Suri’s Bottle of Barley Milk

Suri is so adorable, it’s not even real!

Katie looks really “wide” or overweight

very cute little girl and she’s growing up so fast

thats an ugly unflattering outfit on her..

Suri cruise is my best celebrity baby!!! so adorable!!!!!!

____________________________________________________________________

Well ya shes cute and all that but not the best Celebrity kid I dont think so.

Katie looks a MESS.

what a horribly unhealthy combo for a baby.

How is that kid odd looking?

LOVE LOVE LOVE KATIE AND SURI.

SUPPER CUTE.

BORING!!!!!!!

She’s odd looking because Her features are very large and prounced for a small child.

Scientology is a criminals who hates the sick children.

I can’t believe Suri is on a bottle…poor thing will be visiting the dentist sooner than most kids her age

I find it funny how I’ve yet to see a picture of her training/running.

why does this baby creep me out. she’s cute but there’s something off around here..

TO NUMBER 9, FOR SOME REASON YOU SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH KATIE CARRYING HER DAUGHTER, IF THAT’S TRUE THEN I GUESS YOU WOULD ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ME. MY DAUGHTER IS THE SAME AGE AS SURI AND, YES, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN I PICK UP MY CHILD AND CARRY HER AS WELL. SORRY IF THE IDEA OFFENDS YOU BUT THAT’S WHAT SOME MOTHERS DO. AND SINCE I WORK FOR FOR CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH WOULD CONSIDER KATIE’S ACTIONS HERE TO BE THAT OF A LOVING MOTHER.

I LOVE SURI! She’s soo dang adorable….

Violet & Shiloh is WAY cuter than Suri!

well u prefer shiloh then? shiloh has no kind of charm..her face is common. i find suri’s face more interesting and mature.

Seriously how undignified a person can be?
Hiding behind the internet to offend an innocent, so cute baby.
Is that really the kind of post you want in your site Jared?
I can even understand those Brangelina obsessed, but I do not get why you allow those freak anti-tom/scientology here.

Isn’t this child a little too old for a bottle??????????????????

I’d hate to think of what kind of person I’d be to want to pick on a little child and call it names just because I wasn’t fond of it’s parents. That’s sad.

Adam you don’t know if Suri will need a nose job when she is older. They go through so many changes from infancy, adolescence to adulthood. You can kinda get an idea from the baby’s parents, but two beautiful do not necessarily make other beautiful people and vice versa. You just never know how any child will turn out and really that’s not what is important. Looks aren’t everything.

Thanks Jared. If you think US weekly is accurate on the B.S. on Tom and Katie then everything they wrote about Brad and Angelina your idols are true.

I LOVE THIS FAMILY…….

#43, well I know if the mother is not a size -8, and the baby is not having a blank look on her face with her mouth open, then she can not be cute on this site. We truly do not need to go on and on about bonding the way you people praise Angelina and she did not hold her baby damn near the complete first year of her life. But she is the wonderful parent right? That is a joke. You all have been admiring unhealthy so long when you see a happy and healthy baby it look strange to you. step away from the computer a few times a day, and walk around outside, go to the malls in your area, if there are any and you will see what I am talking about. Peace.

you better take it like a man after the things you say about other celebrity babies.

mandy **** off, everyone is entitled to their opinion, ever since surina was born Tommy girl other two children have been mia

she has her daddy nose and i am sure she will want to get it fixed.

one ugly bb

Mandy
STFU you sound really ignorant. Get your eyes fixed becuase there pics of her holding her child.

william Mapother’s daughter looks exactly like him.

Where did the pic of tom go? he is looking HOT! KT looks like ****.

Tom looks damn good for his age. way better than the two fame whores brad and george.

Never mind. I see the pic of tom looking like his old self.

Where are Connor and Isabella?

Jema you are pure evil
I hope your feet get stuck in your mouth.

why does Tom look so different on the other thread? Are some pics old and some new?

scientologists freaks…. this baby is the spawn of satan. Baby looks something out of the Omen…Its eyes remind me of those gray alien men with the big heads.

So her nose is wide as a dump truck, so what?.She’s still a beautiful and pleasant child.Her dad nose is wide too and he’s a very successful actor.

Suri is very cute and adorable. Cruz Beckham and Suri are adorable pair of celebrity kids. Apple Martin is one gorgeous child.

I LOVE SURI♡
I LOVE SURI♡
I LOVE SURI♡

She’s too old for bottle. Bottles should be retired by 1.

Thanks for the pictures .They are a big treat to all of us fans.Suri is getting more beautiful as she gets older-a spitting image of Tom and Katie!!!

lol.

The kid is cute…but she is starting to take a turn for unfortunate lane.

cute, cute, cute…
love Suri! she´s the most adorable baby ever!

She…is not that cute.

Can I borrow Katie,Tom?

Why is this kid still drinking from a bottle? She is way too old for one. She should be using a sippy cup by now.

also, if she’s going to be carrying her everyone where, she should stop wearing those 3 inch plus stilletos. You would think she would have learned from the time she fell while carrying her.

katie holmes is a pretty actress and a good one too. she has an adorable baby who is cute. anybody that would pick on a sweet and innocent baby, because of her weird dad???? that is just plain wrong!

The most beautiful family in
Hollywood and they have it all.
That’s why some are dying of envy
and getting really nasty cuz
they hate what they see.

she’s still Satan baby. blah blah blah….

Katie is as plain as a stew without the salt! And the baby is cute but have daddy’s honker :)

People, Suri is a just a baby. How can you be so cruel to say that she is ugly, needs a nose job and all the other horrible things you say about her. If that was your child you would be so hurt by those malicious comments. grow up and get real.

suri is NOT cute sry2say.

she’s so dull.

Katie seems to be a good mom. You can see the bond like you can see it with Jen Garner and Violet. You can kind of see Suri’s personality in pictures - not everyone is like that.

The horizontal stripes on that sweater do nothing for Katie’s hips. She is not a heavy person, but the sweater makes her look heavy.

Why will Suri need a nose job? Because she’s not perfect looking? Give me a break. I bet she grows up to be really attractive. Katie Holmes isn’t exactly ugly, even though she looks sloppy these days.

her nose is never going to be pretty naturally, so drop it and deal with it.

Suri will need a nose job when she is older.

Shiloh is the most beautiful of all celebrity babies along with her adopted siblings.

