Since Rachel Weisz up and married her crazy-hot jumpoff Daniel Craig, she’s been keeping a low profile. There have only been a couple of candid shots of her – you can see some here, at Pop Sugar, where it looks like Rachel is flashing her wedding ring. It’s a grainy pic, and I don’t really see the “bling” being discussed – it just looks like a wedding band to me. Anyway, since we don’t have those pics, let’s look at these new images from Rachel’s new ad campaign for Bulgari that were just released. Well… I mean, I love her. I’ve loved her for a long time. I have a soft spot for brunette bitches, and Rachel is always one of my top choices for Hot Girl Friday. She’s like the brunette, biscuit-y version of Michael Fassbender: I know I should find her sketchy, but I just get turned on. Rachel is gorgeous, so I have to wonder: was it necessary to Photoshop her this much? She has laugh lines, and that’s okay. She doesn’t need to look like a plastic doll reclining on a lion.
The ad campaign is for Bulgari’s Jasmin Noir perfume. You know who else is a “face” of a Bulgari scent? Clive Owen. I’m just saying… whoever picks the models at Bulgari knows what they’re doing. The campaign was shot by Mert Alas & Marcus, and yes, she’s wearing Bulgari jewelry.
Ad photos courtesy of SassyBella.
She is so pretty, why would they air brush the life out of her????
when a picture makes you say “THAT’S *insert name here*?!!!”, then yes, it’s been too ‘shopped.
as this one is.
Yesterday’s Lohan Vogue picture makes sense now. Lilo was trying a low budget version of this shot by posing with a giant teddy bear.
I could never get that bottle of perfume in my purse. Seems to denigrate the brand when its sold by the gallon (or 3.785 liters for our metric friends…by the way when are you going to change to the English system of measure?)
Note of caution: Snuggling with a lion is a good way to get bit.
Oh yeah, Rachel is pretty but over-shopped.
As far as this picture goes, too photoshopped. She is pretty enough without making her look like a mask,
And what is with the enormous perfume bottle????
I think she is absolutely beautiful and that much photoshoping is entirely unnecessary.
Did you ask the same question when Saint Angie’s add for LV came out?
Did not even recognize her in the lion picture at first.
Aren’t these ads always like that. She’s nowhere near as shopped as Kate Winslet. Or should I say it wasn’t as necessary as it was with Kate W. Love Kate but she’s too young for so many eye lines.
The one with no sunglasses and no lions is way too shopped. It’s not just the over softening (and it IS more blurry than the others) its that they stretched her lips or something. Looks funny.
What a waste of time and effort, trying to make a gorgeous girl even more gorgeous but failing.
She does not *need* photo shopping at all, whatsoever. So, they basically paid her big bucks for her celebrity face, and then made her not look like herself!
Hmm, they must really hate her looks in real life.
rachel is beautiful and they’ve turned her into a cartoon. why?
Agreed – she’s lovely, but over photoshopped here.
She’s not even in the same room with that lion, who is PS’d into the background.
She is truly a natural beauty. This is overshopped. Make her relate to other women. We all have small imperfections here and there.
That doesn’t even look like Rachel in that first picture. I think that’s the same lion they used in the Kirsten Dunst shoot!
@Fabianne
“I think that’s the same lion they used in the Kirsten Dunst shoot!”
That was my thought. They only make union scale so I’m glad to see him getting work.
Way too photoshopped.
We all know Rachel is naturally gorgeous. Love her and Daniel together, let them be happy.
This gorgeous women needs no photoshopping whatsoever.But since you insist Bulgari-please photoshop her right back into the Mummy.I will wait patiently.
That’s a really beautiful drawing/painting/cartoon.
Personally,I find the lion more interesting? Was he real or memorex?
Wow, the definitely shopped her way too much – if I saw that in a magazine, I wouldn’t even know who it was. I wish they’d stop with all the photoshop. Consumers live in the real world, we know what real women look like, and no one looks perfect and airbrushed all the time. Plus they thinned out her nose and cheekbones and stretched her lips, how weird. When I first saw her in The Mummy her natural beauty just blew me away and I always wondered why she didn’t get more exposure compared to the faked up tarts out there. She’s def one of my girl crushes too.
She’s incredibly beautiful. Good job, Bulgari.
Lol @ Rita, always making me laugh. That doesn’t look like her at all. She is gorgeous but if you have to keep having to remind yourself who the chick in the pics is, then that’s a problem.
Wow way overdone. She looks supremely fake and nothing like herself but a weird CGI doll.
Rachel is photo shopped to infinity and beyond.
If ad campaigns continue to insist on altering a flesh and blood model to this extant, you’d think they could just save money and use a sims avatar.
This couple (Weisz and Craig) remind me of Branagh and Bonham Carter. They were hot, they were a spectacle, they were beautiful, they lasted 10 minutes.
How tacky is that ad. Why and who’s idea was it to make that freaking bottle so big.
Makes the whole thing looks so low budget.
And why the lion when all you see if fur? Why are all these women posing with wild animals. Is it sexy? I don’t get it.
The picture with the sunglasses is very beautiful.
and of course Angelina is brought up in a thread that has nothing to do with her. Especially when there are countless other female celebrities on MAGAZINE covers.. typical.
I think Rachel is very beautiful, but in that top ad she doesn’t look like herself. 🙁 Too much photoshop.
Rachel and Clive Owen would make one truly HOT couple. Shame that they are both married to other people now 😆 😉 .
I love her look. I agree with everyone, overdone on the photoshopping.
Shopped to the max – looks like a cgi figure. She is pretty in real life – didn’t need all the shopping.
LOL @ Rita – Weisz is definitely a beautiful woman but since they had their brushes out, why did they leave her looking cross-eyed in a couple of the pics?
Too perfect. But I guess that’s the product, right?
@Rita: lol, lol and lol
“And what is with the enormous perfume bottle????”
In reality it’s tiny. I wish they would photoshop in a giant kitten as well. Like in Monty Python.
WAY shopped. Better luck next time.
When the lion tries to eat her, she will bash him with the giant bottle.
They made her look generic, when she’s naturally striking exactly as she is. High fashion really has a major case of the body/face dysmorphias.
agree sloane wyatt why bother to use real actresses/models when cgi is cheaper; this is why fashion and fashion advertising was way better in the 80s/to mid 90s – they used real supermodels most of the time and there was no need for much touching and brushing.
I think the ad worked because I’d totes buy that perfume. Even without smelling it, I know it smells like Daniel Craig’s sex. Just sayin’…
Terrible, if I were her I’d drop the line, she is very pretty naturally, but she looks like a mannequin and not a good one, really bad.