Sports: 2013 NFL Preview

2013 NFL Season Preview

It's that time of year again!  Summer is coming to an end, students are going back to school... and football returns.  Each NFL season has its share of surprises, which is a big part of what makes it so fun, but I'll make a few predictions here about how each team will fair in its division (and a review of how I did with last year's predictions... although I'm not sure I want to know!).  Rather than discuss each team individually, I'll do it by division.  I may be back with another movie review next weekend, after which it looks like there might be a bit of a drought as I glance at the release schedule.  I'd also like to get a review of the summer in tennis, too, so that's another upcoming post.  For now, on to the 2013 NFL preview!

Divisional Predictions

AFC:

East
2012 Predicted Standings:
1. Team That Shall Not Be Named (TTSNBN)
2. Buffalo Bills
3. Miami Dolphins
4. New York Jets

2012 Final Standings:
1. TTSNBN (12-4)
2. Miami Dolphins (7-9)
3. New York Jets (6-10)
4. Buffalo Bills (6-10)

2013 Predicted Standings:
1. TTSNBN
2. Miami Dolphins
3. Buffalo Bills
4. New York Jets

As in the last bajillion years, the AFC East in 2012 was TTSNBN served up with a side of poo-poo platter.  Although TTSNBN is facing major changes on offense, Buffalo and NY Jets both look like they might be going backwards.  Last year, the Jets and Dolphins were both pretty good on defense and terrible on offense; while the Dolphins have a decent, developing young QB (Tannehill), a new explosive WR (Wallace) and a potential new RB star (Miller), the Jets lost their top RB from last year (Greene), deal with injury and incompetence at QB, and I've never heard of any of their WRs.  Buffalo can't defend anyone, and their QB situation could be even worse than the Jets' (although if rookie Manuel can get healthy, he has some potential).  TTSNBN has already mathematically clinched this division.


West
2012 Predicted Standings:
1. Denver Broncos
2. Kansas City Chiefs
3. San Diego Chargers
4. Oakland Raiders

2012 Final Standings:
1. Denver Broncos (13-3)
2. San Diego Chargers (7-9)
3. Oakland Raiders (4-12)
4. Kansas City Chiefs (2-14)

2013 Predicted Standings:
1. Denver Broncos
2. Kansas City Chiefs
3. San Diego Chargers
4. Oakland Raiders

This division was the AFC East last year, only worse.  Denver finished in the top 10 of almost every statistical category.  Why?  Because they got to play the other clowns in the division six times.  I see no reason to think Denver won't run away with it again, QB Manning presumably fully recovered now, and with the addition of WR Welker.  Their best defender is suspended for the first 6 games, though, so it could be tougher early on.  I keep predicting the Chiefs to break through, which they did last year - into the cellar.  I'll try it again, though since they have a major upgrade at QB (yeah, it's Alex Smith, but I had to turn them down last year when they called) and coach Andy Reid who led the Eagles to a decade plus of strong seasons.  I don't see the Chargers going anywhere (although Norv Turner's gone, a plus); and the Raiders are still the Raiders (Pryor at QB?! lololol).


North
2012 Predicted Standings:
1. Baltimore Ravens
2. Pittsburgh Steelers
3. Cincinnati Bengals
4. Cleveland Browns

2012 Final Standings:
1. Baltimore Ravens (10-6)
2. Cincinnati Bengals (10-6)
3. Pittsburgh Steelers (8-8)
4. Cleveland Browns (5-11)

2013 Predicted Standings:
1. Cincinnati Bengals
2. Baltimore Ravens
3. Pittsburgh Steelers
4. Cleveland Browns

The Ravens took the NY Giants' entire playbook last year, playing like an only slightly better than mediocre team through the regular season, then getting red-hot in the playoffs to win it all.  After hilariously overpaying their mediocre QB and losing lots of defensive veterans, I don't see another playoff run.  Cincinnati looks like the team to beat; their offense was excruciating to watch at times, but they have a young RB with potential (Bernard), and the Dalton-Green connection should only grow stronger.  Their defense may become the best in the division this year.  Defense was what kept the Steelers afloat last year, but how long can it last?  RB is a shambles once again, and they lost WR Wallace.  I wouldn't be completely surprised if (*gulp*) the Browns get out of the division cellar, with strong young RB Richardson, an improving defense and a generally younger lineup.