The worst looking celeb baby is Adam Sandlers, Coco and Violet…hey I’m just saying what everyone else is already thinking.

________________________________________________________________________________

I agree with you :) Out loudly :) hey at least I have the courage :)

day by day and more and more she looks like tom. she is spitting image of his

Suri has gotten so big. Maybe Katie is in NY for her Instyle or Vogue photo shoot? I dont believe she is doing the marathon.
Other reports said she is there to promote Mad Money.

Violet & Shiloh is WAY cuter than Suri!

_________________________________________________________________

Violet is not a cute baby I can hardly see Violet’s eyes her eyes are soooooooo small and she is not a cute baby at all too ugly. No celeb baby can be compared with gorgeous Shilo and for Suri that kid freaks the hell out of me. Tom and Katie you don’t have to buy a halloween custom for Suri this year, she will do just fine like that :)

126 ignore the trolls : 10/19/2007 at 2:36 pm

Suri has gotten so big. Maybe Katie is in NY for her Instyle or Vogue photo shoot? I dont believe she is doing the marathon.
Other reports said she is there to promote Mad Money.

Mad money doesnt come out until January. Tom is doing promotion for his upcoming movie. That is why they are in NYC.

I love the Cruise clan.

The Brad and Angelina fanatics are so cruel.

126 thats_right

Geesh, give it a rest. Shiloh and Suri are both adorable babies and I think Violet is starting to look a lot cuter. Stop comparing babies based on looks, it is pretty childish.

btw, I remember another poster who claimed Shiloh was the cutest baby and put down others just to rile up everyone so that Shiloh got criticized. Turns out I saw the same poster on another site blasting the child and her parents. Not saying that is what you are doing but…bashing children is cowardly and immature.

Someone tell Katie her legs are too thick to look nice in short skirts. Also her heels are too high to walk while carrying a child.

That baby is scary looking.

133 [~Famous~] : 10/19/2007 at 2:44 pm

I don’t understand why people compare Suri to other celebrity kids.

Its pointless and unfair to compare a normal child to a mentally challenged one.

You have no right to complain.. you are vile in your bashing of Shiloh and pretty much all the JP kids.

And I dont think it is JP fans bashing Suri. We hate when the JP kids are bashed. Children of celebs should be off limits for vile and cruel insults.

Suri is an innocent child, she should be be judged along with her obnoxious parents. I’m glad TC has been keeping a lower profile recently while KH has been out and about in this world enjoying her 3rd wife status of a rich actor. With that much money, one can easily look nice and stylish. Hellz ya, agree with the thick legs. She need some honest opinion from her stylists. Those legs aren’t fit for all type of skirts. Leave them for Tom’s private viewing please.

I really don’t think she’s that cute of a kid.

Its JP fans calling suri ugly.Its Jen and Violet fans.Kingston and Gwen fans and everyone else.This kid is not good looking.Anyone can see that.

I meant get nervous.

On the second to the last picture Suri looks like she has a BALD spot! ??? I don’t think that barley crap is working. Her hair is falling out. That’s why they have the come over on her forehead all the time. ugggg

What an endearing baby. Sometimes she’s really daddy’s girl but on this picture she is more like lovely Katie too.

WOW BUMMER for Angelina Jolie. Katie comes to NYC just as AJ leaves.
You SO know that AJ wanted to talk to Katie and get the latest fashion tips in person.
Angelina LOVES the way Katie dresses and trys to copy her style all of the time.

Brad Pitt wants to be in ANY of Toms movies. Brad knows that his career will NEVER be as big as Tom so that is why Brad is ALWAYS calling Tom to help him with his acting so he can be as successful and popular as Tom.

Tom has all of his camera people follow Brad and Angie around and pretend to be paparazzi so Brad and Angie won’t feel bad that no one cares about them.

EVERYONE wants to be Tom and Katie. They are more popular then Princess Diana was.

Well, time for some more KOOLAID!!!

#155 Ann
ITA because all people seems to do is rip these kids apart

I agree with you #120.

So glad to hear that Suri has TWO nannies.
That is PROOF POSITIVE that Katie is a FULL TIME HANDS ON MOM!
Other celebs only have ONE nanny for maybe 2-3 kids, Thye don’t care as much.

Katie and Tom look fab. Suri is a doll. Im excited about Tom’s movie. Adding Meryl Streep and Robert Redford…..WOOOOWWWW.

When will Willaim Mapother claim his child? what a horrible father. i bet he just doesn’t want to pay child support.

161 Koolaid drinker : 10/19/2007 at 3:35 pm

I can hardly wait to see Katie running in the NYC marathan. She will be SO fashionable in her heels and carrying Suri on her hip.

RUN KATIE RUN!

=================================================================
comeon this is just Katie’s plan for running away from Tom by pretending to enter a marathan. she is practicing by carrying Suri in high heels. If she can do that.. running carrying suri, while wearing running shoes will be a snap!

Ann #153: I don’t know if you noticed, but in more than one picture Katie actually poses with Suri for the paps. Evidently, she doesn’t share your opinion that sharing photos of children should be illegal.
I do wonder how all this makes the normal people in their families, like Katie’s parents and Tom’s two other children, feel though. Can’t be easy.

Gee, I haven’t seen Tom jump on a couch in a long time, where is the love?

She is so cute. I love her little outfit. And can we please stop the baby bashing. I feel that all babies are cute.
And though it is best to wean a baby off the bottle by 1, every parent will find that their child will do it before or after the one year mark, and that is a-okay. Whatever works for one family, may not work for another.

Reading the posts here, it is incredibly funny how many of us post here like we know exactly what is going on in these people’s lives. I mean seriously, we don’t and most likely will never know, so why pretend?

All we see are little snippets of their lives, and photos only take a few moments of a 24 hour day. So how in the world could we believe we can construct their true reality based on what we read/see/hear when they are but very, very small parts of a much larger whole?

Lions for Lambs : See This Movie

Matt Littman

I am not a critic, and I don’t pretend to be. I enjoy bad movies almost as much as I enjoy the good ones. Weird Science was as enjoyable for me as Raging Bull. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. I’ve blogged on this sight about my love for the best show on TV, Friday Night Lights. If you’re not watching it, well, I want you to know that in some Islamic countries, they kill you for less of an offense.

But even though it’s not really my role, I saw a film last night that I encourage you to see.

