Cruise Update: Tom buys Dakota a cellphone, spends $10,000 on birthday bash and more
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Tom Cruise
Tom Cruise spent $10,000 for a meal to celebrate his 43rd birthday earlier this month. Cruise recruited chefs from around the world to cook for his guests on board a yacht owned by the Church of Scientology.- Nicole Kidman says that her marriage to Cruise wrecked long term friendships because her husband was so private. She tells Glamour magazine: "Part of me shut down, put up barriers and became very insular. It was very hard to keep friendships alive during that period." Since the couple split in 2001, Kidman has rediscovered her childhood friends.
- Cruise bought Dakota Fanning a mobile phone for her 11th birthday: She says, "My mom and dad wouldn't let me have a cell phone but Tom got me one for my birthday! It's really funny, 'cause on my cell phone I pretend that I'm on the phone when I'm not and I'll pretend that I have messages when I'm just out on the street." I'm not sure about you guys but that girl freaks me out. And now we learn she walks down the street pretending to talk on the phone... weird, very weird.
- Kidman says she's disappointed her daughter Isabella is so against femininity. She's always encouraging her to dress like a proper girl: "She won't go near a dress. She thinks I'm too girlie."









Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-14-2005 @ 10:20AM
Peter Sciretta said...
The point of "Cruise Update" is to provide the readers with any Cruise or Scientology related news since they seem to crave it so much. Instead of doing a bunch of posts we compile it into one.
First of all I wasn't saying Kidman blamed her ex husband, although the fact that you connected those dots may say that it may not be far off. I posted that story because it had to do with Cruise's daughter, so it was Cruise related news.
Second, yes, Dakota is an adult in a girls body. That's freaky to me. Then acting like a kid talking on the phone to nobody is even more freaky, why? I can't explain it.
Reply
7-14-2005 @ 11:09AM
Greg said...
This article is stupidity gone amok.
First of all, Nicole Kidman did NOT blame her ex-husband, at any point, for anything. She was referring to her own isolation and her own behavior.
Second of all, Dakota Fanning is now weird for playing pretend games? She's a KID, you moron.
Reply
7-14-2005 @ 11:53AM
Aaron M said...
Normally I take what Cruise does with a grain of salt and just let it slide, but where does he get off buying Dakota a cell phone? I know she is in Hollywood, but I am sure that her parents had a good reason for not letting her have a cell phone. I mean, she is 11. He has really stepped out of his boundaries and his wierdness and pushed himself onto someone else's child. It is really ridiculous. Who gives him the authority to do something like that and undermine the parents?
Reply
7-14-2005 @ 11:59AM
Greg said...
You did blame it on Cruise. You said, and I quote, "Nicole Kidman says that her *marriage to Cruise* wrecked long term friendships because *her husband* was so private." (emphasis added.)
I see you're quoting ContactMusic. It is they who MISquoted Kidman, who said, in a Glamour interview, "Part of me shut down, put up barriers and became very insular. It was very hard to keep friendships alive during that period." She at no point atribute her loss of friends either to her marriage or to Tom Cruise in any way.
I am just frustrated at the shark-frenzy Tom Cruise-bashing party. It's completely out of hand.
There's an article about his kids being homeschooled. Well, when you film on location around the world, the option is to keep the kids in boarding schools or homeschooling. I'd prefer having my kids near me.
There's an article about TC's kid completing a Scientology course called "Basic Study Manual" - oh, the horror! So, just to get this straight: We're upset because someone's learning how to study. Or, we're upset because a parent exposes his children to his religious values. Or, we just hate TC, for no rational reason??
Reply
7-14-2005 @ 1:32PM
Ex-$cientologist said...
Of course Tom Cruise is wild about $cientology. They let him use a yacht for personal use? What other sort of "perks" are he and his "Celebrity Centre" friend getting? I wonder when the run-of-the-mill $cientologist could expect that sort of "benefit"?
Reply
7-14-2005 @ 2:44PM
truthseeker said...
Let the man be.
He is not taking anything from anyone. If his group allows him to use a yacht what is it to us. We are not scientologists. Let the followers of scientology complain about such thing if they want.
I have never seen him handle himself inapproriately in the public eye or in private. I do not hear of anyone suing him for throwing a tantrum or threatening anyone. HE IS A GENTLEMAN.
As far as Nichole is concerned; if it was not for her marriage to Tom she would have made one film in Hollywood and would have gone back to where she came from. Thanks to Tom's high profile for Nichole's success.
