Politics: 2012 Election

2012 Election

The longer I've been following politics, the greater range of feeling I've had about it.  First, "Candidate A must win the election or the next four years will be terrible!" then, "well, how much is really going to change no matter who wins the election" then, "well, it depends on what happens in Congress, and in the courts, and at the state level, and the local level...".  And then it repeats.

I doubt that any of those three options are completely accurate.  I read in a recent Time magazine that those who are the most informed - and are thus typically the most partisan - have the hardest time accepting that a particular fact from the other side of the political spectrum might be true.  It's not very surprising.  Elections, in some ways, are like a sports league where the teams are different religions.  The way a team wins or loses is by receiving validation, internal or external, that it is right.  So every team can, and usually does, "win".  And yet, when there is a challenge to your team not being right, it is like someone is challenging the validity of your faith:  there must be some flaw or distortion in the challenge that makes it wrong.  We - and especially the most partisan among us - can't stand to lose an election because A) our "team" lost the "championship" and B) a majority of people (at least in the electoral college) had the gall to side with the other "religion".

I admit, I've felt pulled into this game more than once, particularly when I first really started to follow politics more closely.  But the electoral process is not a game, and the important work only begins once the politicians have been elected.  We, the people, must stay informed and also, yes, make politicians aware of issues that develop in society.  Then politicians must work together in order to solve those issues.  They must work together for two reasons:  1) obviously, they don't all share the same view so nothing will get done if they don't compromise (for reference, see the last 2.5 years); and 2) no side has all the right answers/no ideology if implemented will result in a perfect society, so we need to take the best ideas no matter which side they come from.

This is why the picture at the top is a sign for Stewart and Colbert.  They mock the self-righteousness and incompetence of both parties (admittedly, like me, with a liberal slant).  They point out the real pain and frustration that goes on in the world, and how the political process turns it into a pawn in the chess match while doing nothing about it, or any number of other ways politicians mess up.  It is important - perhaps crucial - that we be able to step back and laugh at ourselves, at least occasionally.

***

With all that said, next I'm going to specifically point out what I would like to see done on the various issues of the day.  As Obama has focused his campaign on his past accomplishments and why Romney sucks, and Romney has focused his campaign on taking both sides of every issue and why Obama sucks, I'm going to just take a stab at how each might handle the issues.  Here we go!

Deficit:  I address this first because it is entirely dependent on other issues.  I looked through national budget data since 2001, and my conclusions to deal with the problem are:  grow the economy (enormous effect on revenue), rein in military spending, and, most importantly, reduce health care costs.  Yes, the numbers look big and scary right now - but the deficit must be seen relative to these other issues.  As long as the economy continues to recover and we can address entitlements and military spending (much more in doubt), then the deficit will not seem so scary.
Advantage:  Obama (Seems much more level-headed about the issue; much of the Republican base has an exaggerated fear of the issue and would pressure Romney, a more fiscally-reasonable politician than the Tea Party or the rest of the fringe, to make disastrous spending cuts.)

Economy:  Ultimately, I think both TARP (although it was hard to stomach) and the stimulus were necessary to prevent a depression.  Beyond that, the government has no magic wand to wave and make the economy grow like China's in the short term.  There are way too many uncontrollable, global variables.  I do believe that if the government invests in education, infrastructure, and certain industries, it can help create a strong foundation for the long-term.
Advantage:  Obama (Romney has business credentials, sure; but it seems to me he favors short-term approaches that, while perhaps providing a temporary boost, may also hamper the nation long-term.  Obama supports the kind of investments I think are critical to that long-term foundation.)

Healthcare:  We have to slow the rise of healthcare costs, otherwise the nation will go bankrupt and/or healthcare will become a luxury for a smaller and smaller pool of wealthy Americans.  Luckily, there is a model for success here:  basically every other developed nation in the world.
Advantage:  Obama (Obamacare is not perfect, but at least it is a major step in the right direction.  Republicans, on the other hand, don't want government to have any part of an overall healthcare policy, despite its success internationally.)