The film is Lions for Lambs. It stars three legends: Robert Redford (also the director), Meryl Streep (you may have heard of her), and Tom Cruise.

First, let me say that I enjoy nearly every movie that Tom Cruise has made. From Risky Business to Rain Man, to Mission Impossible, the one thing I always get from a Tom Cruise movie is that he seems to be the hardest working man in show biz. It always seems as if he is fully invested in the role he’s playing. I don’t care about his personal life.

Here, Tom has found the perfect role. He plays Senator Jasper Irving, a Republican who may be the future of the Party. Meryl Streep is his foil, a liberal reporter but one who once wrote a piece comparing Senator Irving to JFK. Senator Irving, a West Point alum, has conceived of a new plan to win in Afghanistan, and, as the movie opens, the plan is going into motion. The Senator is giving the scoop to the reporter who launched his career.

This is one-third of the story in Lions for Lambs. Another third consists of Robert Redford, playing a college professor, talking to a young, underachieving student about taking risks and fulfilling potential. He compares the student to two other grads, both of whom have gone off together to fight in Afghanistan - and that fight, the battle for the high ground in the Afghan mountains, is the new strategy that Cruise and Streep are discussing, and is the other third of the story.

The two soldiers (one is Derek Luke, the other an actor whose name I don’t know) both come from tough backgrounds, and America hasn’t given them much. But they believe that change comes from action, and so they have gone off to fight in the war rather than go on to graduate school.

The movie goes back and forth between all three connected tales. I was most taken with the Cruise-Streep story, because it does a good job of portraying two sides of a difficult argument. Senator Irving believes that even though we’ve bungled the wars, we still have to get it right or we’ll be paying the price forever. The reporter played by Streep believes we have failed so miserably that this is Vietnam all over again; no strategy is going to work. It’s over. Go home.

My joy from the movie came in watching the great, genuine performances, and I recommend it to all HuffPo readers.

go see this

That is one fugly robokid.

and yeah I spelt it wrong but seeing as it’s a made up word for a made up load of rubbish it hardly matters a jot!

shiloh dresses her same cloths and shoes over and over again!!! at least suri wears new cloths every single time…new expensive ones!! they r a very successful family!! God bless the three of them!!

Another great review via Yahoo for HuffingtonPost.com!

Lions for Lambs : See This Movie

Matt Littman

I am not a critic, and I don’t pretend to be. I enjoy bad movies almost as much as I enjoy the good ones. Weird Science was as enjoyable for me as Raging Bull. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. I’ve blogged on this sight about my love for the best show on TV, Friday Night Lights. If you’re not watching it, well, I want you to know that in some Islamic countries, they kill you for less of an offense.

But even though it’s not really my role, I saw a film last night that I encourage you to see.

The film is Lions for Lambs. It stars three legends: Robert Redford (also the director), Meryl Streep (you may have heard of her), and Tom Cruise.

First, let me say that I enjoy nearly every movie that Tom Cruise has made. From Risky Business to Rain Man, to Mission Impossible, the one thing I always get from a Tom Cruise movie is that he seems to be the hardest working man in show biz. It always seems as if he is fully invested in the role he’s playing. I don’t care about his personal life.

Here, Tom has found the perfect role. He plays Senator Jasper Irving, a Republican who may be the future of the Party. Meryl Streep is his foil, a liberal reporter but one who once wrote a piece comparing Senator Irving to JFK. Senator Irving, a West Point alum, has conceived of a new plan to win in Afghanistan, and, as the movie opens, the plan is going into motion. The Senator is giving the scoop to the reporter who launched his career.

This is one-third of the story in Lions for Lambs. Another third consists of Robert Redford, playing a college professor, talking to a young, underachieving student about taking risks and fulfilling potential. He compares the student to two other grads, both of whom have gone off together to fight in Afghanistan - and that fight, the battle for the high ground in the Afghan mountains, is the new strategy that Cruise and Streep are discussing, and is the other third of the story.

The two soldiers (one is Derek Luke, the other an actor whose name I don’t know) both come from tough backgrounds, and America hasn’t given them much. But they believe that change comes from action, and so they have gone off to fight in the war rather than go on to graduate school.

The movie goes back and forth between all three connected tales. I was most taken with the Cruise-Streep story, because it does a good job of portraying two sides of a difficult argument. Senator Irving believes that even though we’ve bungled the wars, we still have to get it right or we’ll be paying the price forever. The reporter played by Streep believes we have failed so miserably that this is Vietnam all over again; no strategy is going to work. It’s over. Go home.

My joy from the movie came in watching the great, genuine performances, and I recommend it to all HuffPo readers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20071019/cm_huffpost/069126

181 annabel

why are you bringing Shiloh into this? She is a Baby, She doesb’t dress herself you know. The Jolie -Pitss are just as successfu as Tom and Katie. What a tool you are.

at least suri wears new cloths every single time…new expensive ones!

LOL and this is a good thing?

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject:

——————————————————————————–

Another great review via Yahoo for HuffingtonPost.com!

Lions for Lambs : See This Movie

Matt Littman

I am not a critic, and I don’t pretend to be. I enjoy bad movies almost as much as I enjoy the good ones. Weird Science was as enjoyable for me as Raging Bull. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. I’ve blogged on this sight about my love for the best show on TV, Friday Night Lights. If you’re not watching it, well, I want you to know that in some Islamic countries, they kill you for less of an offense.

But even though it’s not really my role, I saw a film last night that I encourage you to see.

The film is Lions for Lambs. It stars three legends: Robert Redford (also the director), Meryl Streep (you may have heard of her), and Tom Cruise.

First, let me say that I enjoy nearly every movie that Tom Cruise has made. From Risky Business to Rain Man, to Mission Impossible, the one thing I always get from a Tom Cruise movie is that he seems to be the hardest working man in show biz. It always seems as if he is fully invested in the role he’s playing. I don’t care about his personal life.

Here, Tom has found the perfect role. He plays Senator Jasper Irving, a Republican who may be the future of the Party. Meryl Streep is his foil, a liberal reporter but one who once wrote a piece comparing Senator Irving to JFK. Senator Irving, a West Point alum, has conceived of a new plan to win in Afghanistan, and, as the movie opens, the plan is going into motion. The Senator is giving the scoop to the reporter who launched his career.

