I mean, obviously, I SHOULD hate that Carey Mulligan is just sitting around in her bra. But I kind of don’t. Is that crazy? Have I lost my mind? She’s so pretty, and she’s not doing it IN PUBLIC, so the whole thing actually looks extremely model-esque, and it’s on the cover of a magazine and if you can’t look model-esque on the cover of a magazine, WHERE CAN YOU I ASK?
Loading ...
 |
Is This Miley Cyrus' Most Shocking Statement Ever? – Fox News |
 Guess Who Was Just Named The Hottest Woman In The World – Huffington Post | |
| Singer Shows Off Her Skinny New Body – Fox News | |
| Find Out Who Just Racked Up $22,000 In Phone Bills – Huffington Post | |
| You Won't Believe What All These Stars Have In Common – Fox News | |
| Celebrity Steps Out With His New and Taller Girlfriend – Huffington Post |
A book, huh? Is it just stuff you already put on the Web site?
Nope, we wrote the whole thing fresh, just for you.
Awesome. In that case, I want to read it!
Thank you! Click here to find out all the details!
Comments (68):
I don’t mind the clothes so much, but I hate what they did to her face. She has such an interesting and expressive face and it doesn’t look like her at all!
Seriously? I think she looks so beautiful!
She looks beautiful, no question, but she doesn’t look very much like Carey Mulligan.
Yeah, that is not her jawline. Somewhere I saw photos from the rest of this issue of W and they were less photoshopped, anyway.
I thought the same thing… beautiful shot, wonderful cover but I wouldn’t have known who it was without a title.
Yes, I agree. I saw this on TLo’s page, and I thought ‘who is this?’ Beautiful, but would not have guessed Carey Mulligan.
Agreed. If it wasn’t for the title, I don’t think I would have known it was her. They really overdid her eyebrows.
Yup, I didn’t recognise her at all.
Not even a question, this is 100% fabulous.
So pretty! For the first time possibly ever, I am not mad at her hair.
Wow, this is quite photoshopped.
And why? She’s so pretty and unique looking. Here she looks like a generic model.
i think i would have loved it if it were cut so you just saw her upper chest, neck and face — she’s perfect, the look is perfect, the skin and the gray is perfect, the mascara is amazing, the gratuitous bra shot is not. especially because the bra is very calico-innocent-preteen-training bra and i HATE making something like a bra shot seem child like. it’s way too child pornography for me, even with her rocking that awesome look.
Agree. It would have been just as nice if it were a tank top. Like, draw a straight line across her chest from the bottom of the bra straps and make it sort of lingerie-esque (but still white and pointelle and whatever) and it would still be super pretty!
Totally agree. The bra itself isn’t wrong to exist, it’s wrong on this picture. Her face, hair, everything looks amazing. But the bra and shirt off the shoulders is very weird and off-putting. That and the fact that she is clearly wearing high-waist granny panties.
“Ernest, I can SEE my ass !?!”
I don’t want to see anyone posing in their Maidenforms, and second Ortenzia’s objection. She’s too “not a girl, not yet a woman” for my taste. I wouldn’t be bothered at all if it was a bikini swim suit top, but this is so clearly a foundation garment, it just make her look like a teen stripper in one of Those Magazines. The hair and makeup would have been stunning if she was wearing a formal gown.
Well, i do think it’s fabulous and there are plenty of swim wear tops on fashion magazines, but, she is selling something and I guess what she is selling is herself.
tres elegant! A moment of sheer beauty captured. I had no idear she could look this amazing.
It’s really pretty but I don’t think it looks like her.
It’s beautiful, no doubt. But my only problem with it is that it doesn’t even look like her! She’s absolutely unrecognizable!
Oh, Sally Sparrow. How far you’ve come!
/geek moment
That’s what I thought when I saw it. I watched Blink again last week. How lovely she was in it. This is horrible.
Sally Sparrow for the WIN!
Also, I think it looks like her. With her head turned to the side. And with ScarJo’s hair from the other night?
I actually thought it was a clean Lindsay Lohan.
This bland, cream-cheese-coloured model does look very lovely. Who did you say she was again?
I haaaaaate this. The only difference between this picture and one in Maxim is that in the Maxim pic they’d have photoshopped her shiny, and in this she’s photoshopped matte. It’s a crap picture of a crap outfit with crap lighting and crap execution. In fact, if CM herself wasn’t so very pretty, I don’t think this picture would have a single redeeming quality.
