I get that you guys think that I’m jumping to spurious conclusions or whatever by assuming that Aniston’s rep plants or at least signs off on a lot of these stories about her. When that junk is in US Weekly, though, it makes me wonder. They’ve run a ton of very in depth Aniston-friendly stories lately. US has even been touting the Aniston-camp version of the timeline of her relationship with Justin Theroux too, and at least at one point was trying to smooth over those homewrecking rumors that his ex girlfriend mom’s pretty much confirmed.

So two weeks ago US ran a cover story about how Aniston and Theroux were trying for a baby. That must have been a good seller for them because they have a very similar story this week about Jen’s Baby Countdown. It’s kind of ridiculous to me, but it’s standard tabloid fare. Here’s a little of US’ story.

Jennifer Aniston – in attendance [at an anniversary party for Ellen and Portia] “wasn’t drinking alcohol,” says one partygoer of the star, who is usually spotted at parties clutching a cocktail. “And she looked pregnant. People were noticing and talking about it like it was a fact.”

If the actress has her way, it will be soon. After six years of broken relationships, the star knows she’s found The One…

“She has been telling those close to her that this is the year she’s going to get pregnant,” says a friend of the 42-year-old actress…

“The plan is to get pregnant this summer, said the friend…”

“[Theroux] is 100 percent on board – the last few months they have been in baby-making mode.”

[From US Weekly, print edition, September 5, 2011]

Then they go on to give circumstantial evidence that Jen is either pregnant or really close to being pregnant. She slept late on her Hawaiian vacation, she skipped breakfast once “because just the thought of food turned her stomach,” and she quit smoking and drinking. Plus she’s supposedly gained a little weight. Then the article mentioned that she’s moving into a new home with Theroux in L.A. that they just bought. It’s all very Aniston-friendly and touts how great and perfect her relationship is.

Life & Style has another Aniston pregnancy story. They’re claiming “It’s Twins!” Only as Jezebel explains, the real article is all about how Aniston wants to get pregnant with twins. Typical, and very familiar.

In March I did a recap of past Aniston fake pregnancy cover stories, so given the latest rumors I would recommend that you revisit those for some sh*ts and giggles. (I would include them here but with the other two recent tabloid covers it could get confusing.) The Aniston pregancy rumors go way back, and she’s been pregnant or adopting or rumored to be pregnant ever since the triangle started.

So is this US Weekly thing a kind of nod to those covers, like an acknowledgement that the rumors only help Aniston’s career? She’ll tell you in interviews how much she wants kids, so I think the answer is “yes.” There are a couple of other possibilities. Either US is making this story up because Aniston pregnancy covers sell or she really is pregnant and her people are trying to prepare us. That would be a shocker after all the years of tabloids crying wolf.

Tabloid covers via Jezebel Other photos from 7/20/11 at the UK Horrible Bosses premiere. Credit: WENN.com

As Kaiser recently mentioned, Bennifer 1.0 were hilarious together and such good gossip. They starred in a God-awful movie, they hit every red carpet, they did interviews, dumbass music videos and canceled a huge Hollywood wedding at the very last minute. So now that Lopez is divorcing the guy she married a hot minute after splitting with Ben, the gossip press is trying to create a new triangle. Affleck is married with a family but his wife is also high profile and it would be some very good gossip if he went back to Lopez. We’ve already heard that Lopez’s mom e-mailed Affleck for “marriage advice” about her daughter’s crumbling relationship. The next step is to wonder when Affleck is going to go crawling back to Lopez, or if she’ll crook his finger and he’ll come running, married or not. Affleck isn’t about to go there again, he’s learned his lesson. I doubt OK!’s story that he’s even spoken to Lopez recently. Still, it’s fun to consider. Here’s some of OK!’s report:

“They’re talking,” OK! can exclusively reveal. A Lopez colleague confirms that “they’ve spoken more than once.”

There will definitely be a rekindling if J.Lo’s mom, Guadalipe, has anything to say about it. As one pal tells OK!, “She was devastated when the engagement was called off…

“She is already trying to plant the seed in Jennifer’s brain that she should reach out to Ben as a friend,” adds another insider. “Guadalupe knows he’s married, and it’s not like she’s telling her daughter to have an affair. But she’s hoping that Ben and J.Lo, who have stayed in touch occasionally over the years, can be there for each other to help ease the pain of divorce. Then, when that period passes, maybe they’ll be back together if he’s available again. And truth be told, I don’t think J.Lo hates the idea either…”

Is Ben ready to take the leap again? At the very least, he seems to have opened the door.