This is one-third of the story in Lions for Lambs. Another third consists of Robert Redford, playing a college professor, talking to a young, underachieving student about taking risks and fulfilling potential. He compares the student to two other grads, both of whom have gone off together to fight in Afghanistan - and that fight, the battle for the high ground in the Afghan mountains, is the new strategy that Cruise and Streep are discussing, and is the other third of the story.

The two soldiers (one is Derek Luke, the other an actor whose name I don’t know) both come from tough backgrounds, and America hasn’t given them much. But they believe that change comes from action, and so they have gone off to fight in the war rather than go on to graduate school.

The movie goes back and forth between all three connected tales. I was most taken with the Cruise-Streep story, because it does a good job of portraying two sides of a difficult argument. Senator Irving believes that even though we’ve bungled the wars, we still have to get it right or we’ll be paying the price forever. The reporter played by Streep believes we have failed so miserably that this is Vietnam all over again; no strategy is going to work. It’s over. Go home.

My joy from the movie came in watching the great, genuine performances, and I recommend it to all HuffPo readers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20071019/cm_huffpost/069126

#53 Her ears are just as big as her nose, so the hair comes in handy to cover up…oh ignore Puala she is teh scinetologist queeb bee on site..I wonder if she is a recruit or yet to join..pathetic..I see children everyday and they are all cute but Suri is nothing special and when the brian dead ******** go off about how precious and how in love they are..I wonder if they know nay cute kids, because all the kids I saw today surpuss this thing they call a child…sincerely i think the aliens have a lrh spermination ongoign, how else do you explain infertle folksk suddenly getting pregnant..this strange looking kids, then jenna elfamsn ugly child who has red hair just like LRH and of ocurse JLOs twins…If they share any genes with LRH then lord help them..

Makes me think miscaviage went along for the honey for more than just a tomfuck..he actually carried teh turkeybaster with LRH forzen tadpoles.hahahahha

Brilliant review of Lions for Lambs!

Lions For Lambs: Dramatic Discourse As A Journey Towards Political Enlightenment

By Prairie Miller
WBAI Arts Magazine

Unfolding as nearly a raw, gritty, highly stylized rough cut of itself, Robert Redford’s Lions For Lambs is a breathlessly urgent and stinging reality-based dramatic indictment of recent US foreign policy and its endless war on terror. As a kind of antidote to the evasive and compartmentalized tactics of the money media that goes to great lengths to omit or deny cause and effect when it comes to official government policy and the multitude of lives impacted by it, Lions For Lambs makes its critical and indeed defiant point that life and death decisions about issues like war have concrete and irrefutable repercussions that stretch far and wide to various corners of the planet. Or perhaps as close by as the person right next to us, whom we may care for deeply.

The title is taken from a German general’s mocking comments during WWII, expressing his admiration for the courage of British foot soldiers, while ridiculing their commanding officers: ‘Never have I seen such lions led by such lambs.’ The words are spoken in the film by Redford’s character, Dr. Malley, a former ’60s activist and idealistic professor at a West Coast university who is increasingly frustrated by the cynicism, materialism and complacency of the younger generation of students in his political science classes. Malley is also shocked and stunned that the moral convictions he tried to impart to his young charges has led to two of his students of color, played by Derek Luke and Michael Pena, to sign up for the military to fight the war on terror. And their unit has been assigned to a dangerous secret mission in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the architect of that new plan - essentially a dismal replay of the failures of Viet Nam - is the brash and ambitious US Senator Irving (Tom Cruise). Irving has called in star DC reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) to reveal limited hints about the plan without giving much away, attempting to manipulate the interview and dictate the story to what he hopes will be more a stenographer’s than a journalist’s ear, in order to produce the promo puff piece that will enhance his future bid for the US presidency.

But a clearly stressed and distraught Roth has long been jaded by the seemingly aimless and perpetual war on terror in which she herself feels a gnawing complicity as an initially compliant player in the media. So a heated political debate between the two ensues rather than a conventional interview, and all sorts of controversial topics touching on the nature of present day paranoid, violent, preemptively destructive and victory-obsessed government policies fire up the dialogue.

With references to Greek philosophy at hand, it’s apparently Redford’s intention to spark political discourse in Lions For Lambs about the ailing state of the nation, and the needless sacrifice of its young to wars, with a concurrent warped sense of glory telegraphed by the cheerleaders in authority - the lambs - far from the battlefields. Specifically, the drama is shaped in the manner of the dialectics of classical Greek philosophy and its ultimate intent, namely the search for truth. The weighty issues are at times delivered in too rapid a style to fully contemplate and digest, but their significance for an urgent and long overdue national debate is in no way diminished. In any case, Lions For Lambs tugs at the heart and mind and shakes an uneasy stirred collective consciousness awake, revealing as in a mirror a thirst for logic and the truth, that has long been an endangered cultural entity.

Prairie Miller
WBAI Arts Magazine
Artsmagazine@juno.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

http://wbai.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9809&Itemid=12

blah blah blah.. At least suri’s not a bald headed - mentally challenged dwarf, w/ a cranium BIGGER than her parents!

Suri unlike some can actually use her limbs. And she doesn’t get dressed like a freaking bum in hand me down RAGS that she over and over and over again.

Look at Violation’s face, look at Shiloh’s face, YOU CANT BE SERIOUS!!! ****SMH****

no 193
can u stop posting ur long biographies or watever u call it

no 189**

Katie is so classy. I just adore Suri and Tom is ultimately the best American actor. I have other faves but Tom is tops.
He is looking good too.

Why in the hell would anyone be ‘jealous’ of Suri Cruise? Yeah, I really wish my ‘father’ (ha, ha) was a closeted gay midget dwarf who belonged to a whacky cult and my mother was a famemonger who rented her womb for money and fame. Sounds like a dream childhood-on Planet Xenu perhaps.

[~Famous~]

You are disgusting. You can dish it but you can’t take it. What a wimp. Babies should off limits but You are mentally challenged so there’s that.

Brilliant review of Lions for Lambs!

