Welcome to WeeklyWilson.com, where author/film critic Connie (Corcoran) Wilson avoids totally losing her marbles in semi-retirement by writing about film (see the Chicago Film Festival reviews and SXSW), politics and books----her own books and those of other people. You'll also find her diverging frequently to share humorous (or not-so-humorous) anecdotes and concerns. Try it! You'll like it!
This Brad Pitt vehicle is—(dare I say it?)—a train wreck.
I had a very bad feeling about the film going in. This line from the script sums up my feelings about “Bullet Train:” “I haven’t got the time or the patience, let alone the interest.” I can’t recommend you take this one in at the Cineplex for actual cash.
If you do invest the time in “Bullet Train” when it streams somewhere, Brad Pitt is the best thing in this overlong fist-fest. He plays a hit-man who is trying to mend his violent ways and learn to solve problems in a more peaceful manner.
Code-named Ladybug in a “cute” discussion with his handler (Sandra Bullock) that already screams “Turkey,” among other pronouncements from Pitt are these: “Let this be a lesson on the toxicity of anger.” “A path to a peaceful outcome is an opportunity for growth.” “I just wanna’ get off this train and go see a Zen garden or some shit.” “When we are so quick to anger, we are slow to understand.” “If you do not control your fate, it controls you.” Not a lot of great original writing in those bon mots. The writing here is byZak Olkewicz (screenplay) and based on the book by Kôtarô Isaka.
Pressed into service in place of the mysterious Carver (Ryan Reynolds in a cameo), Ladybug is supposed to steal a briefcase on the bullet train. The case is being protected by 2 other assassins code-named Tangerine and Lemon. [Also cloyingly cute.] Tangerine is played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who was brilliant in 2016’s “Nocturnal Animals.” It’s a great part for the handsome actor, speaking in his native British accent, who was nominated for a BAFTA in 2017 for Best Supporting Actor for that role. His “twin” partner is Black actor Bryan Tyree-Henry (2018’s “Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse”). Also a forced joke, since they are obviously not biological “twins.”
One of the flaws of the film is that the director is David Leitch. As a former stuntman, himself, he has a passion for fight sequences (which is primarily what this movie is). He has been Brad Pitt’s stunt double 5 times and served as Matt Damon’s stunt double many times, including in “The Bourne Ultimatum.” Leitch co-directed “John Wick” (2014) with Chad Stahelski. He directed “Atomic Blonde” (2017) starring Charlize Theron. David also directed the box office smash/critically acclaimed “Deadpool 2” (2018). These movies all depend on non-stop action sequences; that is what you get in “Bullet Train.” Not a fan.
A second failing, for me, is that the plot is impossibly convoluted and not worth the time and effort to follow it. Lots of bathroom humor. (Imean that literally.) A particularly wasted co-star was Michael Shannon as The White Death. (I hate it when Michael Shannon’s considerable talents are wasted, and they are wasted here).
A third problem is that the music feels very dated. The musical director was Dominic Lewis, so lay the blame for selecting such songs as “Staying Alive,” “Holding Out for a Hero,” and “I Just Wanna Celebrate” at his feet. . None of these songs are even remotely new. “Staying Alive” is almost 40 years old. “Holding Out for a Hero” was released in 1986 (36 years ago). “I Just Wanna Celebrate” was released in 1971, 51 years ago. There are also some oldies-but-not-goodies, including the one with the lyric “If you miss the train I’m on Hear the whistle blow 100 miles.” Yeah. Soundtrack sucked.
The entire film screams “Look how cute and hip we are.” Various stars make cameos (Channing Tatum, Ryan Reynolds, Sondra Bullock,Zazie Beetz) and, all-in-all, I felt cheated out of a decently themed movie with something to say. It was not worth the price of theater admission.
Other critics say it is going to be Brad Pitt’s new ongoing vehicle in the same way that Robert Downey, Jr., repeatedly rode “Ironman” to the bank. All I can say to that is, “Count me out.”
Besides the convoluted repetitive plot, the non-stop fight sequences, and the lack-luster musical score, the humor came off as forced and unfunny. The entire film was way too “cutesy” and much too dependent on CGI special effects (primarily of trains crashing). The propping up of dead bodies to make them appear to be alive: not “funny.” I want to see Brad Pitt in the context of a well-written film with some depth and a message. I’m so glad we took in “Vengeance” (B.J. Novak) before “Bullet Train.”
