Movies: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Score: **** out of *****

Long Story Short: Robert Downey, Jr. returns as Sherlock to face his archrival Dr. Moriarty in a film cut from the same cloth as the first. Of course, in this reviewer's opinion, that is a good thing, with quick banter, elaborate sets and effects, and RDJ's brilliant performance in the lead. Add in higher stakes with more (but well done) action, and A Game of Shadows is, overall, just as good as the first impressive entry in the series.

Ah, back to the movies! After another slow fall season at the theater, it looks like a full slate of interesting titles await audiences. Having seen and highly enjoyed the first, I had been looking forward to this sequel to Robert Downey, Jr.'s Sherlock Holmes. While some may find this series' style too action-packed, I think it is an extremely entertaining one that still manages to include plenty of work for Sherlock's brain in addition to his brawn. A Game of Shadows, like the original, was directed by Guy Ritchie, and co-stars Jude Law as Watson opposite RDJ.

Irene Adler (McAdams), Holmes' competitor/lover from the first film, begins the action by delivering a package - under the watchful eye of Holmes. The package turns out to be a nasty one, and with that Holmes is on the hunt. Watson, imminently engaged to be married, returns to London to find Holmes brooding once more in his suite. Holmes has amassed a number of mysteries that he has linked together, and the recent package seems to be a new clue to the puzzle. Sherlock lets business interfere with pleasure, as usual, seeking out a woman (Rapace) linked to the package during Watson's bachelor party.

With his new evidence, Holmes confronts his nemesis Dr. Moriarty, who warns Sherlock to drop the chase. Following Watson's wedding, Holmes secretly follows the couple to their honeymoon, on the way to which they are ambushed as Holmes feared. His wife safely taken back to London by Holmes' brother Mycroft (Fry), Watson agrees to help Sherlock, traveling from France to Germany to Switzerland, in his quest to discover Moriarty's ultimate ambition and to bring him to justice. (I'm even more vague with the plot details than usual since I think some of the surprises are well worth keeping intact).

First thing's first: Robert Downey, Jr. is just as fantastic playing the legendary Sherlock as he was in the original. There are plenty of things to like about these films, but his performance is probably my favorite part. The delivery of his quips, the physical comedy of his disguises, and his chemistry with Watson, among other aspects, are just brilliant, in my opinion. One thing that brings this movie down a bit for me, however, is the drop-off in roles for other characters. Law as Watson is good again, but his role is reduced. The female lead, gypsy Simza (Noomi Rapace), has a much smaller role than the equivalent Adler (McAdams) from the first film. She is more of a plot device than a character. Sadly, bumbling Inspector Lestrade only gets a small cameo in this film.

On the brighter non-Sherlock side of the cast are two additions. The first is Sherlock's brother, Mycroft, played by the brilliant British comedian Stephen Fry. He doesn't have a huge part, either, but he elevates the scenes that he is in and I would be surprised if he didn't return for any more Sherlock sequels. The other is Dr. Moriarty, played by Jared Harris. Moriarty, for the uninitiated, is Sherlock's archrival in the literature, and Harris plays him with hair-raising menace and mystery. The sparring banter between the two is a treat for the audience.

All the essential elements you remember from the first Sherlock, if you saw it, return here in one degree or another. The action is certainly ratched up in A Game of Shadows, but I think almost every single set is brilliantly choreographed, tense, and of its own. Even action sets that might seem a little cliched in a larger sense are carefully designed and executed. I was a bit skeptical myself when I heard there was more action in this one, but believe me, it's not just there for the sake of appealing to a wider audience. The comedy is slightly down from the first, probably due to the "larger stakes" in the plot, but it still has plenty of laughs; they didn't cast Fry for no reason, after all, and RDJ's Holmes is quirky and hilarious as always, as I said before (one scene involving horses was particularly amusing to me). Both the sets and the special effects are even more spectacular than in the first, given the wider geographic scope and the increased action. And finally, Zimmer keeps the musical theme from the first which fit so well (the lead harpsicord), though the tone is darkened to support the film's atmosphere.

***

I would say A Game of Shadows is at the upper end of the four-star score for me. Above all else, I think it is simply the most entertaining movie I've seen all year. RDJ is responsible for most of this (have I mentioned that I like him as Holmes?), and the action is so well done and yet not overbearing. Dr. Moriarty is both cast and written appropriately as Holmes' archrival, a major improvement (even if not really a fair comparison) from the first film. Still, it is hard to keep everything up to par in a sequel when you ratchet up some aspects. The clue collecting and dissecting aspects do take a hit, though it's far from abandoned. The supporting, non-Holmes/Moriarti cast definitely takes a back seat, but they still provide significant boosts here and there. And the series still doesn't exactly have a strong emotional component, and for this reason I think it would be difficult for an RDJ-Ritchie(Director)-Sherlock film to become a true classic. But at the same time, these films have a style that is so well-defined and well-made that they are worth going back to again and again.

Music: Christmas Special #1

Music: Christmas Extraordinaire (Mannheim Steamroller)

I thought about doing a blogpost or two on Christmas music last year, but didn't end up getting to it. So this year I am going to do a (hopefully) four-part review on by far my favorite group making Christmas music, Mannheim Steamroller. Their music connects me to the season with an intensity beyond any other similar effect in music. Put simply, I can't imagine Christmas without listening to this musical act. I have four of their albums, which I'll review in reverse chronological order; I think there are one or two more but I haven't listened to them yet. As a brief introduction to those unfamiliar with Mannheim Steamroller (yes, both of you), the group is primarily instrumental and uses a unique combination of electronic, modern symphonic, and Baroque-era styles. There is great variation in their arrangements, from major to slight alterations on the originals (and they have a few of their own compositions as well). On to the review!

1. "Hallelujah"

I hate to start off my review of Mannheim on a less than stellar note, but I'm afraid that's how it goes. This arrangement is not bad, but not up to their very high standards. Like the rest of this album, and leans much more on the electronic side of their style than the Baroque-y, featuring a number of synthesizers and drums to keep a pretty steady tempo. Towards the middle, some real strings and brass give a nice change of pace, but the overall vibe is a little like disco (particularly the drum part) which is kind of off-putting and not the best choice for this literally classic piece. A fine album opener, but by no means in the group's upper tier.

2. "White Christmas"

Occasionally, Mannheim adopts a style that is almost too cheesy - but they usually choose the right songs for which to use it. This is one of them. A kiddy-sounding set of bells plays the main melody and is supported by a nice chorus; later a string section takes over to give a tad more weight to the mood. Finally, the chorus takes over for the last major recitation of the theme, and the usual Mannheim electronic instruments show up. This song shows off one of Mannheim's strengths: knowing what style to use in adapting beloved Christmas tunes. Still not a personal preference of mine, I give credit for the quality of the song nonetheless.

3. "Away In A Manger"

Unfortunately for me, here is another song that, regardless of the arrangement, is not one that I especially enjoy. However, the Mannheim touch for style comes through again, perhaps even better this time. Certainly it shows more creativity in the combination of instruments. A lone guitar starts with an intro and continues on to provide support for a recorder playing the melody - a nice combo. The recorder is joined by a pretty oboe in the melody, and a backing string part, all playing well together. Some Mannheim electronics join the party at the song's climax but then fade away. Classic Mannheim, despite my personal lack of fondness for it.

4. "Faeries" (from the Nutcracker Suite)

Here Mannheim goes back to the heavier electronic emphasis heard on the album opener. A deep electronic bass intro precedes the tinkling xylophone-like melody. As the song moves to the second major part of the song more traditional instruments jump in, mostly strings and I think a bassoon. At 2.5 minutes, it's quite short and ends very abruptly so it almost seems like an interlude piece. Nothing wrong with this one, but it last long enough to leave a very significant impression.

