Logan Lucky (4/5 Stars)

Those searching for a theme to categorize the career of Director Steven Soderbergh will be left searching. He is a man of seemingly unlimited interests. To take just enough examples to prove my point: his projects have ranged from an epic biopic of Che Gueverra, a remake of a Russian science fiction movie, an action movie built around the physicality of a female MMA wrestler, a no-budget movie set in a doll factory starring non-actors, a remake of a rat pack heist movie with the biggest movie stars in the world, a TV show about a hospital in NYC in the year 1900.

Logan Lucky is no exception to the rule that there are no rules. This movie takes place in present day West Virginia and concerns the Logan family’s heist of the Coca Cola NASCAR speedway. You could say it’s like Ocean’s Eleven because it technically is in the same heist genre, but really the movie are not the same at all. Or to put in another way, they are as different as Las Vegas is to Appalachia.

Logan Lucky is a lot of fun. In particular, you sense the deft hand of an experienced storyteller at work in what Soderbergh chooses to leave out of scenes. How the heist itself works is not really explained fully beforehand, so we experience how it works as the heist progresses. This was probably a good move because the heist, being somewhat realistic, is also not super complicated (as opposed to say Ocean’s Eleven). It does succeed in passing the Heist Test, a test I’m making up now (although it probably already exists somewhere).

The Heist Test consists merely of watching the movie and spotting some obvious clue that the authorities have been shown in the movie that should tip them off to the perpetrators. An example of a movie that fails the Heist Test is Spike Lee’s “Inside Man.” In that movie, the robbers make all their hostages shed their clothes, put on the same uniform as the robbers, and they all walk out the front door. The authorities could have easily just had all the hostages put their clothes back on. The people without any clothes to put back on are the robbers. Heist solved. The authorities in “Inside Man” don’t do this thus that movie fails the Heist test.

I think Logan Lucky passes the Heist Test. It does this in a nifty way by transforming the Heist of a Speedway more into an insurance scam. That is it takes away anyone’s motive for solving the heist. That sort of is a spoiler but isn’t really.

Logan Lucky stars Channing Tatum as Jimmy Logan, mastermind, Adam Driver as Clyde Logan, his sibling and sidekick in the scheme, and Daniel Craig as Joe Bang, an incarcerated bank vault specialist. They all sport Appalachian accents. Weirdly this seems the suit the Brit the best. Then there is Seth MacFarlane who plays a racecar sponsor named Max Chilblain. I couldn’t tell at all where his accent hailed from.

Logan Lucky exploits the regular fun from its Appalachian characters and setting while undercutting the stereotypes sometimes in the same line of a scene. For one particular good instance, Joe Bang makes what can best be described as a white trash bomb out of bleach and gummy bears, but then successfully explains it using chemistry equations. I had a good time watching Logan Lucky. It’s a good addition to the Pretty Good Soderbergh shelf.

Hail, Caesar! (4/5 Stars)

The new Coen Brothers movie “Hail, Caesar!” is not so much a satire of the big studio soulless entertainment of film’s first half-century as much as it is a celebration of it. After all, the big all encompassing studio has long since been a ripe satirical target. However the type of entertainment it would produce, as if art were something that could be manufactured en masse in a factory, did have its admirable attributes, lots of which are on display in this movie. Here we have five “types” of movies that the producers churned out: a western with trick horse play, a Busby Berkeley dance number, a high society melodrama, sailors tap-dancing a la “On the Town” and finally a biblical epic starring the biggest movie star of them all, Baird Whitlock (played by George Clooney). The Coen Brothers put on fine displays of them all. It is entertaining though it hardly means anything. But if that is all you want in a movie, than this is a very good one. It delivers just that.

Ostensibly the movie is about Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin), a producer. He is not the boss of the movie studio (that guy is in New York) but he is the highest-ranking person on the lot. His job is all sorts of things and takes day and night to do it. To over simplify things, he keeps the productions running and the stars (who are full-time employees of the studio) out of trouble. He solves problems. Take for instance the case of DeeAnna Morgan (Scarlett Johannsson) the mermaid in the synchronized swimming number. She is pregnant and unwed. Eddie, conscious of what it looks like to the moral movie-going public of family friendly pictures, helps her as only the representative of a huge corporation could. He plans to keep the pregnancy a secret, hire a professional person (Jonah Hill as Joseph Silverman) to adopt the newborn, and have this person give the child up for adoption back to DeeAnna a few days later. The professional person is just that. Whenever a star does something stupid, he is keen to be framed for the crime. It is let on that he spent six months in jail for a drunk driving incident.