At times I was confused about whether we were watching Japanese actors in Mexico or vice versa. I got the feeling that the entire movie was aimed at a Japanese audience that will enjoy the Bruce Lee vibe, and, to them, I say Sayonara. I really did not enjoy much of anything about this pastiche, but I do like me some Brad Pitt, (even though the line from the movie that sums up his sex appeal in this is, “You look like every white homeless man I’ve ever seen.”)
Having told you what I think of this Boomslang of a film, in good conscience I should report that others coming out of the theater were chatting about how much they enjoyed this mindless mess of movie/ fight sequence. Something tells me that they have seen far fewer films than I have seen.
I found the humor strained and the entire undertaking a waste of money ($85,900,000 down the “Bullet Train” drain.)
In an ongoing effort to support our local cinemas, we have recently viewed two films that were (then) showing only at the theaters.
The first was Nicolas Cage in “The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent.” The second was the Sandra Bullock/Channing Tatum vehicle, “The Lost City.”
Nic Cage proves that he has a sense of humor about being Nicolas Cage. Pedro Pascal co-stars and received reviews equivalent to Cage’s for his charming portrayal.
The synopsis reads: “Nicolas Cage stars as… Nick Cage in the action-comedy The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent. Creatively unfulfilled and facing financial ruin, the fictionalized version of Cage must accept a $1 million offer to attend the birthday of a dangerous super-fan (Pedro Pascal). Things take a wildly unexpected turn when Cage is recruited by a CIA operative (Tiffany Haddish) and forced to live up to his own legend, channeling his most iconic and beloved on-screen characters in order to save himself and his loved ones. With a career built for this very moment, the seminal award-winning actor must take on the role of a lifetime: Nick Cage.”
Tiffany Haddish and Ike Barinholtz were a pleasant addition to the cast, but the film lost its ebullient lightweight comic energy about halfway through and ended up dependent on the finale of an ordinary chase scene. It was enjoyable, but the promise of the first half of the film is not lived up to by the finale (despite a quick cameo by Demi Moore lasting about 20 seconds.)
“The Lost City” stars America’s Sweetheart, Sandra Bullock, banking on her likability to engage her fans in this story of a romance writer who is kidnapped by Harry Potter—err, Daniel Radcliffe.
Here is the synopsis for that film: “Reclusive author Loretta Sage writes about exotic places in her popular adventure novels that feature a handsome cover model named Alan. While on tour promoting her new book with Alan, Loretta gets kidnapped by an eccentric billionaire (Daniel Radcliffe) who hopes she can lead him to an ancient city’s lost treasure from her latest story. Determined to prove he can be a hero in real life and not just on the pages of her books, Alan (Channing Tatum) sets off to rescue her.”
When Brad Pitt enters the plot, mid-story, as gun-for-hire Jack Trainer, he looks terrific and, a bonus, age-appropriate for Ms. Bullock at 58 to her 57. I couldn’t help but wonder if Bullock tried to get Brad to take the lead role of Alan, her cover model. She revealed that, actually, it was their mutual hairdresser who told Pitt he should take the small part adding, tongue in cheek, “Hairdressers really are the power of our country, if not the world.”
Channing Tatum does well as the hunky cover model who wants his female boss to take him seriously as a prospective love interest. Bullock says of him, “He’s a body wash commercial.” Or, later, she describes Channing as “a Ken doll on a motor bike.” But as the only individual trying to rescue her after she is kidnapped, the pair grow closer as their adventure continues.
Throughout, Sandra Bullock is clad in a purple glittery jumpsuit. She asks, “Do I need to be wearing a glittery onesie?” That is her primary outfit throughout the Oren Ugiel, Dana Fox, Adam Nee scripted series of implausible adventures. The film is directed by Aaron and Adam Nee, with cinematography by Jonathan Sela, with the visual effects departments of Factory VFX, Craft Apes, and Lone Coconut assisting and the Dominican Republican providing the jungle sets and waterfalls.
The scene that many will remember is Sandra Bullock plucking leeches off the bare buttocks of 42-year-old Channing Tatum. The couple also dances, demonstrating that they each know their way around a dance floor.
