PopWatch Entertainment Weekly's PopWatch Blog

Tag: Katie Holmes (31-40 of 60)

TomKat's vows revealed!

15489__cruise_lOK, so it’s PopWatch confession time. Sometimes, on Friday afternoons, when it’s all down to searching YouTube for Jane’s Addiction videos and dreaming of mojitos, my colleague Annie Barrett and I like to play a game called "Celebrity Roleplay." And with the Most Blessed Wedding of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes slated for this weekend, we decided to take a crack at enacting their ceremony. After Annie and I arm-wrestled for rights to wear Kate’s white Target gown (she won, naturally) we assumed our roles and exchanged vows. And they went a little something like this…

Tom: I vow to go for it!
Katie: You vow to go for it!
Tom: I respect women.
Katie: You respect women.
Tom: I love women.
Katie: You love women.
Tom: I promise to save you and Dakota Fanning from the blood-sucking aliens that have put the Northeastern United States in peril.
Katie: I miss Pacey.
Tom: Kate! (broad grin)
Katie: (in monotone) My name is Kate.
Tom: I vow to take you in my arms and kiss you passionately at public sporting events.
Katie: I vow to fake it, too.

addCredit(“Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise: SGPItalia/FilmMagic.com”)


Tom Cruise's new mission: Run a studio

15614__cruise_lTake that, Sumner Redstone! Tom Cruise is now a studio mogul, just like you! OK, I’m not saying that today’s announcement — that Cruise and partner Paula Wagner are resurrecting United Artists — is entirely about scoring ego points against the Viacom chief who not only declined to renew Cruise’s Paramount deal but who also continues to dis Cruise in interviews. But surely that has to be part of it. A word of warning, though, to Tom: if you want revenge against the studio chief who kicked you to the curb, become a studio chief yourself is an awfully expensive way to do it; just ask ousted Disney honcho-turned-DreamWorks founder Jeffrey Katzenberg, whose brainchild has now been all-but-absorbed by… Redstone’s Paramount.

addCredit(“Tom Cruise: William E. Amatucci Jr./WireImage.com”)


Pick Tom Cruise's next project

92245__tom_lAs all of you know, Tuesday is Cruise-Day. And you know what that means: All pants are half off! Wait… that’s half an old Michael Jackson joke. So hard to keep the vicious derision properly targeted! Tell you what, let’s just spin the wheel and see exactly how The Excitable One will climb out of the pit he gone and dug for hisself. His choices, based on a published report:

– Lions for Lambs, a political indie drama about U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. Redford may direct and play a role. Cruise is being wooed to play a congressman, Meryl Streep a journalist.

– The Ha-Ha, adapted from a Dave King novel by Chuck Leavitt. Cruise would be born on yet another fourth of July, playing a Gulf War vet rendered mute by his injuries who’s charged with the care of a 9-year-old. That’s right: rendered mute. Which is why Tom’s publicist must be pushing hard for this one.

– Selling Time, a Fox drama from Spike Lee (the new, studio Spike Lee) about a man who (according to Variety) "sells back chunks of time in his life for a chance to relive and change the worst day of his life." I don’t really know what that means. But maybe that’s ’cause I haven’t paid the $15,000 to ascend to that level of understanding.

Conspicuously absent from this list is the comedy Cruise was reportedly developing (or, at least, exploring) with Judd Apatow (The 40 Year-Old Virgin). Perhaps it was decided that it was, er, a bit too soon to laugh with, at, or near Cruise? We know that’s not the case, don’t we, PopWatchers? So tell me: What should our boy Tom do next? Besides change Suri’s dirty Thetans?

Tom vs. Brad: The imaginary smackdown!

95825__tom_brad_lThough we’re not convinced by the word on the street that Paramount plans to send Tom Cruise’s Mission: Impossible character, Ethan Hunt, out to pasture and replace him with a new superagent played by Brad Pitt, it sure is fun to think about! We found ourselves imagining a schoolyard tiff between the two buff action stars. And it goes a little somethin’ like this…

Tom: You? The next Mission: Impossible star? Seriously?
Brad: You got a problem with that?
Tom: No, except you got beat up by a girl in your last movie.
Brad: So? You got smacked down by Matt Lauer on The Today Show!
Tom: You broke up with America’s sitcom sweetheart!
Brad: Well, you looked ridonk on Oprah’s couch!
Tom: Remember your bad blond dye job?
Brad: Remember how Nicole Kidman towered over you on the red carpet?
Tom: Remember when you wore a skirt in Troy?
Brad: Oh yeah? Remember when your baby mama was on Dawson’s Creek?
Tom: Well, it’s better than having your baby mama star in Taking Lives!
Brad: At least my baby mama has an Oscar!
Tom: She does?
Brad: Yeah. For Girl, Interrupted.
Tom: Whoa. Totally forgot about that.
Brad: Yep. It’s on our mantel.
Tom: Fair enough.


