So he jumped on Oprah’s couch.

So he said psychiatry was a pseudo science. Duh, well so do lots of psychiatrists who freely admit there are no tests for detecting chemical imbalances in the brain causing emotional problems. If fact they’re probably ONLY still in business because there is no such test – no one can prove there aren’t imbalances. It’s a case of trying to prove a negative. So Tom had it right.

So he’s proud of his religion. There’s something wrong with that? I’m proud of my religion, I’m proud I have one. Looking over the blogs that attack Tom or Scientology they all appear to base their vitriol on either: a) no personal knowledge whatsoever of the subjects, or b) judging something by only listening to the exes (those who quit). I don’t put my exes on my CV – how about you? I don’t think they’d give a balanced take on my many good qualities. I think if I were going to offer a public opinion on Scientology I’d read one of the books L. Ron Hubbard published and form my own opinions and express those – not just parrot the whiners.

So why attack Tom? Because they are bigoted and biased, and their infinitesimally small minds can’t do anything more useful. Here’s a classic example. This is from Fox News’ Roger Friedman’s list of the worst films of 2008 #10. VALKYRIE

“I’m being fair. I haven’t seen it. But the reviews so far bear out my original assessment from the first trailer: Tom Cruise plays Jerry Maguire trying to kill Hitler in this ruined account of the 1944 attempt on the Fuhrer’s life. Every review, from the trade mags to the Associated Press (they called Cruise “distractingly bad” yesterday) to today’s New York Post agrees: this was the most dreadful mistake Cruise could have made. I’ve joked about a tag line for the ad: “You had me at achtung.” But it seems on target. Cruise seemed to understand his predicament by taking a cameo in “Tropic Thunder.” But all that good will may be wiped out by this peculiar, misguided endeavor. More to come on Thursday, after “Valkyrie” opens.”

He’s being FAIR??? Um, I thought critics were supposed to actually view the movies they critiqued, but apparently you don’t have to if you’re so mentally and emotionally crippled that you can go into print with statements like ‘ruined account’, ‘dreadful mistake’, ‘misguided endeavor’ based entirely on hearsay or other people’s opinions.

Roger bases his ‘opinion’ on statement by other critics, who judging by Roger, probably didn’t see the film either, or had already written their articles before entering the theatre.

Here’s a positive review by a critic who did actually see the movie: Click Here.
And  some excellent reviews at IMDB by non-professional critics: Here.

I’ve found that going by what the critics say is a good way to miss excellent movies and waste money on clunkers. Whereas, going off the IMDB entries has not yet disappointed me at all. What is it about critics? Tell me they don’t have their own agendas, I dare you.

I think I just figured out why these guys still attack Tom: because he’s not like them and they haven’t been able to dent his popularity.