In the midst of the film there is a brief discussion of feminism and sexism, which seemed odd and out of place. But there are truly funny lines throughout, like the one aimed at an elderly Black woman, when her daughter says, “Let’s go in the other room and we can talk about whatever war you lived through.” There are also the throw-away lines like, “I have a rule about not going into super creepy caves,” which the pair does in search of the fabled Crown of Fire.
Like Cage’s “The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent” this is not an Oscar-worthy film, but it is fun.
It was nice, for a change, seeing the 15-year age gap be the older woman/younger man demographic. Seems about time after all the years of the pairings of couples like Bogie and Bacall.
We enjoyed both films for what they were: throw-away popcorn sit-coms, which Sandra Bullock has always excelled atl. Brad Pitt was a true gift, mid-movie, and Channing Tatum acquitted himself nobly, as he had done in “Dog” earlier this year. Not a bad way to spend the late afternoon.
“Ad Astra” translates to “To the Stars” and in this James Gray-directed film, which opened Friday, September 20th, Brad Pitt travels to the far reaches of outer space in search of his astronaut father long thought to be dead. (Tommy Lee Jones).”
The setting is “The near future. A time of both hope and conflict.” Earth has apparently established several bases on neighboring celestial bodies, including a base on the moon and an underground base on Mars that is one of the few such human outposts not harmed by recurring uncontrolled releases of anti-matter. The authorities think the electrical impulses originate from the long-ago Lima Project, which H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) headed up, journeying as far as Neptune and Saturn, the farthest point man has penetrated in space.
Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is assigned to find his father and the fear is definitely unspoken but potential that he will be part of a mission to eliminate the now-famous space hero. Brad is told, by Donald Sutherland as Colonel Pruitt, an old friend of the senior McBride, that suspicion for the electrical battering that the solar system is taking, which threatens Earth and the very survival of mankind, is perhaps something that H. Clifford McBride has caused. So, they reach out to his now 45-year-old son—also an astronaut—hoping that this tie to the man who may be intentionally hiding out—-will help find him.
I was reminded of Colonel Kurtz in “Apocalypse Now,” with Pitt playing the Martin Sheen part as the man sent to find Marlon Brando’s mad man/god. There is a religious undercurrent running throughout the film, including these words, spoken upon the burial in space of a deceased colleague: “May you meet your Redeemer face-to-face and enjoy the vision of God forever.” H. Clifford McBride (Tommy LeeJones), a believer in alien life forms, says, “I know for certain I am doing God’s work.” He was so convinced that his expedition would find intelligent life in the universe that he took drastic steps to prevent a mutiny from the others in his party. Ironically, the son performs an act nearly as violent in order to find his father.
Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) ponders the meaning of existence at several points. “We go to work. We do our jobs. We’re here and then we’re gone,” says the alienated Pitt. He is a cool customer who, more than once recites in voice-over the information that “I am focused on the essential to the exclusion of all else.” Compartmentalized is another way he describes his ability to deal with emotions. He seems to recognize, early on, (especially after the fantastic opening sequence where he survives a harrowing space accident where a robotic arm crashes and takes the orbiting space station down with it), that “ I should feel something. I survived.” By film’s end, the very basic lesson that we must live and love those close to us and that his father “could only see what was not there, and missed what was right in front of him” has been conveyed.
I couldn’t help but remember Jennifer Aniston’s remark at the time of her divorce from Pitt that he was “lacking an emotional sensitivity chip.” I did find Pitt’s acting spot-on, especially in the scene where he abandons the script that has been prepared for him and speaks from the heart via a secure laser transmission designed to reach his father, wherever he may be hiding in the Universe. The younger McBride acknowledges early on that “I don’t know if I hope to find him or finally be free of him,” but admits that, “I must accept the fact I never really knew him.”
Another echo from an iconic flick is that of “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Not only is the path through the solar system that Brad’s character takes the same as that of the ship in Stanley Kubrick’s film, but James Gray finds a way to work in apes—something that seemed out of the realm of possibility.
Cinematography & Visual Effects:
Hoyte van Hoytema’s cinematography is fantastic. The sets and visual effects in “Ad Astra” are completely believable. It’s a bit off-putting to see the base on the Moon crassly commercialized, right down to a Subway restaurant and a Virgin Atlantic store, but the set design and the harrowing action sequences set in space are completely believable and well done.