On one of the last days of shooting the big biblical epic "Hail, Caesar" Baird Whitlock is kidnapped from the set. The kidnappers ask for $100,000. Eddie does some math and is content to pay it after realizing it will cost more to delay shooting a week (not to mention the bad press). The kidnappers happen to be a study group of communist screenwriters. They are not so rough on Baird. After slipping him a mickey and spiriting him to an isolated beach house, he is let in on the study group. They calmly and professorially explain Communism to him. He is receptive although that may be only his dim nature.

Mirroring this is the studios treatment of Jesus in “Hail, Caesar” which seems to look a lot like Ben Hur. The studio wants to give the people what they want (Jesus!) but do not want to offend anyone (an opinion on Jesus!). To that end, Eddie invites three priests from three Christian denominations and one rabbi to his office. He shows them the script and asks their opinion. There is nothing to object to as Jesus is seen only once in one scene with his back towards the camera (like “Ben Hur”). Nobody agrees on Jesus but nobody objects to the script because nothing is actually said about Jesus. Hollywood has pulled this fast one from time immemorial and for good reason too. Whenever an artist has something to say (take for instance Scorsese’s “Last Temptation of Christ,”) they are met with protests. Jesus remains hidden from big studio mass-market films to this day. 

Not that the Coens do the communists any favors. It turns out, through a lot of intellectual rigamarole and bandying about, the Communists want the ransom money because they are greedy. That claim it as payback for their services because they have been blackballed but are still working. The fact that they care about money does not bother them. An old venerable man explains that history is a science and that the Communist Revolution will come so it does not matter whether the study group acts selfishly. In fact to act selfishly will hasten the revolution so acting in their self-interest is in furtherance of their cause anyway. I dislike communists and though I have sympathy for anyone who is unfairly kept unemployed (what kind of good capitalist would I be if I were not) I love the fact that Hollywood Communists are being made fun in this movie for their stupid political beliefs. I have seen nothing but tragedies about them so far (thanks a lot McCarthy for turning them into noble sufferrors) so I consider this as a relief on the subject. The only thing worse than letting the Communists write screenplays was not letting them write screenplays. At least that way people could have a demonstration of how dumb is the philosophy.  

But I get carried away. The point of the movie is the studio fun. On great display is Alden Enrenreich (as Hobie Doyle) who is the cowboy of the film. He actually can do all sorts of tricks with a lasso. In fact, on a dinner date he takes a noodle of spaghetti, makes a lasso out of it, and hooks his dates thumb from across the table. Amazing! Now that’s entertainment. Also Channing Tatum does a great tap dancing number as a sailor who is not gay among a bunch of other sailors who are also not gay. The song is called “No Dames” and is about how when they are all at sea together there will be no dames. It is not gay. It is sad. Do not be tricked by the smiles and tap dancing.

The Hateful Eight (3/5 Stars)

Given the huge deal Quentin Tarantino, the writer/director of The Hateful Eight, made about his once-in-a-lifetime roadshow, particular aspects are decidedly underwhelming. Take for instance the promise of the movie being shot in Panavision Super 70 mm filmstock. Tarantino gushed about how it was the largest widescreen format that ever existed and that it had not been in use since the 1950’s and 1960’s for such epics like “Ben Hur” and “Cleopatra.” Well, that is wonderful if the vast majority of The Hateful Eight’s three hour run time had not taken place within a single room. This movie is no epic. So I guess its cool that he used that obsolete film stock but he sure did not need to. Or take for instance the presence of additional footage in the movie. Given that the movie is almost entirely composed of people talking in rooms, I’m not sure this movie needed more of that. In fact it probably would have been better with less. It had a new Ennio Morricone score and that’s cool because Morricone made the best Western scores of the 1960s, but this score is not as good as those old scores. The program was pretty cool except that the movie was not a timeless masterpiece so I doubt it will be a piece of memorabilia in great demand.

