Fugcome


This is Emma Watson, shooting a Lancome campaign in Paris — excuse me, Lancôme; you know the hat over the O must matter because Emma is also wearing a hat. Synergy! However, I hope this ad looks better in motion, because in still frames she looks like the love child of Charlie Chaplin and Chloe Sevigny — a child, in fact, that the world should rue does not exist, because THINK of the Fug Madness seedings.

[Photos: Splash News]

react:
Leave a reply

Comments (33):

  1. Annie
    0

    Line your white shorts, people who make white shorts!

  2. Emily
    0

    I love Emma Watson, but she looks plain ridiculous here.

  3. Gigi
    0

    Annie, I think the shorts are lined, albeit, neither layer is adhered to the other except at the ends. There is a shadow behind that field of lace, but it ends in white fabric. Thankfully, because I know what you mean about necessary liners on white things!

    This outfit looks like half the sh*t that JCrew tries to convince us we need to buy. Put it on a stumpy model with dimpled thighs (aka, a lot of us) and see why we don’t need it, Jenna.

  4. LYNN
    0

    Gewwww!!!
    That first pic, I thought it was ‘whatshisface’ that was married to Amy Winehouse…or was it the guy dating Kate Moss?
    Anyhoodle, not my favorite look from La Watson.

  5. jessicookie
    0

    (I’m very curious to see if you get any blowback for the “adult language” on that last slide. No complaints here, mind you.)

    Oh, Emma. I love you, but I am very glad that these fashion choices were made by someone else, because you already make enough of your own mistakes.

  6. Share
    0

    Oh, gosh. They made short-shorts from my aunt’s Easter tablecloth.

  7. LG
    0

    *wail of frustration*

    Oh Emma. Emma Emma Emma. No. Here is what would have made this better:

    1. If these were pictures of you going to The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf.
    2. If you were WEARING SOME DAMN PANTS, JEEZ.
    3. Or even some DAMN FORMAL SHORTS made of some fabric other than the remnants of faux-Victorian lace sheers, as though you were wearing some bizarre anachronistic remake of Scarlett O’Hara’s seduction-scheming Curtain Dress (also: shorts appearing to be shorts rather than a fancy diaper would help — super-short + diaper-colored = bad idea).

    Seriously, though. Then it would have been kicky, fun, Charlie Chaplin-by-way-of-Annie Hall instead of Tragic Lace Diaper.

  8. JayBee
    0

    Ahh Fug Girls! Yet another epic inner monologue. Forget Charlie Sheen – you two are WINNING!

  9. Maretha2
    0

    These pictures do not make we want to buy makeup or perfume. They make me want to buy pants.

  10. Chasmosaur
    0

    Outfit is horrible, but I am glad to see she’s growing that pixie cut out a little bit. I used to have a pixie, and sometimes you can just take them too short – she needs a little bit of face framing.

  11. Peggy
    0

    Ok, she looks adorable, and you can’t blame the clothing choices on her. But I do wish whoever had styled this had matched the white of the shirt with the white of the shorts, or just avoided the combo all together.

  12. Patricia
    0

    I too mourn the never-to-be-born offspring of Charlie Chaplin and Chloe Sevigny. The child would have been destined for the Fug Hall of Fame.

  13. Breda
    0

    Hey, that’s Shakespeare & Co! Cool.

    Also, “the love child of Charlie Chaplin and Chloe Sevigny” is EXACTLY IT. Hah. None of these pieces are great individually, but put together, they’re AWFUL.

    I still hate that hair. I’m not sure she’ll ever win me over on that.

  14. Alice Menzies
    0

    @Lynn:

    Lolz, yes! She looks like the spawn/sibling of Pete Doherty. Perhaps a little cleaner.

  15. Leigh
    0

    It was killing me, trying to figure out who Miss Emma reminds me of, here.

    The slouchy posture…
    …the sullen countenance…
    …the masculine garb…

    …she’s Samantha Ronson!