Nicely-done, Brad Pitt! It’s great to see him back in leading man form and aging gracefully. This is the second film for Pitt this year that showed he is more than a pretty face, with his pairing with Leonardo DiCaprio in “Once Upon A Time in Hollywood” worthy of a Best Supporting Actor nod and this solo turn equally good. It’s nice to see a return to form for Pitt, who has too often had his acting ability obscured by his good looks and the ubiquitous press coverage of Brangelina.
Screenplay & Directing:
The screenplay was written by James Gray and Ethan Gross and directed by James Gray (“The Lost City of Z,” “The Immigrants”). Brad Pitt and James Gray had planned to work together on two previous occasions, but circumstances intervened. Gray, in an NPR interview, acknowledged the “mash-up” of “Apocalypse Now” and “2001: A Space Odyssey” and expressed his admiration for character-driven films of the seventies, and is also quoted as having said, “This all sounds very pretentious, but I feel like love is a very important subject.”
While Brad Pitt is fine in his leading man role, there is a waste of the talent of other cast members. Most notably, Liv Tyler has almost no part at all as the love interest who complains that even when he is there, Pitt is MIA. It as sheer coincidence that I watched a television special entitled “The Last Hours of Phil Hartman” that detailed how Hartman’s wife, possibly influenced by drugs and drink, but growing increasingly frustrated by his workaholic tendencies and his emotional distance from her, shot and killed him and then herself. While there is no homicidal wife in this space opera, the emotional underpinnings of the film are universal.
Donald Sutherland is another fine talent who is wasted in a very small part as Colonel Pruitt, an old friend of Tommy Lee Jones. He isn’t in the film for long. It seems as though the sequence in which Sutherland appears could be eliminated entirely without any harm to the narrative structure. Ruth Negga (“Loving”) also has a brief appearance as Helen Lantos, the Commander of the Mars space base, who assists Brad Pitt as he attempts to board the ship that will journey to Jupiter seeking his father, who Brad last saw at age sixteen.
While there are many exciting sequences, sometimes it feels as though they are being strung together like beads on a necklace. It is an exciting film, but there are slow portions in between the stringing of those action beads. And the film feels long, because it is—a distressingly common trend, it seems.
I’m wondering how the space aficionados will deal with facts in the film that are dropped into the mix, like the fact that it is going to take Pitt 79 days, 4 hours and 8 minutes to get from Mars to Neptune. I don’t pretend to know enough to begin to poke holes in scientific inaccuracies.
“Moneyball” is a movie about baseball that Brad Pitt wanted to make. But to say that “Moneyball is a movie about baseball is like saying that The Sopranos was a series about the waste-management business,” as Austin Murphy put it in “Brad Pitt Deals.” (September 26, 2011 Sports Illustrated).
It’s a wonder the film got made at all, since Pitt was really not a baseball player back in his high school days at Springfield (Mo.) Kickapoo High School. Wrestling. Diving. Football. But no baseball for Brad Pitt in his sports-playing days.
When Pitt read Michael Lewis’ (The Blind Side) book about baseball, he realized it was not really a book about baseball as much as it was a movie about believing in yourself and having the courage to buck the system to prove that you can do it…whatever “it” is. There’s even a scripted line from the scouts, who are critiquing the prospects for next year’s team: “He’s gotta’ be successful to be confident, and that’s when you’ve got something.” Years ago, Steven Tyler described his own success as lead singer of Aerosmith as “Fake it till you make it.”
The concept of success breeding success is something I promoted for 20 years as the CEO of a Sylvan Learning Center (#3301) I founded in the small town of Bettendorf, Iowa. I could relate instantly to the gamble that Oakland “A’s” team manager Billy Beane has made in deciding to revolutionize the game of baseball by integrating statistics to determine whom to draft. The team is looking for bargain basement deals that will unexpectedly turn out to be winners, giving it the appearance, at some times, of “an island of lost toys.” Their roster has just been raided of their 3 best players, and the cupboard is bare.
Beane de-emphasized the role of dugout managers such as the character played by Philip Seymour Hoffman (Art Howe) and, instead, plucked “Google Boy,” as the plot dubs him, a young whipper-snapper dubbed Peter Brent in the movie (real character name: Paul Podesta, Beane’s fresh-out-of-Harvard assistant) who, in the movie, is a recent graduate of Yale. Brent (Jonah Hill in a nicely understated serious turn) tells Beane “Baseball thinking is medieval.”