Entitlements:  Much like healthcare, the rise in costs is unsustainable, at least for Medicare and Medicaid (I think Social Security is supposed to be basically sound).  On the other hand, these programs need to be able to do their jobs, both for moral reasons and economic ones (70% of the economy is based on consumerism).  Again, healthcare costs in general are a huge driver of the price of these programs, so it's hard to say exactly how much of the problem is structural.
Advantage:  Mixed (In response to Republican pledges not to raise taxes, many Democrats want no changes at all to entitlements.  I doubt huge changes are necessary in any event, but we at least need to be able to look at them critically.  On the other hand, Romney/Ryan have a plan that won't kick in for those 55 and older, which makes me deeply suspicious of their plan.)

Global Warming:  The biggest threat to not only this country but the entire human race, yet it is not a factor in the election at all.  This is a classic frog-in-boiling-water case.  I realize that it is literally not possible to entirely switch off of fossil fuels tomorrow, or even in the near future; but that has to be the end goal, and it has to start NOW.  Efficiency is low-hanging fruit.  Fracking, while it needs to be carefully regulated, is a good start since natural gas contributes about half as much (if Zakaria's facts are correct) carbon as coal, which needs to go ASAP.  I'm even willing to talk about increased nuclear power, but ultimately we must develop renewable sources that are affordable and scalable, and fast.
Advantage:  Obama (Big investment in renewables in the stimulus was a good start, at least.  And Republicans will have a very difficult conversation with their kids if they continue to deny the very existence of the scientifically-verified, slow motion disaster that is global warming.)

Foreign Policy:  Yeah, this is a huge, diverse topic, but I'm trying to be as brief as possible here.  First, treat China - the world's other superpower - with respect, and build up a positive relationship with it rather than one of hostility.  Second, scale back use of drones but increase use of intelligence in tracking and controlling terrorist cells and organizations; al-Qaeda is still a threat, but we can't further alienate the people with collateral damage.  Third, don't demonize Islamist political parties in the new Middle East democracies but emphasize the democratic ideals that foster harmonious societies (education, women's rights, etc.).  Fourth, don't start a war with Iran.  Fifth, pay attention to Africa.
Advantage:  Obama (Both parties are fairly close in foreign policy these days, but Romney and some Republicans, at least at the moment, are too hawkish on China and Iran.  Tensions throughout the world seem to be rising, whether it's the economy in Europe, revolution in Middle East, or competition in East Asia.  The U.S. needs to be a calming, stabilizing influence.)

Immigration:  I admit, I know very little on this subject, mostly because I live in a part of the country that is >90% white.  But it's a very important topic nonetheless and, broadly speaking, I advocate for merciful policies for undocumented immigrants (and certainly clear paths to citizenship for their children), in addition to a modernization of policies for others:  for example, many bright young people study in the U.S. and then are forced to go back home - and take their ideas with them.
Advantage:  Obama (All of the public debate is on the undocumented immigrant aspect, and Obama again has the advantage of not answering to a major section of his base whipped into a frenzy by the Tea Party, Fox News, et. al. like Romney does.  I will say, Romney seems likely to be more moderate here than some others in the GOP would be.)

Drug War:  An utter disaster on so many levels, it must end now.  Probably the most insidious part has been its disproportionate impact on impoverished and minority populations, but it has also led to a culture of incarceration, crisis in Mexico and other parts of Latin America, and billions of dollars spent to not even put a dent in the rate of drug use.  Legalize and regulate marijuana (disclosure:  I've never tried it before, nor do I have any intention to).
Advantage:  Neither (Hey, the libertarians finally score a point!)

***

So, as you can see, I plan to vote to re-elect President Obama in November.  Was he perfect in his first term, or does he agree with me on every point?  No, but I think he's taking the country in the right direction on a number of the most crucial issues.  And to go back to the first part of my post, we've got to compromise and get to the best solutions, no matter the partisan bent.  Look at Obamacare:  it addressed one of the most critical issues in our country, and Obama championed it despite the fact that it was pretty much the same plan that a certain Republican used in Massachusetts.

Feel free to share your thoughts with me in the comments, for or against!

Movies: Argo

Score:  **** out of *****  (A-)

Long Story Short:  Argo is a big step forward for Ben Affleck, the director, and in my eyes it earns its current status as an Oscar favorite.  The film really nails a believable atmosphere, and because of that, a superb tension, particularly at the beginning and end.  Affleck's own character, the hero, is disappointing and shows that he has a little work to do in that area, but the supporting cast provides plenty of brilliant moments.  Highly recommended to all.


