Not that she needed to explain herself, but Nicole Kidman has finally come clean about her long-talked-about Botox use. The actress admitted to Italy's La Repubblica that, as of now, her face is completely natural, but that she did have a brief tryst with Hollywood's beloved syringe in the past.
I don't think you need to be Paul Nassif to know that, duh, of course Nicole had Botox. But you'll be quite surprised to hear exactly what she thinks of it. And some people are suspicious that Nikki isn't being completely truthful when she claims she "had" Botox.
Kidman said, "I did try Botox, unfortunately, but I got out of it and now I can finally move my face again." "Unfortunately"? Why unfortunately? It seems like Nicole had Botox for a while -- she must have liked the way it looked. Why is that "unfortunate"? I'm guessing that Nicole is just adhering to the ol' "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" adage, being that for years countless magazines and websites poked fun and speculated about her frozen forehead. She wants to be part of the joke instead of the joke itself.
It's valiant(ish?) that Kidman admitted to using Botox, but at the same time, it's kind of like: Why? Yes, she's a famous woman, hence the world thinks they have a right to know the last time she went to the bathroom, but it's her face. She doesn't have to tell anyone anything. Also, it was pretty much the most obvious thing on planet Earth.
In other news, The Huffington Post seems to think that Nicole isn't being totally honest when she says that her face is au naturel as of now. In a post, they allude to the fact that Nicole's face was looking suspiciously immobile at the Golden Globes a few weeks ago. And they scoff at the fact that Kidman credits "sunscreen and not smoking and taking care of herself" as the reasons she basically looks reborn.
And I must admit: I do, too. Sunscreen is important and all, but if it's the fountain of youth every woman in Hollywood seems to claim it is, why don't the rest of us look like them?
Kidman, ya burnt.
Do you use sunscreen? Do you look 100 years younger because you do so?
Image via Lisa Maree Williams/Getty
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Comments 8
Oh, KelticMom, you have no lines because you are 33. The lines come later. When you are 40 and have no lines, you can credit SPF and genes. Even at 40, the lines can be very faint even in very fair people but at 33, you have no lines because you are only 33. Middle age makes a BIG difference! Certainly keep using it and taking care of yourself and I hope you do get to 40 with no little lines showing up. For me, I just keep smiling because I figure if I'm going to have the lines, I want smiley lines not frowny ones!
Oh, Hollywood22, KelticMom didn't offend me. Have you looked at her picture? She's beautiful! My point simply was that she doesn't have wrinkles because most 33 yr olds don't have wrinkles. Some people do, I am sure but it just isn't noteworthy that at 33, she doesn't. On a side note, KelticMom, I hope you do age like your mother, too! To have the appearance of someone younger with the maturity that comes with age seems an idyllic state!
Oh, and apparently, I am on a kick where I start all my comments with, "Oh......."