Lions For Lambs: Dramatic Discourse As A Journey Towards Political Enlightenment

By Prairie Miller
WBAI Arts Magazine

Unfolding as nearly a raw, gritty, highly stylized rough cut of itself, Robert Redford’s Lions For Lambs is a breathlessly urgent and stinging reality-based dramatic indictment of recent US foreign policy and its endless war on terror. As a kind of antidote to the evasive and compartmentalized tactics of the money media that goes to great lengths to omit or deny cause and effect when it comes to official government policy and the multitude of lives impacted by it, Lions For Lambs makes its critical and indeed defiant point that life and death decisions about issues like war have concrete and irrefutable repercussions that stretch far and wide to various corners of the planet. Or perhaps as close by as the person right next to us, whom we may care for deeply.

The title is taken from a German general’s mocking comments during WWII, expressing his admiration for the courage of British foot soldiers, while ridiculing their commanding officers: ‘Never have I seen such lions led by such lambs.’ The words are spoken in the film by Redford’s character, Dr. Malley, a former ’60s activist and idealistic professor at a West Coast university who is increasingly frustrated by the cynicism, materialism and complacency of the younger generation of students in his political science classes. Malley is also shocked and stunned that the moral convictions he tried to impart to his young charges has led to two of his students of color, played by Derek Luke and Michael Pena, to sign up for the military to fight the war on terror. And their unit has been assigned to a dangerous secret mission in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the architect of that new plan - essentially a dismal replay of the failures of Viet Nam - is the brash and ambitious US Senator Irving (Tom Cruise). Irving has called in star DC reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) to reveal limited hints about the plan without giving much away, attempting to manipulate the interview and dictate the story to what he hopes will be more a stenographer’s than a journalist’s ear, in order to produce the promo puff piece that will enhance his future bid for the US presidency.

But a clearly stressed and distraught Roth has long been jaded by the seemingly aimless and perpetual war on terror in which she herself feels a gnawing complicity as an initially compliant player in the media. So a heated political debate between the two ensues rather than a conventional interview, and all sorts of controversial topics touching on the nature of present day paranoid, violent, preemptively destructive and victory-obsessed government policies fire up the dialogue.

With references to Greek philosophy at hand, it’s apparently Redford’s intention to spark political discourse in Lions For Lambs about the ailing state of the nation, and the needless sacrifice of its young to wars, with a concurrent warped sense of glory telegraphed by the cheerleaders in authority - the lambs - far from the battlefields. Specifically, the drama is shaped in the manner of the dialectics of classical Greek philosophy and its ultimate intent, namely the search for truth. The weighty issues are at times delivered in too rapid a style to fully contemplate and digest, but their significance for an urgent and long overdue national debate is in no way diminished. In any case, Lions For Lambs tugs at the heart and mind and shakes an uneasy stirred collective consciousness awake, revealing as in a mirror a thirst for logic and the truth, that has long been an endangered cultural entity.

Prairie Miller
WBAI Arts Magazine
Artsmagazine@juno.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Another great review via Yahoo for HuffingtonPost.com!

Lions for Lambs : See This Movie

Matt Littman

I am not a critic, and I don’t pretend to be. I enjoy bad movies almost as much as I enjoy the good ones. Weird Science was as enjoyable for me as Raging Bull. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. I’ve blogged on this sight about my love for the best show on TV, Friday Night Lights. If you’re not watching it, well, I want you to know that in some Islamic countries, they kill you for less of an offense.

But even though it’s not really my role, I saw a film last night that I encourage you to see.

The film is Lions for Lambs. It stars three legends: Robert Redford (also the director), Meryl Streep (you may have heard of her), and Tom Cruise.

First, let me say that I enjoy nearly every movie that Tom Cruise has made. From Risky Business to Rain Man, to Mission Impossible, the one thing I always get from a Tom Cruise movie is that he seems to be the hardest working man in show biz. It always seems as if he is fully invested in the role he’s playing. I don’t care about his personal life.

Here, Tom has found the perfect role. He plays Senator Jasper Irving, a Republican who may be the future of the Party. Meryl Streep is his foil, a liberal reporter but one who once wrote a piece comparing Senator Irving to JFK. Senator Irving, a West Point alum, has conceived of a new plan to win in Afghanistan, and, as the movie opens, the plan is going into motion. The Senator is giving the scoop to the reporter who launched his career.

This is one-third of the story in Lions for Lambs. Another third consists of Robert Redford, playing a college professor, talking to a young, underachieving student about taking risks and fulfilling potential. He compares the student to two other grads, both of whom have gone off together to fight in Afghanistan - and that fight, the battle for the high ground in the Afghan mountains, is the new strategy that Cruise and Streep are discussing, and is the other third of the story.

The two soldiers (one is Derek Luke, the other an actor whose name I don’t know) both come from tough backgrounds, and America hasn’t given them much. But they believe that change comes from action, and so they have gone off to fight in the war rather than go on to graduate school.

The movie goes back and forth between all three connected tales. I was most taken with the Cruise-Streep story, because it does a good job of portraying two sides of a difficult argument. Senator Irving believes that even though we’ve bungled the wars, we still have to get it right or we’ll be paying the price forever. The reporter played by Streep believes we have failed so miserably that this is Vietnam all over again; no strategy is going to work. It’s over. Go home.

My joy from the movie came in watching the great, genuine performances, and I recommend it to all HuffPo readers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20071019/cm_huffpost/069126

Better a big nose than a HUGE ADULTS HEAD on a underdeveloped paraplegic child.

200 Miapocca

Oh my I have never heard this before , If this is true that is truly frightening. God Bless their Families.

lila, get a life

Brilliant review of Lions for Lambs!

Lions For Lambs: Dramatic Discourse As A Journey Towards Political Enlightenment

By Prairie Miller
WBAI Arts Magazine

Unfolding as nearly a raw, gritty, highly stylized rough cut of itself, Robert Redford’s Lions For Lambs is a breathlessly urgent and stinging reality-based dramatic indictment of recent US foreign policy and its endless war on terror. As a kind of antidote to the evasive and compartmentalized tactics of the money media that goes to great lengths to omit or deny cause and effect when it comes to official government policy and the multitude of lives impacted by it, Lions For Lambs makes its critical and indeed defiant point that life and death decisions about issues like war have concrete and irrefutable repercussions that stretch far and wide to various corners of the planet. Or perhaps as close by as the person right next to us, whom we may care for deeply.

