#vanessa kirby icons

[editfandom]

THE WORLD TO COME, 2020 | Vanessa Kirby as Tallie

[glossyfiles]

like or reblog to support us.

[ikvgai]

[gt-icons]

Random Actress icons

‒ like or reblog if you save

[callmestardust]

Pedro Pascal & Vanessa Kirby at Sdcc 2024

#

[showmeyouricons]

[talyayet474]

Vanessa Kirby

[xalala]

Marvel Studios THE FANTASTIC FOUR in theaters July 25, 2025.

[whiskeycat991]

[eemcintyre]

My personal favorite 14 red-carpet dresses of all-time + why

1 | Natalie Portman in Gucci (2018)

Not only is this look proof that you can, in fact, mix metals, but it is the perfect complement to and embodiment of the A-list icon that Natalie is. She exudes classic Old Hollywood glamor with the shoulder pads and glittery silhouette- I'm not usually a shoulder pad fan, but with this sleek silhouette, it adds some really nice dimension. Then, she exudes drama and sexiness with the V-slit neckline without it being distracting. Finally, the eye-catching bow might be my favorite part of the whole thing.

2 | Lana Del Rey in Gucci (2018)

This gown lived rent-free in my head for days after. I appreciate the vintage reference, especially to such an iconic lady as Hedy Lamarr, while Lana also makes it her own rather than doing a direct copy. You can tell great attention was paid to the details- the lariat necklace, accumulations of star beading, and the corsage. It's just far-out enough that only the premier goddess of angelic sad girl music could truly pull it off. It's also unusual and thrilling to see a crown, and her hair provides a necessary color contrast.

3 | Zooey Deschanel in Oscar de la Renta (2014)

This look contains so many fun, small details, without any of which it wouldn't feel complete. It meets all of my expectations for what a red carpet dress should be- glitzy and glamorous, sure, but not *too* much. While there are a lot of textures and embellishments going on, it's all one neutral color. It's giving flapper vibes that I love, plus we don't see crop tops too often and her contrasting hair color and pop of red lipstick are what bring it over the edge to complete perfection for me.

4 | Lupita Nyong'o in Calvin Klein (2015)

Pearl accessories have been agreed upon by most to be the classiest accessories out there- so what does that say about this gown?? While the color and silhouette are unassuming at first glance, this dress is super decadent. There are few red carpet looks I've seen where the hours of meticulous craftsmanship that went into it are this evident. I love that the beads also are not organized to only display one texture, and the peephole below the neckline is a flirty touch of contrast. The way the gems interact with light is ethereal, and that one large pearl at the base of the neckline is just eye-catching perfection.

5 | Natalie Portman in Schiaparelli (2024)

When I say mother is mothering. This is another prime example of a look that is deceptively simple at first glance but really has all kinds of intriguing layers to it. The cheeky cutout, the dramatic makeup, the "reputation"-esque clutch, and then on top of it all, the chunky chain neckline is my favorite touch, adding delightful texture and draping elegantly down her shoulders. A timeless and versatile ensemble you'd be hard-pressed to go wrong with. My queen is in her revenge dress era for sure.

6 | Vanessa Kirby in Valentino (2022)

This set of separates is all about bold, powerful, and modern femininity. With the slit and open midsection, it reads as very flirty and sexy, while also being comfortable and confident in that sexuality. Since it's such an unconventional, attention-grabbing outfit, I like that Vanessa went simple on the rest of the look, but it seems like it's missing the tiniest final touch, like a cocktail ring or some silver earrings to match the shoes. Overall, I love that it's different and memorable from what I normally see, and totally encapsulates the phrase "fun, fresh and flirty."

7 | Natalie Portman in Dior (2024)

Again I am stunned by the hours of expert craftsmanship that must have gone into this dress. Collabs between her and Dior are practically a never-miss kind of deal- just serve after serve after serve. This gown is also amazing because of how timeless it is- the style could easily have come from a number of different decades, and its simplicity leaves the door open for all kinds of accessorizing. Speaking of which, it does feel like it's missing some miniscule detail, and I personally would have worn my hair down or in a ponytail with a less severe part. But this is ultimately yet another instance of an actress looking like a work of art- the delicate color gradient resembles a serene Monet or Seurat painting.

