Comments on: Rachel Weisz Does UK Harper’s Bazaar August 2009

By: Rob Schneider rules

Rob Schneider rules — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 03:43:49 +0000

I agree – she looks freakin AMAZING in this picture. Like a tigress or something

By: Liesl Eva Margaret

Liesl Eva Margaret — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:16:52 +0000

This is my favourite shoot of her EVER. She looks incredible. You know it’s funny – back in the 90s when I used to watch her film Stealing Beauty starring the gorgeous young Liv Tyler, I didn’t think much of Rachel’s looks or think she was particularly beautiful but now, it’s Liv Tyler who looks frumpy and Rachel who looks like a full-blown screen goddess. So strange! Could be just the phenomenon of some people looking their best when they were young and others looking better as they mature.
Apologies for this really, really superficial comment!!!!

By: kpriss

kpriss — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:59:54 +0000

Ellington, you have a couture point there. But I’m one of those old fashioned, classic, ordinary seasons spectators/participants and you already know I dislike overwriting the nature’s ways with fashion’s ways. But indeed, I’ll have to adjust my sunbathed eyes to receive fall’s velvet embrace ;)

Shannon, this is not uncommon for actors/celebs. They tend to disagree with altering/enhancing their photos but from editors and managers points of view, they’re just products after all. Would you buy a tomato with visible spots on or a squeaky spotless one? even if you know the spot-on one is 1000% natural and the spotless is genetically modified!

Where is the line? within us. Why is it okay for Rachel (or any other) to cross it? because it sells and we wouldn’t buy actors/celebs unless we could look up to them? Would you look up to someone (take inspiration from) if you were better than him/her (physically speaking)? It’s just money. If we buy the magazines/pay for the movie, theater ticket, the seller must attend to our special demands. If those demands required no airbrushing, measures would have been taken…

By: shannon

shannon — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:47:54 +0000

I really admire Rachel’s talents as an entertainer, however, I find it strange that she agrees with the obvious air brushing and photoshopping of her images in various publications and yet she will condem other acters for their dabbles in botox.

Rachel states in Harpers that a frown is a frown (assuming that an actor shouldn’t alter their image). While that’s true enough, isn’t a muffin top a muffin top? We all know that Rachel isn’t as svelt as she’s photoshopped to appear. Where is the line and why is it okay for Rachel to cross it when and where she deems fit?

By: Adriana

Adriana — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:52:04 +0000

Agrees! Loves Rachel too.

By: Ellington

Ellington — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:41:06 +0000

Rachel Weisz is lovely and a very talented actor. I like this cover and as you know August is just the start of the fashion push for autumn/winter so I see nothing unusual about this cover. It is actually seasonal for the fashion world.

By: Daydreamer

Daydreamer — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:59:37 +0000

It’s weird seeing this cover on summer newsstand but she looks totally sexy as the title says and she is beautiful, as always. If this cover is out around October or November would be great!

By: Sal

Sal — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:54:54 +0000

I can’t help it. I have SUCH a girl-crush on Rachel.

By: Kim

Kim — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:36:41 +0000

Love the cover and love Rachel, she’s stunning beauty and a amazing actress.