“The Hateful Eight” for all its grandiose presentation is decidedly a small movie. A bounty hunter named John Ruth (Kurt Russell) is taking a prisoner Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) to hang in the near town of Red Rock. His carriage picks up two more passengers, another bounty hunter named the Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) and the supposed new sheriff of Red Rock, Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins). There is a blizzard that will intercept them on their journey so they decide to wait it out at Minnie’s Haberdashery. They do not find Minnie at the Haberdashery. Instead they find Senor Bob (Demian Bichir) looking after the place, Oswaldo Mobray the supposed hangman (Tim Roth), General Sandy Smithers (Bruce Dern) an ex-Confederate officer searching for his son, and Joe Gage (Michael Madsen) who is in town to visit his mother. John Ruth makes the splendid observation that one of these men is not who they say they are. Minnie’s Haberdashery is composed of a bar, a kitchen, a general store, several beds and a place to sit by the fire, but it is all one room. The blizzard sets in and everybody waits for shit to start happening.

It takes awhile. By my count it takes about an hour and a half, which in my humble opinion is too long. Most of that time is exposition, that is to say it is people talking about what other people have done in the past. Something along the lines of one character saying to another, “Don’t you know who this so-and-so is, they did some crazy shit during the war.” I wrote about this sort of thing earlier in my “Steve Jobs” review. Movies are a show not tell medium. Lots of scenes where people talk about what happened in the past are more appropriate in the play medium where it is necessitated by the lack of ability to go all over the place but rendered harmless by the immediacy of the action. “The Hateful Eight” would probably make a great play. Very little would have to be changed. As a movie it can be, from time to time, <ahem> boring. There I said it. Boring, especially during the first half. It also does not help that Tarantino, though admittedly funny and cool, is not as funny and cool as he thinks he is. Some of the look at me funny and cool lines fell flat because the movie had not yet become cool or funny enough for them.

In the meantime and through to the end there is plenty of use of the word nigger and a lot of punching the woman in the face. We can take these one at a time because Tarantino does interesting things with the first one and not so interesting things with the second.

It is fair to say that the cinematic relationship between Samuel L. Jackson and Quentin Tarantino is a special one that does something more than simply transcend the race line. For other white writer/directors it is simply enough to make a sympathetic black character that has a rounded personality and isn’t merely an appendage to the white people. Jackson and Tarantino do more than that. They create black characters in the midst of terrible racism that are also complicated to the point of being bad men themselves. It is tough to be a despicable black character when everybody else in the movie is calling nigger. In this movie, we are drawn preternaturally to Major Marquis Warren’s side because he is the ultimate underdog, the one black guy in Wyoming. We judge the goodness and badness of the other characters by how they treat him. If they have respect for him, like John Ruth, he is a good guy. If they do not, like everybody else, they are not good guys. The most interesting thing about this movie is that by the mid way point, the audience may start wondering whether Major Marquis Warren is somebody to cheer for at all. Samuel L. Jackson has I believe only been nominated for one Oscar (Pulp Fiction). I believed he should have won for Django Unchained. If he is nominated for this movie, it can be said it was deserved. He is the reason why the movie should be watched at all.

Now for the gratuitous violence done towards the woman in the story, Daisy Domergue. She is a course rude bitch with a mouth on her. In the past she has murdered people and she deserves to be hanged. For as much insight Tarantino has had about the history of race relations, he shows a general lack of knowledge about the history of women. I have not yet heard of a 19^th century (or before) story about a woman like Daisy Domergue. Nor am I likely too because no such woman or very few of them have ever existed. Tarantino has this false notion that feminism in movies consists of giving a woman a weapon (gun or sword or kung fu) and having them kick ass. It does not work that way. You see women are physically weaker than men. At some point it does not matter how good at kung fu they are. They will generally lose battles to guys who have 50 or 100 pounds on them. The astute feminist screenwriter will then give their female characters what historical women have always had, shrewdness and wiles. They will not simply make them another man. When Tarantino made “Django Unchained” he paid attention to the psychology of a slave. Jamie Foxx did not just start out badass and plucky. He had to be rehabilitated from a society that would inflict physical and psychological harm on him if he did anything out of line. When making a historical period piece about a woman it should be required that their respective psychology is taken into account because women were subject to societal pressures as well. Tarantino ignores this and his reason for doing so is to make it okay for this particular woman to be punched in the face a bunch. That is to say he has made this particular woman more of a rotten bitch than she historically has any sense in being and he did it in order to make it okay for terrible things to be done to her.