Help TomKat make a guest list for their wedding

15279__cruise_holmes_lSo the news is not-at-all-official: Us Weekly is reporting that Tom and Katie have set a date for their wedding. "DAYS AWAY!" the cover crows… which means there are but mere moments remaining in which to speculate on who will and won’t be invited to the ceremony, which will either take place on top of the Scientology Center in LA, complete with circling news helicopters and the Goodyear Blimp, or in a cave somewhere outside Butte, Montana, with no one but the jackals in attendance.

Provided they go the deluxe route, the celebrity guest turnout could be spectacular. Will Smith and Jada will be there. And certainly Travolta and Kelly Preston, as well as Leah Remini and… uh, whoever she’s married to or whatever. Perhaps some of the Washington Redskins defensive line will handle security.

But who won’t get a save-the-date card?  There’s the rub.  Obvs, Sharon Osbourne is out. Katie’s ex Josh Jackson might be an awkward chat at the reception, and Van Der Beek is just a tool.  I’m betting Matt Lauer is also not going to be welcome, because there’s nothing worse than some glib guy getting up to make a toast.  And I’m just taking a stab in the dark and saying that Sumner Redstone might be otherwise occupied that day.

Who am I missing here? Let’s pitch in to help these kids tie the knot.  Weddings are very stressful, even for us civilians, and don’t forget, celebrities are just like us!  PopWatchers, guest-list duties are all yours…

Tom Cruise apologizes to Brooke Shields -- why now?

152541__tomshields_lHats off to Tom Cruise. Not only did he finally apologize to Brooke Shields (an apology first hinted at by Cruise’s camp more than a week ago), but he did it without having to renounce his stated views on psychiatric drugs and postpartum depression; in fact, he didn’t have to say anything at all, as he somehow managed to get Shields to do the talking for him, as she announced his contrition on Friday’s The Tonight Show. It’s the slickest and most positive public relations move Cruise has pulled off since he fired PR guru Pat Kingsley a couple years ago.

My question is: Why now? After all, Cruise could have apologized to Shields at any time over the past year. I don’t think it’s because he’s courting her to make an Endless Love sequel. Gee, could he be trying to counteract the surprising and overwhelmingly negative publicity from what should have been an ordinary business story, his split from Paramount?

Two footnotes on the Cruise-Paramount divorce: First, the resignation today of Viacom CEO Tom Freston, who just a few days ago had earned a public statement of support from his boss, chairman Sumner Redstone, only confirms the thought expressed by Cruise’s agents that the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing at Paramount. Second, film critic David Thomson makes an observation that I haven’t seen elsewhere: that the real reason Paramount may have decided Cruise’s deal wasn’t worth it anymore is the fact that Cruise is now 44 and probably isn’t going to be making action blockbusters much longer. If he’s now going to have to rely on his dramatic skills, maybe testing them out on Brooke Shields is a good place to start. The word she used repeately to describe his apology was ”heartfelt,” so either Cruise is truly contrite, or he’s a better actor than anyone ever gave him credit for.


Did Tom Cruise get a raw deal?

162659__tcruise_lHow many people buy Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone’s assertion that it was Tom Cruise’s antics — most of which took place before his studio greenlit Mission: Impossible III — that led Paramount not to renew its production deal with the actor? Movie City News’ David Poland suggests that many reporters have gotten this story wrong (my favorite ridiculous theory: that Redstone cut Cruise loose because the actor’s Brooke Shields-bashing had alienated Mrs. Redstone), and that Redstone has craftily played everyone, making himself look like a hero in boardrooms in Hollywood and on Wall Street for appearing to rein in out-of-control talent. After all, Paramount could have just issued the standard press release citing ”creative differences” and saying, ”We wish him well in his future endeavors.”

Instead, Redstone has effectively undermined the authority of Paramount studio chief Brad Grey (who finally broke his media silence to insist that business will go on as usual with major industry players) and Paramount/DreamWorks big shot Steven Spielberg, both of whom appeared to have been blindsided by Redstone’s public spanking of Cruise. The recent statement by A-list talent agency CAA (which represents Cruise) suggesting that no one is minding the store at Paramount may echo a wider sentiment throughout Hollywood.

Cruise, on the other hand, has actually played this the right way, largely by keeping his yap shut. Sure, the couch-jumper has stirred up plenty of ill will (though if this second-hand account is true, he’s finally sorry about the Brooke-bashing). And yes, the Cruise camp’s claim that they’ve secured $100 million in private financing seems premature; it’s certainly news to Cruise’s own lawyer. Still, does anyone doubt that Cruise will find a lucrative deal somewhere else eventually? He still sells tickets and DVDs worldwide. Even if Paramount wouldn’t meet his terms, someone else will.
Honestly, I can’t believe I’m defending Tom Cruise, especially after the way he bristled last summer when I dared to mention aliens and Scientology to him in the same breath at a War of the Worlds press conference. But when even Matt Lauer thinks Cruise is the victim of a double standard, it appears that it’s time to join Team Cruise — at least until he tries to make us laugh on purpose.

addCredit(“Tom Cruise: Jun Sato/ WireImage.com”)

Cruise vs. Paramount: The fallout

15048__mission_lSo, get this: According to the Hollywood Reporter, a national decline in the sale of DVDs was one of the primary reasons Paramount Pictures decided not to renew its longstanding production deal with Tom Cruise. Specifically, the trade publication notes, Cruise was reportedly pulling down "20 percent of box office revenue as well as a piece of DVD sales," but since home-video revenue is no longer a guaranteed cash cow to recoup losses on big-screen disappointments (such as M:I:3), Paramount decided to hit the eject button, so to speak.

