Angelina Jolie “overshadowed” the St. John brand


Back in 2005, Angelina Jolie signed a three-year contract to become the face (and figure) of St. John, the brand known for affordable knitwear, conservative suits and fake-looking pearls. Rumor was that Angelina got $12 million for the contract, and that she used the money to fund something or other children’s charitable something (I’m not sure, and I don’t really feel like looking it up). The ad campaigns – all black-and-white images – were shot by Mario Testino, and honestly, I found the ad campaigns to be lovely. Like, some of the prettiest pictures of Angelina that I’ve ever seen. The styling was a little hit-or-miss, as they sometimes seemed to want Angelina to be seen as some kind of English-garden-lady, but overall, the campaign was successful, in my mind, just from an aesthetic point of view.

I remember back in 2007 and 2008, when Angelina’s contract was coming to a close (and she stopped wearing St. John everywhere), there were rumors that Angelina wasn’t getting another contract because she didn’t improve sales that much. Either that, or she didn’t want to spend another three years in those high-necked knit suits, whatever. I kind of thought the St. John drama had passed. Not so much, because now the “chief executive officer” of St. John is claiming that Angelina was dropped from the brand because she “overshadowed” it:

There will be no more glamour shots of Angelina Jolie or images of a vacationing Kelly Gray for St. John going forward. “[Jolie] overshadowed the brand,” said chief executive officer Glenn McMahon. “We wanted to make a clean break from actresses and steer away from blondes and cleanse the palette.” This led to hiring model Karen Elson, who was shot by photographer Greg Kadel in a bare studio for the spring campaign. “We needed to show a modern point of view of St. John,” McMahon added. “We have evolved.”

The ads, directed by executive vice president of design George Sharp, will launch in the February issues of Vanity Fair, Harper’s Bazaar and Vogue. McMahon said the print media buy is up slightly and he is in talks about digital outreach, spending on which he predicts will be up 15 percent.

[From Women’s Wear Daily]

I really feel like St. John is having a “duh” moment. As in, “duh, what did you think was going to happen when you hired Angelina Jolie as your model?” Of course she was going overshadow it. She overshadows everything, sometimes good, sometimes bad. She posed for pretty pictures, she represented the brand for years without complaint, and now suddenly she was “overshadowing”? But I do get it. Personally, I like the movement to put more models back into ad campaigns rather than a string of celebrities and actresses. Although I don’t find this new St. John model all that interesting to look at (below). She looks like a budget Tilda Swinton, doesn’t she?

Rodarte - Backstage - Fall 08 MBFW

Angelina Jolie’s St. John ads, courtesy of Google Images.


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

76 Responses to “Angelina Jolie “overshadowed” the St. John brand”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Cinderella says:

    Although I’d never pair Angelina’s style with St. John, she absolutely killed it in those ads.

  2. LolaBella says:

    ITA, those are some of the most beautiful photos of Angie I’ve seen.

    ‘cleanse the palette…’ that’s a bit harsh of the CEO considering all of the interest and potential new customers that Angie brought to the brand.

    I do agree that you need to change up the marketing of your brand to keep things interesting and attract new clientele, but I think it’s going to be St. John’s loss with Angie’s departure, IMO.

  3. Praise St. Angie! says:

    great photos, but I never thought St. John’s clothes A) fit her personality or B) were very attractive.

    I remember seeing the clothes for the first time in Bloomies and thinking A) “EW, how stodgy” and B) “these clothes seem way to stuffy for Jolie”.

    As for them being “affordable”, that’s all relative. They’re at the higher end of Bloomies’ brands, and I found them to be a bit too pricey for what they were. You can get virtually an identical look for way less.

    but totally agree with Kaiser’s comment on “duh, what did you THINK was going to happen?”

    ANY celeb as famous as Jolie would overshadow whatever they were endorsing.

  4. MizzExpert says:

    One of the most photogenic creatures ever! These shots are as beautiful as anything that came out of the 40′s & 50′s.

  5. lucy2 says:

    I don’t know whether she brought in new customers or not, but I always thought the photos were very nicely done and she looked good in them.
    I do remember that a lot of their core customers didn’t care for her as the spokesmodel, which the company could have and should have anticipated. If that’s their complaint, then it’s also their fault. They know who buys their stuff, and didn’t cater to them, but to new buyers instead (again, don’t know if there was any sales impact from the ads).
    Considering this all ended years ago, why bring it up again? And what did they expect – she has been overexposed for years now and is still a huge tabloid presence, and they expected people to talk about the clothes?