Beane buys in to the premise that statistics can help make his struggling team (“We’re the last runt at the bowl.”) into a winner. The Oakland “A’s” at the time had a budget of approximately $38 million to compete with the $121 million of teams like the New York Yankees. In Jonah Hill’s character of Peter Brent, Beane sees a way to even the playing field. This is not popular with the old-timers on staff. As Beane, using Texas Hold ‘Em terminology says says to his young assistant, “Just you and me, Pete. We’re all in.”
When Brad Pitt read the book Moneyball, he recognized the universal themes underlying the story of a team that, from a dismal start, went on to set the American League record for most consecutive wins in a season (20 games). In 103 years, the record had never been broken, but the Oakland “A’s broke it in 2002, using what the grizzled veteran scouts termed “statistical gimmicks.” Not unlike “Road to Perdition,” where the universal father/son theme resonated with the Zanucks and helped propel the film based on a graphic novel written by Muscatine, Iowa native Max Collins, Brad Pitt wanted to play Billy Beane, a man he sees as someone tilting against windmills and fighting the good fight against odds that often seem overwhelming. Risking it all. Standing up for what he believes in. Being loyal to his principles and his team. The onscreen Beane says, “I made one decision based on money, and I said I’d never do it again,” alluding to his earlier player days, [when he turned down a full-ride scholarship to Stanford to turn pro right out of high school.] Although Beane’s success with the “A’s” earns him the offer of a $12 and 1/2 million-dollar contract with the Boston Red Sox, after wavering a bit he turns it down to stay with Oakland.
As the script puts it, “We are card counters at the blackjack table. We’re going to turn the tables on the casino.” With “adapt or die” as the motto, Beane locks horns with virtually everyone, including his dugout manager, his scouts, his players, his family, his bosses and himself.
The script by award-winning writer Aaron Sorkin (“The Social Network”) and Steven Zallion (“Schindler’s List”) is clever, funny and meaningful. Much of it wrote itself when genuine baseball scouts gathered to share their wisdom. Some of the people in the room when Pitt holds a scouting meeting are real baseball scouts, but you’ll also recognize Aaron Pierce from “24” (Glenn Morshower, 49 episodes) or Chief Jerry Reilly from “Rescue Me” (Jack McGee, 44 episodes, 2004-2007). You may also notice that the actor playing Scott Hatteberg, Chris Pratt, is from “Parks & Recreation” where he plays Andy Dwyer (48 episodes, 2009-2011).
The most substantial role for a former TV series regular went to Kerris Dorsey (“Brothers & Sisters,” Paige Whedon, 91 episodes 2006-2011), who plays Billy Beane’s daughter Casey. She was Paige Whedon on “Brothers & Sisters” until the show was canceled recently. It is Casey’s singing of a song about being “a little girl lost in the middle,” which she performs for her dad, that frames the movie. Singing about “a little girl lost in the middle” (a la Jimmy Eat World’s “The Middle”), Casey’s pure voice speaks to her dad, who encourages Casey to share her talent and perform for others. One of Billy Beane’s scouts (Grady, played by Ken Medlock) whom he ultimately must fire for insubordination has told Beane (Pitt), “You’re going to have to explain to your kid why you’re working at Dick’s Sporting Goods,” when Beane keeps pushing his statistically-driven agenda in the face of opposition. But Beane has bought into Bill James’ book on baseball statistics, 1977 Baseball Abstract: Featuring 18 Categories of Statistical Information That You Just Can’t Find Anywhere Else. Even before that 1977 book, there was Earnshaw Cook’s Percentage Baseball, a 1964 Johns Hopkins engineering professor’s treatise on sabermetrics.
Brad Pitt saw Billy Beane as “the voice of reason speaking against the establishment.” We all know that speaking truth to power is not popular, but it made for some great 70s films, which I chronicled in “It Came from the ’70s,” a book with 50 representative films of the era. Pitt also appreciates movies of the seventies. He explained the difference between today’s films and the films of that great movie-making era this way: “In scripts today, someone has a big epiphany, learns a lesson, then comes out the other side different. In these older films I’m talking about, the beast at the end of the movie was the same beast in the beginning of the movie. What changed was the world around them, by just a couple of degrees. Nothing monumental. I think that’s true about us. We fine-tune ourselves, but big change is not real.” (Austin Murphy’s Sports Illustrated article “Brad Pitt Deals”, September 26, 2011). Director Bennett Miller shared Pitt’s enthusiasm for 70s movies, as do I.