I remember there was a time when Tarantino’s movies were violent but not as violent as people thought they were. When I watched the DVD extras of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, a big deal was made by how the violence merely felt gratuitously violent because of superior moviemaking. Like in Reservoir Dogs you don’t actually see the ear being cut off, or in Pulp Fiction the samurai cut is below the screen. Contrast that with Tarantino’s last several films where the blood being spilt is generally more extreme than what it would be in real life. One could reasonably question whether if say someone blew off someone else’s head three or four feet away from Jennifer Jason Leigh would she really be splattered with that much blood and brains? I doubt it and I’m pretty sure it is in there less for realism and more because Tarantino wanted to see a woman’s face splattered with blood and brains. It sure makes one question about early Tarantino’s professions of not being as violent as people said he was. As soon as he got a decent budget to splatter blood all over the screen he went whole hog.

Foxcatcher (4/5 Stars)

The general rule for movies based on true stories is not how closely they follow the facts. That is the job of journalism. No, the general rule is whether the movie would be any good if it were completely fictional. And this strange and sad story of the richest convicted murderor in history, John Dupont, and his relationship with the U.S. Greco-Roman wrestling team, particularly the Olympic champion brothers Mark and David Schultz, does not need to actually be true to be effective. It is fully realized within itself. I suspect the most egregious violation of the true story may be the movie’s condensed time span, which makes it look like all the events took place within a couple of years (take a look at Dave Schulz’s ungrowing kids). Actually the real events took place over a decade, but I feel the makers (Director Bennet Miller et al.) made the right decision in glossing over that. It gives the psychological underpinnings of the tragedy more momentum. This is a very good if hard to watch movie. Hard to watch in the correct way, that is. I will elaborate on that phrase a bit later.

This is a great character study with a trio of great performances by some unlikely actors. Not that we did not know that Steve Carell and Channing Tatum could act. We saw some glimmers of that in Little Miss Sunshine for Carell and a trio of Soderberg movies for Tatum. But we have Oscar worthy transformation happening in Foxcatcher and I suspect most of the critical conversation around this movie will focus intently on just how good are these performances.

Let’s start with the Olympic wrestling brothers Schultz, Mark and David, played by Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo respectively. The most impressive thing right out of the gate is the spot on physicality of the Greco-Roman wrestling practices and matches. I took a year of wrestling in high school so I was looking to see if they got it right. They did and you know how you could tell? There is this great introduction to the brothers as they spar in a practice room. The shot is unbroken and lasts at least a minute or two. By the end of the shot both Channing and Mark are breathing heavily. That’s Greco Roman wrestling for you. It is the most quickly exhausting sport ever invented. Imagine what it would have been like to shoot take after take of any of these scenes. Here Channing is doing some extra overtime heavy lifting. (Mark has no match scenes). Physical performances are generally unnoticed as good acting. For instance, using Channing Tatum’s own career, I don’t recall any critics that praised his dancing in Magic Mike as skillful acting. Well I do and Tatum’s performance here is one of those performances I believe the vast majority of actors in the business would not be able to do. And the physicality of Channing really does matter because the character is extremely introverted and inarticulate. The background of Mark Schultz is one of isolation and alienation. His father left when he was two years old. He moved around the country constantly. He then followed his older brother into wrestling and may have excelled at it dramatically but the sport happens to be unpopular, unwatched, and not even paid. We are introduced to this gold medal winner collecting a $20 check for talking to a grade school classroom of kids about the Olympics. He has to tell the principal to make the check out to Mark Schultz, not Dave Schultz, because Dave is sick and Mark is substituting for him. “We both won gold,” Mark lamely explains. Mark goes back to his one room apartment where he eats Ramen alone.

And then the phone rings and we are introduced to Steve Carell’s version of eccentric millionaire John Dupont. John Dupont happens to be a fan of Greco-Roman wrestling. And since he inherited his millions and has no job, he has taken it upon himself to be the head coach of United States Wrestling. He is neither a wrestler nor a coach but he has a lot of money and is more than willing to pay top dollar for the nation’s best wrestlers. He phrases his desires in patriotic terms. This is good for America. I am a great man of vision. We need to take this country back. Mark Schultz, so obviously marginalized by society, becomes a true believer of sorts. Yes, he will move there and together they will put together a great wrestling team, the best in the world.

