CollegeCandy » Beverly Hills

‘Beverly Hills Chihuahua’ Has Some Serious Fleas

CC Staff — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:10:39 +0000

I’ve got a bone to pick with Disney’s latest pet project. The movie Beverly Hills Chihuahua, opening this Friday, looks like the costliest waste of talent, resources, and brainpower to hit the mainstream media since Swing Vote.

I first heard about the movie when I saw its extended trailer in previews for Wall-E this summer. It was just a mess of digitally edited footage of Chihuahuas singing (if you could call emphatic yelps of “Chihuahua!” singing) and prancing about Mayan ruins in Mexico. The trailer told you nothing about the plot of the movie itself, and even misrepresented the title of the film. If it’s called Beverly Hills Chihuahua, what are these pups doing in Chichen Itza?

Well, now that the ad campaign for this movie has revved up for its release, I’ve learned a lot more about BHC and I certainly don’t like what I see, for a few reasons.

First, and probably most egregious, is the fact that BHC is blatantly racist. It is rife with potshots at Mexican and Latino culture. Take, for example, the over-promoted scene in which another dog asks the prissy protagonist (Chloe, from the Hills), “don’t you speak Spanish?” When she stutters, the mastiff replies, “Hello? You’re a Chihuahua, m’hija!” As if the nature of one’s heritage determines one’s linguistic abilities. You wouldn’t walk up to a person who looked Hispanic and deride them for not speaking Spanish, so why is it okay for dogs to do it? Is this the kind example we want to be setting for children, at whom the film is targeted?

Moral repugnancies aside, BHC doesn’t look like it’s going to be racking up any points for creativity. If you include such colloquial gems as “oh no she didn’t!” and “say hello to my little friends!” among the funniest moments in the movie (why else would you include it in the trailer?), there can’t be much else worth checking out. Seriously, Disney, is it still 1992? No one has said “oh no she didn’t!” in all seriousness since overalls were popular.

With a multimillion dollar budget and Jamie Lee Curtis, Drew Barrymore, and George Lopez among the staring credits, you would expect far better from such an established label. To think of all the up-and-coming screenwriters, directors, and animators whose talents never get picked up because large studios like Disney would rather pump millions into a dead-end project like Beverly Hills Chihuahua is shameful. With the state of the economy these days, this movie represents all that is atrocious about American excess, and it would be a sin to plunk down any cash on a ticket for it. Take a look for yourself:



A 90210 Wardrobe on an Anytown, U.S.A. Budget
Jess T. - Columbia University — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:30:14 +0000

If you happened to catch the new 90210 last week, I’m assuming you’re in agreement with me that the show itself was rather hard to watch. Good thing there were some cute outfits to add something worth looking at.
Obviously, since most of us don’t live in one of the wealthiest zip codes in the country, we can’t afford to wear designer duds on a daily basis, but achieving the look of the new class of West Beverly Hills High doesn’t have to cost you your firstborn.  With a trip to your local Target, Express or Forever 21 (my personal faves for inexpensive fashion) or a few mouse clicks, you can pull together a great 90210-inspired ensemble.
As the weather begins to cool, but before it gets too chilly, rockin’ out a cute pair of denim shorts, a corset top and a blazer is an adorable look that Naomi showed off… every day…for the entire episode.  I found an entire outfit like this at Forever 21 for a grand total of $70. (Click on the images to shop!) 

Like any show about rich high school kids, there were plenty of parties and, thus, party dresses. Good thing cheap dresses are easy to find! This hot satin number (below) is only $23 at Forever 21 and comes in a vast array of colors. There is also this Forever 21 frock for under $30, or a basic dress that could be dressed up really well with some fun accessories from Target.

Fun and flirty tops were the other central piece in the show, and again, finding these for a reasonable price (oftentimes under $25!) is an easy task.  I loved this top (on sale for $19.99), as well as this one from Express. The shirt below, from Forever 21 (as usual), pairs well with a pair of skinny jeans for a chic and luxe look.

And for Annie’s casual look (which is supposed to be more “Midwest”), Forever 21 and Target are definitely the way to go. Here are a couple of pieces similar to her tanks and hoodies. The shirt below, from Target, is a cute alternative to a boring, everyday tank.

As is always the case, going to discount stores like Filene’s Basement, Loehmann’s, Nordstrom Rack, etc. is a fantastic way to find great steals.  And if you want a few designer pieces thrown in with your cheaper pieces to create a perfectly balanced look, these stores are definitely the way to go.
No matter what, as the oh-so-wise Tim Gunn emphasizes, fashion isn’t about cost or labels; it’s about finding pieces that flatter your body and allowing your personal style to shine through. Yes, even if you’re following the trends of a new TV show.

         


Winona Opens Up – But Won’t Take Responsibility
Jess - NYU — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:30:19 +0000
Remember that weird day in December, 2001 when pretty famous actress Winona Ryder was arrested for grand theft and drug possession?
It’s okay if you don’t.  It certainly wasn’t the biggest incident of that year.  Still, the event garnered a lot of press, a lot of speculation, and no answer from Ryder.
Today, she’s breaking her silence.
Sorta.
Winona told People magazine recently that she didn’t “have [a] tremendous sense of guilt” about stealing a little less than $5,000 from Saks in Beverly Hills because she didn’t “hurt anyone.”  She goes on to say that during the whole courtroom drama, she consciously stopped herself from making a statement and “just waited for it to be over”.
As to the reason behind her behavior, Ryder claims “Two months prior to [the arrest], I broke my arm in two places, and the doctor, a sort of quack doctor, was giving me a lot of stuff and I was taking it at first to get through the pain. And then there was this weird point when you don’t know if you are in pain but you’re taking it.”
Stating she was in a state of  “confusion” when she grabbed tons of jewelry and stuffed it into her purse, Ryder did her darndest to skirt any responsibility for the theft.
You know, Winona, I knew a girl who was arrested for stealing gobs and gobs of jewelry.  She was also in a state of “confusion” at the time.  Confusion over which diamond necklace would look the best on her…so she decided to take them all.
Sound familiar?