“He did reach out to Jennifer as soon as she announced the split, basically offering her a shoulder to cry on,” an insider tells OK!. “It was a real comfort to Jennifer that he was thinking of her.”

[From OK! Magazine, August 8, 2011]

Even if it’s accurate that Ben talked to J.Lo after the news of her divorce broke (although I doubt it), it’s not like he’s going to get romantic with her again. He went through all that already. Plus the guy is married, no matter the state of his relationship. He doesn’t want another longterm girlfriend, he probably just wants some strange without strings. I’m not saying he would go there, just that it doesn’t make sense for him to want to go back to the woman he was with before his wife.

Kaiser reminded me of this blind item that seems to be about Ben and his marriage to Jennifer Garner. It reads, in part, “This celebrity couple is pregnant… But he is just not that into being a husband and father, and was looking for a way out of the marriage. In fact, he already had one foot out the door. Why? Because an ex of his is going to be back on the market soon, and he was excited about giving that relationship another shot.” I think this is definitely about Affleck, Garner and Lopez, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. I’m pretty sure Garner is not pregnant and was just wearing a loose top recently, and again it’s not like Affleck is clamoring to get back with that diva.

Oh and I just have to mention that Affleck’s very ugly new wiglet/flat iron hair is for a role. It’s not a proactive measure to keep Lopez away. We all know that she isn’t easily deterred anyway, considering that her estranged husband looks like a cadaver.

These photos are from 2003.

Photo credit: Fame, PRPhotos and WENN

This story is in Star Magazine, so it could be a pile of hooey, or it could be a valid scoop. Either way, it’s only slightly damning in that it makes it sound like Kate Hudson’s fiance and soon-to-be-born baby’s father, Muse Singer Matthew Bellamy, was promiscuous. At least he allegedly was until he hooked up with Kate. Right before Bellamy met the lackluster romcom actress, he is said to have had a three day fling with a groupie in which they didn’t use protection and the young girl fell pregnant. (I love the British way of phrasing that, as if it was a little accident.) The poor girl tried to contact Matt and was unable to, and ultimately lost the baby.

Star Mag – A lady who slept with Muse singer Matthew Bellamy right before he hooked up with Kate Hudson says Matt betrayed her. Sophia Bloxam claims that she met Matt via MySpace (?!?!) and they had an intense email relationship. Finally, she saw him in the flesh at a show, after which the twosome “shacked up” in a hotel for a “two-night, three-day sex marathon. Sophia says they had unprotected sex at least eight times, and that Matt knew she was not on birth control, but was “fine with that.” Later he texted her, “There is a good chance you could be pregnant, as we used no contraception.” She texted back that everything would be fine, and that whatever the outcome was “we would be ok.” WTF does that mean? She wanted to get knocked up? Anyway. Sophia found out she was pregs and tried to call and text Matt, who refused to return her messages. She wanted to see him at Cochella and tell him the news in person, but felt too ill. Later she found out that he met Kate Hudson at Coachella. Soon after that, Sophia suffered a miscarriage. It doesn’t seem like Sophia and Matt were dating —- sounds more like a one-night-stand gone cuckoo, but Sophia warns Kate: “He has an issue with fidelity.”

[Star Magazine via Jezebel]

You know, it could be true that someone told this to Star. Muse is huge and Bellamy probably has some really delusional fans. I’m not saying that it’s not possible that a rock star had unprotected sex with a fan he met online. (Although the MySpace part is ridic.) It surely happens constantly. It’s just that this story is too convenient in that the girl miscarried and that she never got to contact the rock star again. Plus how did he anticipate that she could be pregnant? I know they weren’t using protection, but it sounds too contrived. It reads like fan fiction, especially since it’s coming out well into Kate Hudson’s pregnancy and not earlier.

In related news, US Magazine has information about Kate and Matthew’s wedding plans. According to US, she isn’t going to start planning “until after the baby arrives” and she wants a big wedding. They quote a source who claims “Her first wedding was done quickly and a lot of her friends weren’t there. So now she wants to have a big, fancy party.” I bet we’ll be seeing a baby photo spread with Kate and eventually some wedding pictures in People. She so seems like the type.