South
2012 Predicted Standings:
1. Houston Texans
2. Tennessee Titans
3. Jacksonville Jaguars
4. Indianapolis Colts

2012 Final Standings:
1. Houston Texans (12-4)
2. Indianapolis Colts (11-5)
3. Tennessee Titans (6-10)
4. Jacksonville Jaguars (2-14)

2013 Predicted Standings:
1. Houston Texans
2. Indianapolis Colts
3. Tennessee Titans
4. Jacksonville Jaguars

It's amazing how weak the AFC has become.  Yeah, this is a lazy, boring prediction for this division, but it's kind of a lazy and boring division anyway.  Houston is really strong on offense and defense - with room to improve in the passing game, even.  They just collapsed at the end of last season, though, and you have to wonder if this is yet another perennially strong team destined to come up short when it counts.  The Colts way outperformed their stats last year; I think the experience of winning will help, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't any regression.  QB Luck is very good, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of talent around him.  The Titans and Jaguars are stuck with terrible defenses and young but not really developing QBs.  Their RBs are nice for fantasy football, but these teams are cannon fodder.


NFC:

East
2012 Predicted Standings:
1. Philadelphia Eagles
2. New York Giants
3. Dallas Cowboys
4. Washington Redskins

2012 Final Standings:
1. Washington Redskins (10-6)
2. New York Giants (9-7)
3. Dallas Cowboys (8-8)
4. Philadelphia Eagles (4-12)

2013 Predicted Standings:
1. Washington Redskins
2. Dallas Cowboys
3. New York Giants
4. Philadelphia Eagles

This remains one of the most interesting divisions in football, with four proud and popular franchises constantly at each other's throats to get to the top.  The Redskins have a formula for sustained success; their running game is great, and even if RGIII gets hurt again, Cousins is a reliable backup.  Plus, they have a lot of room to improve on defense, which would make them even better.  The Eagles have a new coach and offensive system, but I've given up on this group.  Maybe they'll finally turn the corner, but I'm not predicting it.  The Cowboys seem to always be underachieving, and the Giants overachieving, making my prediction precarious.  But I like the Cowboys' talent a lot more than the Giants, and they have to put it together some time, right?  I'm hearing crickets.


West
2012 Predicted Standings:
1. San Francisco 49ers
2. Seattle Seahawks
3. Arizona Cardinals
4. St. Louis Rams

2012 Final Standings:
1. San Francisco 49ers (11-4-1)
2. Seattle Seahawks (11-5)
3. St. Louis Rams (7-8-1)
4. Arizona Cardinals (5-11)

2013 Predicted Standings:
1. Seattle Seahawks
2. San Francisco 49ers
3. Arizona Cardinals
4. St. Louis Rams

What an amazing turnaround for this division over the last few years; once the laughingstock of the league, it now is a force to be reckoned with.  Seattle and San Francisco are nearly carbon copies of each other, in my view; young, mobile QBs; strong running games; physical, dominating defenses.  I feel that the 49ers have a few more questions marks going into the year, which is why I have Seattle at #1.  St. Louis was OK last year, but they lost RB Jackson, and so their offense is full of entirely unproven players.  Their defense will likely have to step up big time to repeat last year's "success".  However, Arizona made a huge upgrade at QB - to Carson Palmer... and RB Mendenhall could be a dependable rusher.  With more offensive weapons, I rank them ahead of the Rams.


