I see London, I see France, I see Natalie’s underpants!
Maybe it’s just me, but does anyone else wonder why the people responsible for dressing actresses for these events don’t consider snapping a few shots of them with paparazzi-level flash, just to determine whether or not their dresses are rendered nearly transparent?
On second thought, forget I brought it up… >_>
Nice retraction, AB. Even though she is a senior citizen by this site’s standards, I imagine the peanut gallery would be quite irate at your offering any kind of advise that might reduce the chances that we get to see Natalie Portman’s undergarments. Unfortunately, this is about as much as that tight little hassidim is going to give up (well, outside of those classic St. Bart’s pics).
#1 | Comment by Rod Stiffington — January 26, 2009 @ 8:13 am
bored.
#2 | Comment by Justin L — January 26, 2009 @ 8:33 am
Justin > Justin L
fact.
#3 | Comment by AngelBaby — January 26, 2009 @ 8:57 am
As we saw her naked in Hotel Chevalier, a see-through panties shot is not that exciting now, is it…
#4 | Comment by AB Lover — January 26, 2009 @ 9:28 am
^^^
i’m sorry, i didn’t realize once you’ve seen a girl without her clothes on, there’s no longer any reason to ever look at her again.
my bad.
#5 | Comment by AngelBaby — January 26, 2009 @ 9:37 am
well, at least it isnt kira “skeletor” knightley”.
#6 | Comment by Xan — January 26, 2009 @ 10:06 am
error: line 1: class ‘Justin’ does not implement IComparable.
#7 | Comment by Justin L — January 26, 2009 @ 10:13 am
wtf…”BARELY” see through maybe.
Trying to spot the panties in these pics is like trying to decypher penitration in scrambled porn chanels!
#8 | Comment by MacDaddy — January 26, 2009 @ 10:21 am
You know, Angelbaby, you’ve been awfully combative lately. I would recommend some relaxing meditation, or increased alcohol intake, because that kind of attitude will give you wrinkles.
And as AB Lover, welcome to you, Mr. Homosexual. Because anyone who isn’t excited about pictures of Natalie Portman, in any state of dress or undress, is clearly fruit loopy. She could be wearing a babushka scrubbing out a dirty shitter and she’d look radiant.
#9 | Comment by Rod Stiffington — January 26, 2009 @ 10:24 am
^^^
i may try meditating with a bottle of tequila tonight.
om. om. om. *hic* om.
#10 | Comment by AngelBaby — January 26, 2009 @ 10:28 am
I can only hope that the make-up and “paparazzi-level flashes” are what’s making her look so much older than the last time I saw her. She almost looks like she has smokers’ skin.
I’ve always appreciated her (and don’t get me wrong, AB, the post and panties are appreciated greatly). She’s just looked 16 (maybe) for so long, I hate to see that go away.
#11 | Comment by exelis — January 26, 2009 @ 10:33 am
<3 NP
#12 | Comment by Alias — January 26, 2009 @ 11:03 am
“anyone who isn’t excited about pictures of Natalie Portman, in any state of dress or undress, is clearly fruit loopy”
I could barely look at them. im must be supra ghey. cocks? anybody got any cocks? I need cocks.
#13 | Comment by Justin L — January 26, 2009 @ 11:14 am
i think these posts suck..surely,theres some celebrity somewhere that has a nipple slip instead?
its actually funny that people like Justin gets money for running such a boring site..
#14 | Comment by herr bajskorv — January 26, 2009 @ 11:23 am
I’m not going to complain about any pictures, these are for sure better than no new post at all, and I of course enjoy the spirit of trying to suss out underwear outlines.
However, AB: “i’m sorry, i didn’t realize once you’ve seen a girl without her clothes on, there’s no longer any reason to ever look at her again.”
In my head you’re in your late 20s, but you didn’t know that? Quantity over repeated quality anyday 🙂
#15 | Comment by Kewtr — January 26, 2009 @ 11:30 am
Here Justin L, this is more than what you are looking for: http://www.sfjacks.com/
#16 | Comment by Rod Stiffington — January 26, 2009 @ 11:35 am
lol the san francisco jacks. go jacks!