8 | Rebecca Ferguson in Vivienne Westwood (2023)

This dress was deceptively a bit boring to me at first glance, but the longer I studied it, I realized that there are so many lovely, complex details to this look. The monochromatic color palette is made fascinating by the usage of different textures that look like they are dripping off of her. Girl is literally dripping gorgeousness and the abstract draping of the pearls and skirt make her look like a work of art. While it's maybe not the best color for her and I personally think it makes her look a tiny bit washed out, it was my favorite of everyone's outfits during the Dead Reckoning tour by far.

9 | Mia Goth in Dolce & Gabbana (2022)

Not everyone could pull off this campy, sexy, vintage and mysterious look, but it was made for Mia for sure. This ensemble perfectly suits her vibe and is giving 50s housewife who moonlights as a spy and dominatrix on weekends in the best way. We need more looks like this from everyone; more whimsy, more fun!

10 | SZA in Versace (2018)

This gown was everything that I believe the Met Gala "Heavenly Bodies" theme was supposed to be about, from the delicate celestial halo to the cloud-like skirt in sunrise pastel pink. The skirt is also a really cool silhouette that we don’t see very often and adds to the illusion of her floating on the clouded sky. Finally, the thigh-high matching boots were a super-fun surprise. It could fit a tiny bit better at the waist where it's bunching up, but by far the best look of the event that year.

11 | Amy Adams in Valentino (2014)

This look perfectly straddles the two extremes of simple and dramatic, as well as vintage and modern. While there aren't any patterns, ruffles, bows, beads, or any of that jazz, the small train is very sophisticated and the deep V neckline is an alluring and attention-commanding focal point, especially accented with a lovely pendant. I also love a good color block moment, and most of the look is very Old Hollywood. And whether it was intentional or coincidental, she truly looks meant to be at the red carpet, matching perfectly with it.

12 | Margot Robbie in Versace (2017)

This look is a wonderfully kitschy 90s throwback and not everyone could pull it off on the red carpet without looking tacky. However, the way she keeps it simple with the hair and accessories is perfect. The twist of the fabric at the waist makes the pattern more interesting and dynamic to look at when it might otherwise seem a bit static. While it wouldn't necessarily work for any occasion, during the right one I think it wins by an absolute runaway.

13 | Amy Winehouse in Karen Millen (2004)

Amy Jade was doing the exposed bra fifteen years before it was cool. This ensemble is everything great about red carpet Y2K, flirty and down-to-earth, while the lace trim and corset embroidery make it glam. This moment was the embodiment of balance and effortless charm

14 | Gillian Anderson in Armani (1997)

This look is the definition of beauty in simplicity. At glamorous Hollywood events, you really can't go wrong with the classic Castle-type bob haircut. The dress has a sleek silhouette that doesn't overwhelm Gillian's frame, with a plunging neckline to add interest and sexiness. One of the great but criminally overlooked red carpet moments of the 90s.

[rampldgifs]

click the source for 537 gifs of VANESSA KIRBY in MI: DEAD RECKONING PART 1(2023), THE SON(2022), FAST & FURIOUS: HOBBS & SHAW(2019), MI: FALLOUT (2018). please note that i do not approve of the 5+/- age rule. these were made from scratch and more will be added at my leisure, so please don’t edit, repost or claim as your own or i will eat you. tag me if you’re posting edited gif icons for public use. give this post a like or reblog if useful. enjoy !

[editfandom]

Vanessa Kirby

[glossyfiles]

like or reblog to support us.

[kabuki-draws]

I watched Ridley Scott's NAPOLEON yesterday and it was a complete Waterloo.

Yes, I am a big history nerd with a giant heart for movie adaptation of historical topics. But when I watched NAPOLEON I sat there... and tried not to laugh. It was not only so historical inaccurate, that I wanted to cry, at the same time it was filled with cringe dialogues, red flags and terrible color grading. This whole movie made me so sad yet so angry, that I HAVE to write this review:

(Disclaimer: This review is based on my own opinion. If you enjoyed the movie, it's completely fine. Btw. in that case or if you agree with me, feel free to tell me your opinion. I would love to know!)

First of all: Don't get me wrong, the medium film has its own rules and you can't put as much historical accuracy into a big scale movie as you would into a documentary - sometimes the story needs to be altered to be a good movie. And that is fine. Even if Gladiator is a complete fictional story set in the Roman Empire, I can still enjoy this movie for what it is: A good-written story with great characters, a beautiful score and iconic scenes. With Kingdom of Heaven it's kind of the same - and while the movie cut was very inconsistent, I still kind of liked it. But then the Directors Cut made it a a masterpiece for me.