As more well-reviewed, limited release films come out, movie theaters around me continue to miss them... except for this Oscar buzz film, Argo.  After reading about the premise several months ago, I was interested to check this one out.  Plus, Ben Affleck impressed me with his work on The Town from a few years ago.  Once November arrives, the movie choices should continue to get better (and perhaps some previous limited releases will make their way to my area).  Argo was directed by Ben Affleck and stars him, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, and John Goodman.

The film starts with a brief narration of Iranian history, and the action begins in 1979, following the deposed Shah's escape to the U.S.  Revolutionaries gather and gain support in the streets outside the U.S. embassy, with the diplomats inside growing more and more nervous.  Eventually, of course, the Iranians break into the compound and take almost everyone hostage.  Six people, however, manage to escape and hide out in the Canadian ambassador's home.  Back in the U.S., news of the attack dominates the headlines, while the State Department frets about their secret knowledge of the other six. State is desperate to get them out, but the CIA squashes their ideas to get them out.

CIA agent Mendez (Affleck) comes up with another idea involving location filming in Iran, but his superiors, including boss O'Donnell (Cranston) are doubtful.  Still, it's their only lead, and so Mendez approaches makeup artist Chambers (Goodman) and producer Siegel (Arkin) in order to develop a legitimate operation to back up the ruse.  Back in Iran, the escapees grow restless even as the revolutionaries piece together that there are Americans in hiding.  When Mendez arrives in the hostile nation, the situation gets even more tense as he races against the clock to get them out.

The performances in Argo are very good for the most part.  Interestingly, however, Ben Affleck's role as the CIA hero Mendez is bland and mediocre.  Perhaps Affleck just put 90% of his energy into directing (which he did much better), but even compared to my low standards for him, he just gives very little personality or flavor to his character.  Fortunately, the roster of supporting roles has several stand-outs.  First there is Cranston, playing Affleck's boss; he disappears into the role of a dedicated, experienced, slightly arrogant yet intensely loyal CIA manager.  His biting humor and bursts of passion provide some of the film's best moments.  Next are John Goodman and Alan Arkin as his polar opposites, cynical and seemingly indifferent Hollywood vets.  Both are hilarious and Arkin delivers the movie's crass catchphrase based on the title of the fake film.  Several of the American escapees also give great performances, although the character names elude me.  Some familiar faces in small roles (Victor Garber from Alias, Kyle Chandler from Friday Night Lights) round out the great cast.

The name of the game in Argo is suspense.  Particularly in the beginning, as Iran's revolutionaries invade the embassy, and at the end when the Americans make their escape attempt, the film keeps you on the edge of your seat.  Sure, it goes away for stretches in the middle, but if it didn't, I think anyone who watched it would end up with blood pressure issues.  The key to Argo's success with tension I think is the very realistic feel given to the true story, and a sense of how dangerous Iran was, particularly in that time period.  The humor provided by Arkin, Goodman, and occasionally Cranston is a perfect complement to the tension, and it's an appropriate kind of humor, too.  I also need to give a lot of credit to the set designers and especially costume and make-up artists (the real ones!).  During the credits side-by-side shots of the film actors and their real-life counterparts are shown, and they are amazingly accurate.

***

Argo really shows Ben Affleck's growth as a filmmaker; not that The Town was bad, but this film is certainly superior.  Affleck nailed the tension and realism of an historical thriller about as well as any other I've seen - but he's still got some room to grow.  His character, in fact, is a good symbol of the area he needs to improve:  I simply did not feel pulled into the story by the characters; certainly not by his bland lead.  Yes, there is a palpable, thrilling sense of relief when the Americans have finally gotten away, and there are a few good moments relating characters (mostly on the strength of Cranston's, Arkin's, and one of the escapee's acting).  But it lacks that connection to character that, for example, Apollo 13, nailed.  Make no mistake, however:  this is an excellent film that I would recommend to any adult audience and many younger ones, too.  Perhaps over time this film could prove itself to be worthy as a classic of its genre.

