Admittedly, the false eyelashes are too dense and *waggy finger* what have I said about matt face powder being ageing? A more dewy foundation would’ve made a huge difference. The cheeks are a touch overblown as well. Those age spots on her chest (no doubt enhanced by sun damage) could be lasered. The hair is…Oh, enough already with the nitpickiness.
I’m only anti fillers and Botox because I think too many women overuse them after the first rush of compliments and instead of freshening themselves up, they over do it and it starts to look unnatural.
The Daily Mail article* accompanying these photographs has very helpfully also published photographs of a 22-year-old Britt so we can see how she used to look 50 years ago. I always find these comparisons most enlightening. It’s quite remarkable how people age OVER A PERIOD OF 50 YEARS. They look older now, astonishing! Thank you Daily Mail for continuously pointing this out.
*The photos belong to Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP, as noted. I won’t post a link to the article though as I don’t want to give the DM the hits and increase their ad revenue any further.
Did you know there was a proxy news service provided by a website called Itstyosty, which meant that you could read (and link) articles from the DM and a couple of other tabloids, without giving the papers the hits.
The DM shut them down.
Overall though, if you sit back from the screen a few feet and squint a little, it’s still very obviously Britt Ekland, which is more than can be said about a lot of celebrities today who may or may not, have had a little cosmetic assistance.
By the way, her neck for a 70 year old IS amazing!