Photos of Kate and Matt are from 2/4/11 (limo) and from 4/10/11 (walking candids). Kate is shown out on 5/3/11 (yellow dress) and 4/27/11 (black dress) Credit: WENN.com and Fame

Jennifer Aniston appears on the cover of OK! in what looks like a repeat of so many of their earlier covers. It’s all about Jen and the baby she says she might eventually have. Here are some other cover stories OK! has run in the past couple of years that are variations on this theme: (And OK! is not the only offender)

July 5, 2010: “Yes! I am Having a Baby”

April 19, 2010 “Confirmed: Finally, a Baby for Jen!”

October 5, 2009 Exclusive: Pregnant at 40!”

Without reading this latest article at all, I think it’s safe to assume that it’s a rehash of Aniston’s old quotes accompanied by some “insider” quotes about how she needs something more in life, and is making a change by selling her house at a ridiculously inflated price. (Note: I wrote that before I even read the teaser article.) We get the digital edition of OK! Magazine today, so if it contains any groundbreaking quotes or information I’ll update this story. As it is, it sounds like all they do is jump to conclusions, as is typical for so many tabloids. (And us.) Here’s OK!’s take on this:

Jennifer Aniston spent two years at her renovated $13.5 million Beverly Hills estate only to wake up one morning to realize that the Zen-influenced wide-open floor plan of her home was not family-friendly. “It’s no place to raise a baby,” she confided in a friend, when she put the expansive 10,000-square-foot property on the market for $42 million on Feb. 18. The actress, 42, is so concentrated on her future as a mom that she’s willing to make enormous sacrifices, like selling the house she loved so much, we report in the new issue of OK!, on sale everywhere Thursday.

“She felt the Beverly Hills home was too sprawling and unmanageable for a new mom,” explains another confidante. “She’s renovating her old Hollywood Hills home, where she lived when she met Brad Pitt, because she thinks it’s a smaller and a better-laid-out home for a baby. She’s keeping a baby in mind as she’s looking for a place in New York, too.”

[From OK!]

Well, if Aniston would just take a page from Cameron Diaz and say “motherhood is not in my future” the tabloids would stop this business – maybe. As it is, she told People Magazine that we should “relax, it’s [motherhood] going to happen” so it’s like she’s inviting speculation. At least we’re still talking about her, although I think that OK! is behind the times. They should have gone with a Charlie Sheen cover this week. Plus, Robert Pattinson may have just called his relationship with Kristen Stewart “traumatic.” They were running Twilight love story covers for months. You think they would be all over that.

Katie Holmes is reportedly set to sue Star Magazine for a cover story they ran on her last month with the title “Addiction Nightmare: Katie Drug Shocker.” We covered that story, which just claimed that Katie was addicted to the Scientology cult’s auditing sessions with a crude lie detector called an “e-meter.” Former Scientologists told Star that treatments could be addicting in a way that mimicked drug addiction. As I mentioned back then, I think Star took the wrong angle on the story, because there are plenty more scary, terrible, mind-altering things that Scientology does to members that they could have focused on. Scientology basically stripped Nicole Kidman from access to her children and if Katie leaves Tom she probably fears she’d lose custody of Suri. That angle has been played out by the tabloids, though, so they had to find a new one.

Katie’s rep told The Wrap that she’s about to take out a lawsuit again American Media, the parent company that owns Star:

Katie Holmes is expected to file a libel lawsuit in federal court on Tuesday seeking $50 million in damages from American Media Inc., owner of Star magazine, TheWrap has learned.

The actress and wife of Tom Cruise is furious that the tabloid ran a cover that she considers deliberately defamatory, suggesting that she used drugs, according to her representative who spoke to TheWrap….

“The cover is libellous no matter what they say inside the magazine,” said the representative.

The tabloid frequently targets Holmes and Cruise as fodder for the celebrity gossip mill, most often suggesting that their marriage is in trouble, they’re about to separate, and Holmes is miserable.

In the past, Star has lamented Holmes’ “tortured life.” In October, the tabloid said that the couple’s “marriage contract collapses.”

To prove libel is difficult in U.S. courts. The plaintiff must prove defamation occurred, and that injury to their reputation happened as a result.

[From The Wrap via We Smirch]

I doubt this will be successful at all. It’s notoriously hard to successfully sue a tabloid in America for damages and celebrities rarely do it because it’s not worth the trouble. Katie and Tom’s people are going after Star to try and get them to stop running stories on them.