I love this comment. Bravo!
I’m glad I’m not the only one who doesn’t like this. No matter how they try to “class” it up, this is still a magazine promoting a star by showing her half-naked, and in my mind that is exploitation. I wish stars — especially talented, seemingly intelligent ones like Mia — would refuse to do these types of covers. You don’t see even lamebrains like Brad Pitt posing half-naked (not now that he’s a “serious” actor; not talking about his earlier modelling days).
I meant Carey – don’t know why I always mix up Carey Mulligan and Mia Wasikowska.
Her head looks too large for her body in this shot.
Helloooo Photoshop!
Pretty!! Not sure why she needed to pose in her bra, maybe its alluding to the “star of Shame sheds her good girl image” title??
“My stars! She’s naked in Shame! Let’s put her in a white bra on this cover.”
scroll so you are just above her eyes and it looks like Katie Holmes.
I agree with S – there is something eerily Joey Potter about the expression going on here.
The hair, make-up and, um, undergarments, however, are divine.
Yes! exactly like Katie Holmes, especially around the mouth.
It’s a gorgeous cover but as everyone already said, it looks nothing like her. Carey Mulligan is lovely in her own right. As such, why did they photoshop her to look like someone else?
Well i never thought she was all that pretty – cute, maybe, but not really pretty– so I kinda like this giving her a totally different, glam look (for face — not wild about the bra shot).
She’s beautiful in this but I can’t really get on board with the whole “These are my boobs. Incredible, are they not?” expression she’s got going on…..just seems not much like her.
It is not that I hate it, it is just really a little too Victoria’s Secret as opposed to front cover of a magazine!
She looks amazing and I love this shot – except for the bra. Why do all these young actresses feel the need to pose in their underwear to “shed the good girl image”???!!! Why does being on a magazine in your underwear mean you’re a grown up? And what’s wrong with a good girl image?? If this had been a corset top or a tank top or anything else that was doing this to her boobs but without the oh-so-cliched bra to make her look grown up, I would have been totally on board.
@Nicola, exactly! Corset it away, young actresses. Put on that mid-riff revealing tank top. But bras and panties when you’re not advertising those is so tacky IMHO. Sexy does NOT have to be objectifying…and I’m moving quickly into a feminist rant and I’ll stop now.
Yes, that’s exactly what I was thinking when I saw this. It’s like posing nude or in skivvies is the Hollywood version of a Bat Mitzvah. Every time a new starlet emerges into the spotlight, you just KNOW that a few years later she’ll be sexing it up on the cover of something, and then probably in court for too many DUIs (Hello, Lindsey Lohan?). And hello… how much MORE public can you get than a magazine cover?
It’s all a bit much (the bra, the digitally enhanced jawline, etc.), but she’s beautiful, she was amazing in Shame, and I adore her regardless.
You know what? She’s so fair and the white and eyelet business are so pale, that it doesn’t really seem like she’s sitting around in her bra. If that bra were black or red or … you know, something Xtina would wear, we’d have no ambiguity.
I also don’t know how I feel about her looking this … not young. Didn’t her face used to be round and she had a pixie haircut? Now she’s all growed up, and I’m not happy with that. The picture is fine
Get off my lawn!
I think she looks beautiful, but I really don’t remember her breasts being that size.
Also, the Maxim comment is bang-on.
I think she looks exquisite. Somehow, taking off her clothes actually highlighted her face, which seems so unlikely, but there it is. Gorgeous.
I think it is a 100% fabulous. I think its vibe is more delicate than sexual, really. CM is just too lovely.
Looking pretty good, aren’t I? Suck it, Shia LaBeef.
Except WHAT DID THEY DO TO HER FACE. I want to love it, I do, but Carey is such a cutie with a round face and dimples, and im pretty sure her chin has been shrunk to 60% of its original size. Alien chin aside, lovely.
Isn’t that ScarJo’s hair from one down? Color me unimpressed (all the way to the right in your box of 64)
I’m not really a fan of Carey Mulligan generally. I don’t know why, I don’t dislike her or anything, but she’s not really on my radar.
