“You had me at ‘hello.’ Renee Zellweger to Tom Cruise in “Jerry Maguire.”

——————————

I suppose in the case of Tom’s movie “Valkyrie,” world audiences are essentially saying, “You had me at ‘Heil!’”

“Valkyrie” is the story of Col. Claus von Stauffenberg, a top German officer during World War II, who plotted unsuccessfully to assassinate Adolph Hitler. (During Hitler’s reign of terror there were dozens of plots and plans to dispose of him. Col. von Stauffenberg’s was simply the most famous.)

From the moment the movie was announced, all through shooting and into post-production, “Valkyrie” was predicted to be a huge mistake for Tom, a big flop, a sure sign his days as a box-office champ with an unerring eye to what makes a commercial success, over. The drumbeat against the movie was so bad, I kept wondering if Madonna had a role in the film?! (The pop star’s last few acting attempts were doomed before she set foot in front of the camera. The press often declared the films unsuccessful in advance.)

But Tom Cruise is having the last laugh. Not a huge, wacky, over-the-top Tom-type laugh — kind of leads one to think he’s injecting caffeine straight into a vein. More of a hearty, self-satisfied chuckle. Because, despite all the bad press, all the wishing and hoping Tom would fail, “Valkyrie” has done more than OK. One might classify it as a “modest hit.” It is not the stay-away-bubonic-plague release predicted.

And defying those who said, “Well, even if it does well here in the U.S., they’ll hate it in Europe.” Wrong! Last weekend it opened at the top of the box office in Europe — especially Germany, where it had created a great controversy while filming. 

When all is said and done, “Valkyrie” will turn a profit; remember there are the coming DVD sales which have turned many outright flops into successes.

And I must say, I’ve rarely seen a better PR campaign. The trailers were great, and TV’s History Channel plugged the movie relentlessly. That channel has always aired fascinating programs on World War II and Adolph Hilter. Recently, these appeared in heavy rotation, nonstop. During the commercial breaks, ads for “Valkyrie” were omnipresent. I don’t know if Tom’s United Artists studio made a clever deal with the History Channel, but the success and high profile of the movie benefited from the prominent placement. 

Sorry, folks. The bell has not yet tolled for Tom Cruise.

——————————-

Speaking of Tom, has the ugly objectifying of male and female stars finally equalized? I say yes. Not that that is a good thing, to reverse the famous “Seinfeld” catchphrase.

Tom Cruise, now 46 years old, has been hit with
rumors that he has undergone some sort of surgical procedure to delay the inevitable encroachments of middle age. In Touch magazine, that paragon of veracity, displays comparative pics of Tom. One, from
October, shows him laughing. It is shot from a slightly low angle. Tom looks fine. Just human, with a few human creases.

Next to this, the mag ran a photo of Tom earlier this month, at the Golden Globes. He is not smiling as broadly — less creasing — and is thinner. Much thinner. He looks fine. Handsome. But nothing suggests unnatural intervention. Maybe just a diet.

Actually, I think Tom looks more mature in the “after” pic. And I’m surprised the mags didn’t jump all over the star’s weight loss as a health issue, or more enticingly, "heartbreak” because his marriage to Katie Holmes is in trouble. It is not in trouble so far as I know, but when did
that ever stop the glossies from just making it up?