John Dupont’s childhood was disturbingly odd. His father left him at two years old. His mother raised him (along with a retinue of servants) at the gigantic Foxcatcher estate. His only friend was a kid his mother paid to hang out with him. John’s mother raises horses. Greco-Roman wrestling has to be the exact opposite sport from equestrian. That should explain quite a bit right there about their relationship. In one telling scene, John’s mother comes over to the gym to watch a practice. Normally John Dupont would just watch the practices, but here he calls all the world-class wrestlers over into a circle and proceeds to teach them Wrestling 101, that is until his mother leaves the room.

Steve Carell’s performance is hard to watch, much like it is hard to be around a person who obviously has no idea how to interact socially with other human beings. Not only has Dupont been isolated from most other living beings all his life his situation is compounded by never having encountered anyone on a level playing basis. He is automatically in charge due to the fact that he is the employer of everyone in the room. The result is a grotesque caricature of a human, someone whose personality feels like you are watching a train wreck in slow motion. Mix in the drugs, alcohol, and guns that Dupont has regular access to and the result is tragedy that in retrospect seems painfully obvious. Perhaps the most extraordinary thing about the story is that Mark and John get along for at least the first couple of years. They are utterly lost people being lost together.

The one sane person is Dave Schultz (played by Mark Ruffalo). Unlike his brother, he got married and had kids once he became an adult. That probably did a lot in making him a regular person. He goes to work for John Dupont to after a couple of years, the money being too good to turn down. But the heart of this story is how he finagles for his brother a way out of the damaging influence of Dupont. Mark, looking for a father figure, is pshycologically stricken when the man he has chosen starts abusing him in various ways. The most dramatic result of this is a scene that reminded me of Robert De Niro’s performance in Raging Bull, arguably the greatest acting performance ever. You will know what I mean. And then Dave Schultz comes in the room and puts his brother back together the only way a truly centered and empathetic person can. It’s kind of beautiful and John Dupont never truly gets Mark back. John Dupont once again loses his only friend in the world. Everyone deserves a nomination. That’s one for Carell, Tatum, and Ruffalo. This is the best-acted movie of the year so far.

22 Jump Street (4/5 Stars)

The same exact thing but bigger.

According to Urban Dictionary the term ‘meta’ refers to something, generally art, that is characteristically self-referential. The most cliché example ever is the writer who has writer’s blcok that ends up writing a story about a writer who has writer’s block. I have seen this movie plenty of times and it has taken up residence in the shameful corner of my movie critic heart. The reason for this is that the idea seems clever but it is not. Cleverness contains an element of originality and creativity. If the idea has already been done before it cannot be original or creative. There is a caveat to this of course and ’22 Jump Street’ is a particularly good example of it working (at least the first time). ’22 Jump Street’ admits that its meta-ness, i.e. the fact that it is a sequel to a movie that itself was a remake of an old TV show from the 1980s, is not clever.

This is made explicit in the form of the police chief, played by Nick Offerman (the great anti-government crusader Ron Swanson from ‘Parks and Recreation’), who starts off each movie with an explanation as to why this lame excuse of a mission exists at all.  In the first movie with his trademark grouchy annoyance he explained that the 21 Jump Street mission existed because nobody in the police department had any new ideas so they just keep on rehashing old things in hopes that people won’t notice. In ’22 Jump Street’ he explains that nobody cared about 21 Jump Street when they redid it but they got lucky with success, so the department invested a whole lot more money into 22 Jump Street under the stupid impression that maybe if they spent a lot more money they could get that much more success. This influx of new money spent on arbitary shit that has no connection to the success of the mission becomes a running joke in the movie as the sets and gadgets become much more elaborate than they really need to be and characters start drinking espressos for no other reason than because they are more expensive than coffee.

