Tag Archives: celebrity gossip

What the wha?

I’ve been working all morning in a very small, windowless room, and when I finally came up for air, what headline greeted me?

Taylor Swift and Jake Gyllenhaal Are Dating

Wow…how long was I in there?

These two seems words apart to me, but when I looked it up on imdb.com, it turns out Taylor is 21 and Jake’s only 30.  Still…she seems like a really young 21, and he is kinda old for his years.

So where does that net out? Taylor’s practically dating her dad….or someone who could be her dad in the mental sense.  Still, Jake is probably a whole lot better looking than her dad.  (Just guessing…never seen the man.)

But why would Jake date Taylor?  She is the total antithesis of Reese Witherspoon, his last great love.  Reese is the divorced mother of two kids, and from all reports, Jake was super serious.

The perfect antidote?  Date a young blond thing that is so far from marriage or thoughts of  a serious relationship that you’re guaranteed a fairly stress-free good time.

And it’s shouldn’t strain on your brain, either.

Of course, that’s assuming the reports are even true.  They were sighted together at “Saturday Night Live;” in Brooklyn near Maggie Gyllenhaal’s home; and out together for Sunday brunch.  Sounds like something-something to me!

Oh well, back into the windowless room.  No doubt they’ll both be dating someone else by the time I come out.

Get smart

Dear Anne Hathaway:

Rumor has it you’ve picked another winner…

Current boyfriend Adam Shulman reportedly stole part of an art mural — where do they come up with this stuff?? — and the building owner wants it back, or he’s calling the police.

Bi-zarre.

Admittedly, it’s not nearly as bad as your former boyfriend,  ’embezzler to the Vatican’ Raffaello Follieri, who’s currently serving a 4 1/2-year prison sentence for ‘misappropriating investments’…but still.

Far be it from me to dole out relationship advice — ’cause I’m not — but I do want to point out some obvious physical characteristics that both Adam and Raffaello share. You might want to avoid them in the future (because they seem to have consistently attracted you in the past).

  1. Sloping eyes — You may consider this feature dreamy.  I see shifty…and their behavior has followed suit.
  2. Rounded nose — Rounded, no doubt, from being stuck too often where it doesn’t belong.
  3. Tan — Too much time on their hands.

I hope this brief catalog of traits to avoid has been helpful.

Oh — and a background check wouldn’t hurt either.

VIP villian

Hollywood has a new favorite bad boy, and I’m not talking tabloid headlines.

(That was yesterday’s blog.)

No, the villian-of-the-moment is Mark Strong, a London-born actor who studied at the Old Vic Theatre School.  If you can’t place the name, don’t worry.  You’ve seen him (or soon will) as the evil Lord Blackwood in “Sherlock Holmes,” and as the not-to-be-trusted royal adviser John Conroy in “The Young Victoria.”

Mark Strong looks like a younger, slightly more coiffed version of Stanley Tucci, and his ability to fell people with a single glance makes him an exceptional bad guy.  He also has another half-dozen films in various stages of production — according to his imdb.com profile — so we will have many more chances to see him be the downfall of himself — or others — in the next few years.

One quick note — imdb.com also reveals that Mark played ultimate good guy Mr. Knightley in a 1996 television version of  “Emma” opposite Kate Beckinsale…so there must be a hero in there somewhere.

Bad guys are just more fun.

Lower still

Oh, the tabloid media.  They’ll do just about anything to sell magazines.

Just ask Tiger Woods.

And now the more legitimate press is getting in on the action…if you want to include Vanity Fair under that umbrella.

TMZ.com and ‘Access Hollywood’ may have brought us photos of Tiger’s crashed car and collected the names of his ever-growing stable of mistresses, but Vanity Fair ‘got the get’ we’ve all been waiting for —

Tiger’s naked chest.

True, it’s not a photo related to the scandal.  (I don’t think anyone got a shot of his bloodied lip following the car crash, gosh darn it.)  And the Vanity Fair photo spread was snapped long before any of this ugliness took place.  But at least it was taken by celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz, which means the photos are excellent, even if they aren’t really pertinent.

But Vanity Fair is going to make them seem that way.

The article itself?  Pure conjecture.  An interesting comparison between Tiger’s handling of the scandal and George Clooney’s character in the movie “Up in the Air.”  But no interview with Tiger.  No new details about the situation or his future on the tour.

Vanity Fair, you’ve done the tabloids proud.

So shallow, it’s deep

When I started the Sticky Egg, I chose to focus on what some people might consider the ‘fluffier stuff’ of life.

Television. Movies. Celebrities. Fashion.  Websites that talk about television, movies, celebrities and fashion.

It’s what I enjoy.  It’s what makes me laugh and cry and, more often than not, is a reflection of where we stand on the bigger issues in life.

And now even the Vatican is starting to espouse my theology.

In an article in Tuesday’s L’Osservatore Romano (the Vatican newspaper), they praised “The Simpsons” for the ‘realism and intelligence of its scripts’ (even though they still had to ding the series for the language used in some episodes).

While in the past the Pope has condemned television series for their content probably without ever watching them — can you say “Soap?” — now apparently bored Cardinals at the Vatican are watching at least this animated cartoon and getting its relevance to real life.

While I haven’t listened that closely to Rome in many years, I know millions of people do.  So I hope someone shows the Cardinals “Modern Family.”  I’d love for the to Vatican come out — pun intended — in support of that real family sitcom.

Who’s the addict?

I think Seth Meyers said it best on SNL’s Weekend Update:

“Last Friday Tiger Woods hit a tree, and a bunch of ladies fell out.”

Now the news outlets are all Tiger, all the time.  Interviews with his supposed mistresses.  In-depth analysis of the supposed mistresses’ remarks.

In fact,  just this morning, subject matter experts on “The Today Show” were discussing Tiger’s alleged sexual addiction — the signs, the symptoms, the treatments.

Wow.

I’ll bet Tiger is rethinking that whole “this is a personal, family matter that we’d like to keep that way” strategy.

Because, in truth, it doesn’t really matter whether Tiger has 100 mistresses or is a sex addict or is a golf robot (as many other golfers would like to contend).

Whatever addictions he is struggling with are miniscule in comparison to the public’s addiction with celebrities’ personal lives.  We gotta know what happened — every tiny detail, especially if any of them smack of the lude, the crude, or near nude.

Tiger’s first foray into the tabloids has got it all.  And the media is happy to feed the public’s need — because it is a need — to know.

So, really — who is sicker here — the public or Tiger?