    I think companies always overestimate the celebs in their ads anyway. It usually gets them attention, but in general, I doubt really ever has a huge impact on sales. Most of us regular people aren’t going to spend a month’s rent on a purse because a celeb has one.

  6. ien says:

    honestly, i agree, those pictures are def the most beautiful pics of her i’ve ever seen. she looks stunning…and yes that model does look like a budget tilda swinton haha

    but what did they expect (st. john)?? when you hire arguably the most famous actress in the world of course the brand is gonna be overshadowed.

  7. RobN says:

    If that new chick is the new standard for beauty, I’m going to have to look into a second career as a supermodel. She is stunningly average looking.

  8. Sumodo says:

    The local upscale resale shops are chock-filled with St. Johns stuff. My mother has two St. Johns knit suits she’s worn for 30 years. Frankly, they’re great business attire, but not at full retail price. As for St. Ange, she doesn’t need that company. BTW, Karen Elson is married to Jack White and KILLS IT on the runway.

  9. teri says:

    Angelina made me want to purchase several items from St. John. She looked so beautiful in the adds.

  10. Birdie says:

    I remember a story about Angelina becoming annoyed with the St.John’s design staff because she was contractually obligated to wear their dresses to events, and they had been designing boring garments. She made some design demands asked for different colors and different silhouettes and there was some tension between the spokesmodel and the staff.

    It’s interesting however that Angelina’s event dresses are more boring now, than ever.

  11. Laurrie says:

    I don’t care who it offends. That red haired model is butt ugly.

  12. Beth says:

    There are conflicting reports of sales when Angelina was spokesperson. Some say sales increased a lot, others say it was marginal. The only time I really remember Angelina wearing the clothing was as business attire to UN conferences.

  13. Cadiebelle says:

    Angelina is absolutely beautiful in those ads – the prettiest I’ve ever seen her – and the clothes look fabulous on her. She should go back to that style – she looks classy.

  14. Sigh. says:

    Not a fan, but those ads are exquisite. She looks HEALTHY. Soft but strong, not all angular in all the wrong places.

    But like everyone is saying, BOTTOMLINE.

    They got her when she was at the beginning of all of this HOOPLA, and didn’t/couldn’t capitalize off of it, as they hoped. She didn’t change the PERCEPTION of St. John. They must not have been able to justify her pricetag by meeting it in profit (sales). None of that is her direct doing.

    And for some of us, unless we are familiar with the brand already (Candie’s ad in Glamour), we assume if celebs are pushin’ it, we can’t afford it (Omega ad in Vanity Fair) .

  15. atticus says:

    Frankly, seeing Angelina wearing the brand and looking so gorgeous in the campaign pics would definitely make me more inclined to buy the line myself. This new model…not at all. CEO is shifting the blame, saying it’s AJ’s fault the line suffered instead of saying, yah, we turn out unpopular clothes.

    @Laurrie – ITA

  16. Embee says:

    Sigh you hit the nail on the head. This statement reads like sour grapes from a CEO who made a bad decision. Sure, blame Angie, and not yourself for investing $12 m on a model your customer base doesn’t identify with. Typical.

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but I find SJs horribly overpriced. A quick look at bloomingdales shows a simple tee on sale for $67.50.

  17. teri says:

    I have know idea who the woman is doing it now. That’s really under the radar.

  18. filthycute says:

    James Haven looks great in that dress!

  19. hatsumomo says:

    Sumodo, I knew I had seen her somewhere and couldnt place it! Now I realize! She looks so much different with longer flowing hair, the pic of her hair pulled like that looks severe. So are her features. I’m interested in the new pics, what they going ot do now?

  20. Lauram says:

    That’s just a terrible picture of Karen Elson, she’s actually very strikingly beautiful-–karen-elson/134#/0

  21. snowball says:

    St. John’s may be generally stodgy, but she looks better in all those clothes in the ads above than in the crap she’s wearing these days.

    I don’t love her, but those ads are sublime. She’s stunning.

    Karen Elson? She’s not generally that ugly, but I think she’s probably more striking than beautiful.

  22. ering says:

    Did you intentionally find the worst picture of Karen Elson on the Internet? I’m not saying she’s the epitome of beauty, just that’s a horrible picture of her! However, I might be biased in my affinity for her because she’s married to Jack White. Love them together!

