a second chance, there's two hours of my life i'll never get back. The
section was the expected, page after page of tacky, vom-worthy garmistakes with only the odd buyable item. Now a lot of people do actually like river island, so i'm not saying that those beings are in anyway tacky, it's just not for me. Maybe it's my lack of imagination, because i have to love something on it's own, to want to splurge out the doe. I'll start, however, with the items which didn't make me want to throw up my toblerone (bare in mind that this is not based on the whole RI website, just the '
007. This is kind of amateur, i'm sure that the navy white and tan trend came and went this autumn, i do still like it
though but maybe without the belt. And the pocket detail? Bleugh. £34.99.
008. As i've said before when i reviewed
topshop's new arrivals, i really like winged accessories, and this little pearl
number is super cute - only £6.99 too, bargain!
009. Quite similar to a lot of things i wear, which is probably why i spotted this bell sleeved tunic, the almost 35
squidders price puts me off it though. I mean, it's not an amazing-can't-get-this-anywhere-else garm, so why over
charge for it - it's pretty, that's it, full stop.
010. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, even to myself, this would be so buyable if it wasn't 40 whole pound. It
ticks a few boxes for me, it's velvet (much to
Jack's disgust), it's burnt orange and it's floaty; i really like it, if only
they didn't charge so much, £40 is like two weeks worth of food for me and it's not even a 'love at first sight'
dress.
The bad...
011. I honestly can't see these being worn, i can't see anyone i know buying them, and i especially can't see anyone
parting with a penny short of 50 quid for them!
012. It's winter, not central america during crop season, why oh why would someone pay 30 pound for these? On the
other had, i can see someone very versatile - fashion wise - pulling them off, i just wouldn't go anywhere near
them.
013. Now this isn't horrendous, it's just not very nice, it would just do absolutely nothing for my shape and i can tell
that just by looking at the picture. It looks like someone has gone all jekyll and hyde and sewn a skirt to the
bottom of a jacket, the heart buttons are cute though, but nowhere near worth £60.
014. I hate these, i think they're hideous and to me, they look unfinished. The thing i hate most about these gross
feet enemies, is the toe section, it flicks up! WHY? Oh, and they're £64.99, no thanks.
015. This looks like something a scally would wear to go to the races, or maybe to go to the Jeremy Kyle awards
(*secretly loves jeremy kyle*), or perhaps for a good old night out on the lambrini. It just looks too busy, tacky
and over the top, like it's trying to look 'movie premiere' but just looks 'wetherspoons opening' (and itchy). I do
like the colour though and i've been looking for a cardigan in the same colour, but this is a huge no no - i
wouldn't touch this frock with a barge pole, never mind fork over almost 70 quid for it.
016. If there's two colours i can't stand together, it's green and orange or yellow and navy, so this monstrous combo
will not be going anywhere near my wardrobe (£40).
017. Urgh, this just screams tack, louder than a damn fog horn. I honestly don't know why anyone would wear or pay
20 pound for this, it's a 2 quid t-shirt with an iron on logo, and
chelsea girl? What is that and why would
someone proclaim that they are/are wearing
chelsea girl across their rack? If it is in fact a fashion line
exclusive to river island (more than likely is, i don't know/follow river island), then it's the worst name for a
fashion line ever, for some reason it reminds me of the infamous 'wag wannabe/in the making' tees a while back
- vom.
018. Anyone who parts with a penny short of a fifty for this paper looking, over designed, unflattering "dress" definitely
has more money than sense. The description also says "perfect for a glamorous night", i wouldn't wear that
dress if i was a toilet attendant at a glamorous night club, it looks like a card and glue project from a nursery.
019. Anyone up for walking the streets? No, didn't think so. "L
ook sexy in this black thin strap dress with front zip
thru detail and all over eyelet design" should be "pay £64.99 to look tacky and scally-ish in this black denim
vom frock, you'll make your money back in no time the amount of extra business you'll get" - great.
020. Now these, on the right fashionista, could look quite nice. But on their own, they look hideous, cheap, totally not
worth £74.99 and i definitely wouldn't put my toesies anywhere near them. However, they look like VivWest's
finest compared to the monstrosities that follow.
and the 'what the fuck were they thinking?'...
021-
024. What on earth are these? What the hell? I can't even look, they don't deserve an item description, all i'll say
is it'll cost you £34.99 and 1 social life.
025. If i ever saw anyone wearing these, i'd throw what ever was in reach at them, even if it was a kitten. Anyone who
is willing to spend almost 30 squids on
star trek reject outfits, needs help, serious help.
026. I don't like hareem pants, i don't like blue and i don't like elastic features, so these didn't really stand a chance
with me really, especially as they have the word "bling" in the item description. Shame on you river island, i'm
sure these never went flying off the shelves at £74.99 a piece, *shakes head in dismay*.
027. Ew, just ew, this looks like a reject from Britney's
Toxic video. £19.99.
028. These look slightly
familiar, hmmm, maybe they had a load of left over black denim, and eyelets and they
needed another dress and pair of pants to complete the collection. One can only guess/avoid what inspired this
piece and who priced them at almost 65 quid.
029. Like, seriously, who comes up with these designs? One of the worst pieces i think, excluding the foil maxi
dresses (*shivers at their mention*), RI must be stupid to think we'll part with £24.99 for that eye sore.
030. So many things wrong with these feet knobheads, separately i they'd be two alright pairs of shoes, but together
it looks like someone with a leather leg wearing black buckle shoes. They should pay
me £150 to wear them.
031. I think the majority of the population can agree, there's only a small handful of people who can make kitten heels
look good, and only a handful of decent looking kitten heels; these leopard print mistakes not being the latter.
Why do they curl up at the end? Gross. £29.99. My mild OCD was screaming at me for finishing the post on 31,
but i had to include all the disgusting finds.
For blog research, on wednesday i ventured into RI chester with my besty Hannah (i spent £200 on that shopping trip, but that's a whole different post!), the overpriced (usually plastic snake skin) bags were on shelves right at the entrance, it was five minutes before we looked at each other and said "shall we go", thus ending practical research! I've noticed that on the website product descriptions, they throw the word 'sexy' around a lot (almost in every description), and i don't know why but it creeps me out. I just don't agree with it, (i may be reading too much into this) it subliminally fuels the society that think that they are meant to dress to impress the opposite/same sex, and encourages people to walk around baring all, i think we should dress how we like and in what makes us happy. But that's just my opinion!
I shalln't be shopping at river island anytime soon, but hey i gave it a chance, now i have a legitimate reason not to shop there; the reason being that it's utter shite.
P & L
Currently listening to
She had a knife! by This Drama