North
2012 Predicted Standings:
1. Green Bay Packers
2. Detroit Lions
3. Chicago Bears
4. Minnesota Vikings

2012 Final Standings:
1. Green Bay Packers (11-5)
2. Minnesota Vikings (10-6)
3. Chicago Bears (10-6)
4. Detroit Lions (4-12)

2013 Predicted Standings:
1. Green Bay Packers
2. Chicago Bears
3. Detroit Lions
4. Minnesota Vikings

The Vikings had the flukiest season to me, somehow finishing at 10-6 and making the playoffs.  Yeah, they have RB Peterson and... what else?  QB Ponder?  Their defense is mediocre.  The Packers should remain the class of the division, with the NFL's best QB in Rodgers.  They also have a rookie RB in Lacy who could give them some balance, and the defense performed much better last year.  Chicago and Detroit, like NY Giants and Dallas, are hard to assess.  The Bears defense was dominant last year, but can they keep that up?  Surely their offense can't be any worse, although QB Cutler is definitely a bonehead.  Detroit has a lot of potential, but like Dallas, they need to convert that into actual wins.  I certainly think they'll be better than last year, but still too inconsistent to make the playoffs.


South
2012 Predicted Standings:
1. New Orleans Saints
2. Atlanta Falcons
3. Carolina Panthers
4. Tampa Bay Buccaneers

2012 Final Standings:
1. Atlanta Falcons (13-3)
2. Carolina Panthers (7-9)
3. New Orleans Saints (7-9)
4. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (7-9)

2013 Predicted Standings:
1. Atlanta Falcons
2. New Orleans Saints
3. Carolina Panthers
4. Tampa Bay Buccaneers

It was amazing to see just how the Saints fell last season.  Coach Payton was suspended for the entire season, but I don't think they had any other significant losses, showing just how much he means to them.  He's back now, and I think with a little defensive improvement (dead last in 2012), they should be in playoff contention again.  The Falcons are the new leaders of the division, though.  Their offense is nearly as potent as the Saints', and their defense greatly improved last year.  I don't see another 13-3 season from them, but they should win the division again.  Carolina is kind of a strange team.  Their stats indicate they should have had a better record, but I don't see them getting significantly better (though their defense is underrated).  Tampa Bay is held back by its defense and QB, and that's never a good combination.


Playoffs

AFC:
1. TTSNBN
2. Houston Texans
3. Denver Broncos
4. Cincinnati Bengals
5. Baltimore Ravens
6. Kansas City Chiefs

NFC:
1. Green Bay Packers
2. Seattle Seahawks
3. Washington Redskins
4. Atlanta Falcons
5. San Francisco 49ers
6. New Orleans Saints

Super Bowl:  Denver Broncos beat Seattle Seahawks

Movies: Kick-Ass 2

Score:  *** out of ***** (C)

Long Story Short:  Despite poor box office performance, the excellent Kick-Ass seems to have inspired enough of a fan base to produce a sequel.  If you enjoyed the original, this one will disappoint if you're looking for the same quality; nevertheless, it utilizes the same dark action/comedy style for "B" movie entertainment.  Obviously not for everyone, but it is perfectly satisfying for the right audience.


Well, here comes the last summer film.  I saw eleven films released between May and August, and could have seen a handful more but I think that holding off on some helped me appreciate more those that I did see.  While I don't plan on writing full reviews for films I see on Netflix, I hope to add some notes about them on review for other films - as well as more mentions on the annual movie review.  Back to Kick-Ass 2:  when I heard this was coming out, it instantly became one of my most anticipated films of the year.  You could certainly argue Kick-Ass didn't need a sequel, but I was so impressed by it that I was intrigued to see what might happen next.  I saw the ugly score it got on Rotten Tomatoes, but that did not deter me.  Kick-Ass 2 was directed by Jeff Wadlow and stars Chloe Grace Moretz, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Christopher Mintz-Plasse and Jim Carrey.