The title is taken from a German general’s mocking comments during WWII, expressing his admiration for the courage of British foot soldiers, while ridiculing their commanding officers: ‘Never have I seen such lions led by such lambs.’ The words are spoken in the film by Redford’s character, Dr. Malley, a former ’60s activist and idealistic professor at a West Coast university who is increasingly frustrated by the cynicism, materialism and complacency of the younger generation of students in his political science classes. Malley is also shocked and stunned that the moral convictions he tried to impart to his young charges has led to two of his students of color, played by Derek Luke and Michael Pena, to sign up for the military to fight the war on terror. And their unit has been assigned to a dangerous secret mission in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the architect of that new plan - essentially a dismal replay of the failures of Viet Nam - is the brash and ambitious US Senator Irving (Tom Cruise). Irving has called in star DC reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) to reveal limited hints about the plan without giving much away, attempting to manipulate the interview and dictate the story to what he hopes will be more a stenographer’s than a journalist’s ear, in order to produce the promo puff piece that will enhance his future bid for the US presidency.

But a clearly stressed and distraught Roth has long been jaded by the seemingly aimless and perpetual war on terror in which she herself feels a gnawing complicity as an initially compliant player in the media. So a heated political debate between the two ensues rather than a conventional interview, and all sorts of controversial topics touching on the nature of present day paranoid, violent, preemptively destructive and victory-obsessed government policies fire up the dialogue.

With references to Greek philosophy at hand, it’s apparently Redford’s intention to spark political discourse in Lions For Lambs about the ailing state of the nation, and the needless sacrifice of its young to wars, with a concurrent warped sense of glory telegraphed by the cheerleaders in authority - the lambs - far from the battlefields. Specifically, the drama is shaped in the manner of the dialectics of classical Greek philosophy and its ultimate intent, namely the search for truth. The weighty issues are at times delivered in too rapid a style to fully contemplate and digest, but their significance for an urgent and long overdue national debate is in no way diminished. In any case, Lions For Lambs tugs at the heart and mind and shakes an uneasy stirred collective consciousness awake, revealing as in a mirror a thirst for logic and the truth, that has long been an endangered cultural entity.

Lions for Lambs : See This Movie

Matt Littman

I am not a critic, and I don’t pretend to be. I enjoy bad movies almost as much as I enjoy the good ones. Weird Science was as enjoyable for me as Raging Bull. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. I’ve blogged on this sight about my love for the best show on TV, Friday Night Lights. If you’re not watching it, well, I want you to know that in some Islamic countries, they kill you for less of an offense.

But even though it’s not really my role, I saw a film last night that I encourage you to see.

The film is Lions for Lambs. It stars three legends: Robert Redford (also the director), Meryl Streep (you may have heard of her), and Tom Cruise.

First, let me say that I enjoy nearly every movie that Tom Cruise has made. From Risky Business to Rain Man, to Mission Impossible, the one thing I always get from a Tom Cruise movie is that he seems to be the hardest working man in show biz. It always seems as if he is fully invested in the role he’s playing. I don’t care about his personal life.

Here, Tom has found the perfect role. He plays Senator Jasper Irving, a Republican who may be the future of the Party. Meryl Streep is his foil, a liberal reporter but one who once wrote a piece comparing Senator Irving to JFK. Senator Irving, a West Point alum, has conceived of a new plan to win in Afghanistan, and, as the movie opens, the plan is going into motion. The Senator is giving the scoop to the reporter who launched his career.

This is one-third of the story in Lions for Lambs. Another third consists of Robert Redford, playing a college professor, talking to a young, underachieving student about taking risks and fulfilling potential. He compares the student to two other grads, both of whom have gone off together to fight in Afghanistan - and that fight, the battle for the high ground in the Afghan mountains, is the new strategy that Cruise and Streep are discussing, and is the other third of the story.

The two soldiers (one is Derek Luke, the other an actor whose name I don’t know) both come from tough backgrounds, and America hasn’t given them much. But they believe that change comes from action, and so they have gone off to fight in the war rather than go on to graduate school.

The movie goes back and forth between all three connected tales. I was most taken with the Cruise-Streep story, because it does a good job of portraying two sides of a difficult argument. Senator Irving believes that even though we’ve bungled the wars, we still have to get it right or we’ll be paying the price forever. The reporter played by Streep believes we have failed so miserably that this is Vietnam all over again; no strategy is going to work. It’s over. Go home.

My joy from the movie came in watching the great, genuine performances, and I recommend it to all HuffPo readers.

that little girl is still cute as hell

fuckface are you seriously calling Shiloh a paraplegic…
I really hope all the bad Shite in the world comes to your door.
You are beyond pathetic. Sucks to be you huh?

203 [~Famous~] : 10/19/2007 at 4:55 pm

Better a big nose than a HUGE ADULTS HEAD on a underdeveloped paraplegic child.

WTF are you talking about? SMH

Fug is blinded by his love for tomacita so much that he has to cut down other celeb kids to defend Suri.

hahah

tommy and fug sitting in a tree.

Breakup with Paramount
On August 22, 2006, Paramount Pictures announced it was ending its 14-year relationship with Cruise/Wagner Productions. In the Wall Street Journal, chairman of Viacom (Paramount’s parent company) Sumner Redstone cited the economic damage to Tom Cruise’s value as an actor and producer from his controversial public behavior and views.[17][18] Cruise/Wagner Productions responded that Paramount’s announcement was a face-saving move after the production company had successfully sought alternative financing from private equity firms.[19] Industry analysts such as Edward Jay Epstein commented that the real reason for the split was most likely Paramount’s discontent over Cruise/Wagner’s exceptionally large share of DVD sales from the Mission: Impossible franchise.[20][21] However, Radar has claimed that the “personal conduct” complained of by Redstone was an allegedly Cruise-inspired attempt to intimidate Brad Grey, CEO of Paramount. According to Radar, when Grey was walking to his car one night after tense negotiations with Cruise over Mission: Impossible 3, he was “surrounded by more than a dozen Scientologists, who pressured him to ease up on the actor … Following a terse exchange, the visitors allowed Grey to get into his car and leave, but the message was clear.” Grey reportedly stood his ground and convinced Cruise to accept a lower fee than the actor had initially demanded.

Suri is as cute as she can be looking like Katie and Christian Bale.

Such wonderful photos about a wonderful family…….

SCALETT RUN RUN RUN………….
By Jeannette Walls
MSNBC
Updated: 2:56 a.m. ET June 20, 2005
Did Tom Cruise try to recruit Scarlett Johansson to Scientology?

