Comments on: Nicole Kidman replaced by Audrey Tautou as the face of Chanel No. 5

By: lisa

lisa — Sat, 24 May 2008 05:22:54 +0000

Living in Sydney and knowing people who have worked with Kidman, the story is always the same. She is not attracttive physically or otherwise, A nasty girl who is not so bright or talented. Just pushy and pushed by her famiy. haha! I think she should keep up the botox it suits her! And this pregnancy is creepy. I notice her lips are still full of botox which is not to be used when pregnant!??? We will see!

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: marnie

marnie — Sun, 11 May 2008 05:15:01 +0000

To all of you who have said Nicole is fake and has no personaility - you are SO wrong. Living in Sydney and having had gone to the high school across the road from Nicole and having a relative who lived down the street from where she grew up, I saw alot of her and she was and is a refreshing warm and friendly person, who believe me has plenty of personality. There is no way you would say she had no personality if you met her. She has heaps of spark. She isn’t fake, she will tell you just what she thinks and you can get a good argument from her. When she is home in Sydney she isn’t done ‘up’ like an actress, her hair is a mess, she has no make up and she is a natural beauty. In saying natural I am not saying she hasn’t had any ‘work’ done I’m saying she doesn’t care how she looks when she steps outside her house, not when she is home in Sydney. And she is very beautiful and one classy act and she KNOWS when to be ‘poised’ and when to be ‘relaxed’. The only thing that matters to her right now is her and Keith’s baby. And thank you to all that have said nice things about her, because she truly is a lovely person.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Wif

Wif — Fri, 09 May 2008 23:17:50 +0000

Thanks for mentioning that quote from Chanel snappyfish. I am fun and fabulous. If that image was conveyed more than the “lots of money, superglam” thing, I may be more inclined to shell out the money for their stuff.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: journey

journey — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:07:36 +0000

has anyone else heard anything about the modern versions of many of the old perfumes not smelling like they used to? something about their cheapening the ingredients that go into them? chanel was one of the classic perfumes they were talking about.

also celebitchy, that old bottle of perfume that belonged to the ex-girlfriend may have deteriorated. perfume doesn’t last forever, and since we know that she had to be a skank, maybe her skankiness oozed into the bottle and ruined it. making it spoil like a rotting peach.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: ChaChaHeels

ChaChaHeels — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:26:49 +0000

Well, the “Ice Queen” imagery goes with Chanel No. 5, and it has since it’s creation.

What Chanel meant by “artificial” was that she did not want to create yet another floral perfume that everyone else had made in the past; she didn’t want to create a typical spicey blend, or a typical citrus blend of perfume, aromas comprised mostly of things we find in nature, around us. She was among the first to use a synthetic aldehyde essence as well as natural perfume essences to create perfume. Chanel No. 5 is a classic for many reasons, that one in particular. The natural perfume essences are still in the perfume, they’re it’s base: they include the May rose from Grasse, and jasmine, among other floral essences that are less pronounced. It would be very much like Jean Patou’s Joy without that aldehyde additive.

The amount of the synthetic is what makes Chanel No. 5 unique, too: there’s a story (not sure if it’s a myth) that too much was added–more than was intended–and the effect created a scent “with a chill” on the palate. Like “pink snow”. It’s not accidental that so many women consider it to be a “winter” perfume. It has a luxurious richness about it in terms of fragrance, you feel you’d like something lighter for warmer weather.

It’s one of my favourites, has been since I was a child. I’ve never associated it with rich old women, I can’t understand how it would be.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Sasha

Sasha — Fri, 09 May 2008 01:59:32 +0000

Because when I think of French perfume, I immediately associate it with a stiff, bland, shrill ice queen from Australia.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: snappyfish

snappyfish — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:38:32 +0000

Gabrielle Chanel once said that a woman has to be two things “Fun and Fabulous”.

This is a perfect choice for the face of Chanel. French and lovely.

well done.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Annie

Annie — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:29:58 +0000

I never understood using Nicole for this campaign. I think Audrey is better because of her fresh classic French look.

I don’t think Audrey represents youth, but she does represent class and a French look.

Nicole is way over rated.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: josh

josh — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:24:54 +0000

I doubt any of you who are putting Kidman down.have the talent or beauty she has. even tho she does not look like she use to before .. hell!! who does.. you are not gonna look like you do right now 5 or 10 years from now.So go grab your bag of corn chips and ur diet coke before you go work out and try to stay looking good !!! and take a picture of urself and compare it down the road…… Gene Tierney was a beauty … but beauty fades……. so move on u haters,,,,,,,,,, and live and love ……….. josh …… NICOLE ROCKS………….. EVERYBODY is beautiful in thier own way .. so PEACE OUT…..

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: truthie

truthie — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:28:19 +0000

I can’t imagine what one must look like themselves if they find Kidman attractive. Is it her drooping top eyelids or her high to the sky forehead? Gene Tierney was a beauty not Kidman

Report this comment as spam or abuse