A few years after the events of Kick-Ass, Dave (Johnson) and Mindy (Moretz) are struggling to adapt to  the boring, normal lives of teenagers - and failing.  Although Dave, aka "Kick-Ass", is still a mediocre-at-best crime fighter, Mindy, aka "Hit Girl", patiently trains him.  The two seem happy again, but Mindy's adoptive father, a cop, discovers her secret activities and forbids her from continuing.  Thus, "Hit Girl" is shelved as Mindy tries to make friends at school, while "Kick-Ass" is left to go solo until he meets a group self-made heroes whom he inspired.

Meanwhile, Chris D'Amico boils with rage at "Kick-Ass", who dealt his family a blow in the first film. He decides to get back in the game, now as "The Mother******".  This time, the shackles are off the entitled, whiny, completely psychopathic rich kid with a simple mission:  get revenge on "Kick-Ass".

There are a number of returning stars in Kick-Ass 2, as well as some welcome new additions.  Aaron Taylor-Johnson is still the title character "Kick-Ass", although with an expanded roster he is much less the focus in the sequel.  In fact, though he is the central character as far as all the others having some kind of connection to him, "Kick-Ass" is actually kind of an afterthought in his own film.  Considerably more effort is made to develop Chloe Moretz's character, Mindy/"Hit Girl".  The film's weakest scenes are undoubtedly the cliched struggles of Mindy to fit in with the schools' mean girls; as "Hit Girl", Moretz still has an entertaining mix of boldness and sharp sarcasm.  Christoper Mintz-Plasse is once again the most cartoonish character, but, whether it's luck or skill, the "overacting" comes off quite funny more often that not.  The biggest new name in the cast is, of course, Jim Carrey.  He doesn't actually have all that much screen time, but he does a great job of disappearing into the role; a thick-accented veteran who you can never quite tell if he's a gentle old guy or about to go postal.  There are some other neat roles, too, but none significant enough to comment on directly.

The original Kick-Ass was a whole new kind of superhero/comic book movie, a uniquely dark action/comedy blend that worked brilliantly.  The sequel basically takes the same format and attempts to go bigger in all aspects.  Most of all, Kick-Ass 2 ramps up the violence; the original used this as a scalpel, making you feel it acutely in controlled settings, but the sequel uses it more like a bazooka.  To its credit (or detriment, depending on how you look at it), much more humor is present in Kick-Ass 2's violence.  Maybe it's just me, but I found all the action, from fights similar to what we saw in the original (ie: "Kick-Ass" getting his ass kicked) to those that made me cringe a little in their extreme nature (i.e.: "Mother Russia" literally mowing down cops), simply entertaining.  The amount of humor is also ratcheted up significantly; again the increase is less subtle, and often absurd, but still largely works.

***

Kick-Ass 2 was difficult for me to give a single grade.  The lows are pretty low, but the highs get pretty darn high, too.  Overall, it's kind of a disjointed mess.  The beginning is almost a rehash of the original; although in general this is necessary for the story, it could have been done much better.  The film doesn't have very good focus, jumping around a lot (this works out OK for Mintz-Plasse; to varying success for Moretz; and Johnson is left behind almost entirely).  The writing is far worse than the original's, and some of it is truly atrocious.  On the other hand, the film is (for me, at least) pretty damn entertaining and has substantial balls without becoming (again, my opinion) overly dark or exploitive.  The director is new this time, and he's not nearly as talented as Vaughn, but he does a decent good job retaining the style and tone of the original.  Maybe this movie was done for cash (although the first didn't even make $50 million), and maybe the quality isn't always there, but it's clear that the entire cast and crew put their all into making this entertaining.

Since this film is definitely not for everyone, here's a plan to decide if it's right for you.  If you like action films, see the original Kick-Ass first.  It's an excellent, unique superhero film that I'd rate an "A-" or "A".  If you see that and like it, and think that you'd like or can tolerate a bigger (not necessarily more intense) version, give Kick-Ass 2 a try.  If you want mindless, guilty pleasure, this is a great choice; otherwise, look elsewhere.

