Y’all know I like Jennifer Love Hewitt. The girl’s kind of crazy, but she seems harmless and sweet. Since her mom died last year, I think J.Love has been doing some maturing, some growing up and some deep mourning. She hasn’t been getting pap’d every two seconds and she hasn’t been shoving her latest boyfriend(s) down our throats. But does our general warmth for J.Love mean that we have to accept this Shape Magazine cover as real? It’s not her fault that they Photoshopped the crap out of her body… but I still get the feeling that Jennifer would approve. This is the same person who claimed to be a size 2 when there was significant evidence to the contrary. I mean… those aren’t even her real breasts on the cover!!! Still, I’ll give her a pass I guess. Especially since she’s talking about how working out saved her life after her mom died:

Jennifer Love Hewitt looks strong and confident on the cover of the March issue of Shape magazine, donning an electric pink and white bikini and her adorable girl-next-door smile. Some might shy away from baring their bodies in front of millions, but the 34-year-old actress isn’t phased, especially after taking on the racy role as a massage therapist on Lifetime’s The Client List, which requires her to strut her stuff on national TV every week.

While Jennifer looks and feels better than ever, it hasn’t always been an easy road. In 2007 she was blasted by the media after some not-so-flattering photos surfaced of the newly engaged Texas native vacationing in Hawaii. Many women may have wanted to avoid the spotlight after undergoing the widely publicized scrutiny, but Hewitt took the opportunity to speak out and embrace her body in a whole new way. A size 2 at the time, she defended her physique in an interview with PEOPLE magazine. In 2009, she flaunted her body in an itsy-bitsy white bikini on the October SHAPE issue—and look at her now on our March cover!

So where does she derive her motivation and confidence? Being a role model inspires her to look her best, she says. She’ll read tweets from fans and finds encouragement knowing that she’s being looked up to.

“I know they’re counting on me to feel powerful,” she says in the March issue.

Taking care of herself is not just about feeling great and looking dynamite in a swimsuit. A healthy life has much more meaning to the actress after her mother, Patricia, passed away last June. Completely devastated, Hewitt wanted to crawl into a hole, but her friends urged her to get active. And she did.

“When life hits you so hard—whether someone you care for dies or your lover leaves you—working out can save your life. It certainly saved mine.”

Be sure to pick up a copy of our March issue to see how the star incorporates a healthy lifestyle into her sometimes 16-hour days on set! She also shares her five favorite body-sculpting moves, courtesy of Buti, a class created by L.A.-based pro Bizzie Gold that combines yoga, dance, and plyometrics.

[From Shape Magazine]

I understand what she’s saying about working out saving her life, I think. It gives you something to do, it gives you something to work on, and it burns off energy. I would rather be sad and physically exhausted, you know? And that’s just it – working out makes so many people feel better mentally, and even if I’m in a really crappy place, I always feel better after a workout. But what bugs me about Jennifer’s comment is that she seems to be equating one of her asinine breakups (with some dude that she thought she would marry after dating for a few weeks) with her mother’s death. It’s not the same kind of grief!

Photos courtesy of Shape, WENN.

Oh. Dear. God. WTF did they do to poor Jessica Chastain? I like her so much, and I think she’s a very beautiful woman, and this Marie Claire cover is doing her no favors. Is it just a really awful photo (that was made into a cover?!) or is this a Photoshop disaster? I’m siding more on “Photoshop disaster”. It might be the Curse of the Pale Redheads too. I’ve noticed that again and again with pictorials of Christina Hendricks and Emma Stone (when she was a redhead): magazines are absolutely clueless as to how to style and light and photograph pale redheads. Emma almost always looks strung out. Christina almost always looks like a corpse. And now they’ve made poor Jessica Chastain look like a gnome who lives in a padlocked basement. She looks like Powder in a ginger wig.

Anyway, Jessica scored the cover of Marie Claire because she’s got Zero Dark Thirty coming out – that’s the “catching Osama bin Laden movie” directed by Kathryn Bigelow. It looks good, and when Jessica said yes to this film, she had to say no to several others, so we’ll see if her instincts were good. The film has been very, very secretive – Republicans whined about the possibility that this could be “pro-Obama propaganda,” so the studio had to push back the release until after the election. You can read part of MC’s story here, and here are some highlights:

On her focus while attending Julliard: “I never wanted to be a movie star. I wanted to be an actor. I don’t really drink, and I’ve never been to a rave. I used to cut school to read Shakespeare, not to make out in the park.”