In October they ran “Tom & Katie: Broken Home – Marriage Deal Falls Apart”

In November it was Suri & Shiloh “Nannies Tell All”

In December it was “Separated: Fed Up Katie Leaving Tom”

A couple of weeks ago they ran “FBI Probe: Tearing Tom and Katie Apart”

Katie and Tom are hoping that Star and other tabloids get the message that they’re not to be messed with. Lawsuits are a common tactic of the very litigious Scientology cult and are often meant to harass anyone that dares question them or their illegal practices. I’m surprised these two haven’t filed a lawsuit sooner. That’s not to say that Star has the right to run misleading cover stories about Katie and Tom or their family, just that it’s hard to sue over it in the US. Maybe TomKat should take a hint from Brad and Angelina and sue a British tabloid first. Suits against tabloids in the UK seem to have a higher success rate.

Update: Tom Cruise successfully sued a gay porn actor for $10 million in 2001 after the man claimed he had an affair with Cruise. It’s unknown whether Cruise has ever collected and the man claimed he didn’t have the money anyway. Cruise also successfully sued The Daily Express, a British publication, in England in 1998 for a story claiming his marriage with Nicole Kidman was a sham. He accepted undisclosed damages for that story. Cruise has never sued a US tabloid from what I can find, although he did threaten to sue a publication called The Beast in 2004 for calling him one of the most loathsome people of the year.

Before you call me a cynic for dismissing a sweet would-be love story between two popular young musicians, please consider that both of these kids are under the same record label, Universal Republic, that this story just happened to come out on Valentine’s Day, and that it involves songs they recorded for each other. It’s a tale so sickly sweet and so obviously planted that it deserves its own category on Snopes – “celebrity glurge.”

Anyway Taylor Swift has a song about some guy she met that she was hoping to date. It’s said to be about a guy named Adam Young, who is the lead singer of a band called “Owl City.” You probably know them from that cute “Fireflies” song that gets annoying when you’ve heard it for the twentieth time. Kind of like Taylor herself, who is facing overexposure with this latest stunt. Adam somehow figured out that Taylor’s song “Enchanted” is about him and he did his own version of the song and released it on his website on Valentine’s day.

Adam Young, an electro-pop musician from the band Owl City with the ubiquitous hit “Fireflies,” posted a gushing online message and song about the country star after figuring out that her song, “Enchanted,” is about likely about him.

Young writes that he decoded Swift’s song by stringing together the upper-case letters in the printed lyrics on her album and realizing they spell out “A-D-A-M.”

“I’m so tremendously honored that Taylor would write such an elegant song and thereby offer a gracious nod in my direction,” he writes on his band’s blog. “Needless to say, I was lost for words and utterly smitten. I couldn’t stop smiling.”

He reciprocates the gesture with his recorded interpretation of Swift’s “Enchanted,” writing:

“Everything about you is beautiful. You’re an immensely charming girl with a wonderful heart and more grace and elegance than I know how to describe. … I’m terribly sorry it’s taken me such a long time to reply but I figured Valentine’s Day was the perfect time to write this note to you and simply say. … I was enchanted to meet you too.”

Swift and Young have a friendship that dates back at least to September 2009 when Swift sent him a Tweet before one of his shows in New York. “If I was in town, I’d be there! Front row, super-fan style,” she wrote at the time.

A week later, Swift was spotted in the VIP balcony of Young’s sold-out Bowery Ballroom show, dancing and singing along to his 90-minute set. Backstage afterwards, they snapped a photo together and Young Tweeted, “Wow. Tonight was magical.”

According to M magazine, the feeling was mutual, but Swift put it in the song “Enchanted.”

“It was about this guy that I met in New York City, and I had talked to him on email before, but I had never met him,” Swift told the magazine in November 2010. “Meeting him, it was just this overwhelming feeling of, ‘I really hope that you’re not in love with somebody.’ And the whole entire way home, I just remember … sitting there thinking, am I ever gonna talk to this person again? It was that feeling of pining away for a romance that may never even happen.”

Neither rep offered comment. Swift is in Asia on the first leg of her sold-out “Speak Now” tour. Young’s sophomore album, All Things Bright and Beautiful, will be released on May 24.

[From People]

All you need to know about that story is in the last two lines plugging their latest ventures.