Movies: Looper

Score:  **** out of ***** (B+)

Long Story Short:  Joseph Gordon-Levitt extends his big year at the movies as he stars in this new sci-fi action film.  Built on a sturdy and intriguing premise of a man meeting an older version of himself, Looper puts the action in a gritty, well fleshed-out near future setting.  The level of violence may surprise you, making Bruce Willis a natural fit as the older Gordon-Levitt (facial prosthetics make JGL truly look like Baby Willis).  Very well done, if perhaps not a film that leaves a lasting impression.


Finally, a new movie review!  September, as usual, was a bad month for film, with Looper being the only one that got my interest.  There are two other films out right now, The Master and Perks of Being a Wallflower, that look good but currently are not playing in my area, unfortunately.  Anyway, when I first heard about Looper, it seemed like an interesting premise with an actor I like (Joseph Gordon-Levitt).  And then I heard the actors seemed quite enthusiastic about the film, and it came out to excellent reviews (93% on Rotten Tomatoes).  This, combined with my recent drought in trips to the theater, made it an obvious choice.  Looper was directed by Rian Johnson (his third film) and stars Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, and Emily Blunt.

Looper is set in a near-future America (2044 according to Wikipedia; I don't remember this being said in the film).  The country has fallen into decay, and Joe (Gordon-Levitt), a young man, works for the mob in a rather unique way.  He is a Looper:  the mob from thirty years in the future uses time travel to send its victims back in time for disposal so that their bodies are never found.  Joe is good at his job, and enjoys the benefits (drugs, girls) that his employment provides him.  However, the reality of his situation begins to dawn on him when a friend goes on the run and asks him for protection; Joe sees how fragile his life really is.

Things take an even worse turn when Joe's next target turns out to be... himself (Willis).  Of course, his old self is not the usual hapless victim, and Old Joe escapes.  While Joe is desperate to put down his old self or be hunted like his friend, Old Joe has a mission of his own to stop a future personal tragedy from occurring.  As Joe struggles to decide what to do, another variable gets thrown into the mix and forces him to defend someone else for the first time.

The performances in Looper are good, though nothing especially outstanding.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt again does a very good job; as earnest and selfless as he was in The Dark Knight Rises, he is equally as convincing in his indifference and self-interest for (most of) this film.  Gordon-Levitt makes Joe likable enough, despite his character's flaws, to carry the film's emotional weight.  Bruce Willis as "old Joe" does a decent job; really he's basically a more ruthless John McClane from Die Hard.  Old Joe is interesting in comparing him to the his younger self, not in watching Willis do something new.  Emily Blunt does a fine job in a role I did not describe in the plot synopsis; all you need to know at this point is that she plays a normal woman with genuine, powerful concern for her family.  The supporting cast includes Paul Dano as Joe's friend on the run (brief but effectively creepy plot); Noah Segan as a mob hitman (dark comic relief); and Jeff Daniels as the mob boss (very entertaining).

The premise of Looper - a young man assigned to kill his older self - is the central and most interesting aspect of the film.  However, the futuristic setting itself is surprisingly well crafted, too.  There are plenty of near-future sci-fi films out there, and typically a few obvious details spell out how it's different from the present day, and then the rest is unimportant.  Looper, though, is filled with small but very interesting details about how this future America looks - not just using a few new gadgets, but in having characters interact so naturally with everything around them, from hoverbikes to eye-drop drugs.  The film also really drives home the horror of violence, which I was not expecting from previews.  This is an R-rated film, and there's plenty of blood and a few mangled bodies - but the anticipation of potential violence here is just as terrifying.  There is a little bit of humor in the film, but not much; it's the emotional stakes that are intended to balance out the violence and overall gloom of the future society.

***

Looper sets itself apart as perhaps the best near-future sci-fi action film in years.  It uses the idea of a man forced to confront his older self (don't worry, the time travel itself is not that important here; there's no Inception-level technical exposition) as the core and supports it with a bleak yet well developed setting that balances a ruthless, kill-or-be-killed reality with unexpected yet believable and powerful hope.  Now, that sounds like high praise, which I meant it to be - and yet, it doesn't quite close all the loops, I guess you could say.  As another reviewer I read noted, just about all the elements work, but there's no magic that ties it all together to create those special moments you get in a truly great film.  Most of the separate elements are well done to one degree or another, and they're thematically coherent (in contrast with, say, this year's Spider-Man), but it's not what I call a memorable film.  Plus, the one technical gripe I'd make about it is that it's a bit too long; perhaps fifteen minutes taken here and there could have been shaved off.  If you can't take R violence, you might want to avoid this film, but otherwise, I do highly recommend it as a (rare) entertaining and engrossing fall action film.