Dakota is Dakota. Let the parents deal with such dilemma. They can always take the phone away from her. I bet there is a phone in her home that she has access to and let's not forget the public phones all around the country.
PLEASE LEAVE THE MAN "TOM" ALONE.
Reply
7-14-2005 @ 4:05PM
Greg said...
You did blame it on Cruise. You said, and I quote, "Nicole Kidman says that her *marriage to Cruise* wrecked long term friendships because *her husband* was so private." (emphasis added.)
I see you're quoting ContactMusic. It is they who MISquoted Kidman, who said, in a Glamour interview, "Part of me shut down, put up barriers and became very insular. It was very hard to keep friendships alive during that period." She at no point atribute her loss of friends either to her marriage or to Tom Cruise in any way.
I am just frustrated at the shark-frenzy Tom Cruise-bashing party. It's completely out of hand.
There's an article about his kids being homeschooled. Well, when you film on location around the world, the option is to keep the kids in boarding schools or homeschooling. I'd prefer having my kids near me.
There's an article about TC's kid completing a Scientology course called "Basic Study Manual" - oh, the horror! So, just to get this straight: We're upset because someone's learning how to study. Or, we're upset because a parent exposes his children to his religious values. Or, we just hate TC, for no rational reason??
Reply
7-14-2005 @ 5:41PM
Finished.Law.School said...
Cruise is the new Michael Jackson celebrity wacko.
Reply
7-14-2005 @ 6:25PM
Dave said...
The scientology ship IS available to the 'rank and file Scientologist', normal kids DO play pretend (as do some adults). Was it Nicoles sisters hubands friends maids second cousin that was the source of that story? Or a reputable source like a REPORTER !And no one "reported" on the awsome food that must have been enjoyed at the party!
I hear some reporters actually go out and find out whats what about something.
Please actually do some reporting, instead of 'pretending' !
Reply
7-14-2005 @ 7:16PM
Greg said...
To Finished.Law.School:
Michael Jackson is known for buying odd skeletons, plastic surgery and controversy over puported inappropriate behavior with children.
Tom Cruise is known for helping NYC firefighters link, for promoting a drug-free life and for opposing the drugging of our children link. He's also known for his decency to reporters, his long walkabouts signing autographs and shaking fans' hands at premieres, and for being a passionate activist for human rights.
Comparing the two is a bit of a stretch.
Reply
7-14-2005 @ 8:09PM
Greg said...
[reposting because links didn't come out right]
To Finished.Law.School:
Michael Jackson is known for buying odd skeletons, plastic surgery and controversy over puported inappropriate behavior with children.
Tom Cruise is known for helping NYC firefighters, for championing literacy campaigns, for promoting a drug-free life and for opposing the drugging of our children. He's also known for his decency to reporters, his long walkabouts signing autographs and shaking fans' hands at premieres, and for being a passionate activist for human rights.
Comparing the two is a bit of a stretch.
Reply
7-15-2005 @ 1:25AM
Michael Nguyen said...
Peter, I feel the same way about Dakota Fanning. I'm not sure why, but she gives me that weird undead feeling.
Like some 50 year old trapped in a 10 year old body. She's an amazing actress for her age, but she creeps me out none the less.
Reply
7-15-2005 @ 3:06AM
JH said...
Maybe kids are just people in young bodies?
Reply
7-15-2005 @ 5:05AM
truthseeker said...
Finished law school and this is the smartest thing you can come up with? You poor thing! Your teachers must've laughed their asses off at your graduation. They should be thrown in jail and have you defend them for playing such cruel trick on you.
Reply
7-15-2005 @ 6:52AM
Ash said...
Dakota Fanning is creepy, I saw her on Leno, she's more mature than me. Truthseeker, you are a bitter person. Cruise is wacko, the difference between him and Jackson is that he molests people with religion. Honestly, everytime he talks about Scientology, I can feel him existentially molesting me.
Reply
7-18-2005 @ 4:53AM
lsm said...
What about all the news about the people who are backing Tom up that doesn't appear in your summary? I find it quite suspicious that the NJ governor backing Brooke Shields gets center stage, when Kelly Preston, Kirstey Alley, Charlotte Church, several other celebrities a list of about 25 doctors and renowned professionals backing Cruise on his lashing out against psychiatry, barely gets any mention in comparison. But I guess it's not so supprising when I also happen to know that members of the Wyeth family (Wyeth Pharmaceuticals) are major contributors to various press organizations.
Reply