5. "Do You Hear What I Hear?"

The tinkling xylophone leads us off again with an intro, backed by a beautiful part in the bass by a string section. A woodwind plays the melody (I believe a clarinet), and the xylophone plays on while the strings are reduced to a quiet but high-pitched backing. Eventually lower-octave strings start a neat plunking rhythm which is quite nice. A return to the stripped-down xylophone/lower strings part ends the song. Certainly one of Mannheim's more passive arrangements, it is one of the album's stronger efforts, fitting very well with the album's sonic themes if not branching out very much (it doesn't hurt that the original is a nice song, anyway).

6. "The First Noel"

A full, beautiful string section intro starts things off, followed by another prelude to the original melody, played by electronic instruments and low, low strings. A violin plays the main melody slowly and somewhat sadly, with only the xylophone still tinkling away beneath it. The second play through gives the oboe a shot at the melody with greater support, with those low, low strings again. The song climaxes with a violin-oboe duet, and it peters out with, again, just the xylophone. Although it's not a bad arrangement, there are several problems. First, the placement is poor, coming after the not much more upbeat "Do You Hear"; second, in my opinion this song's melody tires itself out extremely quickly. Something more creative than xylophone, oboe and violin was in order here.

7. "Silver Bells"

Here we have a more upbeat song, although it's not exactly a rousing rondo, of course. A muted keyboard sound backs the melody throughout and gives it, unfortunately, a rather sleepy feeling (not to mention almost elevator music-like). And guess what instrument plays the melody? Yep, the tinkling xylophone is here again. It isn't until about a minute left that a non-electronic/percussion instrument enters; a single French horn gives the song a little more life. To top it all off, the song is way too long at 4.5 minutes. As you can tell, I'm not a fan of this song. I pretty much skip it every time it comes along.

8. "Some Children See Him"

Ah, no more tinkling xylophone at last! A familiar Mannheim bass drum starts an intriguing beat; overall, in fact, the song feels much more like classic Steamroller than the last few tracks. With strings and keyboard playing an exotic backing, a very high woodwind plays the main melody, one reminiscent of "Pat A Pan." Familiar harpsichord takes over the backing after that and finally some great drumming and a little low brass brings the song to its full energy. The main melody carries on for a good while, though not quite too long, before giving way to the bass drum again and one last solo play through. Perhaps the album's strongest song.

9. "Fum, Fum, Fum"

Lone recorder starts off the quiet, interesting melody, joined by a few siblings after a minute or so. The xylophone makes a return, but the tinkling is toned down and an oboe soon dominates the main melody, anyway, as the song assumes the album's overall instrumental pattern. This one is much like "Faeries," in that it's done before you expect; it's a little bit longer, but has really only two sections in it. Thus, my feelings on it are pretty much the same.

10. "Winter Wonderland"

The heavier electronic theme bounces back for a third round here, with a guitar-like keyboard playing an intro that serves as the backing for the song throughout (sounds a little like a TV intro theme, actually). The main melody is played by a different keyboard, one that sounds more like 80s-style Mannheim, or other similar artists. High strings shimmer and tambourines shakes to give the song yet more of a floaty, whispy feeling. More variety, with harpsichord and French horn, have a bit at the end, but by then it is what it is. I suppose it's a pretty appropriate arrangement for the song, and a fairly strong one at that - but again, here's an original that doesn't rank among my favorites.

11. "O Tannenbaum"

A men's chorus sings a few strains of the melody to start this one, a nice touch. This is followed by a major style change with xylophone, French horn and other electronic effects added in before the most horrifying thing ever heard on a Mannheim record comes in: the voice of Johnny Mathis. This awful decision really overrides everything else, and this is probably the only Mannheim song that I always skip when it comes on.

12. "Auld Lang Syne"

Obviously, this is a very appropriate album closer. I'm not sure what instrument plays the melody here; the best I can think of is perhaps an electronic chime. This is backed by a quiet chorus and high strings from time to time, along with a strange electronic effect. The song ends with a men's chorus, like the one at the beginning of "Tannenbaum", taking over the melody, backed by a deep electronic bass. It's certainly a very Mannheim-y take on the holiday classic, and the sort of minimalist style is a nice touch, symbolizing the reminiscence that takes place at the end of each year. Good finisher.

One reason that I wanted to go backwards in reviewing the Mannheim Steamroller albums was that I could get the worst over with first. This is not a bad album by any means, but I think its songs come across much better when listened to among a mix of other Mannheim songs. The album keeps a nice theme of sound, but sticks to it almost too well in creating more similar songs than you typically find on a Mannheim album (the song selection certainly did not help the group to diversify their sound here). There is still very good quality musicianship and creative arrangement here, but many of the songs are simply not my favorite Christmas tunes. Worth checking out, at least shuffled in among a larger collection of Mannheim music.

Essentials: "Away In A Manger", "Do You Hear What I Hear", "Some Children See Him"

Weak(er) Songs: "Silver Bells", "O Tannenbaum"

Music: Mylo Xyloto (Coldplay)

Album Review: Mylo Xyloto by Coldplay

It's been awhile since I've done an album review, but this was the perfect opportunity: an actually new album! I've listened to Mylo Xyloto a number of times by now, which I think you have to do, for any album, in order to review it properly. I've read a few other reviews for this by "experts," and they clearly listened to this at most once through, and probably only the first minute or so of each song. Anyway, enough about my annoyance with "expert" music critics. This is Coldplay's fifth album, which came an agonizing three years and four months after their last one, Viva la Vida (review to come eventually). The band teamed up with producer Brian Eno again, and created a collection of music largely based around a musical theme of electronic sounds and a bit of modern pop. All songs were written by the band, with some arrangements /effects added by Eno.

As a reminder, I listen to music for the music itself first, second, and so on, and pay attention to lyrics if and when they happen to be prominent. If the lyrics are exceedingly good or bad, I'll comment on them, but if not it doesn't concern me either way. Before I start the song-by-song review, I should mention that there is some neat lyrical continuity that Coldplay built into the album. It isn't a huge thing, but even I noticed it, a non-lyric aficionado. Without further ado...

1. "Mylo Xyloto"

This is the first of three mini-instrumental interludes which basically serve to transition between different parts of the album. They aren't really intended as stand-alone songs, but they're still OK. This one, of course, opens the album, and it immediately introduces the electronic-type sound of much of the album with a shimmery combination of instruments, a high and low part. Sadly, I'm not familiar with these instruments enough to tell you what they are, but I think the high part might be a distorted keyboard. On top of this is added a tinkling xylophone playing a brief but pleasant theme. The last few seconds serve as the lead in to...

2. "Hurts Like Heaven"

... the first real song on the album. It practically explodes out of "Mylo Xyloto" at such a rapid clip that at first you think to yourself, Is this still Coldplay? A lively drum and keyboard rhythm nicely support one of Martin's perkiest vocal performances to date. His voice smoothly transitions from way up high to way down low in a cheerful set of verses. The refrain then bursts in, a classic falsetto croon from Martin, backed by more of the shimmery electronics and drums, before he concludes the stanza using a more relaxed tone for the title lines. The song just coasts along on a bundle of energy and the tight, quick tempo set by the drums and keyboard. Martin uses some clever variations on each verse, and the song fades out, part by part, until all that remains is the guitar in high octave, perfectly symbolizing a journey up to the elusive, weightlessness of heaven. One of the album's best, and a great opener.