What’s next for them – a whirlwind romance and breakup followed by songs on each side chronicling their relationship? It’s a better idea for Taylor than dating Jake Gyllenhaal. In that relationship only Taylor was (presumably) capable of belting out an angst-ridden poem about the heartbreak that comes with seeing the end of your fake romance in the pages of US Weekly.

Header photo from Universal Republic. Photos below credit: WENN.com

It was just about a year ago that US Weekly claimed that Jennifer Aniston “stole” Angelina Jolie’s look because she dared to wear a dress of a completely different fabric, color and cut that just happened to have a sexy thigh high slit, a designer gown feature that has been popular for years.

Aniston recently wore a strapless black dress with a long sheer skirt, somewhat similar but in no way identical to Angelina’s strapless Elie Saab from the 2009 Oscars. This is not even close to a “who wore it best?” moment, as Aniston’s Dolce & Gabbana dress has a different bodice, neckline, design and fit than Angelina’s. They’re both black dresses with some superficially similar details though, so US is going to go there. Their headline reads “Jennifer Aniston copies Angelina Jolie’s style.” As wrong as they are, I admire that they’re one of the last mainstream celebrity outlets that is willing to be so provocative and bitchy. They sure have it out for Aniston, though, and that’s been true for some time.

Aniston is not my favorite person because I like my celebrities to be able to string a sentence together, but even I will admit that this is a cheap shot. Is she supposed to have her people review all of Angelina’s outfits for the past several years to ensure that she choses something that’s radically different for every event? If Aniston starts wearing shapeless boat neck dresses (and you know that’s not going to happen) then they can make a comparison. She should do it just to get people talking smack, since they’re going to do it anyway.

In related news about Aniston and the Just Go With It premiere, Heidi Montag has backtracked on her comments that Aniston had her banned from the red carpet. The way Heidi explained her gaffe makes it sound like she made up the story.

Oh and it’s also Aniston’s 42nd birthday today! Hope it’s a good one with lots of sun and plenty of margaritas. Or, you know, like any other day for her. Must be nice.

Here’s a piece from The Daily Mail that could be total crap, but it’s still fun to repeat. Supposedly Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes aren’t going to the Oscars this year because Anne Hathaway is co-hosting with James Franco. Hathaway did a hilarious Katie Holmes impression on Saturday Night Live a couple of months ago, to which Holmes is said to have taken offense. The Holmes-Cruises are said to be avoiding the Oscars because they don’t want to run into Hathaway, who they used to be friendly with.

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes may boycott next month’s Oscars ceremony because they don’t want an awkward red carpet confrontation with the host, Anne Hathaway.

The 28-year-old actress, who will be presenting the 83rd Academy Awards alongside 127 Hours actor James Franco, upset Katie by mocking her on U.S.comedy show Saturday Night Live in November.

Anne was guest-presenting the comedy show when she mimicked Katie in a sketch, speaking in breathy tones and constantly tucking her hair behind her ear.
‘Tom and Katie don’t want to have to cross paths with Anne,’ says a Hollywood source.

‘They used to be friends and took Anne to a Tina Turner concert in 2008 when Anne split up from her boyfriend Raffaello Follieri.

‘Katie feels they were really supportive at a difficult time so she feels let down that Anne took to national TV to make fun of her.
‘Anne didn’t even warn her it was going to be on TV.’

Anne’s new film, Love And Other Drugs, is directed by Tom’s old friend Ed Zwick, who directed him in The Last Samurai.

‘The whole thing has left a sour taste with Tom,’ adds the source.

A spokesman for Cruise said he had yet to decide whether he will attend the Oscars, adding: ‘It’s too early to confirm – it depends on shoot schedules.’

[From The Daily Mail]

This would be believable if Cruise and Holmes have ever actually gone to the Oscars together. From what I can find, Cruise hasn’t been to the Oscars in a few years and Holmes has never gone. (They went to the Vanity Fair Oscar party in 2007, but not to the ceremony that I can find.) Their Scientology buddies John Travolta and Kelly Preston go to the Academy Awards more than they do. Here’s why I think they don’t go to the Oscars – it has to do with Tom’s ex wife, Nicole Kidman, who is usually presenting or being nominated for something. Kidman goes basically every year. If Kidman is nominated for that Rabbit Hole movie Tom isn’t going to go and risk having to see her. It’s not like either Katie or Tom is going to be nominated for anything this year, but you know “Kate” would love to be a presenter if they’d have her. I doubt she consults Tom on anything lately.