On how success has not changed her lifestyle: “I used to have a lot of anxiety about how I was going to stay afloat, because as soon as I graduated, I never asked my parents for money. I always supported myself through acting and would make money last a long time. I understand the value of money, and I’m not an impulsive buyer. I bought a new laptop three years ago, and before I bought it, I spent a month thinking about buying it. So my lifestyle hasn’t changed, except my anxiety about paying the rent is gone.”

On meeting men: “I’m very shy when it comes to guys.” One of her friends said to her, ‘Now that you’re successful, you have to be more overt with men, you have to make it very clear that you’re interested, otherwise they won’t [approach you].’ Jessica says, “I like to be wooed, but I’ve had to be more outwardly available, I guess.”

She and Michelle Williams appeared in summer stock 8 years ago: “We became like sisters,” Chastain says of that period.

Family secrets and her age: Her age has been variously reported as anywhere between 30 and 35 (the truth is closer to the latter), and has skillfully kept under wraps the name of her hometown in Northern California, if only because her family — her mom is a chef, her dad a firefighter; she is the eldest of five still lives there and her youngest siblings attend the local high school. “The two of them get to go and have a normal high school experience without people going, ‘Oh, your sister is in this movie’ or ‘Can your sister hook me up with Brad Pitt?’” she explains.

[From Marie Claire]

The fact that she still won’t come out and say her real age annoys me to no end. I get that it’s her business and a lot of people outright lie about their ages, but it feels like we – as a society, as womanity at large – shouldn’t still be playing these coy games about a hard number (side-eye at Beyonce). So what if Jessica’s 34 or 35 years old? I guess we should be happy that she’s not making journalists run with “30” anymore.

Photos courtesy of Marie Claire.

Does that image above look like Britney Spears at all? Like if you just saw this photo on its own, would you realize who it was supposed to be? I’m not sure I would. On the December issue of Lucky Magazine, Britney looks like a different person, and she’s obviously wearing a really cheap wig that’s giving her Teresa Giudice’s hairline. Someone Photoshopped the features on Britney’s face so much we can’t recognize her, and one of her eyes looks bigger than the other, right? Well Lucky Magazine may realize that their Photoshop artist did a hack job on Britney, and they received enough negative feedback about it that they’ve actually apologized, via Twitter. This is surprising. Here’s what they wrote:

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts on our cover! As always, we will share with our team and we’re sorry to have let some of you down.

That was a decent way to handle it. They stayed detached and upbeat, but acknowledged they made a mistake. As for the interview itself, it wasn’t super interesting, but Britney did give some nice quotes. She said her fiance, Jason Trawick, is cool with her sitting around in her sweats when she’s not working. We’ve seen her casual looks when she does go outside, it’s got to be similar when she’s at home. She also said she loves makeup and that she hate socks. Remember when she went around wearing the same boots for a whole season?

On the perks of being a mega-star and the woes of having zits: “I get, like, these giant boxes of lip gloss and nail polish, and it’s like candy.” Not that she actually wears all of it. “I really just wear mascara all the time. And powder, because I have zits.”

On what set fiancé Jason Trawick, apart from her other boyfriends (and two husbands): “He was sweet.” For example: “He says he doesn’t mind that I sit around in sweats all the time.”

On how her two sons react to her being, well, Britney Spears: “They’re in the middle right now of trying to figure it out. They try to figure out where I go when I go to film X Factor. They’re like, ‘Mommy’s going off to be a superhero.’ and then I get back, and they just see me as Mommy. And then when I’m back working on the show, they say, ‘Oh, Mommy’s a superhero again!’”

On how she occupies her time when she’s not being ‘Britney the Icon’: “I work out. I swim. I play with the kids, I cook and I garden. We play Connect Four. We play Candy Land. Last night we read The Night Pirates.”

On dealing with her haters: “It’s just something that you get used to in this business.”

On the number of shoes in her closet: With a terrified look, the mag reports, Spears says, “I don’t know. A lot.” When pressed, she stammers, “I don’t know, 50.” She quickly responds, “Is that not enough?” (Our answer: No, Brit-Brit, you can never have enough shoes!)

On her current fashion obsession: “Big, stupid earrings, like with loops and feathers.”

On the item you won’t catch her wearing: “I never wear socks. I hate socks.”