#17 | Comment by Justin L — January 26, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
I like these types of pictures. I don’t think anything will ever top the Anne Hathaway see-thru pics from a few years ago, though. But I hope people keep trying.
#18 | Comment by Nobody — January 26, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
Bland girl is Bland
#19 | Comment by Bob — January 26, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
Uh, even though she’s a Harvard graduate, she’s not that smart after all.
This wouldn’t have happened if she didn’t wear any underwear.
Come on people… think before you do something next time!
#20 | Comment by Brian — January 26, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
http://dontlinkthis.net/movies/hires/natalieportman15/pages/image3.html
I see snatch outlined!
#21 | Comment by RobertBruce1975 — January 26, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
crap. maybe not. now i think its a shadow of a small wrinkle in the dress.
#22 | Comment by RobertBruce1975 — January 26, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
Well she is adorable, and by “adorable” I mean that I would sell my grandma to get a run at that.
#23 | Comment by professor snip — January 26, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
PANTSUUUUUUU~
#24 | Comment by dex — January 26, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Nice, too bad no one got any hi-res posts of Kate Winslet in that blue outfit she wore at the SAG awards yesterday. Her tits were fantastic!!!!
#25 | Comment by Pirho — January 26, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
when the homepage 1st loaded i thought these were pix of emma roberts…i had to do a double when i read the heading that said it was natalie portman
#26 | Comment by Doh! — January 26, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
i missed a word there in my post. should read i had to do a double-take when i read the heading that said it was natalie portman
#27 | Comment by Doh! — January 26, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
Those white bra and panties would look great on my bedroom floor
#28 | Comment by Tony — January 26, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
I´ll get marry the second I get some chick like her…!
#29 | Comment by Jeff — January 26, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
You know, just the other day I was thinking to myself, ‘Self, wouldn’t it be awesome to see some shots of Natalie Portman where you could see the dress covering up the bra covering up the tits she doesn’t have?’ And then, lo and behold!
😉
#30 | Comment by EmJee — January 27, 2009 @ 12:18 am
AB, even if she’s a senior citizen by this site’s standards, she probably meets the pedos’ size criteria – I’ve seen her up close and personal several times, and she’s a midget (can’t be taller than 4’11”).
hershlag = meh
#31 | Comment by zilch — January 27, 2009 @ 5:11 am
She wasn’t ‘naked’ in Hotel Chevalier. Fuck that. I refuse to accept I’ve seen Portman naked until she matches Eva Green’s nudity in The Dreamers – or (and I’m being reasonable here) Liv Tyler in Stealing Beauty. That’s the least she could do, the amount of time we’ve had to put up with her sneering intellectualism.
Those topless paparazzi pics from way back when don’t count either.
#32 | Comment by cobalt — January 27, 2009 @ 6:40 am
Even the underwear she doesn’t think we can see is boring. I know she’s not wearing granny panties, but come on, you would hope she had something a little more fun under there.
#21 – You know you’re bored on a post when you’re trying to look through someone’s clothes to find camel toe inside.
#33 | Comment by evil monkey — January 27, 2009 @ 11:20 am
#32 … why don’t paparazzi pics count ? I think they were even better because she’s such a tight ass and won’t take it off in the flicks. Now if only I can airdrop some paparazzi near Natalie’s other tribe member, Michelle Trachtenberg, one of these days.
#34 | Comment by Rod Stiffington — January 27, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
I find Natalie Portman hideous. Ugly, too skinny, no tits or arse, and one of the worst supposedly-A list actors I’ve ever seen.
Bring on the slutty bitches with the huge tits!!! RAWR!!!
#35 | Comment by Grant — January 28, 2009 @ 6:12 am
^^^ Please review this thread for the link to the San Fransisco Jacks page. I think you would find that more to your liking.
#36 | Comment by Rod Stiffington — January 29, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
Ugly dress is ugly. Boring undies are boring. Small boobs are small.
#37 | Comment by Mister — January 31, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
I enjoyed this set of pictures a lot, AB – she’s a grandma by the site’s standards, sure, but Natalie Portman is still great-looking.
Thanks!
#38 | Comment by Brad — February 3, 2009 @ 2:39 pm