  23. Firestarter says:

    I really didn’t read the enitre post, but if that red head is their new face -FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I may not be a fan of Jolies exactly, BUT I do think she not only looked beautiful in those ads, but she also brought a breath a fresh air to a brand that often seemed very stuffy and old lady-ish. She still gave a classy tone to the brand, but made it youthful, something I do not think this red head will do.

  24. Iggles says:

    Wow. Incredible photos of Angelina. My reaction was: “she’s really, really pretty”.

    Yes I agree with another poster that she’s looks great there because she looks healthy. Nonetheless, when she’s in top form there’s no question why Angelina is #1 in the industry.

    I do think the CEO sounds like sour grapes. Oh well..

  25. flourpot says:

    I took a look at the Elson slideshow. I can’t say she’s beautiful, I too think she’s fairly plain, but she does photograph nicely. I hope it works out for her.

  26. Black Cat says:

    Over rated.

  27. Raven says:

    I”d never even heard of St. Johns before she began modeling their clothing. I thought she represented the brand well and the photos are amazing. I agree on the sour grapes and also that the photo makes this new model look like a bargain Tilda Swinton.

  28. bros says:

    its not like angies profile has gotten any larger since they hired her-they had to have known they were getting everything she entails, which is why they hired her. so weird. they could just say that her contract was up and they wanted a new face.

  29. Ana says:

    I had never heard of St John’s before I saw the ads.
    I love the photos of her, except for the last one. Her lips look weird in it. Like a fish.

  30. bella says:

    St. John’s is suffering from hindsight (you know, it’s 20/20) and blaming others for what is obviously their fault. If you choose a model who isn’t in line with your customer base, don’t be stupid enough to act surprised when sales decrease. Also, it seems to me that SJ’s customer base would be more conservative, therefore not approving of an over-rated adulteress with 6 kids from all over the world who’s been a cutter and a lesbian becoming their spokesmodel. Just sayin’…

  31. Cheyenne says:

    I lucked out on a St. John’s skirt at a sale at Saks Fifth Avenue. The original price was $500 and I got it for $145, including the tax.

    St. Johns makes classy clothes you can wear almost anywhere. But there is no way north of Hell I would pay $500 for a skirt.

  32. bite me says:

    beta get a fucking grip

  33. Essie says:

    Nobody has asked the real question . . . Why is the CEO coming up with this excuse now? Angelina’s contract was dropped in 2008, almost TWO YEARS AGO!! Why is this man sounding like St. John only just dumped Angelina for Karen? Think about it. He’s doing this to get some free publicity. If he had just announced that Karen Elson was going to be the face of St. John, only the fashion world would have noticed and reported it. But, he uses Angelina’s name and EVERYBODY writes about St. John. Am I right? This CEO is very smart. Of course, it won’t help St. John at all because their core customer is an old, rich, white business lady, but at least he got the St. John name in the media for a couple of days.

  34. WTF?!? says:

    Um, not so much. PR spin is a wonderful thing, but the truth is that they realized AJ’s puss on their ads wasn’t generating the “oooh” factor (or sales) they’d anticipated, so they dumped her. It’s a high-end line and she doesn’t scream “high end” to their customer base. Simple as that.

    The fact that her ads “made [a lot of you] want to buy St. John’s” is irrelevant; if you didn’t buy it (and at full price) then the campaign is a failure. A campaign is only successful if it moves product.

    Oh, and LOL @ filthycute.

  35. tekhana says:

    She didn’t overshadow the brand. She was too cool for most of their grannywear. She’d look great in a burlap sack, but the only people who want to wear St. John regularly are politicians’ wives.

  36. crazydaisy says:

    i am so hopelessly in love with angelina jolie it’s not even funny. sigh.

  37. PJ says:

    Angelina is young and beautiful but too controversial for the St. John crowd. She’s just not wholesome enough. St. John customers may relate to her as a mother, but probably not in her movie roles as a gun-toting assassin and action figure, or as the other woman in the Brad/Jen love triangle.

    In the past St. John has been a brand for affluent, traditional older women — John McCain’s wife Cindy is always wearing St. John, but it sounds like the company now wants to attract a younger crowd.

  38. Bek says:

    Coming from a photographer’s point of view, I think the ads are well shot and the tonal quality is gorgeous, and Angelina is a pretty woman, but I find her pulling the same face in each shot a little boring. She never seems to have fun or do anything different when she’s photographed. She simply pouts or touches her lips. She’s incapable of changing it up. But I do appreciate the foresight of the photographer to plump her out and get rid of a lot of her veins. As for the company, I agree with everybody else in saying they should have known better. Critics, fashionistas everywhere already know that Jolie is known less for what she’s promoting (ie, acting, movies, clothing, whathaveyou) and more for her controversial personal life and her comments. She’s become more “cartoon”.

