IMO faces or full body shots is what gives it away the most. In the closeups of her shorts when she's walking, for instance, it's hard to tell since I don't know her, it can make her look thinner or chubbier if it's wrong, but doesn't feel as blatantly odd as a face or full body shot does.
I totally understand it's a look to have it stretched or squeezed, I just don't think it cuts well with undistorted footage, unless you go further and use more extreme distortion, then it would be clear it's a creative decision, this way it looks like something's wrong with it.
Well the close-up of her shorts was shot on the 135mm F2.0L and cropped from 16:9.
After all this talk I notice the distortion far more now.
Funny thing is, even whilst editing it and watching it a thousand times it didn't bother me. This from knowing that I was coming off the shoot with both aspherical and anamorphic footage that I needed to intercut. Obviously I noticed it but bother me it didn't because I liked the effect.
I still find the slightly taller figures more attractive than odd, but one way around this would be to do an edit using split screen for the 16:9 sections as these (uncropped) fit perfectly side by side into a 3.55:1 aspect ratio, and then you can have the full 2x squeeze on the anamorphic LOMO shots.
This is an experiment and it is interesting to see how people react and what new ideas it might generate, so even if I don't agree with some of you in terms of the subjective viewing experience (I don't find it jarring for example) I do appreciate the points of views a lot.