But even this kind of admittance gets kind of exhausting after awhile. Or at least it should be. This is the type of movie that makes fools of movie critics with all their general theories as to what should be better than other things. It’s like a way overpriced tech price that refuses to fall to earth. For my money the reason is that it is genuinely funny and even though it uses a lot of self-referential jokes about sequels, there are plenty of new good one-liners, some great physical comedy, and actual twists in the story that are not predictable. The makers are especially adept at throwing reality to the wind in order to make the whole thing more bright and colorful. For no particular reason the bad guy, Peter Stormare, has a pink backpack. I thought that was funny and applaud such initiative. In other words, this movie like the first one is a much better movie that it should be, and all of these jokes that make fun of the fact that you are watching something that should not have been made seem less like that a writer with writer’s block and more like a cry of help from some seriously competent people that could be doing much better things with their talents.

And they have. The two buddy cops, Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum are very good actors. Jonah Hill has just wrapped up his second Oscar nomination. Channing Tatum has become a Steven Soderbergh favorite. Ice Cube, once a gangster, is now firmly typecast on the other side of the law. He has done well in both cases. The two directors, Phil Lord and Chris Miller, have so far made a career of taking cynical ploys of studio executives and making actual art out of them. Their last movie was ‘The Lego Movie’ something I did not see but was also praised by critics. ’22 Jump Street’ was too. These movies makes one wish they branched out into an original story just to see what it would look like. I am convinced that they could deliver it if they were allowed to and the epilogue of this movie, at least to me, comes off as a desperate plea to the audience and the studio to do just that, i.e. please please please no ’23 Jump Street.’

I haven’t spent a lot of time talking about the movie itself, but then again I don’t have to. It is the same movie. There is a drug dealer on a school campus and the two cops have to find out where the connection is coming from. You saw this movie already! Most of the jokes are based off of that, just far more expensive this time. 

p.s. Rob Riggle’s jokes went too far again. Everything else was generally funny. My favorite had to be the weightlifting part. 

p.s.s. I failed at college. Well I learned a lot of stuff, but cinematically speaking I muffed it. 

Stop-Loss 03/29/08

Stop-Loss is about the controversial military loophole that keeps soldiers in the army after their tour of duty has been fulfilled. A soldier played by Ryan Phillipe has just gotten back from Iraq to his small All-American Texas town. He is given a bronze star and a purple heart. People call him a hero. Then he refuses to comply with the unfair ruling of his superior officers. Haunted by his tour in Iraq he refuses to bend to the loophole. He is threatened with felony convictions and becomes a fugitive. Certainly this is not the way to treat war heroes. This movie will rattle your soul and convince you of the subjects injustice. To that particular purpose it succeeds. But otherwise for as many good performances and scenes in this movie, there are a couple that fall flat, and it contains a melodramatic ending that almost kills it.

Kimberly Pierce, the director of Boys Don't Cry, another movie set in poor and lonely Texas, has not made a film in years. And it shows just a little bit. Her sincerity is unquestionable but there are some choices she made that are simply wrong. I usually don't bash actors, but I wonder how Ryan Phillippe is becoming the go-to-guy for a war veteran (His last movie was Flags of Our Fathers). He does a good job most of the time, but there's just a couple scenes too many where his voice quivers and his lips tremble and he seems like he's about to cry. It makes more sense for him to be mad. The scene where he contradicts his superior officer and says "Fuck the President," is great. There needed to be more scenes like that. 
Pierce is also hit and miss with the post combat syndrome of these soldiers. It makes sense when one soldier gets completely wasted, thinks he's in Iraq, and starts digging a trench to sleep in. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's performance is certainly powerful and compelling. (Gordon-Levitt is quietly putting together a string of small good movies like last year's "The Lookout" and this one. I'm quietly starting to pay attention.) Other scenes though, like when Phillipe goes psycho on a bunch of street thugs ring false. The delusion goes on for too long, besides Ryan is supposed to be the sensible one. None of this compares though to the biggest miscalculation of the movie. And that is the WWF style fight scene that takes place in a graveyard at the movie's end. A soldier's funeral is supposed to be serious stuff right. And these characters obviously take it seriously. Why on Earth did Director Pierce choose to stage a completely unrealistic and exploitative fight? And then after that, have the characters start crying again. 
These are my reservations about the film. But I still recommend it because for every bad scene there are three good ones. The part in Iraq, the military hospital, the medals ceremony, the Texan society, and especially Joseph Gordon-Levitt's doomed veteran are all worthy of praise. I wonder if it will take Kimberly Pierce another ten years to make her next movie. I hope its sooner.