3. "Paradise"

This song was released as a single just before the album itself, and it is probably, indeed, the centerpiece song of the album (a la "Viva la Vida"). "Paradise" is worthy of this status. It begins with two different instrumental themes. After this interlude, the main instrumental part crashes in dramatically, a booming electronic bass part and a high-pitched synthesizer. And yet another change as Martin's vocal starts at last, a minute into the song: the backing reduces to drums and piano, supporting Martin's solid singing. Gradually the backing builds up again, and after Martin sings a refrain that mirrors the opening instrumentals, the full band kicks in for the chorus. It is almost a trance-like part, Martin's distorted vocals followed by an "oh"ing chorus and all of it sandwiched between the powerful high-low electronic support. Perhaps not quite as good as "Viva," this one still grows on you quickly.

4. "Charlie Brown"

After a strange opening (I'd do more harm than good by trying to describe it), this one settles into a much more standard Coldplay sound, with little of the electronic theme to be heard. The guitar introduces a neat little hook after the intro, the latter half of which is indeed reminiscent of the "Linus and Lucy" theme from the cartoon strip. Martin starts in on the verses, an unconventional line of music insistently backed by strumming guitars. After a rerun of the guitar hook, a more standard Coldplay refrain composed of the whole group hits the climax of the song. The strange intro is repeated before giving way to the guitar hook, and finally the song ends on a quiet piano solo. A strange song, and one that took me several listens to really get into my head, it's still a good one, although I don't like it as much as the two previous.

5. "Us Against The World"

Here is another song with a more typical Coldplay-like sound (thematically connected to the rest of the album via lyrics), which begins with an indefinite, floaty, soft sort of electric guitar part. This soon subsides and acoustic guitars take over, supporting a simple but beautiful melody sung by Martin. The chorus starts with a distinctive little loop from Martin before settling gently into the title line. The second time through, Martin's vocal is double-tracked and adds a little on at the end before the chorus. A swell composed of electric guitar and the bass of a piano comes in and then fades away, allowing Martin to sing the title line once more. This is a great little song, slower and quieter than its neighbors but very beautiful.

6. "M.M.I.X."

I'm not sure what the acronym stands for, but this is the second instrumental transition song, connecting the slow, quiet "Us Against the World" to the upbeat, electronic-heavy...

7. "Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall"

Now the album comes back full-tilt to the electronic sound theme. A techno-y keyboard hammers out the main, very simple theme of the song a few times, before Martin takes over singing it as the song's verses. A bright, cheery guitar part follows this, sounding to me like shades of Viva la Vida, before coming back with the verses with a full backing band, especially a toe-tapping bass part. Martin then begins the refrain, a variation on the theme including more of his trademark falsetto. From there, it's a bit like a song from The Police in that there are several different variations on both the main line, both musically and lyrically. This was a single last summer, and while it's not their best song, it is very, very well done and a nice, upbeat piece.

8. "Major Minus"

Released with "ETIAW" last summer, this is quite a contrast to that brighter, more pop-friendly tune. A very cool, slightly forboding guitar part starts things off in a not very Coldplay like way. Martin then sings over these guitars in the verses, his voice slightly distorted to convey an uneasy tone. A brief but well-placed deep guitar riff leads into a more familiar Coldplay chorus, a little like some of their earlier stuff with the falsetto and guitar style, then some neat fast singing by Martin. A brief refrain, with Martin singing in a strange tone I've never heard him use before, is followed by a lengthy instrumental section to dwell on the unsettling nature of the song. The song abruptly ends after some more of the rapid singing from Martin. A very creative song, this is a great addition to the album and their repertoire as a whole.

9. "U.F.O."

I was not a big fan of this song the first few times through, but it's been growing on me a little. It's another slower, quieter song like "Us Against the World," but it seems quite a bit more similar to some of their earlier songs in the same vein. There are a number of chord progressions that I did not expect, and at first did not like at all, but they grow more tolerable upon further listening. Strings enter midway through to add atmosphere, and then the song ends with essentially a little interlude to lead more smoothly into the next song. It's not really a bad song, but it just reminds me too much of stuff like "Till Kingdom Come," of which one is probably enough for any band.

10. "Princess Of China"

This song was likely inspired by Coldplay's small collaboration with Jay-Z for an alternate version of "Lost!". Here the collaboration, this time with Rihanna, is more comprehensive; it sounds like some random techno/hip-hop song you'll hear on the radio (forgive my ignorance but I tend not to listen to that genre very much) mushed with a bit of Coldplay's style. The electronic sound theme is at its most extreme here, and I have absolutely no idea what most of the instruments used here are (most of them synthesizers of some kind I guess). The song is based on, unsurprisingly, a pretty simple oriental-sounding theme. Still, Chris Martin and Rihanna sound quite good together, and the beat is fun. There's nothing complex here, but it's a change up for Coldplay and perfectly good ear candy.

11. "Up In Flames"

Here's another song that has a similar basic structure to older songs... but it's done much more creatively than "U.F.O." and just sounds much better. It starts off with a lone bass beat that seems like it would be in a usual hip-hop song - but then a piano comes in along with Martin singing one of his slower, pretty melodies. Somehow, this mismatch works really well. He goes to his trademark falsetto for the chorus, one that exudes some hope despite the melancholic lyrics. Strings gradually filter in passively, and then as Martin repeats the chorus towards the end, a neat little guitar part that reminds me of The Beatles for some reason also joins in. I think this is one of the best tracks on the album - creative and pleasant sounding.

12. "A Hopeful Transmission"

The final instrumental interlude. This serves to improve the mood, using higher-pitched strings and a soft bass drum to keep the beat, leading into...

13. "Don't Let It Break Your Heart"

Here is a pretty standard Coldplay tune; it wouldn't have sounded too out of play on X&Y, with some of that album's noisier songs. The band does do a good job of certainly injecting the song with the electronic theme again, and it fits perfectly fine. There isn't a particularly noteworthy melody to it, but it has that nice album closer sound to it. The instrumentals give it good energy, and Martin's vocal gives it the uplift portended by "A Hopeful Transmission". If you like typical Coldplay stuff, you'll like this; if not, it's probably forgettable. I think it's fine, if not one of the album's strongest songs.

14. "Up With The Birds"

This is a rather odd song, particularly as the album's final one. It's essentially two-in-one, like some of those in Viva la Vida ("Lovers in Japan," "Yes"). The first part is, to be honest, pretty bad in my opinion. Martin sings with no particular tune, backed by a little piano and shimmering electronics. Strings burst in after a little while, but the slow-paced singing takes no better structure. Sound effects enter here and there, and at the end of this part are some bird-like guitar calls. The second half, fortunately, is much better. Guitars play an insistent theme, aided by a fiddle (I think) that blends right in. When Martin starts to sing, he does so near the top of his range without going to falsetto. It gives the piece a little more umph, and Martin manages to sound strained yet under control. I wish Coldplay had just dumped the first half of this song and expanded the last half. Oh well.

Score: 4 out of 5

I would say this album is on the upper end of the 4s, nearly a 4.5. If you decide to give it a try, give it some time because I'm confident it will grow on you. Musically, the album holds a nice theme of sounds, but within that realm it has quite a bit of variety. Some things, as I say, may sound quite a bit like older Coldplay, and others are completely new to this band. A very thoughtful, well-made album, and the only thing I'd like Coldplay to change is the time they take between albums: three years is too long!

Also, check out the song "Moving to Mars" from Coldplay's EP last summer (iTunes should have it). I don't know why it wasn't put on Mylo Xyloto, because it would have fit in nicely and it's one of the band's most creative pieces. It really does convey a space-y type feel, almost haunting. It starts slow but builds to a pretty impressive climax. Give it a try.

Essentials: "Hurts Like Heaven," "Paradise," Major Minus," "Up In Flames"

Weak(er) Songs: "U.F.O.," "Up With The Birds"

Movies: The Ides of March

Score: **** out of *****

Long Story Short: With a top-notch cast, The Ides of March is a compelling political drama. Youth and its idealism, in the form of new stars Gosling and Wood, go toe-to-toe with veteran stars like Clooney, Hoffman and Giamatti. While they may not all play nice with each other as characters, the audience can enjoy a script that takes these talented actors through political intrigue both minuscule and massive.

I had been looking forward to this movie since I first saw the trailer not long ago, but it took me a little while to finally see it. Sorry the review is coming so late. As usual, you can always rent it, Netflix it, downlo-, I mean... With such an odd array of films coming out this time of year, it was impossible for me to resist one with so many good actors and an interesting topic (presidential elections). The Ides of March was directed by George Clooney, and stars him, Ryan Gosling, Evan Rachel Wood, and many others.

The first part of the film introduces the Democratic primary for the presidential election of 20_ (it doesn't say when). The field is down to two nominees: Ted Pullman and Mike Morris (Clooney). Day-to-day operations are sampled, from Jr. Campaign Manager Meyers (Gosling) working with Morris on his speeches, to informal staff meetings. Meyers is a young but very savvy political aide, the second in command under veteran Paul Zara (Hoffman). Morris and Pullman are battling over the Ohio primary, which is likely to decide the nomination; after a debate there, Meyers is contacted by Pullman's manager, Tom Duffy (Giamatti).

After their tense meeting, Meyers meets a young Morris intern named Molly (Wood). They soon begin a quiet relationship, during which Meyers is horrified to discover a huge secret Molly is keeping. Back on the campaign, Pullman and Morris fight in secret for the support of Ohio senator Thompson; unfortunately, a reporter finds out about Meyers' unofficial meeting with Duffy, and threatens to reveal it unless details of the Thompson negotiations are given. Things continue to spiral downward from there, as Meyers' former honest, good intentions are put to the test when he finds himself in the middle of an ugly political fight.

While the script of the film is very good, it took the efforts of not only talented actors but ones with a strong presence to truly bring it to life. Gosling, as Morris' #2 campaign manager, is certainly the main character. He does a nice job, and shows the gradual change of his character, transformed by the political process, in a believable manner. He is charismatic, but I have to admit that the role was begging to be knocked out of the park, something he fell just short of, I think. Evan Rachel Wood does a very good job as well, a young, enthusiastic girl who is just in over her head; her performance creates the most emotional parts of the film. Clooney is, of course, a perfect choice to play a presidential candidate. However, he doesn't overdo it, and in fact his role is much smaller than I expected. Very, very well done by George.

The campaign managers for the dueling candidates are played by two actors who I've always put in sort of the same category anyway, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti. Hoffman has the slightly bigger role, considering he's on Morris' team. He does a fantastic job as a pro who isn't exactly jaded, but so used to the slime of politics that it just rolls right off him. He's not a bad guy, but Hoffman's performance makes him an interesting, complex man. Giamatti plays a much more overtly sneaky, oily guy, a character that he seems well-suited to play (no offense meant, Paul). Giamatti is one of the film's biggest scene-stealers, drawing my attention to him consistently. Other minor roles include Marisa Tomei as the reporter, and she does a very good job with the role's combination of schmoozing and pushiness, and Jeffrey Wright as Senator Thompson in a few brief scenes.

The script, by Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon, along with Clooney's input, is great. Possibly many of you will see the twists and turns ahead of time, but I don't tend to see them so clearly. Either way, predicted ahead of time or not, I have to say that they are well-constructed and quite believable. And of course, the performances of the actors described above just hammer the impact of those events home in a way that an inferior cast never could. There aren't a whole lot of other aspects of the film to discuss. There is a little bit of humor, but it is by no means any kind of comedy. One aspect I was impressed with was the variety of sets; I have no idea how many were actually on location, but it gave an authentic feel of a campaign actually being out in the world and working at the ground level (one that I can remember is a secret meeting of Morris and his top campaign managers... in a barren, dull school rehearsal room).

***

I must give you fair warning: this is not exactly a feel-good movie. I felt rather depressed by the end; not by the quality of the movie, of course, but by the implications of its events. Sure, it's a fictional drama, but the basic ideas seemed like they could very well apply to today's world. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if worse things happened in the real political process. Enough of that gloomy talk, though. This is simply a very entertaining film driven by its creative script and fantastic cast. It's interesting to see some new faces (Gosling, Wood) almost as symbols of the rising stars in the industry, with their ups and downs, while the older vanguard (Clooney, Hoffman, Giamatti) still guides the whole thing along steadily. Not much else to say about it, other than that I highly recommend it.

Movies Contagion

Score: ***1/2 out of *****

Long Story Short: Contagion is a very effective thriller/disaster film, better in many ways than most of its genre brethren. Good editing and writing provide a great sense of realism, and you may find yourself depressed (in a good way) about what would happen to you in such a situation. A great cast (though some with necessarily small roles) gives the film genuine human characters. An entertaining, if somewhat flawed time at the movies.

Unfortunately, I'm rather late with this movie. If you're interested in seeing it and still haven't, you may have to wait for it to hit dollar theaters or DVD. The trailers for this certainly caught my attention with its suspense and big-name cast. When it got a good score on Rotten Tomatoes, my mind was made up; it just took me awhile to get there. The film was directed by Steven Soderbergh (Ocean's Eleven, The Good German) and stars a lot of people I'll mention as they come up ;)

Like a virus itself, Contagion begins at the individual level - here, a family consisting of Beth (Paltrow), Mitch (Damon), and their young son. Beth has just returned from a trip to Hong Kong, and she has a nasty cough; the next morning, she collapses and Mitch takes her to the hospital where, to Mitch's utter disbelief, she perishes within minutes. He is immune, but by then it's too late for his son. Meanwhile, the CDC begins to learn of this spreading disease, and Dr. Cheever (Fishbourne) puts Dr. Mears (Winslet) in charge of tracking down where it is coming from. In the labs, scientists are baffled by the strange and deadly thing.

News of the disease begins to spread even more quickly than the virus itself, and journalist / slimeball Krumwiede (Law) decides to make a name for himself on the internet. He does, but also sends the public into a hysteria trying to acquire forsythia, a drug he blogs can cure the disease. The CDC and its hard-working but overwhelmed staff (including epidemiologist Orantes - Cotillard - sent to Hong Kong) start to lose control of the situation, and widespread quarantines are invoked. Eventually, tireless lab worker Dr. Hextall discovers a vaccine - but it's not the end of the story.

Contagion, as you can see, features quite an array of characters in their stories, and features a star playing each of them. I suppose Matt Damon is probably the main character - and biggest star - here. His role is primarily that of concerned, protective and loving dad, one that he does well. Nothing special, but he makes his character as convincing as you'd want him to be. Next up is Laurence Fishbourne, playing Dr. Cheever, (I believe) head of the CDC. Always a great choice for a figure of authority, Fishbourne does his usual great stuff, and also is effective when it comes to the more personal side of his character. Smaller roles include Cotillard, Paltrow, Cranston (didn't even know it was him at the time), Jennifer Ehle, and Elliot Gould, who all do fine jobs but don't have the time to shine too much.

The best two roles, in my opinion, are Kate Winslet as Dr. Mears and Jude Law as Krumwiede. Winslet's character is courageous, though not blindly so; you can tell she is still frightened, for herself and others. She has a very effective professional partnership with Dr. Cheever, but one that is also appropriately affectionate. A hero in over her head, but determined to do all she can, anyway. On the opposite side of the spectrum we have Krumwiede, who just exudes sliminess. But Law does not overplay his deplorable, even villainous, character - Krumwiede seems to be certain of his own righteousness. His arrogance and outrage are genuine.

Contagion seems to be classified as a thriller, which is somewhat accurate. It's really a combo of thriller and disaster film. I've seen enough of the latter to know the easy pitfalls of the genre; some it avoids, some it doesn't. Like most disaster films, Contagion does a great job of the build up - how serious is it? What kind of effects are there, both macro and micro? In fact, it does this even better than most, because it seems quite realistic. Unfortunately, the edge-of-your-seat suspense really fades in the second half, but perhaps the expectations had just been built up too much early. With so many characters and mini-story lines, good editing is even more critical here than in most films. For most of the film, it is handled quite well, and contributes to the suspense. However, too many of the film's plot threads die away without much resolution.

***

This is not the type of film - unless done really, really, well - that tends to become one of the year's best. And this isn't one of the exceptions. However, with that said, it is one of the best of its kind I've seen, and one that was clearly made with care, creativity and purpose rather than just "hey, let's make a movie about an epidemic with lots of stars." Like other disaster films, it gives you that sense of society-level dread. But it also does a great (and terrifying) job of letting you imagine yourself in such a situation, and how the disease itself is only a fraction of the problem in such a hypothetical situation. A bit of an issue I had was with a plot point *SPOILERS!!! (highlight with cursor to read)* that at first the disease seemed to be a super fast, unstoppable killer, which killed all the sample tissues that the CDC tried to test... yet later in the movie, we find the actual mortality rate is *only* 25%. Huh? *END SPOILERS* And the abrupt endings of several character arcs was rather troubling. But the ending is very nice, unlike many films of its genre. So if you're in the mood for suspense, I'd recommend you give this a try.

Movies: Moneyball

Score: ****1/2 out of *****

Long Story Short: Moneyball is one of the best sports movies I've seen in a long time, and it follows in the same vein of storytelling as last year's The Social Network. Like that film, it features Sorkin's excellent dialogue, but it also has a much more effective emotional core than that Best Picture nominee, plus more humor. With Pitt as the charismatic and (surprisingly) sympathetic main character, and Hill and Hoffman in effective supporting roles, Moneyball hits a grand slam.

After a short hiatus following the end of the summer movie season and the beginning of the football season, I've at last come back to the movie theater. I generally steer clear of sports movies, despite the fact that I love both movies and sports. When they're put together, though, the results are usually not very good, in my opinion. However, Moneyball (directed by Bennett Miller, who also did Capote) seemed to have a good combination of fun, sense of humor, and creativity, along with positive critical reviews. So, I gave it a try as my first movie of the fall.

The story begins with a brief recap of the Oakland A's 2001 postseason run, which ended in a series loss to the Yankees. Following this loss, their three biggest stars left the team for more money (including with those conquering Yankees), leaving Oakland's general manager Billy Beane (Pitt) a serious challenge to rebuild the team for next season. He consults his team of scouts, then goes visiting other managers around the league looking to deal. While visiting the Cleveland Indians, Beane notices a young assistant, Peter Brand (Hill). Brand, an economist from Yale, uses a new strictly statistical formula for evaluating players. Desperate for any edge due to his lack of salary capacity, Pitt steals Brand away from the Indians.

Beane quickly becomes caught up in the new evaluation method, and overrides his incredulous scouts to sign various players who have baggage (age, behavior, etc.) but the necessary stats. His team's coach Howe (Hoffman), however, upset over not getting a contract extension, is skeptical about the new style Beane wants to implement. The team does start off slowly, despite the development of a few new stars, as Howe neglects Beane's favored acquisitions. Beane forces Howe to change, though, by laying his own job on the line in getting rid of the team's few stars. His chips all in, Beane's fate appears to be either glory - or unemployment.

Moneyball sports some nice performances from its cast, although probably nothing that will get nominated come awards season. Pitt was a good choice as the star, general manager Beane, with his charisma and confident personality. I think he perhaps plays the role with a bit too much of his "cool-dude" style, but he still gives a genuine sense of conflict and vulnerability at the right times, given his character's past (which I didn't want to spoil in the plot summary). Plus, he's become quite adept in the humorous moments as well. Jonah Hill is an even more appropriate choice as analyst Brand, a rolly-polly, shy, yet bright and determined young man. Brand doesn't get much development, but serves as a good partner to Pitt's Beane and comic counterpoint to the other baseball people (scouts, Howe, etc.). Philip Seymour Hoffman as manager Howe is yet another excellent choice as the grumbling, tobacco-chewing, traditional club leader. His part is pretty small, but he makes the most of his screen time. A final notable role is one of the new players, Hatteberg, played by Chris Pratt. I was surprised to find he is also in a TV show I've just started watching, Parks & Recreation, as he plays a much more serious, vulnerable character here, and does it quite effectively.

The script, co-written by West Wing and The Social Network wizard Aaron Sorkin, is one of the film's highlights. The dialogue is excellent and mercifully devoid of the many painful sports cliches that almost inevitably infiltrate these films. At least, I don't remember hearing any of them. The two main facets of the film, being Beane's character and the A's season, are very well developed and intertwined throughout without interfering with each other. The film is also, as the trailers and commercials suggested, a pretty humorous one. Certainly, it is supposed to be a based-on-a-true-story drama, but there are plenty of laughs and chuckles, mostly created by the clever dialogue. The actual baseball that is shown is kept pretty minimal, and so when it appears it's usually interesting. The film also uses a neat technique of putting the players in spotlights within a dark set to accentuate each individual's role (and pressure) on the team. Finally, I don't really remember the soundtrack for the most part, but Beane's daughter sings a song (and plays guitar) at one point that is quite good, and fits the story's emotional arc well.

***

I suppose it would take another viewing or two for me to really be confident that Moneyball is worthy of a 4.5/5 rating (or "excellent"), but I think it is. It's certainly one of the best sports movies I've ever seen. In part that's because it isn't really a "sports" movie in the traditional sense, in the way that The Social Network (another Sorkin script) wasn't really about social networking software. Baseball provides the film's specific flavor, but the main ingredients are A) a young, upper-level manager struggling to reconcile his passion for his vocation with his other duties, and B) a small "company" with little money or clout and a band of misfits trying to compete with the big boys. It intrigues both the mind and the heart, and when a movie can do that it is set for great things. And in a nice sense of humor and some other perks, and you've got a hit. Highly recommended, either in the theater or on DVD.

Movies: The Tree of Life

Score: **** out of *****

Long Story Short: An unconventional film, to say the least, The Tree of Life is a good solid film at its core but suffers from excessiveness. The soundtrack is amazing, and serves to lift the narrative-less focus on an average middle-class family. The cast is quite good and convincing but it's just too long. With little dialogue and no plot, slower parts drag interminably, weighing down some powerful moments found elsewhere.

All done with summer blockbusters now. The film reviewed here is about as far from those summer movies as possible. Because of that, I'm not sure how good of a review I'll be able to write, but I'll do my best. It also doesn't help that it's now been a little while since I've seen it, but that's what Wikipedia is for. The Tree of Life was directed by Terrence Malick (The Thin Red Line) and stars Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. As a quick aside, it was rather amusing to see several young (as in middle or high school) girls watch this movie when I did, obviously drawn by Pitt. I don't think they enjoyed it very much.

This will be a rather different plot summary, since, well, there isn't much of a plot, but I'll go over generally what "happens" in the movie. First, we are introduced, through music and a few spare narrative lines, to an average family (1950s? 60s?) grieving the death of one of their three young boys. This is followed immediately by one of the boys, Jack, (Penn), now full grown, thinking about his childhood while he wearily surveys his business surroundings. Next, we are taken through, essentially a journey from the beginning of the universe through the earliest life forms to the time of the dinosaurs during a fifteen or twenty minute interlude.

Next, we see Jack being born, and his parents' joy over having and raising a son. The other two boys quickly follow, and the film settles into its main chronological period, with the boys in adolescence. The family is middle-class, living in the suburbs of Waco, Texas, and what we see here on out is basically the progression of their normal lives. The main themes are the dual nature of the father (Pitt), who clearly loves his family but is nevertheless often strict and harsh. The mother (Chastain) is fairly passive but provides the foundation of the family. The boys act pretty much like boys, getting into trouble, developing relationships amongst each other as brothers. This main part ends when the father loses his job and the family is forced to move away. Finally, the movie ends with a strange, surely metaphorical series of scenes based around the older Jack (Penn) walking on a beach with his family who are all the ages that they were when he was as a teenager.

Brad Pitt is obviously the big name in this film. And he does do quite a good, convincing job as an everyday dad, with faults like a quick temper, but also a deep love for his sons. His acting lends the film a good chunk of its credibility and impact of showing what is a pretty average family. Penn is the next biggest name, but he really doesn't do much. I don't think he says a dozen words total. He just gives pensive, concerned, or wistful looks and serves basically as a symbol more than a character. His younger counterpart, Hunter McCracken, who probably gets the most screen time in the whole film, does a very good job of conveying a variety of moods despite the lack of much dialogue. Jessica Chastain as the mother is also very effective. Those three - McCracken, Pitt, and Chastain - give great performances that hold up the director's narrative-less film.

Well, there's no action or comedy to talk about in this film, so I'll bring up some things that didn't get mentioned in the film summary. First I want to say, this film has one of the best soundtracks of any film I've seen. I think it's about half original music and half classical selections; the former for general mood setting and the latter for terrific emotional swells. It truly elevates the film dramatically (literally and figuratively). Next, there is a lot of kind of random imagery in the filming - particularly at the beginning and the end, as well as the scientific interlude itself obviously. I guess you could sift through them for symbolism but I'm not interested in doing that. It's not overdone, anyway, and the interlude is spectacular at times, if a touch slow. As I mentioned, there really isn't a plot to the film. The acting work is good enough that it doesn't suffer too badly from this.

***

After seeing this film, I wasn't sure what to think. It is so different from anything else I've seen recently, it was hard to process. Looking at the film as a whole, there are certainly some powerful parts - always enhanced by the outstanding soundtrack - and it sheds light on some aspects of life in interesting ways. The biggest down side of the film is that it is considerably too long. The second half is the biggest culprit here; there is just scene after scene after scene of Jack and his brothers messing around like adolescent boys do. In my opinion, there is no point to it. The director wanted to show normal life, fine. But there came a point when I wanted to yell at the screen "do something, already!" The general lack of dialogue is in line with the film's theme, but during the slow, repetitive parts it just worsens the boredom. Sean Penn was also basically unnecessary, except for the very last part on the beach. A unique, good movie that could've been significantly better had a good editor chopped off a lot of the fat hanging around the important parts.

Sports: NFL/Tennis Mega Post

Ah, it's that time of year again! The kids are going back to school, and more importantly, the athletes are getting back on the field. Next weekend marks what I believe is perhaps the best sports weekend of the year: first NFL Sunday of the year, second college football Saturday, and the U.S. Open tennis finals. It's kind of funny comparing the two sports, considering how different they are (I hope to make a "sports broadcasters" blog post soon - sneak peek: tennis announcers are awesome, football announcers suck). Anyway, I'll give a review of some tennis goings-on, focused on the U.S. Open primarily, before focusing on an NFL season preview. Enjoy! (and let me know where you disagree if you're so inclined)

Tennis:

As of this writing, the U.S. Open is just about halfway done. It's been a good tournament so far, but first I'd like to give a little season recap. Novak Djokovic, who I first came to notice (and become a fan of) when he beat Roger Federer en route to winning the 2008 Australian Open, is having an absolutely extraordinary year - and one that is being tragically overlooked by the sports world overall. He came into the year ranked a very respectable third in the world behind the greatest player of all time, Roger Federer, and a guy who at this point is now even better (Rafael Nadal). In just six months, he has bypassed both men to become #1, going 57-2 coming into the U.S. Open. He has won nine tournaments this year, including the Australian and French Opens. He has beaten Federer three times (and lost once, thanks to a truly vintage performance from Fed), and beaten Nadal FIVE times. I've admired "the Djoker's" sense of humor (search YouTube for "Djokovic," "Sharapova," and "Head") and his humility for some time, and, since reading an SI article about him, learned of his early family struggles in Serbia and intense, focused training regimen. Djokovic has my full admiration this season for his phenomenal success and the way he's gone about it. Bravo.

To the U.S. Open: on the men's side, all four top seeds - Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, and Murray - are still in (though Murray got taken to five sets last round). Other notable players include Mardy Fish, the top ranked American having a career resurgence and playing solid tennis. Roddick also remains, despite falling dramatically in the rankings. Two others to watch are Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, a Frenchman who has beaten Federer twice this year, and Juan Martin del Potro, a big young guy who beat Federer to win the U.S. Open two years ago.

On the women's side, havoc has been wreaked on the top seeds - but that has become so common for the women recently that it's not very surprising. Top seed Caroline Wozniacki has looked quite strong. She doesn't have an exceptional game, but has thrived with the lack of other superstars. Second seed Vera Zvonareva is still in it, a dangerous player who has reached Grand Slam finals before. Serena's return disappoints me, as I've never been a fan of her arrogance and disdain for her opponents (not to mention her completely unprofessional outburst at the U.S. Open a few years ago).

Djokovic remains the favorite for the men, as he shows no signs of slowing after a recent shoulder tweak. Nadal has been struggling - at least by his usual standards - perhaps because of the beatdowns Djokovic has given him this year. I give Federer a better chance than Nadal at this point, but he has been vulnerable to second tier foes this year (ie: Tsonga). Barring injury to the top three, I don't see anyone else with a great shot, though Murray has an outside chance of taking advantage of any off days or injuries. For the women, I must sadly admit that Serena is the favorite with her dominant game. Wozniacki is consistent enough to beat most players, but doesn't have the firepower to compete with Serena. Zvonareva might actually have a better chance to beat Serena in the finals, but she'll have to be at the top of her game (*crosses fingers*).

The men's game has certainly been the highlight of the 2011 season, as Djokovic has improbably asserted himself as belonging among - even surpassing - the Federer-Nadal combo that had dominated for so long. This in turn has given other players renewed confidence, and so the men's game is very entertaining right now. The women's game, unfortunately... not so much. I've seen several quite poor matches in the U.S. Open, and the only consistent superstar is Serena who I dislike (and she keeps coming down with injuries, hence her ranking). The men's final of the U.S. Open, no matter who is in it, should be excellent, so tune in if you can.

NFL:

The 2011 lockout is now a distant memory as we get ready for the kickoff of the season on Thursday. However, it will be interesting to see how the reduction in team practice and the frantic free agency period caused by the lockout will affect the league. A general consensus is that team's with little personnel or coaching turnover will do the best, which makes sense. There are many other things to look out for, as well. The Eagles assembled a so-called "Dream Team" after the lockout, led by LeBron - er, Michael Vick, and highlighted by the signing of shut down cornerback (had to double check the spelling here) Nnamdi Asomugha. Several new contenders will try to prove that they weren't a fluke (Kansas City, Tampa Bay, St. Louis). Others will try to grind one step closer to a Super Bowl as they build on their recent success (Baltimore, Atlanta, N.Y. Jets). And who knows which teams will come out of nowhere to contend? Now I'll go through each division and predict their records (I'm not going through each game here, just trying to get the number of total losses and wins to match up).

AFC East:

1. Team That Shall Not Be Named (known from here on out as "TTSNBN")

Last Year: 14-2

Projected: 13-3

No comment.

2. N.Y. Jets

Last Year: 11-5

Projected: 10-6

I feel like this could be a turning point year for the Jets. They've been contending well since getting Coach Ryan - but there seems to have been an invisible ceiling for their overall success so far. I didn't notice a whole lot of player movement this offseason, so I'm assuming the defense will be very good again (although when I watch them sometimes I feel it's a little vulnerable). The real question is how will QB Mark Sanchez and RB Shonn Greene play. Greene must become the workhorse they expect him to be (hasn't happened yet), and Sanchez must help him by keeping defenses honest, at the least. This team is going to either improve or get worse - they won't be the team they were the last two years.

3. Miami Dolphins

Last Year: 7-9

Projected: 7-9

In a lot of ways the Dolphins remind me of the Jets - except that they're not as good across the board. They have a very good defense - but not as good as the Jets'. They have a young, struggling QB - but Henne isn't even as good as Sanchez. And they have questions in the running game - and here they are in much worse shape than the Jets here. The defense will keep them in games, but Henne MUST improve for this team to move up. I don't see it.

4. Buffalo Bills

Last Year: 4-12

Projected: 3-13

Here we have our first member of what I'll deem the Poop Pile. Several characteristics that describe the Bills and their cohorts are a bland, identity-less franchise; a horrible QB situation; and few hopeful prospects. I'm really not sure why they bother trying anymore. Of course, now they'll probably make the playoffs. But really, the Bills just suck all around.

AFC North

1. Baltimore Ravens

Last Year: 12-4

Projected: 12-4

Yes, this is partially an attempt at a reverse jinx. The Ravens haven't looked good yet in the preseason, and I think they might struggle early in the year, but I have a feeling they'll work it out. I feel that while their defense will continue to decay a bit this year (only 10th overall last year), their offense should finally break out. Ray Rice keeps improving, and he's got better blocking this year. Joe Flacco is under the same system, and gets new receiver help. They won't look like the old Ravens so much, but they'll be good by the end of the year.

2. Pittsburgh Steelers

Last Year: 12-4

Projected: 10-6

The schedule looks favorable for the Steelers this year, and they just went to the Super Bowl. Which is why I'm predicting they have somewhat of a let down this year. Whenever it seems like they have an easy schedule, they tend to live down to it, I've noticed. And the Super Bowl loser jinx has a rather depressing consistency. I'm hoping I'm wrong, but I think that this might be a frustrating year for the black 'n' gold.

3. Cleveland Browns

Last Year: 5-11

Projected: 8-8

Fear the Browns' stains after they have left your stadium this year! OK, OK, that was a bad one, I'm sorry. However, I think the Browns will take advantage of an easier schedule this year, unlike Pittsburgh, and they won't get the same respect as their big brothers. Colt McCoy will continue to improve, and Hillis will do well again with appropriate support to keep from wearing down. The beat down of TTSNBN last year was a sign of things to come, I think.

4. Cincinnati Bungles

Last Year: 4-12

Projected: 2-14

The Bungles had a semi-effective offense last year and still won only 4 games. Now they've lost Chad Palmer, Chad Ochocinco, and Terrell Owens. Uh oh. I think we're in for another classic Bungles season, perhaps even worse than usual.

AFC South

1. Houston Texans

Last Year: 6-10

Projected: 10-6

Yes, this is the year I think the Texans will finally break through and win the division. I guess "walk" through might be a better description, considering my 9-7 projection. Houston's offense is spectacular, with both a great passing and running attack. The problem is a defense that ranked 30th last year. They did bring in a good defensive coordinator, but it's doubtful it'll be that much better this year. Still, the Texans should win the division because of the next team.

2. Indianapolis Colts

Last Year: 10-6

Projected: 8-8

The Colts, so steady in the regular season for so long, now depend on the health of their long-time QB Peyton Manning. Very little is known currently about his neck injury. Perhaps he won't miss any time and he'll be as good as ever. Or he could miss half the season or the whole season. So the possible outcomes for this team are quite varied. Aside from Manning, though, the defense isn't any better, and neither is the running game. All outcomes considered, I expect a moderate decline for the Colts this year.

3. Tennessee Titans

Last Year: 6-10

Projected: 8-8

Some good news, some bad news for the Titans. They lost both their starting QB and head coach from last year, who famously did not get along. Their replacements are a relatively inexperienced coach and a solid veteran QB. Chris Johnson should bounce back a little from an "off" year last year, with more stability at QB and a better O-line. However, the team will have to adjust to a new coaching staff, and their defense was surprisingly poor last year. This team has potential, but I think it'll be slow going.

4. Jacksonville Jaguars

Last Year: 8-8

Projected: 5-11

I don't know how the heck this team finished 8-8 last year. Whenever I have seen them play, they just seem to be a pretty poor team. The defense is awful, and so the team must score lots to stay in games. I don't see that happening this year. If MJD gets hurt (and he's been banged up before), they will be in even more trouble. Frankly, this team really just doesn't interest me, so let's move on.

AFC West

1. San Diego Chargers

Last Year: 9-7

Projected: 13-3

I think the Chargers are serious title contenders this year. They have a number of things going for them. They were #1 in yards allowed AND yards gained last year, yet somehow finished 9-7. A lot of that, it is believed, was due to poor special teams play. With the new kickoff rule, however, that problem should be less of an issue. As long as injuries don't hit hard again, this team is set to dominate both sides of the ball, with Philip Rivers leading the charge as a rising elite QB.

2. Kansas City Chiefs

Last Year: 10-6

Projected: 8-8

I predicted this team would do better than expected last year, though I didn't expect that well. Benefiting from a pretty easy schedule, the Chiefs were only a little above average on offense and defense. I think teams will be better prepared for them this year (see their domination by the Ravens in the playoffs) and facing stiffer competition. They're still fine, but they'll come back to earth somewhat.

3. Denver Broncos

Last Year: 4-12

Projected: 6-10

The Broncos dumped their run-and-gun coach Josh McDaniels (formerly of TTSNBN, so good riddance) for the steadier, conservative John Fox (from Carolina). The defense really can't be any worse this year, since it was dead last last year, but it's difficult to see major immediate improvement. The offense was decent last year, but it will undergo a dramatic transformation most likely. Fewer ups and downs might lead to a slightly better record this year, but nothing more.

4. Oakland Raiders

Last Year: 8-8

Projected: 5-11

Last year, the Raiders ran all over everyone - but everyone ran all over them, too. Their strength, pass defense, took a huge hit in the offseason by losing Asomugha. RB McFadden had his healthiest, most productive season last year; they must pray that he remains healthy and that they can finally get something out of the passing game. That's because it's likely their defense will give up quite a few more points this year.

NFC East

1. Philadelphia Eagles

Last Year: 10-6

Projected: 11-5

The Eagles, in the span of a year, have gone from a fading NFC East team to the most followed one in the entire league. Michael Vick improved beyond anyone's wildest expectations last year, but the problem is his offensive line is still terrible, as the preseason has shown. They do have Vince Young as a solid backup, but if they lose Vick, they will be much less effective. The defense also has areas of great strength, but there are weaknesses, too. The expectations for this team are too high, but they'll still do well with an easy schedule.