Sports: Tennis and NFL

2012 U.S. Open Tennis and NFL Week 1 Reactions

It was another eventful two weeks at the U.S. Open this year, with plenty of surprises and excitement.  The biggest story lines coming into the tournament were, for the men, the worrying continued absence of "Big Three" member Rafael Nadal (tendonitis in knee), and the renewed dominance of Serena Williams in the women's game.  The men's quarterfinals saw all but one of the top eight seeds still playing (Tsonga has been upset earlier).  Hot, windy conditions helped wreak a little havoc, and Berdych scored perhaps the biggest upset by defeating a resurgent Roger Federer.  In the end, Murray seemed to finally reach the necessary level of confidence and maturity to match his physical skills, and won his first Grand Slam tournament.  On the women's side, three players outside the top ten managed to sneak into the quarterfinals.  From there, it was pretty much Serena bulldozing the competition.  Now for a player-by-player review (top ranked and other notables):

(1) Roger Federer:  dismantled all comers in the first few rounds, before getting beaten fairly handily by Tomas Berdych (who also knocked him out of Wimbledon a few years past).  The fact that Roger is back at #1 at age 31 is rather amazing; he did win Wimbledon this year, but with the level of play in the men's game right now, I have to think he's got one or two more Grand Slam titles at most left in him.

(2) Novak Djokovic:  my favorite player lost just one set going into the Finals, where he lost a great five-setter to the surging Murray.  Of course, the Djoker couldn't match his results from 2011 when he won three Grand Slams, but he still got to three finals this year, and won in Australian.  If he can stay healthy and fit, he should recapture the #1 seed by sometime early next year.

(3) Andy Murray:  Murray was tested a few times prior to the Finals, including by #30 Feliciano Lopez.  As I mentioned earlier, though, his composure and confidence against the top players was what finally put him over the top this time (in my opinion).  What a great year for him:  getting to the Wimbledon finals, winning the Olympic gold in his home nation, and now winning the U.S. Open.

(4) David Ferrer:  one of several player trying to nip at the heels of the Big ThreeFour, Ferrer usually gets overshadowed by his Spanish countrymate.  This guy is about as solid as they come, but just doesn't have the firepower to take on the big guns unless they have an off day.  Still, a tip of the hat to this consistent, feisty fighter - he certainly made fellow contender Tsonga look silly in comparison.

(20) Andy Roddick:  my favorite player following the retirement of Andre Agassi, Roddick announced his retirement following his exit from this year's Open.  Roddick could well go down as the unluckiest player in men's tennis, getting to his prime at the same time as Roger Federer.  He lost to Federer four times in Grand Slam finals, including one of the very best Finals of all time in 2009 at Wimbledon, a match he had several great chances to win.  I'll remember Roddick's distinctive, powerful serve for years to come, and salute his fine career.


(1) Victoria Azarenka:  outside of Serena, Azarenka had the most impressive Open even aside from, obviously, getting to the Final.  She crushed her early opponents, then beat both Stosur and Sharapova, a couple of top-ranked hard court specialists.  She even took Serena to three sets before the inevitable collapse.  Still, she won the Australian this year and has hung onto the #1 seed.

(2) Agnieszka Radwanska:  "who?" you might be thinking.  Radwanska is a bit like David Ferrer, a consistent yet unremarkable player - it shows you the lack of talent/consistency in the women's game right now.  Radwanska quietly bowed out in the fourth round at the open.  Her best showing this year was a loss in the Finals at Wimbledon.

(3) Maria Sharapova:  she continues to work her way back to the elite level after several down years due to injury.  She has moments of brilliance, but often spirals downward suddenly, and she lost in the semis at the Open to Azarenka.  Sharapova is a hard worker, though, and should keep improving.  She got to the Australian this year and won the French:  not too shabby.

(4) Serena Williams:  Serena is back in dominant form, winning the U.S. Open, and it seems the only women's player who can beat her right now is herself.  She utterly destroyed her opponents, only losing a set in the Finals, probably just to see what it felt like.  She also won Wimbledon this year; here's hoping someone finally develops who can take her on, or we're going to have a boring year in 2013.

