Fashion Don'ts: Worst Movie Outfits

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, proserpina65 said:

Yeah, still ugly though.

There are some decades where the fashion is questionable at best, and the 1890s are definitely one of those. I do like the overall costuming in Crimson Peak because it works for the characters in the time the movie is set. Mia's costumes may look dreadful, but they fit a rich bookish young woman living in Buffalo in 1900--well-made, expensive fabrics, but ever-so slightly out-of-date. And Jessica Chastain gets some killer dresses that are 15ish years out of fashion because her character does not have the funds for new dresses. She's either wearing secondhand dresses or ones purchased for her back when the family was not so broke.

[Palimelon]

Quote

I don’t care if it was a Victorian gothic horror movie, those poofed sleeves are HIDEOUS.

Horror movies are supposed to scare us, to make us turn away from the screen in a mix of fear, terror, and disgust...so that outfit is doing it's job?

[Spartan Girl]

15 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

There are some decades where the fashion is questionable at best, and the 1890s are definitely one of those. I do like the overall costuming in Crimson Peak because it works for the characters in the time the movie is set. Mia's costumes may look dreadful, but they fit a rich bookish young woman living in Buffalo in 1900--well-made, expensive fabrics, but ever-so slightly out-of-date. And Jessica Chastain gets some killer dresses that are 15ish years out of fashion because her character does not have the funds for new dresses. She's either wearing secondhand dresses or ones purchased for her back when the family was not so broke.

Agree in principal but it always annoys me when the villain is dressed better than the heroine.

[Spartan Girl]

The black dress in Legend

 

I know it was literally designed by Darkness, but COME ON! It was tacky AF! There was barely enough material to even call it a gown! It was nearly cut all the way down to her you-know-what! No amount of magic could ever make it look good to me!

[Wiendish Fitch]

It's bad enough that 1940's Pride and Prejudice is an overly cutesy adaptation with overly frilly, period inaccurate costumes, but did they have to make poor Greer Garson wear such cartoonishly oversized bonnets? 

Edited October 28 by Wiendish Fitch

[Ohiopirate02]

On 10/28/2024 at 1:51 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

It's bad enough that 1940's Pride and Prejudice is an overly cutesy adaptation with overly frilly, period inaccurate costumes, but did they have to make poor Greer Garson wear such cartoonishly oversized bonnets? 

Isn't this adaptation set in the 1830s? Huge bonnets were a thing in the 1830s because 1830s hair required it.

[Wiendish Fitch]

4 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Isn't this adaptation set in the 1830s? Huge bonnets were a thing in the 1830s because 1830s hair required it.

True, but there was something so right about the Regency era of the book. I realize this is a "me" problem, but I can't take anything in the movie seriously with Greer Garson basically wearing the hat from the end of Go Dog. Go! 

I normally love MGM's classic gloss, but it could be misused and ruin a movie (see also: 1949's Little Women).

[Palimelon]

The higher the bonnet, the closer to heaven.

[proserpina65]

On 10/30/2024 at 11:11 AM, Wiendish Fitch said:

True, but there was something so right about the Regency era of the book. I realize this is a "me" problem, but I can't take anything in the movie seriously with Greer Garson basically wearing the hat from the end of Go Dog. Go! 

I normally love MGM's classic gloss, but it could be misused and ruin a movie (see also: 1949's Little Women).

It's not just you.  I have a friend who's studied Regency-era clothing and wrote a scathing review of the Keira Knightley version where she ripped apart the costuming.  She thought the movie sucked for a lot of reasons, but that's where she directed her most pointed remarks.

[Trini]

6 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

It's not just you.  I have a friend who's studied Regency-era clothing and wrote a scathing review of the Keira Knightley version where she ripped apart the costuming.  She thought the movie sucked for a lot of reasons, but that's where she directed her most pointed remarks.

... Does she have anything online? I'm down for a fashion rant!

Edited November 1 by Trini
ugh -- typos

[Ohiopirate02]

13 hours ago, Trini said:

... Does she have anything online? I'm down for a fashion rant!

Not the OP, but the fashion blog Frock Flicks  does many a historical production rant. They devote a whole week every January to snarking on the worst offenders. The blog also refers to the 2005 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice as Pride & Prejudice & Pigs.

https://frockflicks.com/snark-week-11-reasons-irritated-pride-prejudice-2005/

[Wiendish Fitch]

I like the 2005 P&P fine, but I completely agree that the costumes are lacking. I have some thoughts on the miniseries (both 1980 and 1995), but I'll mosey over to the TV fashion thread...

Edited November 1 by Wiendish Fitch

[proserpina65]

15 hours ago, Trini said:

... Does she have anything online? I'm down for a fashion rant!

I don't think so, but I can ask her.  She's very knowledgeable so I tend to trust her opinion about such matters.

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I like the 2005 P&P fine, but I completely agree that the costumes are lacking. I have some thoughts on the miniseries (both 1980 and 1995), but I'll mosey over to the TV fashion thread...

I'll be honest, I really have not noticed the costumes in the 2005 adaptation because I keep on getting distracted by the hair. A huge historical film/TV pet peeve of mine is modern hair in historical productions. While I prefer period accurate hair, I will settle for just about anything if the hair is completely up. The long-flowing locks to signify our heroine is "not like other girls" and is a "free spirit" even though the text says otherwise. It's ugly and impractical.