  39. Praise St. Angie! says:

    PJ, if they want to attract a younger crowd, they need to “un-stuffify” their clothes. ;)

    seriously (as someone said) it’s the type of clothing you see people like Cindy McCain in. not exactly the type of clothes the “younger set” would jump on. The clothes are tasteful, to be sure, but really “PTA” like.

  40. juiceinla says:

    The “new” Model is married to Jack White of the White Stripes and she isnt exactly “new”. She is from the late 1990′s super model brigage- Kate, Shalom, and the other girls in her “class”. She was always branded as the edgy unusual looking Super model at that time.

    Its an odd choice for St. John that used the family’s CEO for so long as its model, then switched to Jolie. The brand is fairly conservative and low key. Elston used to be Alexander McQueens muse… strange bedfellows.

  41. benny says:

    Models don’t have to be beautiful, they just have to fit the clothes. Besides, for print ads, they can airbrush (or nowdays), photoshop hair, skin tone, teeth, etc., so none of that matters.

    I talked to a famous photographer once and he said most successful models had one thing in common (other than fitting the clothes) and it wasn’t a naturally beautiful face — it was a naturally THIN and SMALL face. The skulls of successful models tend to be very small compared to what we think of as a normal human head – some even look barely wider than their necks.

    Ever since he told me that I make a point of checking out models’ skulls. They do tend to run smaller than normal!

  42. WTF?!? says:

    Benny– actually models tend to have proportionately *larger* heads and features.

  43. JayCee says:

    Wow, what’s not ‘smart’ per your tagline is that Karen Elson is an incredibly famous and talented model. She is no budget anything and has been around for many years, famous for her striking red hair. I am really surprised you don’t know who this woman is. It’s not like she just sprang up out of nowhere. She’s married to Jack White, for Christ’s sake – there’s even a celebrity connection! Geez.

  44. jayem says:

    These ads were all incredibly gorgeous styling, photography and scenery. And Angelina is stunning in them. But you are all right that the brand is for older women. If they were really smart (which they obviously aren’t because I saw those ads online more than I did in magazines) they would go after Susan Sarandon, Meryl Streep or Diane Lane. They fit the type and they would easily rock the Hamptons-ish vibe that St. Johns has.

  45. Misty_* says:

    @Jaycee, I agree completely. The way Kaiser talked about Karen really annoyed me, because I follow her career for years and it’s no secret that she’s one of the most successful girls in fashion. She’s one of my favorites. And she’s married to a rock star. It’s not like she’s some random chick who popped out of nowhere. I assume Kaiser doesn’t know a lot about the high fashion industry. But it was just a matter of googling her, damn it.

  46. Cakes says:

    Angelina looks so beautiful in these pictures. Although in the last thumbnail her upper lip looks enhanced.
    I agree with all yall. They traded down with the red head.

  47. DoMaJoReMc says:

    UN-STUFFIFY……I love it, that’s funny :-)

  48. Cheyenne says:

    The people who buy St. John’s clothes are going to identify more with someone like Christy Turlington or Linda Evangelista or Cindy Crawford. Karen Elson? No way. She looks positively freaky.

  49. Venus in Blue Jeans says:

    AJ’s photos are overly photoshopped. I have seen photos of her without make-up….no great shakes there. Her top lip has been plumped again. Her 1,000 yard stare is boring, and her multiple plastic surgeries have rendered her a hybrid of several other celebs. The new redhead has great bone structure, does not look to be a plastic surgery addict, and will look gorgeous when you see her not mugging it up. I never understood the spell cast over the public by AJ, and hope it’s breaking.

  50. ccoop says:

    You have to be “of a certain age” to wear (and to afford) St. John. They do what they do extremely well, but they have a narrow demographic (hi Mom). And they haven’t had a winning image (profit-wise) since Kelly Gray retired.

  51. SageAdvice says:

    Karen Elson is a model-she can look like anything if she moves her face right and if they style her correctly.

    Angelina Jolie isn’t a model (she tried when she was a kid and that didn’t really work out) and pulls the same exact faces in every picture.

    I suspect the CEO said what he said to get some attention outside of the high fashion crowd for the change of official model. Karen Elson is super famous with the fashion crowd-she is certainly NOT a nobody.