(8) Caroline Wozniacki:  the U.S. Open has been Wozniacki's best Grand Slam, getting to the semis twice and the finals once, yet she lost in the first round this year.  She entered 2012 as the #1 ranked player, and has fallen apart rather rapidly.  Similar to Radwanska, she tends to beat inferior foes but has little chance against the best; this year, she has even lost the consistency.



NFL Week 1 Reactions:

Going game-by-game...

Cowboys - 24, Giants - 17:  the Cowboys didn't blow a 4th quarter lead!  Eli looked pretty shaky, but the Giants are a mediocre-at-best regular season team.  Can the Cowboys be consistently good this year?

Colts - 21, Bears - 41:  the Bears threw up a ton of points on the Colts, but that was no surprise; I suppose I'm cheating, but watching the Bears get dismantled by the Packers, maybe they aren't the sleeper I thought they'd be.  Forte getting hurt is not going to help, either.

Falcons - 40, Chiefs - 24:  well, I thought the Chiefs would make it a little more competitive than that.  Still, I seem to be right about the Falcons' passing offense.  We'll see if KC can bounce back.

Eagles - 17, Browns - 16:  is the Browns' defense that good, or is Michael Vick that bad?  Of course the Browns blow another 4th quarter lead, but the real question is whether this is a blip from the Eagles or a sign of things to come.

Redskins - 40, Saints - 32:  here's the shocker of the week.  RGIII somehow led his team to victory in the imposing Super Dome in his first game.  Can the Saints get on track, or are they doomed to a mediocre season?

Rams - 23, Lions - 27:  hmmm, perhaps the Rams will be a little better this year?  I thought the improvement would've come last year.  Lions fans have to be worried after that performance.

TTSNBN - 34, Titans - 13:  moving right along...

Jaguars - 23, Vikings - 26:  since both of these teams should suck this year, I suppose this was an appropriate outcome.  With Peterson seemingly already back to full speed though, who knows?

Bills - 28; Jets - 48:  how the hell did the Jets score 48 points (in one game)?!?!  The Bills must really, really, really stink this year.  I'm sticking to theory that the Jets suck until they can do this multiple times (and not against the Colts, Vikings, et. al.)

Dolphins - 10; Texans - 30: what can I say?  This is pretty much exactly what I thought would happen.

Seahawks - 16; Cardinals - 20:  everyone, including me, finally gets on the Seattle bandwagon... and then they lose to the miserable Cardinals.  Who ever knows with the NFC West?

49ers - 30, Packers - 22:  I might worry a little about the Packers, except they played superb defense against the Bears on Thursday and won despite poor offense.  I still think the 49ers are headed for a regression this season, even if they still win their division.

Panthers - 10, Buccaneers - 16:  I was expecting a high-scoring game here.  The only explanation I can think of is that divisional games can be weird like that.  Obviously, there's much more worry here for the Panthers if this was a representative game for each team's talents.

Steelers - 19, Broncos - 31:  the score doesn't look so bad, but Pittsburgh looked terrible on both sides of the ball, to me.  The defense couldn't handle the no-huddle of Manning, and the offense sorely needs a running game for balance.  Broncos certainly seem legit, on the other hand.

Bengals - 13, Ravens - 44:  whoa.  I really doubt that the Bengals regressed much (if any) from last year, so barring a fluke performance, the Ravens might be really good this year.  If the aging defense can hold steady, this new offense seems ready to blow teams out.

Chargers - 22, Raiders - 14:  like the NFC West - who knows, when it comes to the AFC West?

2012 NFL Preview

2012 NFL Preview

It's that time of year again!  The beginning of the school year, the last few weeks of warm summer weather, the sounds of the marching band, and, of course, the start of the football season.  As I've noted before, you just never quite know what to expect from an upcoming NFL season, and that's one of the things that makes the league so fun to follow.  I'm not going to go through the trouble of coming up with specific win-loss totals for each team this year, but I'll list the order of finish I predict for each division.  Each team preview includes my prediction from last year, which hopefully might give clues to what changes are in store for this year.  