Now I may not be a studio exec with a seven-figure salary (although I’d take the plunge for low sixes — or maybe just a pony), but to me, there was an obvious way to save Paracruise (yes, I’ve just attempted to coin a moniker even clunkier than Brangelina): Why not pack the M:I:3 DVD with wacky extras from Cruise’s promotional appearances? Trust me, folks like my friend Litty — who’s threatened her husband with bodily harm if he ever erases Cruise’s ”couch jumpOprah appearance from their TiVo — would be eating it up. Heck, I’d consider shelling out $10 for a director’s cut of Legend if it included a first look at Suri.

Anyhow, in other news of Paracruise (see, you’re getting used to it already, I can tell):

-Adding insult to injury, Tuesday was also the day Paramount announced a two-picture deal with Cruise’s blood foes, South Park‘s Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

-The New York Times takes a look at Who’s Not Talking. No, that’s not a future Cruise project with fellow Scientologists Alley and Travolta, but rather, who’s literally not talking about the breakup.

-And if you’re worried about the spawn of Paracruise, here’s a story on who’s getting custody.

addCredit(“Mission: Impossible III: Stephen Vaughan”)

The Cruise canning: A post-mortem

104846__tom_l_1Hey, guess what? Sumner Redstone watches Oprah! Or maybe the Viacom CEO had some other way of finding out about Tom Cruise’s year of wacktastic performance art — I hear he has a couple of media holdings. Anyhoo, he didn’t like what he saw on the 43,000 Matrix-ish screens in his office on the 376th floor*: Not Cruise’s “recent conduct,” not the underperforming grosses on Paramount’s Mission: Impossible 3, and, ultimately, not the sweet production deal Cruise has maintained with the Viacom-owned ‘Mount for 14 years. Redstone says he didn’t renew Cruise’s contract; Cruise (via producing partner Paula Wagner) says he left willingly to set up independent financing, a longtime goal. (Gosh, isn’t it everybody’s longtime goal to abandon a guaranteed stream of seed money for an ad-hoc consortium of as-yet-unnamed hedge funds?)

Of course, maybe it’s all been by-design. Face plants are funny, and (as you’ll see in the link above) Cruise may now be going the comedy route with Judd Apatow, writer-director of The 40-Year Old Virgin. Maybe he’s just been rehearsing for The 44-Year-Old Out-of-Work Actor. Maybe he’s having a Jerry Maguire moment.

But when the dust clears, a few questions remain: Was ol’ Sumner right to bring the hammer down? Did Cruise’s behavior affect your choices at the box office this summer? Did you avoid the best-made blockbuster of the summer (in this blogger’s opinion) because you found Cruise suddenly distasteful and didn’t want to line his pockets? And most important, is that attitude permanent? Or, given a period of Cruise quietude, will you return to loving his outer Cruise-ness and dismissing his inner kwaziness?

(*accessible only by man-eating pterodactyl; do not attempt to visit)

addCredit(“Tom Cruise: Chris Jackson/Getty Images”)

Cruisenfreude: Did Tom really bomb?

94954__tom_lNo matter what happened last weekend, you’ll likely have Tom Cruise to kick around for years to come. But what did happen exactly? And is a $48 million first-weekend gross really such a tremendous disappointment?

The average analysis notes that M:I3 opened softer than its predecessors, which earned the equivalent of $67 and $70 million on their opening weekends — and on fewer screens. The conclusion reached by the armchair handicapper: "Tom Cruise blew it." In other words, his Year of Weirdness killed his box office clout.

Maybe. But if that’s the case, then wouldn’t we have seen a steeper dropoff in female audience? Didn’t happen. Oh, and, by the way, M:I3 will almost certainly coast past $100 million — that makes seven straight $100 million pictures for Cruise. (Also: The picture opened $70 million-huge overseas, meaning Cruise is still one of the few global film stars.)

So is this a massive public relations flameout, a leggy Batman Begins-style slow-burn (as Paramount would have you believe), or just natural (and not exactly fatal) trilogy-itis? You tell me. Oh, and getting back to what’s really important: Doesn’t Katie Holmes look slender?

addCredit(“Tom Cruise: Dimitrios Kambouris/WireImage.com”)

Latest Videos


From Our Partners

TV Recaps

Powered by WordPress.com VIP