    Kaiser seems to have found the worst picture of her just to make her point. Some beautiful people can look hideous in the wrong picture and a quick Google search can show you how lovely this woman actually is.

  52. Pia says:

    I don’t know why I never noted it before, but Jolie resembles Christy Turlington quite a bit.

  53. Cheyenne says:

    @ jayem: ITA. I think St. Johns is going through an identity crisis. They don’t know who their real market is. If they want to reach out to a younger clientele they are going to have to do two things fast: slash their prices in half and redesign their entire line. Their clothes are beautiful and classic, but they do look like something “ladies who lunch” wear to Le Cirque.

    If they try to re-invent themselves to appeal to the 20-something set, I think they are headed for disaster.

  54. nnn says:

    Why do they use Jolie’s name when she has stopPED representing the brand for the last two years ?

    Why not talk about the model they replaced Jolie’s with, the one they uses for year 2009 and replaced with that second model to explain why SHE was replaced since she only lasted one year ?

    Isn’t it that they STILL need Jolie’s name to get free publicity, hence recognizing by proxy that her face did indeed influence the sales on the rise but yet….they don’t want to hire her for that amount of money, hence they are using other tricks to use her name attached to the SECOND model they have hired AFTER Jolie’s final contract.

  55. Dhavy says:

    AJ looks beautiful and that British poll where they ranked her number 1 were right on target.

    As far as St John’s brand, they’re too boring, I think it’s for women under 50 or a politician’s wife. Not that they’re classic but they’re too formal and expensive. I’m surprised she did this campaign but at least she gave the money from the contract to a good cause.

    The clothes are fit for her character in Mr & Mrs Smith. LOL

  56. Orbit says:

    “Cleansing the palette” is when an artist uses a turpentine-soaked rag to wipe the paint-board clean; it has nothing to do with taste or the roof of the mouth. Nobody vets stuff anymore, do they?

    I thought St. John knits were only for Palm Springs matrons?

  57. nnn says:

    Umm whoever said that Angelina has the exact same face and isn’t a model because of that doesn’t know about print ad and modeling.

    I use to model while studying in college and Jolie has the look, poise, grace of those typical cover girls from the nineties. You don’t expect them to have different expressions to represent a brand, product, cosmetic, ect. This isn’t a runaway show where in the eighties you ad more expression, drama play in the catwalk, ect.

    Her job as a model is to enhance the product without emphasizing to much on her persona like it was the case in the late 80′s with the supermodels (because of their extreme beauty, sexyness and charisma), hence their wages rose to unbeleivable heights because it was Cindy or Claudia, or Naomi that people were seeing and interested in more than the product and clothes they represented and were photographed in.

    You don’t get clicked in Elite model agency by chance even if you are the daughter of a famous actor.

    She has that typical bone structure of cover girls from the nineties from every angle, like Turlington, Seymour, Crawford, ect. She isn’t fit for the runaway but good for the print ad and especially for cosmetics.

    And in the model industry if you want to sell a cloth, it’s better to hire more androgyn sexless type models, like those of today. Hence many runaway models (with the exception of lingerie) are made on that type : androgynous who don’t smile and erase as much as they can sex appeal so that the poduct/cloth is seen as the most important factor than the model who wears it.

    In the cosmetics department it’s the other way around, hence they hire characters, sexy supermodels or actresses…it’s in that industry that the model can make more bucks because the product capitalized on her name, persona, charisma.

    That may explain the changing of strategy of St John who will use a more semi anonymous person to sell its brand more than to sell the model.

    But again, i find it really suspicious that they have to use Jolie’s name to sell their brand AFTER having hired a SECOND model AFTER Jolie.

    So again, it seems that hiring a so called professional model didn’t do the trick THE FIRST TIME since they had to replace her by this one using Jolie’s name besides as if she was the direct predecessor….and again hiring another model for how long THIS time and with what excuse the third time ?

  58. Sally says:

    Wow, Angie looks gorgeous! And Karen Elson is definitely on the quirky/striking side, but she is also quite beautiful:

    And I must say, I am a fan of brands returning to the use of more models for campaigns, as opposed to actors/celebrities.

  59. Mairead says:

    Oh come on – Karen Elson is stunning!

  60. WTF?!? says:

    Orbit, in actuality, the the term is “cleansing the palate”, not “palette”, so before you correct an error, you might want to “vet” it yourself and not make up a definition based on a misspelling.

