Fug the Covers: Mila Kunis’s Australian Exploits


So, Mila Kunis isn’t having the best month of covers. First she got hosed into unrecognizability by Glamour, and then two magazines in Australia chimed in to make sure the rule of threes was in effect.

At least this FACIALLY looks like Mila, although her EXPRESSION suggests that she is extremely skeptical that: a $6.50 expenditure can make her richer; that a $9.99 accessory will change her wardrobe (is the subplot of this magazine, “Never spend more than $10″?); and that sixty seconds will make her look hotter. Unless you mean hotter as in sweltering, in which case, yes, I could go outside onto Madison Avenue and achieve that in about six seconds and then spend my extra fifty-four standing in front of a box fan. Further, Mila Kunis is someone who comes off in movies like she IS the coolest girl in Hollywood, and like your dream is to get stuck in an elevator with her and Emma Stone and then become besties and go shopping together and swap saucy stories about famous boys. The girl on this cover looks bored and kind of annoyed with you, and as if she would sit down in the stalled elevator the whole time stabbing angrily at her iPhone and pretending it was getting a signal. Finally, the unflattering melange of ruffles sits on her like armor. She’s so disconnected from it, as if she just stood there and someone snapped it onto her torso, took the shots, and then lifted it off and ushered in the next thing.

However, the Cleo cover is a dream to me compared to this horror:

DO you heart Mila Kunis, InStyle? DO YOU? Actually maybe you do, because this cover looks like you hastily assembled a stand-in from a bunch of pictures of limbs and boobs, like a digital mannequin (or a digital Mannequin). Like, seriously, that thigh is SO BAD right there that I keep thinking she was actually leaning against an end table, or a person, or something, and an editor was like, “Eh, that’s boring, erase it and jam a leg up in that sucker.” Can SOMEBODY please do the proper justice to this girl? It should not be this hard. WE’VE SEEN HER. WE KNOW THIS.

[Photos: Splash]

react:
Leave a reply

Comments (63):

  1. Helen
    0

    How is it even possible to make such bad pictures of someone so beautiful? I don’t understand.

  2. kathotdog
    0

    InStyle looks like they used Mila’s eyes, but that is about it.

  3. Willow
    0

    That In Style cover almost looks like they’ve put Vanessa Hudgen’s hair on Mila Kunis’ head and then put that on Kate Middleton’s body and then stuck a random miscellaneous leg in there and amped up the cleavage.

    SO CONFUSED.

  4. Sarah F
    0

    At least they didn’t airbrush her arms toothpick thin in the first one. The outfit is awful, but at least it’s really a photo of her.

    The second one, I don’t even know.

    • Annie E
      0

      That was my thought too – she looks remarkably unretouched in the Cleo photo.

  5. ESK
    0

    There is something creepy going on with her neck on the InStyle cover as well. And it definitely looks like they just photoshopped her face onto a completely different body.

    • Claire L1
      0

      YES!!!! Like, even if they had arranged her hair to make her neck look thinner ( btdt)….there is NO way that her hair would make it look like a pencil!

    • EAN
      0

      The neck, yes!! Oh my goodness it’s so freaky-skinny looking. And her head looks like they copy and pasted it from a picture that was a different size from the rest of it and didn’t bother to resize it to match. The disorientation is giving me a headache!

  6. Heather
    0

    Plus, just, the bad extensions….

  7. Stella
    0

    I just googled “Mila Kunis magazine covers” and I must say there are some major hatchet jobs in there, she definitely suits a much edgier looking cover, her LA Times and W covers are stunning as are her Interview and Elle (UK) ones.

    I know she’s meant to be the new “Girl Next Door” but I prefer her when she’s being a bit more vampy.

  8. Kris M
    0

    Doesn’t InStyle have better cameras? Photoshopping aside, the picture looks like it was taken after a night of clubbing with a disposable camera.

    • filmcricket
      0

      Per the link below, it’s a Terry Richardson photo, and that appears to be his M.O. How that guy keeps getting work is beyond me.

  9. meggiemoo
    0

    I don’t think that’s her hair or body on the InStyle one. Maybe her face, but cut and pasted onto other body parts.

  10. Leah
    0

    Ahhh FrankenMila!