Movies: Elysium

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

Long Story Short:  Neill Blomkamp's follow-up to his hit debut, District 9, finally arrives, this one another sci-fi action film.  The modern-issue parallel changes (from immigration to inequality), and the action and stars (Damon, Foster) are ramped up, while the clever, gritty-realistic world design remains.  Unfortunately, the plot lets it all down, a predictable sequence of events and even a few painfully cliched aspects.  Blomkamp certainly has the details down; now he just needs to start seeing the forest for the trees.


With the summer and its busy film season winding down (sigh, for both), there are still a few blockbuster-type movies coming out.  In the sports world, we're also approaching the tennis U.S. Open and the start of the football season, for which I hope to make one or two blog posts.  First, let's get to the latest movie I've seen, Elysium.  Even as a fan of sci-fi, the premise of this one didn't really get me all that intrigued.  However, the filmmaker behind it, Neill Blomkamp, did.  Having made the original (if slightly overrated) sci-fi hit District 9, I really wanted to see how this new guy was progressing.  The reviews weren't spectacular, but I knew that whatever Elysium turned out to be, it wasn't going to be a generic Hollywood blockbuster.  Aside from the aforementioned director, Elysium stars Matt Damon and Jodie Foster.

Elysium takes place on and around earth in 2154; views of the landscape in the beginning show the planet to be completely saturated with human life, and in bad shape.  In particular focus is Los Angeles, the entirety of which has become as bad or worse than today's city slums.  As one of the city's millions of citizens trying to get by however possible, Max (Damon) works for a global hi-tech company.  It's also implied that Max used to be a felon, but time in jail - and brutal supervision by robot authorities - has beaten that out of him.  While life on earth stinks, in the atmosphere hovers a massive space station - Elysium - that harbors a wealthy few who live in an artificial utopia.

An accident at work one day results in imminent catastrophe for Max.  Having long ago given up on Elysium as an unreachable fantasy, Max is suddenly desperate to reach it and its miraculous medical technology.  As he does everything he can to get there, Max finds that the seemingly tidy split between dirty, poor earth and rich, disciplined Elysium is not what it seems, and his fate becomes intermingled with the competing interests of parties on both worlds.

The cast of Elysium is decent, but uneven.  Matt Damon stars as the beleaguered Max, and unfortunately, this is the biggest casting problem.  Damon is certainly a good actor, and he does a good job of showing how his character has been demoralized, made cynical, yet is still somewhat sympathetic.  But the film goes out of its way to tell you that Max used to be a daredevil felon, and that doesn't come through at all; I think Damon is just too tame for it.  An actor with more edge and attitude would have been appropriate, I think, and in fact having a lesser known figure would also have been appropriate.  Given second billing (although after Damon, there are no other major parts) is Jodie Foster as Elysium security director Delacourt.  She's not a bold choice for the role but fits it well nevertheless as the intelligent, brutal and ambitious villainess.

Playing Delacourt's henchman is Sharlto Copley - who starred in District 9 and is the director's good friend - as agent Kruger.  I was really impressed by Copley in District 9, but unfortunately there are only glimpses of his creativity in Elysium.  Supposedly the world's most dangerous man, Copley does what he can to intimidate but the script lets him down.  There's also Alice Braga as Frey, the cliched romantic interest for Max.  I won't comment on Braga's acting because she doesn't really have much chance to do any; suffice it to say it's by far the weakest part of the film and needed to be overhauled or dumped altogether.  The one guy I can say I was really pleased with was Wagner Moura as a crime leader.  Never seen him in anything else, but Moura acts with great passion, truly inhabiting his role and stealing every scene that he's in.  I doubt he'll get any awards recognition, but he deserves it.