Tom, Katie and Suri are shown out in NY on 12/20/10 and in Prague on 9/22/10. (Katie is carrying the doll carriage in those pics.) Credit: WENN.com

Star Magazine has a truly infuriating story this week from a young model who claims that Johnny Depp took an interest in her on the set of the latest Pirates movie and tried to offer her help with her career. All she offers to prove her story is a picture of her posing with Johnny in costume, and she doesn’t claim that she ever had anything going on with him, just that he hugged her too long at one point, kissed her head and tried to contact her afterwards. Johnny is incredibly generous and friendly with all his fans, he calls them his employers, and this sounds like a model trying to get some free publicity by claiming a relationship with the star that doesn’t exist. This whole story pisses me the hell off, because it’s just a fangirl gushing about Johnny. There aren’t any allegations of wrongdoing on Johnny’s part, it’s just implied.

The chemistry was undeniable when Johnny Depp gazed into the eyes of stunning model Kristen StephensonPino on the set of Pirates of the Caribbean: On stranger Tides. Later, holed up in his trailer together, Johnny whispered the words millions of women around the world could only dream of hearing. “He was like, Darlking you’re exquisite – you’re by far the most beautiful girl I’ve ever seen,” the 5’5″ dirty blonde tells Star in an exclusive tell all interview. “It was one-on-one, I was in there for a few hours, and that’s, like, everyone’s ideal lover boy. He’s just the whole package!”

Kristen caught the actor’s attention [On the Pirate's set where she was a boob model or something] and he pounced. Johnny, still in costume, immediately had his personal makeup artist, Joel, call the 19 year-old over. “They had just left the set, and all of a sudden Joel looked at me and waved his hand to come talk to them,” says Kristen. “Johnny shook my hand and then kissed it – it was supercute. His hands were soft,” she dishes. “All of a sudden, my heart just stopped.”

Despite the electricity crackling between the two, the encounter was brief. But later, when Kristen was getting ready to leave the set at the end of the day, Johnny’s makeup artist again stopped her and brought her back to his boss’ trailer to hang out. “Johnny was already out of costume, and we just started talking,” she says.

And flirting. Kristen teased Johnny, telling him she had a crush on his one-time Pirates costar Orlando Bloom. “I was like, ‘I’ll take you and Orlando Bloom! That’s the only way you can get me,” she tells Star of their sexy banter.

But Johnny quickly crushed any possible competition for her affection, she reveals. “He starts laughing and goes, ‘Honey, no, no, no, no. I don’t share with anybody. You either get me or me, and that’s it.

Kristen continued to toy with Johnny, telling him that her really big crush was on David Bowie. She joked that he rocker wasn’t her husband only because they hadn’t met yet. Adds Kristen: “Johnny looks over at his makeup artist,” who had entered the trailer, “and he says, ‘So – she likes older men!’”

Johnny quickly made another play for her, Kristen says. “I was talking to him about stuff, and he was like, ‘Actually I’m really more of a shy type.’ When he told me that I was like, ‘Awwww!’”

Johnny then got more intimate, kissing Kristen’s forehead. “He goes, ‘You’re extremely sweet,’” Kristen confides to Star, adding that Johnny proceeded to embrace her. “It was a sincere hug – it wasn’t like a good bye.”

Indeed. Johnny found a clever way to keep in touch with Kristen on the sly. He told her to communicate with his makeup artist if she ever needed anything, says Kristen. “They were like, ‘We guarantee we’ll see you again.’”

Johnny tried hard to keep his promise. Kristen says the star’s makeup man, Joel, who travels everywhere with the actor, offered her a yearlong gig as his assistant. Perfect cover, insists the set insider. “Johnny’s motivations were more than clear! He wanted her with him. But Kristen declined because she wants to concentrate on her acting and modeling careers. Still, what could be better for your career than hanging out with Johnny?”

One major reason why Kristen didn’t drop everything for Johnny? She also has a thing for guys her age – especially 22 year-old pro surfer Torrey Meister, whom she’s been dating for about a year.

But Johnny was so smitten with Kristen that he tried more charming ploys even after he left Hawaii. “After the production moved to Los Angeles, he had the casting people contact her several times to say he would fly her out there for a small part as a mermaid,” dishes the set insider, revealing that Kristen said she had a family emergency and turned them down. Kristen confesses that “Johnny put in a good word for me.”

