I understand where wearing a blazer with nothing underneath is a sexy concept.
I just don’t think it’s that sexy HERE. And I think it’s the pants. (Also, frankly, I’m all underboobed out, thanks in part to Tricia Helfer.) I can see the logic of not wanting to funk up the bottom half too much because there is SO much trying happening up top, but in this case I think the trousers NEED to be hotter. Slimmer, perhaps, or in a funky pattern, or metallic. As they are, they’re almost frumpy, in a distracting way that kind of spoils the effect. And can we decide ombre hair is over? And can we decide that this outfit is the perfect on-the-nose encapsulation about how overexposed Olivia Wilde is right now in general? Fug Madness thanks you, Olivia, but maybe go take a nap for a while.
Then again, maybe it’s BECAUSE I have Wilde fatigue that I can’t see the forest for the trees. Please, show me the forest.
I will show you the forest:
- And that forest is fug. (55%, 3,027 Votes)
- The forest is meh. Needs work. (39%, 2,133 Votes)
- The forest is fabulous. If "the forest" means her outfit and the whole shebang. I'm pretty sure it does. (6%, 323 Votes)
Total Voters: 5,483