On her fashion icons: She calls Jennifer Lopez, “A classic beauty,” and of Sarah Jessica Parker, she says, “Her looks are really bright and funky and young.”

[Lucky via USA Today]

Britney came across as kind of goofy and trying to be nice here, which is not the same impression I get from her on X-Factor. I haven’t been keeping up with it, but she seems a little ruthless on that show and very blunt. She seems to be holding her own for now, although we’ve heard rumors that she’s had trouble, especially in the beginning, and that producers are considering putting in a longer than usual time delay in case she has any problems during the live episodes. That could just be hype for the show, though.

As for the photo shoot, this is ridiculous. Apart from the bad photoshop job and the wig slipping down on her head, she’s wearing some very girlish clothing and posing like a kid. It’s bad all around.

There’s a lot of rejoicing over this story that Seventeen Magazine has responded to a plea by an eighth grade girl to stop Photoshopping the young women in their magazine. A girl named Julia Bluhm started a petition at Change.org asking Seventeen to commit to presenting just one photo spread a month without Photoshopping. Seventeen’s editor in chief responded by issuing a statement they would not change girls’ faces or bodies in the entire magazine, and that they never have. I’m not really buying that and think that it depends on your definition of “change,” but good for them for taking this seriously and making a commitment to boost positive images of girls. Seventeen’s editor also says that they’re committed to representing all types of “beauty” in the magazine, including “body types, skin tones, heights and hair textures.” Here’s more:

Seventeen magazine, which in recent months has been inundated by pleas from teenage girls to publish photographs of models that don’t look touched up, said on Tuesday that it would be more transparent about its photo shoots and promised to “celebrate every kind of beauty.”

Ann Shoket, the magazine’s editor in chief, wrote in the editor’s letter in the August issue that the magazine had drafted what it called a Body Peace Treaty, after she heard from girls “who were concerned that we’d strayed from our promise to show real girls as they really are.”

She said the entire staff signed the eight-point pact, in which the magazine promises that it will “never change girls’ body or face shapes” and will include only images of “real girls and models who are healthy.”

It also said it would provide more transparency about its photo shoots by posting images of the shoots on the magazine’s Tumblr blog so readers could see the progression of the pictures.

The retouching of photographs to improve a subject’s appearance has long been a source of debate and anguish in the magazine industry. Editors often speak of balancing the pressures of presenting authentic photographs while also showing subjects in a way that can attract and inspire readers.

The policy points outlined by Seventeen represent a victory for young women who have been encouraging the magazine to present more realistic images of women. Their views became widely known through an online petition started by Julia Bluhm, a 14-year-old from Waterville, Me., who blogged about her frustration with how many girls in her ballet class were complaining that they were fat.

“While we work hard behind the scenes to make sure we’re being authentic, your notes made me realize that it was time for us to be more public about our commitment,” Ms. Shoket wrote in her letter to readers.

She also included an example of “what really changes” in photo shoots by showing a photograph of a model before and after the image was altered. Seventeen’s photo editors removed some flyaway hairs, a bra strap, a fold that made the model’s blouse look untucked and an altered background. Ms. Shoket described them as “a few messy details — cleaned up.” She added “Her gorgeous smile — totally authentic!”

The campaign to bring about changes in Seventeen began on April 19, when Ms. Bluhm started the online petition using Change.org, asking Seventeen to print one unaltered photo in its magazine each month.

The results were striking. Within days, Ms. Bluhm had 25,000 signatures. Ms. Shoket invited Ms. Bluhm and her mother to visit Seventeen’s offices in late April for a talk.

Ms. Bluhm’s supporters were quick to share their stories of how altered photos made them feel. Annette Okonofua, a woman who signed the petition, wrote: “I know that most of these girls on magazine covers are photoshopped, airbrushed and edited but yet, when you’re looking at those photos physically, you can’t help but think, ‘Wow. I wish I looked like that.’ ”

By Tuesday morning, the petition had attracted 84,168 signatures. And Ms. Bluhm reacted enthusiastically to news of the magazine’s policy statement.

“Seventeen listened!” Ms. Bluhm wrote on her petition page, under the headline “How We Won.” “They’re saying they won’t use Photoshop to digitally alter their models! This is a huge victory, and I’m so unbelievably happy.”

“It’s even more than what we asked,” said Ms. Bluhm in her lunchtime break at ballet camp. “The important thing is they agreed to do what we asked them to do. However they want to say it in their magazine is O.K.,” she said.

