look like they’re holding something in their mouth? It almost looks like the photographer caught them eating, so they all tried to do some sort of odd closed mouth smile.

  27. Kathi
    0

    This picture actually looks better than the cover in real life. I saw it on a co-worker’s desk, and I couldn’t get over the pink-y raccoon eyes on Mila and Rachel. It’s still creeping me out a bit.

  28. witjunkie
    0

    I couldn’t even vote because this cover produced zero response from me, emotional or otherwise.

  29. Kris
    0

    This whole cover is just… off. It definitely seems like these 3 women were not in the same room at the same time. Pastels don’t bother me. The wackiness of the finished product does. Seems like something happened to the side of Rachel’s face… it’s just a weird shape. And I agree with whomever said that it looks like they just made Mila larger all over to match the picture. Just a peculiar mashup of photoshopping.

  30. audininja
    0

    cause rachael is hot.

  31. heidi
    0

    It looks like Michelle is wearing brown hair antlers.