[From Star Magazine, print edition, December 27, 2010]

First of all, this chick is only 5’5″ tall and she wants to be a model. The story is full of modeling photos of her, including some where she’s compared side by side with Vanessa Paradis and Kate Moss. This sounds like bullsh*t, like she was hanging around and Johnny was being nice to her, and she took it the wrong way. Maybe the makeup artist was into her and Johnny was just being friendly. She alternately could have also made up the entire story for publicity. If she was offered a yearlong gig as Johnny’s assistant or a part in Pirates, why didn’t she take either offer? This whole story reeks.

Photo of Kristen from ModelMayhem. Johnny Depp is shown at the Spanish premiere of The Tourist on 12/16/10. photo credit: Sean Thornton/WENN.com

I wanted to report on the National Enquirer’s “Angie’s violent rages at Shiloh” cover story complete with a photo of a crying Shiloh and the subtitle “The screaming and slapping.” The “slapping” is a photo of Maddox looking like he’s about to smack his brother Pax at the airport (photo here) while Angelina is clearly telling them to knock it off. The “screaming” is Shiloh having a tantrum, and I think most of us moms know that happens. As for Angelina’s “violent rages” the Enquirer doesn’t even suggest that she abuses her kids or is in any way violent, just that she loses her temper and gets annoyed when her kids act out. The only concrete example they have is her telling Shiloh to “get it together.” I know it’s typical of the Enquirer to run bait and switch covers to move copies, but since this one implies abuse I think it’s really uncalled for. Here are the relevant excerpts:

“Angie’s nerves are frayed and she’s at her breaking point,” an insider told the Enquirer.

“Angie is trying to be the perfect mom who effortlessly juggles six kids, a hectic film schedule, humanitarian work and constant globe-trotting.

“But it’s not easy. Behind closed doors, she can be very impatient and have a hair-trigger temper. Sometimes Angie snaps and unleashes a torrent of fury on the often unruly kids…”

While recently in Paris… an overstressed Angelina unloaded on Shiloh after the blonde tomboy threw a temper tantrum. It was planned as a fun, carefree girls-only day at the Aquarium de Paris on Nov. 30, but fussy Shiloh pushed Angie to her breaking point.

“On the ride over, the usually carefree Shiloh was whiny and belligerent,” revealed the insider.

“The kids’ sleeping schedules are out of whack from constant travel and trying to adjust to different time zones, so Shiloh was worn out…”

The actress was teetering on the bring of a meltdown when her minivan pulled up to a side entrance of the aquarium with a misbehaving Shiloh.

“A fed up Angie growled at her daughter, ‘Get it together – NOW,’” said the insider.

“Angie wanted to make a picture perfect exit from the car, but Shiloh was being disagreeable. A few minutes later as they came out of the van, Shiloh looked like she had been crying.

“She is the most sensitive of the kids, and she’s also daddy’s little girl. While Brad always coddles her, Angie is far more stern.”

[From The National Enquirer, print edition, December 20, 2010]

That’s it? Are you kidding me? Angelina told Shiloh to “get it together” and that’s a “violent rage”? Photos of that Aquarium drop off are here, and Angie looks pissed but Shiloh looks fine. The article goes on to say that their house is chaotic and “it is as if the kids are always kicking, punching, slapping and screaming at one another. With Maddox and Pax as the alpha dogs of the brood, fighting and roughhousing are the norm.” They also state that Brad is “calm and collected” and “always picks up the pieces after Angie’s rampages.” There is no other example of Angie’s alleged temper other than those two incidents, one where she told Shiloh to get it together and another where she told Maddox not to smack Pax. (Both have mild photographic ‘evidence’ as shown in the story.)

Here’s what I think – The Enquirer has a photo of Shiloh crying for whatever reason (kids cry) and another photo of Maddox looking like he’s playfully smacking Pax. (Kids act out.) Angie looks annoyed and fed up, as any mom with six kids would be. This article is all speculation and filling in the blanks, and they’re making normal kid stuff sound ominous while playing on the perception that Angie is a nasty out of control person behind closed doors. I doubt they know more than anyone else about her. Even in these allegations, there’s nothing “violent” suggested.

Here are photos of Angelina out with the kids in NY on 12/7/10. Credit: Fame Pictures. Header via CoverAwards