As the third director on the film, Bennett Miller said, “It (“Moneyball”) seemed like a shoot-the-moon project because it was complex and messed up in 1,000 different ways.” Stephen Soderbergh had parted ways with the project when his idea for a more documentary-style approach was rejected as too expensive. The film languished in development hell for 8 years. Pitt, who has given 2 Oscar-worthy performances this year (the other as the father in Terence Malick’s “The Tree of Life”) says, “What we were trying to do is tell an unconventional story in the Trojan horse of a conventional baseball movie.”
Michael Lewis, in the 2003 best-selling book on which the film is based wrote, “At the bottom of the Oakland experiment was a willingness to rethink baseball: how it is managed, how it is played, who is best suited to play it, and why.” Lewis has said, “I always thought of it (Moneyball) as the biography of an idea, and I wrote it as a biography of an idea. And you can’t make a movie of an idea.”
But you can if you’re Brad Pitt, the 800-lb. gorilla of leading men.
Pitt saw the same themes that Rachael Horovitz recognized after 12 years working for Hollywood studios: Taking a new path. Having belief in one’s self to risk and move forward. Loyalty to one’s principles in the face of the temptation to abandon them. Horovitz picked up “Moneyball” in 2003 as a free-lance producer and, fortunately for her, “As long as Brad Pitt wanted to make this movie, it was going to get made.”
When Pitt talks about the film, he references 70s anti-heroes like R.P. McMurphy in One FlewOver the Cuckoo’s Nest, Gene Hackman as Popeye Doyle in The French Connection and Steve McQueen, in pretty much every movie he ever made. That was the premise of an entire book I wrote (It Came from the’70s: From The Godfather to Apocalypse Now): that 70s movies were the best era for film since the 30s, precisely because of those themes and those performances. The contrast with today’s computer-generated blow-up-more-cars approach to movie-making is stark. What appealed to me as I spent 8 years of my life compiling a retrospective of 70s movies, culled from 15 scrapbooks of reviews of that decade saved in my basement for 43 years, also spoke to Brad Pitt. (www.ItCamefromtheSeventies.com).
The result is a movie with a heart, a brain, a spine and a funny-bone. Some of the funny was provided by the scouts. A sample: “This is the kind of guy who, when he walks into the room, his dick has already been there for 2 minutes.” Beane on the “A’s” standing amongst other teams: “There’s rich teams, poor teams, 50 feet of crap, and then there’s us.” Beane to a scout who mentions that one player “has a good face,” “It’s not like we’re looking for Fabio.” “He’s freaky—and not in a good way,” And—one truism articulated by Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) that explains why Beane was prepared to risk it all to find a way to make his team competitive—“If we try to play like the Yankees in here (i.e., while selecting new players to draft), we’re going to lose to the Yankees out there.” And that’s what led to Beane’s radical move to using statistics to give the “A’s” a competitive advantage…something that every major league team does now, but few did then.
The Mickey Mantle quote with which the film open is apropos: “It’s unbelievable how much you don’t know about the game you’ve been playing all your life.” (Oct. 15, 2001). Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believin'” is used in one opening day montage, a particularly good choice, and the entire film worked, for me, because, as Director Bennett Miller said about his sensibilities and those of his star, “Both of us were drawn to some of the same films from the ’70s where you don’t have to have a character that stops the asteroid from hitting the Earth.”
Pitt is excellent in the lead role. Jonah Hill turns in a nicely-restrained supporting performance as Google Boy (Will Hill be as funny now that he’s creepily cadaverous?), and Philip Seymour Hoffman is also good as bullpen manager Art Howe, a man at odds with the boss. Stephen Bishop also does justice to David Justice, (to savor the pun).
A fine film about heart and risk and life…and baseball.
Americans are always fascinated by what other people make. If the other people in question are famous celebrities, everyone wants to know who’s making what. Here’s the scoop!
In a lengthy article entitled “Hollywood’s Top 40” (March, 2010 Vanity Fair) details of “who makes what” are given in an article that runs from page 272 to 275. The list includes information on each individual, telling what films or television projects they were involved in during the preceding year, but let’s just cut to the chase and list them, as follows: