Here’s Tom Cruise getting his face painted at his 49th birthday party while his baby girl gets the same and while Skynet Holmes runs an anti virus and receives her daily updates. I guess for his 50th birthday, next year, Cruise will get a new wife; one who comes with Windows 7 and maybe has a touch screen to make adding to his Google+ Circles a little easier. For now, he’s stuck with shirtless face painting at a three-year-old’s dream party. There’s a second photo below.
I’ve been reading an obnoxious number of reports about Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes in the last 24-hours, mostly about the disputed contents of her womb: ‘Is there another of Chris Klein’s spawn in there? Will this baby look a little more convincingly like Tom Cruise? How is babby formed?’ For the record, I don’t think Holmes is pregnant; she made her spokesperson stop playing Angry Birds for 24 consecutive hours in order to issue a denial to everyone who ran OK!’s cover story this week. That’s NO joke. A report from this week’s Lies&Style claims the couple is barely speaking, based on their behaviour as he accepted a humanitarian award from the Simon Wiesenthal Center in LA on May 5. ‘Though she smiled demurely for the cameras… the actress looked like she would’ve rather been anywhere else but seated next to Tom at the posh dinner reception,’ reported the magazine. ‘Tom’s eager to have another baby… but Katie’s just not ready, and the disagreement may be causing tension.’ Which makes no sense, but let’s move on. A supposed eyewitness added, ‘Tom and Katie barely spoke during the four hours they were at the award dinner… There was a definite chill between them. They looked like they weren’t even friends.’ Again, makes no sense, but there you go. GossipCop.com claim to have their own eyewitnesses who label stories of any conflict at the event ‘false,’ ‘made up,’ and ‘ridiculous.’
To clarify, I think there were two memos 1) That Katie Holmes can and will sue you to death and win, if you libel her 2) Holmes’ spokesperson already denied that these pictures were of a baby bump, insisting that the images were doctored… by the photo agency, I guess, as that’s where the press downloaded them. Their cover headline is a bold one, and it’s wrong. ‘Katie: It’s Official… Yes, I’m Pregnant,’ reads the cover, ‘A telltale bump, prenatal vitamins… now she tells friends: Suri will finally be a big sister.’ I’m going to take a stab in the dark that no part of that is true, nor a direct quote, nor proven, and the ‘friend’ is someone she Skyped/ BBM’d this one time. The story seems to be based on one photo, old quotes, and a doctor who needs to be stripped of their license for rage-inducing f**kery of the highest order. A doctor who does not treat Holmes speculates she is about ’18 or 20 weeks along,’ based on the left-inset photo. Which is like me diagnosing myself with Mono after watching House. Just stupid.
A rep for Holmes has already responded to the cover, ‘She is not pregnant. I let [OK! magazine] know that before they went to print and they wrote it anyway.’ A rep for Tom Cruise added, ‘This is false. It was reported and is false and the ‘journalist’ who called was told so.’ OK! insists their sources report Holmes telling friends about her supposed pregnancy. Their sources are morons though.
Katie Holmes is not a drug addict, despite the excitable exclamations from Star back in January. Remember, their piece that essentially read: ‘ZOMG!!! Drugs are bad, as are $cilons… BTW, Katie doesn’t really do drugs. SIKE!’ The magazine had claimed that Holmes was hooked on Scientology treatments that are well-known to produce trance-like states and hypnotic effects. Specifically auditing, a kind of cod psychotherapy. Instead of just running with that, which would have been a perfectly succinct angle in itself, they insisted on using the byline ‘Addiction Nightmare: Katie Drug Shocker.’ Which was pretty clearly meant to suggest illegal drugs, without resorting to using the words ‘coke,’ ‘heroine’ or whatever. Glancing at the cover implied she had a drug problem. So she sued, calling the story, ‘untrue, unethical and unlawful.’ The $50 million libel lawsuit clarified that Holmes was not addicted to anything; not the treatments, nor the illegal drugs suggested by the cover. And today Holmes won her lawsuit and had the grace to say she considers the suit water under the bridge now it’s been settled. In a statement, she said today, ‘I’m pleased that this lawsuit could be resolved amicably and accept American Media’s apology.’ The magazine printed a laughably-small retraction for the piece, remembering that the original was a featured cover story. But it’s to the point, and it’s mentioned on this week’s cover. The apology reads, in part, ‘Star did not intend to suggest that Ms. Holmes was a drug addict or was undergoing treatment for a drug addiction. Star apologizes to Ms. Holmes for any misperception.’ Specifics were not released, however it is known the publisher made a ‘substantial donation,’ to her charity.
Katie Holmes gave a really adorable interview on Thursday’s The Ellen DeGeneres Show, as part of her promotion for the recently-premiered The Kennedys. Going into entirely more detail than needed when asked a pretty vague softball question by the host, Holmes recounted the cute parenting anecdote of that time daughter Suri Cruise picked up and examined a present for her father (that fit in the inside pocket of his murse). Speaking of an incident in some family-friendly place they’d been before, Holmes told DeGeneres, ‘I was horrified,’ realising the paparazzi could see the box of penis-shaped candy picked up by her daughter.
‘Recently, I took her to get ice cream in New York at this place called Serendipity that we go to all the time,’ recalled Holmes. ‘It’s for kids; the clientele is children. We go in and we are waiting for a table and she grabs some gummies that are boy part gummies. I was horrified.’ Worse still, ‘They are called p-e-n-i-s gummies and they look like it.’ Holmes continued, ‘She was holding the box and I was like okay, wow, we don’t need that right now. Because I thought if I said put that back and then she’s going to say, what is this? And I really didn’t want to have that conversation. I was like, why are selling these here? This is for kids. And then it was on the cover of a magazine that I’m giving her those gummies.’ Holmes is referring to last week’s Lies&Style, in which they bashed her parenting. After hearing this, I’m actually kind of warmed and charmed by someone who’d been so cold and robotic, her dead eyes made Tom Cruise’s look alive by comparison. See video of Holmes spelling the word penis over and over.
I tried to think of a less accusatory title for this post, but ‘ Factory Of Bikini Pictures And Lies Picks On Child’ wasn’t quite succint enough for my usual tastes. This story is pretty hilarious; outdone only by the fact that, halfway through, according to Jezebel.com’s tabloid roundup, the magazine begins to contradict its own claims. Wildly so. With the cover reading things like, ‘Suri’s Twisted World,’ and ‘What Katie’s Parents Are Doing To Save Suri,’ it’s actually downhill once you look inside. Who’d have thought that was possible? Lies&Style begin by saying, ‘It was another late night on the town for the girl with the long brown hair…’ in a snippet about four-year-old Cruise being seen at Serendipity, in New York City, with her mother, at one in the morning. Some supposed eyewitness said the child was tired, ‘cranky’ and forever covering her eyes. The next evening, at 8 p.m., mother and daughter went to see Wicked, with it ending at 11. Some speed-dialled child psychologist, Vicki Panaccione, who never met the child, phones in concern about Cruise acting too grown up for her age. ‘[Suri is] keeping late-night hours, wearing adult clothing and makeup, and attending adult shows.’ Panaccione adds, in case you’re unaware, ‘kids are not little adults.’ Noted. The story then does a weird flip and suddenly the four-year-old’s being babied. The magazine notes, ‘Still using a pacifier at age 4′ on the cover, adding concern about her use of a bottle and supposed temper tantrums; her mother and nanny supposedly failed to force her into a car seat one time, about which number ’2′ on speed-dial, from AAA, says, ‘until children are 8, they need to be in a booster or car seat, or else they’re at increased risk in a car accident.’
© 2012 Amy Grindhouse | Privacy Policy | Sitemap |