2. Dallas Cowboys

Last Year: 6-10

Projected: 9-7

After firing Wade Philips last year, the Cowboys managed to be halfway decent, despite the loss of their star QB Tony Romo. As long as he can stay healthy this year, which is reasonable, the team has the potential to match the offensive firepower of their state rivals the Texans. But like the Texans, their defense is also a major question. They will likely be facing shootouts again this year - but with Romo, they should win more of them than last year.

3. N.Y. Giants

Last Year: 10-6

Projected: 8-8

The Giants put up some impressive stats last year, ranking in the top ten in offense and defense. However, I just don't see Eli Manning leading this team much farther than he has without some serious help - like 2007's dominant defense. RB Ahmad Bradshaw is fragile, but they depend on him for balance. The defense is strong overall, but can be exposed. I just don't have a good feeling about this team, although they shouldn't be bad, either.

4. Washington Redskins

Last Year: 6-10

Projected: 3-13

Here's another member of the poop pile. Reason #1: their QB situation. After stupidly thinking McNabb could single-handedly save them last year, they dumped him for... who? They now have the legendary Rex Grossman, and perpetual bench-warmer John Beck. Ouch. They looked decent in preseason, but many, many other bad teams have, too. Plus, the Redskins just irritate me with their perennial underachieving, so maybe this is the year they truly bomb out and someone does something about it.

NFC North

1. Green Bay Packers

Last Year: 10-6

Projected: 13-3

While Super Bowl losers certainly have a poor track record, winners also don't have it easy. They can fairly point to being a different team this year, hopefully getting back a number of key players who were hurt last year - including their starting RB. They are very well balanced, and I don't see anything particularly wrong with them. But it seems that a combination of a little less drive with being a key target for opponents may get to them come playoff time.

2. Detroit Lions

Last Year: 6-10

Projected: 10-6

Yes, I am on the bandwagon - and I'm just as shocked myself, believe me. But this team has been creeping up the last few years. They had some truly terrible luck last year, both in game results and health (starting QB missed most of the season). The defensive line shook up the QB of TTSNBN this preseason, not a feat to be taken lightly, and the offense has a lot of potential. With a weakened division, I think this is the year they start to play with contention.

3. Minnesota Vikings

Last Year: 6-10

Projected: 7-9

The Vikings' defense continued to be strong last year, but as old man Favre fell apart, so did the offense overall. Peterson is the best RB in the game, but it just shows you how important the passing game is now. McNabb is certainly a step up, but as he showed in Washington last year, it takes him time to learn a new system. Plus, they lost their best receiver in the offseason. If an aging McNabb can't adjust, or gets hurt, they'll find a lot of games just outside their reach.

4. Chicago Bears

Last Year: 10-6

Projected: 6-10

Possibly last year's luckiest team - having watched them quite a bit on TV - I confidently predict that they're going down this year. From first to worst. Jay Cutler is the dictionary definition of gunslinger, hurting his team as often as helping it. And if the backup is the same as last year, they really, really, really have to hope he doesn't get injured. Speaking of injuries, the defense remained miraculously healthy last year, which bucks the trend. Bye, bye, Bears.

AFC South

1. Atlanta Falcons

Last Year: 13-3

Projected: 12-4

The Falcons' defense was just average last year, but I liked the way they looked. They have a good coach, and seem to have good focus and overall strategy. While I think they'll need to take some pressure off their RB Michael Turner, who they've been riding a little too hard the last few years, I think they can do it. Matt Ryan isn't flashy, but he's a smart QB who now has another weapon in rookie WR Julio Jones to go with Roddy White. I certainly can see this going the other way, but I think Atlanta will keep their division title.

2. Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Last Year: 10-6

Projected: 11-5

The Bucs are a dynamic young team, one that surprised me last year (I saw them as a Buffalo Bills-type bland team). Their defense, like most of the division, is average at best, but they have some up and coming offensive weapons in QB Josh Freeman and RB LeGarrette Blount. I'm basically betting here that they'll continue to improve, but I think they will, especially if they get more help from the defense.

3. New Orleans Saints

Last Year: 11-5

Projected: 9-7

Drew Brees should be getting a decent running game back this season, helping to balance an offense that relied too much on the pass and therefore had too many turnovers. But the defense still concerns me. They actually had better overall numbers than I thought, having looked them up, but I'm still skeptical. They certainly could go make me look stupid and win the division; I just have a feeling that the defense is going to degrade this year and they'll slide back a little.

4. Carolina Panthers

Last Year: 2-14

Projected: 3-13

I think the Panthers bottomed out last year, and now they begin their slow rise back to at least mediocrity (and if they can't get past there, of course, there may be more rebuilding). The team still has two very talented running backs, which should take some pressure off rookie QB Cam Newton from having to immediately become a star. Their defense was only a little worse than average (run defense being the weakest link) which should let them win more than a measly two games this year.

NFC West

1. St. Louis Rams

Last Year: 7-9

Projected: 9-7

Ah, the NFC West. It's truly the wild west out there, with the division up for grabs by anyone. In fact, it often seemed last year that none of the teams did want it. With a defensive-minded head coach, and a new high-octane offensive coordinator, the Rams are sure to improve in both areas with their young roster. QB Sam Bradford, in particular, has shown himself steady in leading an offense with the help of veteran RB Steven Jackson. Plus, they get six very winnable games, as they do each year.

2. San Francisco 49ers

Last Year: 6-10

Projected: 8-8

The 49ers have the best defense in the division, and that's why they should get 2nd place in the division. The agonizing position for this team, though, is the all-important QB. They seem set to start Alex Smith again this year, but as anyone who follows football knows, that probably won't last long. With RB Frank Gore, WR Braylon Edwards and TE Vernon Davis, this team is just begging for a good leader. If they can actually find one, they may even win the division.

3. Arizona Cardinals

Last Year: 5-11

Projected: 5-11

How the Cardinals managed to win even five games last year is a mystery to me. They ranked just about last in both offense and defense. One of the best receivers in the game, Fitzgerald, was frustrated by one of the most pathetic casts of QBs I've ever seen. Their running game and defense was just as bad. Much depends on how well unproven QB Kevin Kolb can play. If he can find a groove with Fitzgerald, their offense should improve - but some complementary running would also be nice. With the upgrade at QB, they'll probably make up for the luck that got them to five wins last year.

4. Seattle Seahawks

Last Year: 7-9

Projected: 4-12

With all due respect to the Bears and Cardinals, the Seahawks were the luckiest team last year. They are the last member of my Poop Pile squad, and this year even more so than ever. Matt Hasselbeck gave them a decent, steady QB for an otherwise talentless offense. And they traded him... instead acquiring Tarvaris "Short Arm" Jackson. They did trade for WR Sidney Rice... but who is going to get him the ball (ala Fitzgerald-Arizona last year)? The defense is as bad as Arizona's. So have fun, Seattle.

Whew! That was long. So, by extension of my projected standings, the AFC playoff teams will be TTSNBN, Baltimore, Houston, and San Diego, with Pittsburgh and N.Y. Jets as wild cards. NFC playoff teams will be Philadelphia, Green Bay, Atlanta, and St. Louis, with Tampa Bay and (*gulp*) Detroit as wild cards. With that in mind, I'll predict San Diego over Atlanta in the Super Bowl. However it turns out (other than TTSNBN winning the Super Bowl), enjoy the season!