After District 9, I was expecting a sci-fi action film with interesting parallels to modern societal issues, and interesting futuristic design.  This is basically what we get; it significantly improves on District 9 in action, stays about even on design, but regresses in terms of issues and plot.  Let's start with the positive:  Blomkamp made huge strides with his action scenes here.  While not perfect by any means (some of the less flashy stuff could be cleaned up), they are easily distinguishable from the average blockbuster and offer up several "wow" moments.  Particularly noteworthy are Max's hi-tech "upgrades", plus the way robot combatants are used.  Also, the griminess of earth is excellent and realistic, even if the Elysium space station is pretty typical sci-fi fare.  Now the downsides:  plot and issues (which further hurt one another).  The plot is just very straightforward, by-the-book stuff; I'm terrible at predicting things during a movie, but it's difficult not to see where things are going here.  And while, as a liberal, I commend the use of the pressing issue of economic inequality, it's not very subtle (the ending is just too much) and it's used more as window dressing than anything.

***

With a "B" score, Elysium symbolizes much of the year in film so far:  not bad, but you can do better, Hollywood.  I'm disappointed here in particular, of course, with director Blomkamp.  I think it comes down to getting a little ahead of himself, and perhaps the film slipped out of his control.  Not that District 9 was perfect by any means:  its plot came apart a little toward the end, and the immigration ideas, which had enormous promise at the beginning, quietly fizzled out.  The aims of Elysium are on a bigger scale, and so things got simplified.  The Frey character is startlingly lazy:  she is used to provide more emotional impact, but it utterly fails because the part simply does not fit in the film and can't help but be poorly written.  Dump that whole part, replace Damon with an up-and-comer with pizzazz, and Blomkamp really could have done something here.  It's mostly out of disappointment that I'm highlighting the bad here:  there's plenty that's good.  Taken as a normal action film (which it shouldn't be, but...), it's higher quality than most.  It has a good pace, and finishes under two hours.  The world design is a treat, and the cast is serviceable with a few highlights.  I was about to finish this by saying "if you want an original action film, give this a try".  But it's the ingredients (ie: world design) that are original, and they can't steer the plot to new territory.  If you're in the mood for this genre, you could do worse.

Movies: The Wolverine

Score:  **** (A-)

Long Story Short:  The Wolverine returns to the screen in, well, The Wolverine, hoping to make amends for his abysmal origins film.  Boy, does he succeed.  Jackman is as good as - perhaps better than - ever in reprising his lead role, and the plot mercifully tones down the stakes and explosions to further explore Wolverine's surprisingly intricate character.  The Japanese setting and characters add a fresh, interesting but not distracting element.  All in all, the best superhero movie of the year so far.


I'm now back on my regular movie review schedule, writing my blog the week after a film's release in theaters.  We're already in August now, usually the month for summer's movie leftovers.  There are a few films I'm actually really looking forward to seeing (Elysium, Kick-Ass 2), and depending on what else I find out there and early reviews, hopefully one or two more.  I must say that I was not especially looking forward to The Wolverine when I first heard about it.  Mostly this was because Wolverine's other solo outing, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, was terrible.  But the few previews I saw of it made it look a bit different, and I was ready to head back to the theaters after a light filmgoing July this year; plus, it was getting decent reviews on RT.  The Wolverine was directed by James Mangold (Walk the Line, 3:10 to Yuma) and stars Hugh Jackman.

The Wolverine starts out in 1940s Japan, where Logan (aka "Wolverine"; Jackman) is a prisoner (of war, presumably).  It happens to be August 9, 1945 in Nagasaki, to be specific, and in the chaos Logan manages to escape and save one man's life.  Flash forward to the present (some indeterminate time after X-Men 3), and Logan is living out in the mountains, haunted by years of violence and a broken heart.  When he returns to civilization briefly, he is tracked by a Japanese agent, Yukio (Fukushima) who convinces him to revisit the man he saved years ago at Nagasaki:  Yashida.  Yashida, an old man who has built a huge tech corporation, is surrounded by family and close to death.  He offers Logan intriguing but seemingly desperate repayment, and Logan refuses him.

The next day, Yashida is dead.  Logan quickly discovers that Yashida's company and family has become a target of vicious and powerful Yakuza criminal outfits.  Despite his reluctance to resume the "Wolverine" persona, Logan is pulled into the chaos as he attempts to protect Yashida's family.  Little does he know that Yashida was not the only one in Japan with an interest in him...

