I picked up a copy of the National Enquirer. Something on the cover about the real Tom Cruise being a monster and his mansion being a "house of horrors". And now Tom Cruise is threatening to sue the Enquirer. His lawyer wrote a letter saying that Cruise isn't a monster at all and he has a very nice house without any horrors in it.
I'm not sure there's an objective measure of whether someone is a "monster" or not, and I don't know what the objective, legal standard is for calling a place a "house of horrors". It would have to contain more than one horror, I suppose, and who's to say what constitutes a horror?
Cruise reportedly ridiculed the idea of Katie Holmes appearing in a reunion of whatever TV show it is she used to be on, and, judging from his Scientology video, he has big unnaturally white teeth and cackles at things that aren't even remotely funny. Does that make him a "monster"? Yes, I think it does.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment