Inexplicable

Try as I may, I fail to see the fascination with Katie Holmes, formerly Mrs. Tom Cruise.

This is not a knock on her, by the way:  at worst, she’s inoffensive — and she gets huge kudos for keeping their daughter out of the clutches of the foul Scientology cult.

Or maybe it’s just because  she’s the ex-wife of the dwarf action star (what I call the “Chelsea Clinton” effect) that the media seems to follow and photograph her all over the place;  and she continues to get movie roles, lots of them.  Once again, this is not a knock;  but she is unremarkable both in looks and talent:  girl-next-door pretty and capable of not screwing up a movie (the latter being no small thing, by the way).  Here she is in casual dress:

See what I mean?  And yet she’s played up — Vogue covers, etc. — and even when she’s in a movie, that praise continues.

For an example of the latter, one of the characters in the brilliant Thank You For Smoking  says of her that she has “world-class tits”, when it’s quite obvious that she doesn’t — not even close to world class, as the movie reveals later when she’s actually topless.  And the femme fatale  role she’s given… well, she’s not so fatale, as it turns out.

Granted, our Katie does clean up quite well:

…but given the amount of cosmetic trickery involved in shots like this, hell, even Chelsea Clinton can look passable (be charitable, willya?).  That said, Holmes certainly plays it for all it’s worth.

But I just don’t get it.  The movie business is lousy with gorgeous and egregiously-talented women, and yet Holmes gets more column inches and celluloid time than a lot of them.

Inexplicable.

12 comments

  1. That mudshark has a token negro and the communist media plays that stuff up to the hilt.
    One of these days there will be open season on media employees and the sun will break through the dark clouds. It will be common to stand on any street corner and watch a vehicle coming along at high speed towing a screaming and bouncing media person with a rope. So common that people will yawn.

  2. I think a few things cause it:

    1) She moderately pretty (thin for my tastes, but…), and moderately talented, actually quite CUTE and of course she WAS married to Cruise (and the cause of his famous jumping-on-the-sofa event). Whether she deserves anything more than the female lead in a romantic comedy or Hallmark Christmas movie is debatable, but there it is.

    2) She’s inoffensive. She’s not a train wreck, isn’t going to do anything to bring bad publicity on any project she’s involved in, and she’s free from baggage (or at least freer than most Hollywood types).

    3) As noted, cosmetics can do wonders. Hell, I used to work with a woman who you’d walk past, if she were naked, ready and willing, in order to find a private place to whack off, and she had some professional pictures done that made her look downright hot for a woman her age (which then used on a dating app, amazing how many men “didn’t show up”, apparently after getting a look at the real her).

    4) For all the reasons above, people WILL go see her movies, so she WILL make money, people know who she is, and putting her on the cover of a magazine is sure to sell issues, which is really what it’s all about.

    Mark D

  3. Oh good grief!

    Sigh.

    I’ll explain it for ya, fellas. “It’s not what ya know – it’s who ya blow!”

    I’ll be willing to bet our lady has little in the way of inhibitions or self respect behind the scenes. It is a sign of the times when creeps like Weinstein gets Me Too’d and gets banished to Turd Island… and the strumpets that willingly prostituted themselves to him get a pass.

    Another possible explanation would be the influence in Hollywood of the homely and obese lesbians or the Chardonnay guzzling single cat ladies that get offended by beauty and men’s preoccupation with it. The tire biters of Feminist Ghostbusters spring to mind.

    I’d admonish you lot to get with the times but as far as Hollyweird goes… I don’t think you’re missing much. 🙂

  4. I prefer the “girl next door look” over the “beauty ideal” of anorexia nervosa thin, slutty clothes and ditto behaviour, and ultra feminist attitude…

    Plus she’s not a lesbian, always a plus (though probably not when applying for movie roles in today’s politically correct industry).

  5. She’s more MaryAnn than Ginger, more Bailey than Jennifer. Not likely high maintenance or prone to psychotic breaks. Looks to be down in the safer areas of the Crazy/Hot matrix.

  6. I never get “fascinated” by these celebrities, but I do think she is quite lovely. Her talent is okay – good enough for her to earn her keep in her chosen industry anyway. As for her “world-class tits”, well, that’s a matter of opinion. Not every man is a fan of the “huge melons” a lot of so-called beauties are sporting these days.

  7. Good agent is the reason she is overexposed. That said, I will admit to a soft spot for these small-busted, athletic framed, girl next door brunettes. Natalie Portman may be the top of the over-hyped heap there. She is even more in the media for less reason than Ms. Holmes. But there is also Michelle Monaghan, Bridget Moynahan, Anna Kendrick, and a long list of others, all of whom trigger my monkey-brain interest in a way I cannot explain. As actresses, most of them are journeyman at best. Ms. Holmes is one of the least capable.

      1. Natalie Portman – Beautiful Girls (her best film and she was 15, peaked early)
        Michelle Monaghan – Trucker, True Detective Season 1
        Bridget Moynahan – Blue Bloods (also Tom Brady’s baby mama)
        Anna Kendrick – Up in the Air
        If you do don’t like this generation, you could go back to Jane Birkin in the 60’s or Romy Schneider in the 50’s. None of them are great actresses. You can watch them with the sound off.

  8. Chelsea Clinton passable?!?

    Shit, they had to tie a pork chop around her neck to the dog to pay attention to her.

Comments are closed.