Funny enough, both of these movies are made by the same person: Ridley Scott. So naturally I thought: Well, Napoleon won't be a historical accurate film, but I surely will enjoy it anyways. Well, ...no. It is not only historical incorrect, it's also a bad movie overall.

To start it short: NAPOLEON clearly lost itself in all the various topics it wanted to tell within a runtime of two and a half hours. It made the whole storytelling very weird and inconsistent, causing the problem, that the audience even loses itself in the questions of when and where. Where is that scene located? When did that happen? And then comes the question: Why is this even happening?

Ridley Scott wants to depict Napoleon as a lover, a military genius, a big political figure, a revolutionary and more. But in the end he tells all of this in the most shallow way possible, which waters down Napoleons personality traits and achievements to a series of small scenes. You never get a glimpse of the "true" Napoleon, who was described as a highly intelligent and charismatic man. In fact, you never really feel ANYTHING about him except that he was a cringe red flag in front of his wife. He just stands there, stares and has very limited dialogue scenes to get a picture of that man. What are his overall motivations? Only Josephine? If so, why is this motivation only vaguely explored?

The whole love story between him and Josephine feels so unnatural and got to the brink of being disgusting. This is particularly sad because I deeply respect Vanessa Kirby and Joaquin Phoenix, they're both stunning actors. I don't know if they just couldn't fit the role or if it was rather a problem of the script (the last one is my guess). Yet whenever I saw Josephine and Napoleon on screen, I felt like acted very stiff and forced. Napoleon seemed more obsessed with her than actual love and that can be a character trait, but there wasn't a chance to explore that deeper. Before the movie entered the cinema, the lovestory between these two was marketed as intense, obsessive, deeper than you could imagine. What the audience got was a few scenes without real conversation, much staring and a bunch of cringeworthy s-scenes. And seriously, these "sexy" scene were the worst. I was so disgusted by them because they were SO DAMN WEIRD. There are no scenes that undermine ANY deep love between Josephine and Napoleon. It felt therefore so off, when they still longed for each other after their divorce.

And let's not start to ramble about the fact that they depicted Josephine ONLY in a somehow sexual way. Yeah, there is that scene where she says to Napoleon, that he is nothing without her. BUT SHOW, DON´T TELL! You never see her doing something instead of sitting there, talking with others or when the plot needs her to have sexy time with someone (not only Napoleon). As a woman myself this makes me so freaking furious, you have no idea. I don't need a marvel-coded super-strong woman with unlimited talents - I just need a female character that is written GOOD and plausible! Make me CARE for her plot and for the plot of Napoleon! Both of them don't even feel like normal human beings because they're like blank pieces of paper with their names written on it!

And don´t make me start to talk about the historical inaccuracies. At first I didn't want to draw that card. Actually, I don't need a historical movie to present 100% facts. If the movie is still enjoyable, it's okey. But even if many people say that the war scenes were awesome, I can only partly agree. Yeah, we have that cool ice-lake Austerlitz battle, but it took me a couple of minutes and a better look on the uniforms to know that Napoleon is now at war with Austria! You get nearly ZERO context to Napoleons battles. Yeah, nice, the scenes look cool - but there is nothing more to it? Is that all you need to show for the audience to care? For me at least, I just didn't care at all and I was very happy when I got out of the cinema. Overall this movie is full of messy non-sense choices that don't contribute to the story. Many moments just confused me and it left me with the question why Scott couldn't simply hire some historians to put together a consistent story. Everyone who read about Napoleons life knows that there are so much cinema worthy moments in his career that would've been so much better than what we now got.

I could ramble about that movie for hours if I´m honest, but I hope this little TED talk was enough to make my statement clear.

In the end, it just makes me sad. I wanted to like this movie, I wanted it to be good. For months I hyped myself up to this, read books about Napoleon, watched the trailer all over and over and talked with friends about how great this movie will be. Now I am just disappointed and frustrated. Oppenheimer was such a great biopic of a historical person that became a great success at the box office - even without great battle scenes. I hoped that Napoleon would push a cinema revolution, that shows people want big scaled films about historical personalities and history topics. But now I just want to forget this Napoleon movie to be honest.

[thecrownnet]

Vanessa Kirby Honored Lagerfeld’s Legacy in the Iconic Chloé Shower Dress at the 2023 Met Gala. Photo: Alyssa Greenberg/Vanity Fair

[showmeyouricons]