It’s still unclear how these pledges will change Seventeen’s actual content. Ms. Shoket stressed in her letter that the magazine’s editors “never have, never will” change girls’ body or face shapes.

Shareeza Bhola, a spokeswoman for Change.org, she was pleased that Seventeen was giving readers “a new level of transparency on photo shoots that they’ve never had before and a companywide commitment to diverse representations of young women.” She added that Seventeen would be watched closely over the next six months to make sure it keeps its promises.

In outlining its initiative, the magazine said it had worked with groups like the National Eating Disorders Association.

[From Blogs.NYTimes.com]

That’s incredible, and it really shows Seventeen’s commitment to this cause. I’m impressed that they brought Bluhm and her mom to their office within just a few weeks after she started the petition. I spent a little time on their website, and they’ve had this “body peace” movement, which involves advice for girls on self esteem and body image, since 2007. They also have a “Body Peace Treaty” which is different from the excerpt above, in which they invite readers to sign a pledge with statements celebrating their current shape and place in life. An example: “Not let my size define me. It’s far better to focus on how awesome I look in my jeans than the number on the tag.” I actually felt better about myself after I read all that, really!

Inspired by the changes at Seventeen Magazine, two teenagers from New York have created a petition asking Teen Vogue to make the same commitment to presenting girls that are not Photoshopped. In May, Vogue proper banned models that are “under 16 or who appear to have an eating disorder.” Getting even the Teen version of Vogue to stop Photoshopping seems very unlikely, but at least people are trying.

This image is from Seventeen.Tumblr.com

I had to do a double take when I saw this image of “Renee Zellweger” on the cover of Bazaar Russia. It’s as if Renee has had the same chipmunk cheek and overdone filler treatment as Madonna – Photoshop style. I’m not suggesting that Renee had any plastic surgery or injectables in real life, although we know she’s had a boob job so it’s entirely likely. I’m saying that this image is so altered that she looks like she’s Madonna. It’s as if someone took Renee’s face and Madonna’s face and morphed them together. If you cover the left side of “Renee’s” face, she looks just like Madonna, right? How does a team of people with regular eyesight end up greenlighting these alien-looking covers? Is it an issue of a bad photoshop “artist” and a clueless manager type? “She looks great!” Or is it too many trips to the dermatologist coupled with too much airbrushing?

Anyway I guess we should look into what Reene’s been up to, since she hasn’t had anything to promote and is adept at avoiding the paparazzi when she doesn’t need publicity. (When she does, she’s pretty obvious about it.) According to IMDB she’s got that Bridget Jones’ Baby, (aka Renee gains weight again) sequel potentially coming up and that’s it. (I’ll believe that movie is happening when I see photos from on set. Colin Firth has confirmed it’s happening, but I’m still not convinced.) Her last movie was in 2010 and that year she only had one film I don’t remember hearing about, My Own Love Song, with Nick Nolte and Forest Whitaker. So Renee has been laying low. The last time we covered her was at fashion week in September, 2011 and she was looking fabulous back then I have to admit. She also looked incredible at NY Fashion week. In this image, not so much. It’s probably an old photo doctored up. Maybe they just took Renee’s face and morphed it onto a model’s body.

Story via Huffington Post. Here’s Renee at NY Fashion week on 2-14-12 outside the Vera Wang Show. Credit: GG/FameFlynet Pictures. She’s also shown at the airport in LA on 3-25-12. Credit: Visual/WENN.com

When I look at print advertisements I’m often struck by how much the models’ faces are Photoshopped so that they vaguely look like celebrities. The faces end up looking so fake that it’s like they’re using interchangeable parts. Sometimes I question why they even need to use real women at all. At some point in the not-so-distant future, women’s faces in ads will be entirely computer-generated. In the mean time we have celebrities airbrushed beyond recognition, and models looking the same. Their faces are so dewy and smooth it’s like they come from the same alien planet, where humans were genetically engineered with reptilian skin and the perfect ratio of eyes, nose and mouth.

But I digress, this is about “Demi Moore’s” ads for Helena Rubenstein, which are causing a stink due to how unlike Demi Moore they look. (Update: earlier ads came out two years ago, but these are new. I was originally reporting this based on the images on E!, although different ads are available at The Mirror and on Jezebel.) Here’s E!’s report on it:

Before you get defensive, we’re happy to see Demi Moore back to work, and she is beautiful. We know that, you know that, everybody knows that, and that’s why we ask this question.

