IMAGE: VANITYFAIR.COM
The vast majority of our forum members weren’t buying it. “I’m sorry. I don’t understand the fascination,” stated liv4beauty straight away.
“Not working for me, also can’t understand her appeal. The blue and gold make me feel she is at a beauty clinic or something like that and the background looks fake round her head, the transition is too sharp,” described a disapproving Nymphaea.
MyNameIs was quick to express disappointment, writing, “Could’ve been better. I’m bothered by the blunt cut job around her face and hair. Also, that gradient fill on the letters looks cheap.”
“I am having issues with the background. It looks too blurred that it ended up looking so fake. The layout is a mess. A big mess. I hate it when magazines put the names of the cover star bigger than their logo (case in point),” pointed out an unforgiving MON.
Forum member narcyza felt the same way: “Awful. And this ugly font…”
“Can they only do two types of covers for actresses: pin-up in their underwear or cold and icy!?!?!” asked a frustrated blueorchid.
“The magazine has tried very hard to apply the Vanity Fair formula for glamour to Alicia, but it’s lifeless. I usually adore this type of thing, but I have zero interest in seeing these images again,” tigerrouge shunned.
IMAGE: VANITYFAIR.COM
Eek! See more from Alicia’s cover shoot and join the debate here.
