What a difference a different dress can make

I was fully prepared to craft a comprehensive, specific-to-their-frame, should've-worn-this assessment for each Jennifer, Natalie, Julianne, Kristen, Sheryl, Marley and Sara, but just as I was about to put fingertip to keyboard, it struck me -- all of these women, even Jennifer "Loves Mom Jeans" Hewitt, have done their bodies red carpet good at least once - and in Natalie and Julianne's cases, many times - in past appearances.

And after a quick Google search for each of these ladies, it turns out I found the proof I needed to demonstrate to you how vast an improvement a scintilla of cinching, a shade of shoulder-baring and a hair of hemline-raising can bring to the hippy, the bony, the petite and the muscular-calved.

On better days, the women from this morning:

Why she looks better:
(1) instead of a fitted-'round-the-hips cut, a petite woman with disproportionately large hips like Jennifer really should stick to styles that skim - not cling - to her midsection.
(2) because her chest is disproportionately large for her upper body, it was wise of her to lengthen her torso with a thinner waist-cinch that didn't sit right below the girls and to draw attention to her thin legs with a higher hemline.

Why she looks better:
(1) much like the shirt-dress in the previous post, this bubble-mini gives no hint of under-the-covers curvaceousness (because there is none), but at least this cut offers Natalie the opportunity to showcase her defined shoulders and back, which makes all the difference in identifying that she is not, in fact, a 13 year old boy.

Why she looks better:
(1) she's defined her waist, a decision that takes at least 10 pounds off her frame
(2) she's raised her hemline and in doing so allowed us to see a very attractive thin-thigh-into-muscular-calf transition. I know well the necessity of showing that peek of knee and upper-thigh.

Why she looks better:

(1) a woman as petite as Kristen (5'1"), no matter how high her heels or how slim her skirt, can not get away with the exaggeratedly voluminous ruffled neckline. Frankly, anything would look better.

(2) this deep-V halter dress with nary a hint of extraneous volume flatters everything on KBell from her small, perky chest to her thin waist to her toned arms and back.

Why she looks better:

(1) I'm just gonna come out and say it -- if your breasts aren't perky and you want to wear a dress that doesn't allow for a bra, make sure you're cleavage-free

(2) as much as I love an athletic frame like Sheryl's, there's something unsettling about seeing veiny, muscular legs in a formal dress. It was a wise choice for her to wear a floor-length gown, especially one with a curve-enhancing empire waist.

Why she looks better:

(1) aside from the fact this is a much more beautiful dress than the shapeless grey sheath from the previous post, she looks miles better because she's able to showcase her two best assets: her shoulders and her legs. Much like Julianne's, Marley's legs require an above-the-knee cut to avoid looking thicker than they actually are.

(2) like the last dress, this one cinches at the actual waist and then skims over the hips. The difference, however, is in the fabric -- the wool in the previous dress looks "puffed out" over her hips while here, the multi-layered satin - yellow satin, a very difficult combination to pull off well - glides over the area in a much more flattering way.

Why she looks better:

(1) it's a universally accepted truth: dresses with empire waistlines and flowy skirts make curvy women look fatter than they actually are. Unless you're tall, lithe and proportionate, step away from this style...

(2) because Sara doesn't have a very defined upper-body, this deep-V neckline is much more flattering (hello perfect cleavage!) than the one her spaghetti-strapped counterpart created (goodbye armpit potatoes!)