  16. jerkygirl
    0

    At first I thought she was wearing TAP PANTS and I was all upset, and then I saw they were just tablecloth shorts and I was relieved, even though they’re still way too short. I admit, if they were longer and a miniskirt, I might like them. But she’s so young looking that this photoshoot is kinda creepy looking to me. I know she’s a real certified adult and all but she really doesn’t look it, not that she isn’t very pretty or anything, but she looks like a high school kid.

  17. Pink Coat
    0

    She looks like she’s about to flash someone in the first picture. A little ‘come here and see what I got’ look going on there. It made me literally laugh out loud.

  18. Sandra
    0

    WTF? Is it Celebrity Hat Week and nobody told me? She doesn’t look any better in hers than RPattz looks in his. Maybe Pete Doherty did spawn and now all his little replicants are clawing their way into the light of day.

  19. vandalfan
    0

    I don’t think her make up is doing her any favors, which is odd because I thought Lancome was all about face creams and what-not.

  20. JanetP
    0

    I have no idea what these photos are supposed to make me want to buy. It will be interesting to see if they ever make it onto the newsstands. Terrible!

    (though I love her hair)

  21. noodlestein
    0

    vandalfan, I’m with you – this makeup is completely unfortunate. I mean, I know that the add is FOR makeup, but there’s just. So. Much. Poorly played, Lancome.

  22. noodlestein
    0

    Urk – tag not closed properly. Stupid HTML.

  23. marcia
    0

    I dare somebody on these comments to go shopping in a hat, blazer, tap pants, and platform pumps, and come back here and report to us all how it went. Because I, for one, would like to know….you know, without embarrassing MYSELF.

  24. Rayna
    0

    JanetP and JayBee kinda summed it up for me………………

  25. Chelle
    0

    who the heck was the stylist on this shoot? Looks like something out of the 80s! She’s so cute, short hair and all – it can’t be THAT difficult to dress her nicely!

  26. Hermione
    0

    When I saw the thumbnail, I thought it was Chris Colfer getting ready to pee. I think that’s a fail.

  27. S
    0

    Even though the shorts look silly, her legs are amazing.

  28. Halo
    0

    Emma is absolutely lovely, but somebody is trying to uglify her. Terrible! For the record, I like the short hair on her.

  29. Steph
    0

    Is it just me, or does she look a little like Chuck Bass in that first photo?

  30. Faye
    0

    I know it’s unhip to admit this, but I HATE her short hair. I’m not against short hair in principle, but it doesn’ t work for her IMO. She doesn’t look “gamine” or “waifish” or “like a modern-day Audrey Hepburn,” or any of the other thousand gushing activities editors have used to describe the look. I’m sorry, but she looks like a boy. A pretty boy, but a boy nonetheless. She looked a million times prettier with her longer hair.

    Steph – LOL because she COMPLETELY looks like Chuck Bass! It’s not just the hat, it’s that weird over the shoulder pose with the chin tilted at an odd angle, and the corner-of-the-eye look.

    And finally — why would you wear a hat that shades your face when you’re supposed to be pimping a makeup brand? Is the stuff that bad? (This campaign kind of pains me . . . I own a lot of Lancome and I generally love the brand, but their “ambassadors” lately haven’t been doing it for me).

  31. kimmy
    0

    i like the shorts, but hate the rest of the outfit. this is what you would put emma watson in out of everything there is???? WTH.

  32. cb
    0

    Hat fail… is this coming back? Are we soon going to see bedazzled and hot glue gun flowered hats again? I can’t live through another “Blossom” phase. I can’t do it. I hardly made it through the original phase without committing hat stealing/burning crimes against people.

    On a side note, the little “hat” over the “o” in French words (called a circumflex) simply means that a consonant used to follow the “o” in the word in some incarnation (usually that consonant was an “s”).

    Carry on!

  33. xiripity
    0

    clockwork orange?