  11. nan
    0

    AND not even mentioned here that InStyle dress is mess of mother-of-the-bride fabric and bad-bedazzle and dangerous dependance on boob-tape. On a nother note her hair is really nice in the Cleo cover.

  12. L
    0
    • Phoebe
      0

      WOW that really is the exact same cover! How did that happen!

    • Sarah
      0

      How weird! Its like in a cheap catalog’s website when they are trying to show you the many colors a shirt comes in but they use the same pic and just photoshop the shirt in different colors. Only in the InStyle pic, they moved that leg over to the left for some reason, so it looks like her thigh attaches to her cooch. It’s just wrong, in so many ways.

    • Kit
      +1

      Maybe “In Style” is owned by Bazzar – or maybe they’re all owned by the same parent company. Only explanation!

  13. Cat
    0

    Did Mila piss off some one in the magazine industry? Holy crap, that second cover is brutal! At least I can recognize her in the first one!

  14. Gigi
    0

    Mila looks bummed that her cocktail dress final sewing project at the community college evening extension won only 4th place. (Maybe it’s the hip fins, hon!) Better luck next time!

  15. lamamu
    0

    Guess it would have been copyright infringement if she’d awkwardly jutted out her right leg. (Angelina Jolie has a lock on that.)

  16. Val
    0

    Somehow InStyle made Mila Kunis look like Delta Burke.

  17. TonyG
    0

    They totally vertically scrunched her face on that InStyle cover. This is bad. So bad.

  18. Joanna
    0

    She is on the cover of Interview this month and looks super great!

  19. Robert Crofton
    0

    Has anyone looked at the Interview Magazine cover…besides the slight mistake on the eyebrows (you’ll see it), I think she looks gorgeous there:

    http://cdn03.cdn.justjared.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/kunis-interview/mila-kunis-covers-interview-magazine-august-2012-01.jpg

  20. Amber
    0

    That is…bad. I could take a better, more recognizable picture of her with an old school Poloroid camera. Wow.
    But now I’m curious as to how I can get fitter, richer and happier for only $6.50 AND the $9.99 accessory that will change my life. Damn, I wish I lived in Australia.

    • Lilibet
      0

      No, you don’t – it’s always hot and the commercial magazines have very limited horizons, especially for women, and no sense of style or what’s happening in the world around them. In Australia, most women 40 and over strive to be blonde and tanned no matter what. I know. I live here.

      • JJ
        0

        Late to the party, but… Australia is always hot??? Try Melbourne in winter. Frost on the grass this morning, and today won’t get above 16 degrees C. Been like this for months.

        And I’m over 40, know a whole bunch of women, and not one of them strives to be blonde and tanned. Please, don’t label all of Australia according to whatever corner you happen to inhabit.

  21. TereLiz
    0

    Ugh. She looks creepily composited for the InStyle cover. Like a paper doll cut out with safety scissors. And I feel like that hasn’t been Mila’s face for about eight years now. SRSLY. She looks just like Jackie from That 70′s Show, and not in a good way. Come on, InStyle, girlfriend is trying to move on from that look, not back into it!

    I actually love how annoyed she looks in the Cleo cover. Like you said, at least she’s recognizable. I like to think she’s looking at the InStyle cover as she’s being shot for Cleo, lol.

  22. H.C.
    0

    Omg, Mannequin is 25 years old…

    • sashaukky
      0

      She’s going to be 29 in August sometime. you all must be demi moores friends…working mila over like this. I think she looks fab…all covers of everyone are photo shopped and most barely resemble the person in real life….so demi get off this web site ..stop the insults.

      • Neil
        0

        Er, they’re referring to the movie Mannequin (which is referenced in the post) being 25 years old, not Mila Kunis.

        Also, no one is insulting or “working over” Mila – everyone’s saying how beautiful she is, they just can’t believe what a hatchet job the magazine photographers/editors/designers have done with her cover shoots when they have such great material as her to work with.

  23. mhorv4
    0

    WHat is going on with her neck in the instyle photo? It looks like her head/neck/body are all non-related. It is weird! In the first photo she looks like she is trying to get her body away from that horrid dress to the greatest extent possible. Who puts extra fabric on the lower hips-that is just mean.