The “Lost in Translation” star was expected to co-star with Cruise in “Mission: Impossible III” but was dropped because of “scheduling conflicts.” But it seems that there may have been other conflicts as well. Cruise invited Johansson to a Scientology center where he showed her literature about joining his controversial church, according to a report. “After two hours of proselytizing,” according to RadarMagazine.com, “Cruise opened a door to reveal a second room full of upper-level Scientologists who had been waiting to dine with the pair, at which point the cool-headed ingénue politely excused herself.”

The Scoop called Johansson’s mother/manager for comment and she declined, referring us to Johansson’s publicist, who didn’t return calls or emails. Cruise’s rep didn’t respond to requests for comment, but Rick Ross of CultNews.com told the Scoop: “Is this Tom Cruise’s version of a first date? It’s becoming increasingly difficult to make distinctions between his personal, professional and religious life. Tom Cruise and Scientology seem intent on recruiting a hot young star. Apparently, Scarlett Johansson flunked her test, but Katie Holmes passed.”

Scientology’s Volunteer Minister’s Handbook:

Breast feeding babies may have a nostalgic background, particularly to a Freudian oriented medico, but real breast milk again is usually a poor ration. Modern mothers smoke and sometimes drink. Smoking makes the milk very musty. Anyway, a nervous modern mother just can’t deliver the right ration. Maybe it’s the pace of the times or the breed, but there are few modern Guernsey-type mothers. So even without drinking or smoking, one should forget breast feeding.
…

The foremost reason a baby doesn’t do well is poor rations. And to remedy that, here is a formula one can use:

15 ounces of barley water
10 ounces of homogenized milk
3 ounces of corn syrup (As the Romans had honey, 2 ounces of honey may be used instead of corn syrup, if desired. Do not use lactose [a sugar found in milk, used in infant foods] as a substitute.) The amount of syrup should be varied - depending on the baby - some like it weak - some take it stronger.

I totally agree with Kiki and Isabelle. She is sooo not cute and she got her mom’s large, wide nose. Yeuch!! Hooded eyes and a huge nose? Nice combination!

first picture in the last row DAMIEN from the Omen!!!!

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/images/pics/omen1.jpg

HEY MIA

I predict Katie will run the marathon in stiletto pumps…..carrying Suri….and some shopping bags.
When she falls mid-race and drops Suri and scraps her knee she will call one of her $cienio minders to bring her a pair of more sensible shoes to finish the race….a pair of stiletto boots

===

From: Christopher Wood - xenu.ca
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Food for babies??
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:03:44 -0300
Message-ID:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:07:20 +0200, “roger gonnet”
wrote:

>Is there somewhere where elrong says something bizarre about feeding babies,
>like saying one should feed them like roman legionaries, or something?

The Scientology Handbook (1994), Page 529 (halfway down):

Barley Formula for Babies

The foremost reason a baby doesn’t do well is poor rations. And to
remedy that, here is a formula one can use:

15 ounces of barley water
10 ounces of homogenized milk
3 ounces of corn syrup (As the Romans had honey, 2 ounces of honey may
be used instead of corn syrup, if desired. Do not use lactose [a sugar
found in milk, used in infant foods] as a substitute.) The amount of
syrup should be varied - depending on the baby - some like it weak -
some take it stronger.

This formula can be multiplied by any number according to the number
of bottles desired but the ratio remains the same.

To make the barley water, put about a half cup of whole barley in a
piece of muslin, tie loosely to allow for expansion. It is slowly
boiled in a covered, bented pot not made of aluminum for 61/2 (Note:
six and a half -Chris) hours in about 4 pints of water. (In venting
the pot, one allows steam to escape either through a vent build in the
lid [if there is one] by placing the cover slightly askew so there is
an opening between the cover and pot.) Barley water will turn very,
very pink. This gives about the right consistency of barley water for
making the formula as above.

You don’t feed the baby the actual barley, only the water mixed with
the milk and corn syrup, in the ratio as given in the formula above.

Do not add anything else to this formula, such as vitamins or cream
“to make the formula more nutritious.” The formula is as laid out
above.

Use this formula and have healthier babies!

(Sure, Ron. Instead of letting babies drink their mother’s milk, we’ll
feed them a barley formula. Does anyone else see anything wrong with
Ron’s view of the world here?)

——————————————-
http://members.chello.nl/mgormez/childabuse/barley_water.html

Im happy to see them because I miss them lots and lots. You are the greatest,Jared.

There comes a token **** scientologist with thier **** wipe for Jareds tush…hey JJ make sure you are selcetive about who gets to wipe your precious tush or else it might just turn red from alien infections….ever had biols on your arese..hmm not pleasant at all…got to keep away from those scientologist JJ…

Scientilogist and the Grandparents
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/dcs/posts/pulp/grandma.html
(Note: I’ll include relevent definitions to some of the Scientology
aka scieno-speak words at the end of this post.)

The following passage comes from the book _Child Dianetics_ which
describes how to apply the cult of Scientology’s “Dianetic” tech-
niques to children. Any typos are likely my own.

*** BEGIN FAIR USE EXTRACT ***

(from _Child Dianetics_ by L. Ron Hubbard, page 48)

Perhaps the most insidious thing that can happen to the child is
the exterior ally. Until you have processed a number of of people
you may not realize how deadly is the ally in the sympathy engram.
Grandparents should not be permitted into the home of their grand-
children until they have learned to behave themselves dianetically.
One can have all the mawkish sentimentality in the world and think,
“My dear, dear grandparents”–but wait until you get back there in
the reactive bank and find out what they did. They were very nice,
true, but all too often they bought the child off and brok the
affinity line between the parents and the child.

*** END FAIR USE EXTRACT ***

In real life, many Scientologist family units simply “disconnect” from
their relatives in order to “protect themselves” from the entheta
of non-Scientologist relatives. As the family unit moves deeper and
deeper into the arms of the cult they are apparently warned away from
those outside of the cult, eventually leading to disconnection. This
has also been known to happen *within* family units when a member
begins to stray from the cult.

*** BEGIN FAIR USE EXTRACT ***

(from _Child Dianetics_ by L. Ron Hubbard, pages 48-49)

An ally blurting out to a feverish child, “My dear, I’m going to stay
here until you are well,” becomes a leech upon that child’s mind.
Consider what happens when a child gets very ill and grandma rants,
“Do you think he will die? Oh, my dear, darling little baby, you are
going to die. I know you are going to die. Please don’t leave me!”
Later on in life the child slides into grandma’s valence, and a
period of illness which originally ran about five days is keyed in
and keeps the child sick for months!