  61. badhorse says:

    stunning? really? That red haired woman is ugly to the bone.

  62. Firestarter says:

    Oh please. People need to get over it. A company has a right to choose someone else to represent their line/product any time they want.

    Companies do it all the time. No clothing, make-up, perfume, shoe, handbag company keeps anyone forever.

    She had a nice run, and while I am not nuts about K.E, they want a new look, and they have the right to find another model/face to represent their product.

    You don’t like St.John’s, well don’t buy St.John’s. The brand isn’t going anywhere. It’s been around for years, and there will always be a market for their clothes.

    I liked Jolie in the ads, for the record.

  63. Rosalee says:

    Jolie is breathtakingly beautiful in the St. John photo campaign but I could help but think it was the wrong brand for her to represent.

  64. Cheyenne says:

    I don’t think Elson is ugly at all. She really is stunning. But I don’t think she represents the image SJK is trying to project.

    Maybe the real problem is SJK doesn’t know just what kind of image they are trying to project, but I don’t see the ladies who buy their clothes identifying with either Jolie or Elson.

  65. kim says:

    Who was their model in 2009? AJ ‘s contract ended in 2008.

  66. Cheyenne says:

    Liya Kebede, an Ethiopian model, was supposed to represent them last year. She is drop-dead beautiful but I don’t recall seeing her in any SJK ads. As a matter of fact, I don’t recall seeing many SJK ads featuring anyone since Angie stopped modeling for them.

  67. Trillion says:

    Elson – from Alexander McQueen to St. John? Wow. That’s quite a chasm. The hallmark of a great model is the ability to adapt to the situation at hand and sell whatever. She must be pretty damn cool to be married to Jack f-in’ White!

  68. teri says:

    Wow those pictures of Angelina are just amazingly beautiful. She certainly just takes your breath away. I don’t find what SJK said as an insult, Angelina simply was too beautiful and people didn’t pay attention to the clothes.

  69. Orbit says:

    WTF?!?, in actuality, the rep from St. John (see PR release) incorrectly used the term “cleans[ing] the palette,” not “palate,” so, before you correct an error, you might want to “vet” it yourself.

  70. WTF?!? says:

    No, Orbit, the the person who wrote down what he said (re-read the article, it was an oral quote, not from a press release) codified a very common expression incorrectly, which doesn’t mean you get to rewrite its meaning.
    While artists’ palettes are cleaned daily across the world, the well-known phrase is “cleanse the palate”. Even its misuse similar to the above across the Interwebs *always* refers to meals and taste.
    Perpetuating Stupid is wrong, please stop it, and– again– before you decide to be Missy Maxim, do your “vetting”.
    You are incorrect, so acknowledge that you learned something new today and let it go.

  71. I agree with you about Angie’s ads. They were incredibly beautiful. The photos were gorgeous. And yes, about the “duh” moment. Angie pretty much overshadows everything. St. John should just be happy that these ads will be collectibles in a decade or two.

  72. lisa says:

    Boy….over 70 comments on something that actually happened 2 years ago..


  73. katy says:

    IT IS A VERY GOOD CHOICE of St John. ANGELINA JOLIE drags too many problems and an bad image : “STEALER OF HUSBAND” and manipulative. ST JOHN DESERVES BETTER THAN ANGELINA JOLIE…

  74. Sarah Balfour says:

    Unfair. That photo of Karen is taken on a bad day. Post one that’s equally stylized and posed, then perhaps this article will have some relevance. Angelina looks incredible in those photos, but changing a spokesperson is nothing new. It happens all the time to models, so why make a big fuss because it happens to an actress? St John can do what they like, it’s their brand and I’m tired of all the gossip that surrounds Angelina. Move on I say and if you look at Karen’s modelling shots, she’s gorgeous.

  75. Haute Diva says:

    Wisen up guys!
    These photos ARE amazing, they are some of the best photos ever taken, but the thing is Angie was not born this good-looking. She’s gorgeous, yes, but her bulbous nose is GONE, her droopy furry eye-brows are GONE and her lips have been reshaped to look amazing in photos, they have been tucked in somehow. Anyone with her plastic Surge’s number please call me. The only natural feature is probably the boobs because although they are large they do droop low, a booboo easily fixed with a trip to a guy with a mask and a large knife!!!

  76. the palette says:

    Hello there, You’ve performed a fantastic job. I will certainly digg it and individually suggest to my friends. I am confident they will be benefited from this website.