UPDATE here, showing how Star cheated.

One of the fun things about business for me is trying to figure out what in the hell will sell, and why. I enjoy the psychology of capitalism. (The money ain't bad, either.) 

I feel the same toward blogging—once you get hits, you begin to try to figure out how to get more. Broadly, it's easy enough to realize that men who forget to put on clothes rack up hits, unique information about half-century-old icons racks up hits and personal ruminations do not. In a way, the need for hits is as poisoning as the quest for the almighty dollar—they each drive us to do things we might not choose to do otherwise.

I am bad about posting things if I see that others already have. This is stupid because if everybody's on it, it's because it's of interest. Such is the case with Rupert Everett—I almost didn't post this because Towleroad, Perez (who recently stole a Queen Latifah scan from me with no link, though I suppose I stole it when I scanned it myself!) and others already have. But the backstory is that this page from Star (April 27, 2009)—the actual page, not the Web link—is marked for me at home to scan and post. I correctly predicted it would be of interest, but felt I needed to get all my coverguys (Bana, Bova, Pine) up more quickly. Wrong!

So here it is, a side-by-side of Rupert's faces, no doubt inspired by the same recent Blithe Spirit images that pushed me to make fun of his surgery last week.

Most frightening aspect of the article is that Dr. Brian S. Glatt approves! "This is an impressive difference. He looks 10 years younger." He looks no such thing. In fact, he's aged me 10 years just looking at him.

This was a very long way of saying, "Rupert Everett looks sooo icky!" (Another thing I've learned is that short-winded is more hit-friendly than long.)