*** END FAIR USE EXTRACT ***

In the above passage, L. Ron seems to reinforce the dangerousness
of the non-Scientologist family to the “Dianetic” family. This
may lead to the family’s disconnection from relatives in the
future.

****

DEFINITIONS: (from the glossary in _Child Dianetics_)

Affinity: Cohesion between individuals, or between an individual
and the universe; a force of attraction operating to draw
them into closer relationships.

Ally: The person from whom sympathy came when the pre-clear was
ill or injured. Since the ally’s purpose is aligned with the
individual’s survival, the reactive mind computes that
everything the ally does or says is right, especially whatever
the ally said in the engram.

Child Dianetics: That branch of Dianetics which is concerned
with promoting the optimum survival of the immature human
organism until such time as standard procedure for adults
may be employed to erase engrams, usually around the age
of twelve.

Dianetics: The science and techniques as discovered and
organized by L. Ron Hubbard; the science of optimum
existence and survival. Dianetics means “through the
soul.”

Engram: A mental image picture of an experience containing
pain, unconsciousness, and a real or fancied threat
to survival; it is a recording in the Reactive Mind of
something which actually happened to an individual
in the past and which contained pain and unconsciousness,
both of which are recorded in the mental image picture
called an engram.

Pre-Clear: One who is undergoing dianetic processing.

Reactive Mind: That function of the mind which files and
retains physical pain and painful emotion and seeks
to direct the organism solely on a stimulus-response
basis. It thinks only in identities.

Valence: The personality and/or characteristics of a person
or an object. Winning valence is the dominant or most
successful role.

Valence Shifter: An engramic command which forces the pre-clear
to shift into a valence other than his own.

TOM IS ONE LUCKY MAN.

Dig your head deeper into your self and eventually it will how up through you rbutthole..I bet Tommy boy wont appreciate your hole then…

http://www.taxexemptchildabuse.net/

why don’t celebrity parents give their kids sunglasses as well??? only gwen and gavin put shades on their little boy.

Is it true as someone here said that Katie decided to put the wedding off until she lost her post-pregnancy weight? Wow, priorities.

“Is it true as someone here said that Katie decided to put the wedding off until she lost her post-pregnancy weight? Wow, priorities.”

Yes she said. What would it matter though? This isn’t the ’50s so Holmes doesn’t care about this ‘illegitimate child’ bullsh!t.

Cheddar:

I never said looks are everything - being healthy is obviously more important. However we do live in a “looks” obsessed society - be honest with yourself - these celebrity kids will be judged based on their looks - if they turn out to be beautiful like their parents they get contracts (e.g. Elvis Presley’s grand daughter). If not, then people will say they are not. Once they grow up and prove that they are more than just so and so’s son/daughter people will judge them based on that.

Katie is dressing Suri up in thousands of dollars worth of grown-up style clothes, it is pathetic, she is a CHILD. But both Katie and Tom know that people are watching Suri, they want her to look good - because they too are playing into the “looks” obsessed world we are living in.

Suri will not grow into that nose, she might have it done she might not. Who cares. All I am saying is, its a tough world Suri has entered into and even the Cruise’s know that their daughter is being compared to Shiloh.

Do you honestly think that Tom and Katie didn’t take a look at a picture of Shiloh and say “Oh she is ___” ofcourse they did - it’s a secret competition in Hollywood who has the better looking child is always going to be debated secretly or out in the open.

Cheers.

188 [~Famous~]

How dare you to insult Shiloh..I will pray so hard that KARMA will hit you that you wish you dont want to live anymore…

STUPID COW……….

[~Famous~]
FugTom-worshipper f*cking insane.

FugTom = biggest douchebag.

I was wondering the same thing about the sunglasses. Tomkat’s eyes are protected from the flashes, but not Suri’s. No thought for the child at all.

katie looks a mess im sorry but she was totally trying to pull off that vb bob but it just doesnt work on her cause she never ever does her hair cant she pay someone to do it if she is to lazy to my gosh she knows that shes gonna get photograPHED so why not atleast put some extensions or something that hair is hideous my gosh!

GOD! Why does Katie and her man child always looks like they just got out of bed and got dressed with their eyes closed? Katie always looks so unkept. Suris hair is crazy, like a dam* tornado flew over her.

WHAT A COUPLE FRICKEN MESSES. At least Nichole looked like she belonged on the shi shi list. Katie looks like she’s draggin behind with baggage (Suri)and NOT doing well at it at all.

She “tries” to dress like she belongs but if you look at her before Tom she dressed really trendy and cute and she always wore flats and cute ones too. Now all she wears are heels and she looks like a giraffe walking in them.

GIVE IT UP KATIE. You’ll never ever belong in that class. You’re a wannabe.

Camp Cruisazy must have decided that a photo op was called for. Notice how Katie has no purse, no wallet, no diaper bag and her minders aren’t carrying them either. So Katie just decides to go for a walk down the streets of New York, in her high heels, with her toddler daughter, stopping every so often to point out an outfit to Suri? Huh? With everything there is to do in New York, this is what they come up with?! Poor Suri, and shame on her parents for using her like they are. Here is a new flash to Camp Cruisazy: STOP, STOP, STOP with the fake, ridiculous photo ops!

Hi Jared!!! you are so famous because I heard you on the radio and many New York papers and other entertainment sites mentioned you regarding Tom and Katie,baby Suri pictures. On TV the screening of Tom’s film was shown a bit and the audience loved the film,it was loud with cheers and long thunderous applause.
Outside the theatre Tom was surrounded by many excited fans especially cheerful females and the excited media.
On the ladies front,Katie and Suri taking a stroll caused such happy mayhem too. The bodyguards kept telling the photogs to leave already. The Photogs are not only Americans but from England and other countries. The crowd cant stop gushing on Suri. All your hear are people greeting Katie,people taking pics themselves and saying Suri is soooo cute,she is beautiful and saying God bless her.God bless this family and you too Jared//

Suri is way too cute… but, that poor kid and her photog-laden life.

******** THE CRUISES!

I should have said. The child is way too old to still be taking a bottle.

The Freak family in town to promote his highness movie /yawn

suri is the only cute girl.