The star’s latest ads for Helena Rubinstein’s 2012 campaign have been released, and all we can focus our attention on is the massive amount of Photoshopping going on.

Let’s see, there’s absolutely no wrinkles or facial lines whatsoever, her nose and chin seem a different shape and suddenly, her tan has vanished. Yes, people always notice these things.

We understand that all ads and widely distributed photos get some retouching done, it’s part of the biz, but it’s freakin’ Demi Moore. How much do you really have to fix?

[From E! Online]

Remember when Demi Moore got all up in arms over a photographer who claimed she was Photoshopped on the cover of W Magazine, because that was clearly someone else’s body? (Which she subsequently tried to obtain with a diet of Red Bull and ADHD drugs?) Well there’s not much she can say about these images, except for claiming that they used another model and just messed with her face so that she ended up looking like Demi.

In related Demi news, Star is reporting that she’s jealous of her daughter Rumer for still being friendly with her ex Ashton Kutcher. A source is quoted who says Demi “is not at all happy that they’re hanging out. It’s disrespectful and is not helping her recovery… it’s salt in the wound after everything that happened. Demi should be focusing on her recovery, and this is a completely unnecessary distraction.” I hope this isn’t true at all, but given all we’ve heard about how Demi is still fixated on Ashton, I can believe it.

Did you know that Kim Kardashian magazine covers sell? It’s true, the issues of Glamour and Cosmopolitan with Kim solo on the cover were the highest sellers last year for those publications. Her other many magazine covers had mixed performances, but her Botox face and spider lashes can move copies.

So here we have Kim on the cover of the US Weekly diet issue, showing off her bikini body. This was obviously achieved through the Photoshop diet. We’ve seen plenty of bikini candids of Kim and she looks good albeit totally fake, but she doesn’t look like this. Someone went way overboard with the ‘shop. I also doubt that this photo is at all recent.

In that Cosmo interview for their August issue, Kim claimed to be a size 4, which many people scoffed at. In the new issue of US she’s claiming to be a size 2. I get that she’s shorter at 5’2″, but a size 2? Why doesn’t she just go for the gold and claim to be a zero? Here’s her vague diet advice and some words from her trainer:

Steers clear of sugar
The onetime sweets lover has dropped refined sugar from her diet. “Changing my eating habits makes a big difference,” the E! star tells US of keeping her size-2 body trim. Her healthy menu? “I wake up and eat eggs with turkey bacon, then salad for lunch and fish, pasta or chicken for dinner.

Goes organic
The newly single 5-foot-2 star has been inspired by big sister Kourtney, 32. “She’s taught me to eat more organically,” admits Kardashian, who has also downed wheatgrass shots with her sis. “She’s a bit extreme, but slowly I’m learning to love it.”

Sweats it out – hard!
There are no water breaks during the 31 year-old’s hour-long sessions with Gunnar Peterson. “Every minute is accounted for,” says the trainer. “You go from running to pull-ups to lunges to crunches to overhead presses. You get more work done in the same time.”

[From US Weekly, print edition, January 9, 2012]

That’s their entire article on Kim and her “exact meal plan.” At least she’s no longer shilling for that shady diet company that Scott works for. And at least she’s not training with that scam artist Tracy Anderson. Plus her diet sounds sensible even though she doesn’t give much advice, and I like that she’s not advertising for some paid plan. (Which she probably would be if one would have her.) Other than that I don’t have anything nice to say. I hope that her reign at the newsstands will soon be over.

Kim in March, 2011:

December 16, 2011:

As you may remember, ever since I saw candid photos of Kelly Brook in a bikini, I’ve been a fan girl for Kelly. I used to not care that much about her, but her spectacular hourglass figure has made me a true believer. So I shall lay it down on the line for my lady: this new PETA ad is fug as hell. Kelly’s strength is not her face, but once you get past gawking at her body, she is much, much prettier than this. PETA Photoshopped Kelly to look ridiculously unattractive. Not only that, it seems like they airbrushed out part of her jaw, right? Like, that’s not even the SHAPE of her face. Here’s a photo of Kelly from last night – just a paparazzi photo of going into a fashion event:

So much better in candid photos.