The cast is full of mostly unfamiliar faces - for a Western audience, at least - but they make for a nicely varied, intriguing set of characters.  Hugh Jackman is of course the star, reprising his role as the Wolverine.  Ever since the first movie, Jackman has been a huge reason for success of the X-Men movie franchise, and it's no different in this film.  He plays Logan/Wolverine as a man always somewhere between guarded and cynical, but with a good sense of humor.  And Jackman is such a charismatic actor that he radiates the "good guy" sense beneath the defensiveness, making it easy to root for him.  There was huge pressure on him to carry this film, bringing greater depth to his already well-developed character, and Jackman does a great job.  If he hadn't already, Jackman as Wolverine certainly joins Downey, Jr. (Iron Man), Maguire (Spider-Man) and Bale (Batman) in a group that completely owns their famous superhero roles.

Supporting Jackman is an interesting set of characters, almost all of them Japanese.  His butt-kicking partner, Yukio, played by Rila Fukushima, is a level-headed, mysterious presence.  Her character could have used a little more background - and screen time, for that matter - as her fit in the proceedings is complex.  Fukushima strikes a nice balance of not acting over the top, stealing attention from Jackman, while also not disappearing (either of which could easily have happened).  Tao Okamoto impressed me the most.  She plays the "damsel in distress" - here, Yashida's granddaughter - that is so often poorly written and acted.  But the script really makes the part an actual character rather than a plot point, and Okamoto does a great job keeping a consistent tone, with necessary and realistic growth.  Svetlana Khodchenkova also does a villain, equally impressive as a seductress and a convincing menace.  There are certainly other characters; while I won't describe them individually, suffice it to say that while they have somewhat stereotyped roles, the actors and script make them more interesting than that.

More than a decade into the "Era of the Superhero" (copyright! Just kidding), it is very tricky for a single film to stand out in a sea of similar choices and gold standards.  That's OK; The Wolverine goes a different direction than its brethren.  Whereas most comic book films go for huge stakes, often the fate of the world, The Wolverine goes for the personal.  Well, Wolverine does beat up quite a few people, but not to stop the usual "save the city from blowing up" plot.  And whereas most comic book films take place in a familiar city (or parallel version), The Wolverine takes place almost entirely in Japan.  The combination of a more intimate plot with a new location gives The Wolverine a unique and satisfying atmosphere.  Of course, there is plenty of action, too.  Some of it - particularly near the end - blurs a little too much with other comic book films.  But most of it is entertaining - particularly a scene on a bullet train - and makes very effective use of the lead brawler, Wolverine.  It's a little disappointing that Logan doesn't use his sarcastic sense of humor as much as usual here, but it really wouldn't have fit with the tone of the film, anyway.  A final note:  while I don't recall any main themes that are really great, the superhero soundtrack is appropriately (but not overtly) tweaked to support the geographical setting nicely.

***

Out of three superhero films that I've seen this year, The Wolverine is my favorite and highest rated.  It wasn't difficult to soar past the disappointing Superman reboot, but it also bests the newest Iron Man installment, too.  Iron Man 3 also tried to go in new directions, too, and succeeded in several ways.  But in the end, it just couldn't help being as big and flashy as ever, and those were the parts that dragged it down the most.  The Wolverine, on the other hand, is a very well controlled film.  Even in the climax, the intensity of action ratchets up but the stakes still aren't really that high (and I'm kinda numb to the really high stakes at this point).  The Wolverine uses its outstanding leading man as the focal point for all aspects of the film - personal and technical - and Jackman and the script come through big time.  The setting of Japan and a completely new set of characters, none of whose faces are particularly familiar, lends the film an intriguing new atmosphere and tone.  The pacing is very good at just over two hours; any longer and it could've dragged, but it needed the length to let the story develop properly.  This isn't a Dark Knight epic, nor a flashy Avengers sequel - but don't let this pass you by.  If you only see one superhero film from this summer (perhaps year - we'll see), make it this one.