  24. vandalfan
    0

    The Instyle cover is an amalgamation. The photo of (whomever’s) body parts was taken with eye level at the sternum, but her face and hair were photographed by someone about six inches above the top of her head. It gives that foreshortened, squashy look. It’s difficult to believe that all these covers are of the same person.

  25. LadyB
    0

    What’s going on with the thigh phalanges on the Cleo cover? Are they ruffles on the outseams of the pants? Are they coming from the top? Either way, they are terrible!

  26. April
    0

    Did anyone notice that the photo credit for the original Bazaar cover was Terry Richardson? There’s your answer as to why that InStyle cover looks so bad.

  27. Erika
    0

    This jumpsuit looks like a sewing tutorial on ruffles. It’s awful.

  28. Nancy
    0

    I thought she looked a little like Marianne Cotillard on the Cleo cover.

  29. Brem
    0

    The saddest part about the Glamour cover is that they didn’t even let her keep her own eye color … in real life she has two different colored eyes. In the Glamour article (and I think in the InStyle article, it’s hard to tell on my computer screen) they’ve made her eyes the same color.

  30. Jewels
    0

    Do these stylists of magazines covers actually know what style is these days? They have butchered her beyond recognition. No one wants to wear either of those dresses, they are totally unappealling. Are these the best frocks from the fashion department? Really? In a world of fabulous clothes, this is the best they could come up with. If so, I find it completely depressing.

  31. sashaukky
    0

    What’s all this bad mouthing about. she looke lovely in all of them What a damn pack of wolves on this post. Is this Mila hate thing for a reason. Media working Mila over for Ashton….sick…she’s alway lovely. All the covers for every actress is photo shopped and Mila’s are no different. So get over your bad mouthing. Me thinks this is somekind of a gang up on Mila….so typically women….I wonder what you all look like? You must be perfect and wouldn’t want your pic’s photo shopped if you were on any cover. Get over yourselves…

    • Guerra
      0

      Um relax.. They are all saying mila is beautiful & these covers don’t do her justice. We comment on all covers where we feel a whole production of people could of come up with something amazing but failed to make an already gorgeous person even more gorgeous. Take it down a notch.

      • Claire L1
        0

        Actually, I’ve never seen anyone dislike on Mila, here. Remember when she told off the reporters in Russian and we all swooned?…yeah, it’s like that.

  32. Guerra
    0

    Also no one gives a shit about Demi Moore

  33. Sajorina
    0

    I ♥ Mila Kunis! That’s why I say, with love, that her face & hair in the 1st cover are GORGEOUS & FIERCE, but that outfit is a mess! And, that 2nd cover is a freakin’ disaster… It doesn’t do her beauty & charisma justice! She deserves better, Australian magazines!

  34. Scanderoon
    0
  35. Bambi Anne Dear
    0

    Just reading all those post-its slapped over Cleo makes it look like such a cheap load of hogwash that Mila’s probably justifiably sceptical.

  36. Zuzzie
    0

    There’s no way that’s her in that second photo.

  37. ML
    0

    “Prize-winning tricks to try next time you’re naked”? What? Like, pulling a rabbit out of a giant top hat? I mean, my issue obviously hasn’t come in the mail yet so I’m just guessing.

  38. Ms. A.
    0

    Photoshopping is just crazy out of hand at this point.
    Fug ALL the covers.

  39. Bwags
    0

    I believe the magazines are punishing her for dating Ashton Kutcher.

  40. Cristina
    0

    Can we talk about her head for a second? Doesn’t it look like they shorted it? Or she’s pointing her forehead forward and her chin back, leading to a weird angle? I don’t know what’s going on there.

  41. Remi
    0

    why are you girls posting all these odd pictures and then claiming it is mila kunis?

  42. electric
    0

    This is the fall out for dating a dope like Ashton Kutcher…

  43. Nicole
    0

    Mila is my girl crush, it kills me to see so many covers screw up on someone so naturally gorgeous! Also, the Cleo cover creeps me out a bit more than the InStyle. It looks like they forgot the makeup on her right eye or used two different eye pictures to make her face. I’m sure it must be the lighting. Right?

  44. Mary Urech Stallings
    0

    A young Delta Burke?

  45. Franziska
    0

    I’m more shocked by the headlines on the covers. How pathetic must we women come across to be lured into buying a magazine that says we can be fitter, richer and happier for only $6.50.