However, I think she looks beautiful on this cover, photoshopped or not (I can’t tell either way, cuz, like I said, not on my radar generally). I really don’t get the comments knocking this cover, and I am like 110 years old. I mean, she’s an adult woman on the cover of an adult magazine (not an “adult” magazine), posing in a bra that fully covers her breasts (at least as much as most dresses and shirts do on a lot of starlets). She’s not doing anything overtly sexual. She looks fantastic.
O goodie, female artiste shedding her good girl image. How refreshing.
If I didn’t see the name, I wouldn’t have known it was her. I don’t like it. Whoever said it’s Katie Holmes-esque was right. I’d include Lindsay too. Carey is such a cute girl with nice features (a round face like me!), but something about this photo looks very angular.
This is why they have to splash the celeb’s name all across the cover in giant letters. So you’ll know who it is, despite the post-photo editing unrecognizability.
I mean, why even bother getting the celebs anymore? Just put a mannequin there, or some random art department intern, Photoshop it enough, and voila! Carey Mulligan!
This would be appropriate for the cover of Bridal Underwear Magazine, is that what W is? If not, she should have some clothes on.
FYI: Who she looks like is Julie Andrews. http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/9500000/Julie-Andrews-classic-movies-9594251-1620-1680.jpg&sa=X&ei=2RLpToXdA8HV0QGczLiFCg&ved=0CAsQ8wc4VA&usg=AFQjCNEuOmmoFsnWZ22yVfRz5yTZBNdp7Q
I am not a fan of hers generally, but I do think she looks quite pretty here. She could be in a potato sack and would still look pretty because for once, she doesn’t look like she’s sucking a lemon.
I always hate her in photos…airbrushed to death ones like this, candid ones, production stills…ect I don’t know why. But in her movies I like her a lot
She’s very beautiful, and she looks it. But firstly, she’s actually really talented and very intelligent. She sooo doesn’t need to get all half naked on the cover of a magazine to get jobs. I think she’s been badly advised. To me, this isn’t one of those respected actress gets her body out and then the whole world is suddenly “Holy shit she’s also really hot!!!” situations. We already know CM is a stunner. This is just unnecessary.
Maybe she thought this would be a good way to sell herself as Daisy Buchanan for The Great Gatsby, a women so beautiful and enigmatic that men are falling over themselves to love/help/protect her slash cover up her crimes. Maybe because Michelle Williams is getting such good press they thought CM needed some sexbomb. I don’t know. Like I said, not great advice.
Secondly, this gives me a “classy” wedding lingerie catalog vibe, and that is not a good thing.
None the less, I want my hair, face and body to look like that. (They don’t).
Even though she’s in her bra, I don’t feel like it’s overtly sexual. More, as one commenter said, sort of delicate. It’s not like with ‘adult’ magazines where they’re like “LOOK AT ME I’M IN MY UNDERWEAR AND COVERED IN OIL AREN’T I SEXXXY?”
Instead, she’s sort of calm, very graceful and pretty. I’m a lot more affronted by, say, the Glee cast on the front of GQ than Carey wearing a non-revealing bra and elaborate hair.
P.S I first saw her in Doctor Who, when I was 12, and I think she’s doing really well, career-wise.
Her eyebrows are distractingly fake. And… a magazine cover seems pretty “in public” to me. Many, many orders of magnitude more people have now seen Carey sitting around in her bra than have seen me in mine. And I speak as a stone floozy.
Unrelatedly, I really want that bed jacket.
I agree with the “Pretty, but it doesn’t look like her/Why is it a rite of passage for actresses to pose topless?” comments.
FAB FAB FAB! Carey is not the type that you would call, or portray as sexy but she is giving us sexy and innocent in this shot. LOVE!
I am just so jealous that her boobs are defying gravity. SIGH.
For once she’s not doing her cat’s bum mouth. But it still looks a little strained.
I HATE how they make people’s heads look so big on covers. The Photoshopping is out of control. If her head is normal sized, then her body is the size of my 8-year-old’s. It is creepy! And I agree, it doesn’t look a thing like her. I mean I suppose it is pretty, but it’s not her. And it’s not interesting. And her head is huge. UGH. Stupid magazine covers. Remember that iconic Vogue cover with Jennifer Flavin on the front wearing a sequined bustier and Levi’s? Back then, people’s heads were the right size for their bodies. This garbage is ridiculous.