Katie loves wearing Zac Posen — if the two of them are not tight, then they are the best actors in America and possibly the world — and he’s been giving her more fun stuff lately. For the most part, this is supremely cute, in a way that mostly mitigates the total randomness of the peacock-blue shoes with it. I appreciate a bold move there, but without ANY kind of color tie-in to the larger outfit at hand, they start to look too brunch. (Having said that, next time I’m at brunch, GET ON MY FEET, Shoes.) There is only one little hitch in Ye Olde Giddyup:
The gates to Leg City unexpectedly opened. And it totally spoiled the line of the dress for me. Now that I know about this, I can look back at the top photo and see shades of the pizza party that was to come; what bothers me about it, mostly, is how unnecessary it was. This gown didn’t need slits or sheers or a thigh sighting. It had everything going on already, it fit well, it was bright and diverting. This is just… a diversion from the diversion, and that’s too many tangents for me.
Oh, and on the hair issue: I actually love Katie Holmes with bangs. Remember the bob? She looked great with that hair, and theorerically the bangs worn on her, too. But you know how Hollywood can be: Why cut the bangs when you can get a clip-in piece? So, as I idly wondered whether she’d just thrown on the fringe for the night like a face-bracelet, I hunted for other photos of her recently and found this from Monday:
And… I mean, THAT looks like a wig to me, or else a lot of elaborately done falsies enhancing what she’s already got. Maybe? Or is it just a fulsome blowout? No judgment, Katie; I just demand answers at all times. I’m pushy like that.