Anyway, Kelly is taking part in PETA’s “Whose Skin Are You In?” campaign. Kelly was shot by Bryan Adams (ugh), and the point of the campaign is to “protest at how snakes, lizards and alligators and other exotic animals are skinned alive.” Kelly said, “It makes my skin crawl to think about the violent ways snakes, lizards, alligators and other exotic creatures are raised and killed for boots, bags and belts. Our message is to support the designers who are creative without being destructive, and go for the great fakes that pay tribute to the animals’ beauty without killing them.” Sure. I don’t own any exotic-skin handbags, so personally, I guess I’m okay with this. Except for the part where I kind of want an alligator-skin purse.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

A lot of us were like “yeah, right” when we saw Bret Michaels’ cartoonish heavily-bronzed semi-nude Billboard cover. His abs were standing out in high definition and it looked like an obvious case of heavy handed Photoshop. Michaels tried to address some of the suspicion by claiming that he didn’t eat for a day and did about 2,000 sit ups ahead of the shoot. Now the Billboard editorial team has offered evidence that say proves that Michaels has just as impressive a six pack as they show on the cover. They’re comparing supposedly unretouched, hightly-lit photos of Bret with the resulting cover and the dude is almost as buff as he’s shown! I think they still airbrushed some abs on him using contouring makeup ahead of the shoot, but there’s no faking that flat stomach. Here’s Billboard’s story:

porting well-toned biceps and a six-pack, Bret Michaels’ naked appearance on the cover of Billboard’s Oct. 2 “Maximum Exposure” issue has been followed by claims from New York Magazine, D-Listed and other publications that the picture was heavily retouched.
Photographer Blair Bunting, who shot Michaels’ cover, says he was not shocked by the accusations, but assures skeptics that the Poison singer’s chiseled abs are wholly authentic.

“When he took off his shirt, I was like, ‘This guy’s in shape for 47!’” says Bunting, who made his Billboard cover debut with the photo. “It’s always easy for someone to cry ‘Photoshop,’ so I wasn’t too surprised by that…but he takes his shape seriously.”

Michaels has said that working out while on tour last summer has kept him in great shape. Prior to the photo shoot, “I didn’t eat for a day and I did about 2,000 sit-ups,” the singer told E! Online.

According to Billboard photo editor Amelia Halverson, “a few versions of the cover” were initially made that Photoshopped Michaels’ body too heavily. “They looked too unreal, mostly because there was so much detail due to the photographer’s high-definition style of lighting,” says Halverson. “The final cover version shows Bret’s real muscles.” In addition to making his abs appear symmetrical, Bunting bronzed Michaels’ color and smoothed out his skin to eliminate a few of the singer’s wrinkles.

“It was a pretty standard retouching for him compared to anybody else,” says Bunting. “I just don’t know if he’s more controversial, or if it’s just more of a shocker that he took everything off and happens to have a nice body.”

[From Billboard via Radar Online]

I love how Billboard links D-Listed! Bret looks amazing at 47, especially considering that he had a massive brain hemorrhage and a stroke just this year! He still has to have an operation in January to repair a hole in his heart, which the doctors found while checking him out for his other medical issues. Bret admits he’s somewhat scared of that, and says “When they’re going through your body to operate on your heart, it’s going to hit you somewhere that they’re toying with the ticker. There’s definitely a little fear in there somewhere.” He’s trying to remain positive, though and says “I’m going in there [to surgery] thinking… that it’s going to be great and I’m going to feel a whole lot better.” He certainly looks to be in top shape and very good health.

All photos credit Blair Bunting and from Billboard.com

Here is the first poster for the film All Good Things, starring our boy Ryan Gosling (I’m sharing him today). Is it just me, or does Ryan look excessively creepy? Is it the Photoshop? Os he supposed to look this corpsey and strange? According to Vulture, the film “dramatizes one of New York City’s most famous true-crime stories: that of real-estate heir Robert Durst, who, in 1982, was accused of (but never tried for) the murder of his disappeared wife. In the movie, Gosling and Dunst play characters based on Durst and his wife.” That actually sounds like a really good movie, honestly. So hopefully Kiki Dunst will not be in much of the film? That it will mostly be Ryan Gosling wandering around, brooding? Then why so corpsey?

But, yeah. Still hot. I’m not saying I wouldn’t still hit that corpsey ass.

Also, there continues to be lots of Gosling sightings lately since he’s started work on Drive in LA. LaineyGossip had some good pics of Ryan and Carey Mulligan on set yesterday, and here are some additional photos from last week, including one of the “wearing the hell out of a pair of jeans” day. His arms are gorgeous, even if that ladies’ tank top should go.

Poster courtesy of Vulture.