To see the order in which I think each division will finish and playoff seedings, scroll to the bottom.  First section has paragraph blurbs on each team's prospects.  Those interested in the currently half-done tennis U.S. Open, fear not:  I plan to do another blog post in perhaps two weeks summarizing the tournament (plus impressions after the first week of NFL).


AFC:

East

1.  Team That Shall Not Be Named (TTSNBN)
2011 Prediction:  13-3 (1st in division)
2011 Standings:  13-3 (1st in division)

Yippee, I correctly predicted TTSNBN (*twirls a finger in the air*).  Oh well, they lost the Super Bowl :-D :-D :-D  This is my annual attempt to jinx this villain of the NFL (although the rest of their division gives no reason not to have them on top yet again).

2.  Buffalo Bills
2011 Prediction:  3-13
2011 Standings:  6-10

A 5-2 start last year threatened to make me feel really stupid about my prediction, but then seven straight losses ended that fear.  Still, I think this team has much more potential than the other two in the division.  Their defense gave up lots of points last year, but again, they've got four games against offensively-challenged Miami and N.Y. Jets this year, plus they added defensive beat Mario Williams.  Fitzpatrick is a solid, underrated QB, and if RB Fred Jackson can stay healthy, they should improve on last year's record.

3.  Miami Dolphins
2011 Prediction:  7-9
2011 Standings:  6-10

The Dolphins were basically a "blah" team last year, although they defended the run well and, surprisingly, ran it well themselves.  Of course, this year their starting QB is a rookie I've never heard of, they lost their best WR, and they're relying on Reggie Bush to continue his out-of-the-blue development as a workhorse back from last year.  Still, they won six of their last nine games last year.  Yeah, they won't be good, but their defense always seems to keep them close.

4.  New York Jets
2011 Prediction:  10-6
2011 Standings:  8-8

Possibly the most overrated team in the NFL.  They somehow scraped a decent amount of points out of a pretty lame passing and rushing attack last year, but their once-vaunted defense is definitely showing signs of breakdown.  Mark Sanchez is simply a mediocre QB at best, and bringing Tebow into the mix will only provide more distractions for the most distracting team in the league.  Their defense will have to keep the score low almost every game, and I don't think they can do it consistently anymore.


West

1.  Denver Broncos
2011 Prediction:  6-10
2011 Standings:  8-8

Offensively, this team is a 180 switch from last year - as long as Peyton Manning stays healthy.  The upgrade from Tebow to Manning is extreme - they were second to last in passing last year, and still retain a great running game with the loss of Tebow.  Granted, this was preseason, but Manning just carved up the 49ers defense a few weeks ago.  The fate of this team will be decided, though, with their defense.  They have some fearsome pass rushers, but they gave up lots of points last year.  Still, their offense alone should propel them to the top of the mediocre division.

2.  Kansas City Chiefs
2011 Prediction:  8-8
2011 Standings:  7-9

The Chiefs' hopes were essentially snuffed out in week 2 last year when RB Jamaal Charles was lost for the rest of the season.  He's back though, and they've added bruiser RB Peyton Hillis to help carry the load.  QB Matt Cassel is also back, but he is no more than a game manager for the featured running game (of course, his backups couldn't even accomplish that last year).  Their rush defense is porous, but they boast a sneaky-good pass defense that put them in the top half of scoring defenses last year.  There are lots of unknowns and I haven't seen them this preseason, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them win the division.

3.  San Diego Chargers
2011 Prediction:  13-3
2011 Standings:  8-8

Of course, now that I'm finally off the Chargers' bandwagon, they will probably come through.  This is one of the most bewildering teams in the league, seemingly possessing great talent yet not showing up to play their best again and again.  Why their coach has not been fired yet I have no idea; he richly deserves it, from what I've seen.  It would help for QB Rivers to get back to normal for a full season, and we saw glimpses of it in the last five games.  But can RB Mathews stay healthy?  What are they going to get out of their defense?  The Chargers probably have the widest range of possible results.

4.  Oakland Raiders
2011 Prediction:  5-11
2011 Standings:  8-8

No, the Raiders aren't the laughing stock of the league anymore.  Yet how do you trust a team with Carson Palmer at QB, a RB in McFadden who is always injured, and a defense that gives up the fourth-most points in the league?  I suppose if McFadden somehow stays healthy they can be competitive... but if he doesn't, I can't see them winning many shootouts week-in, week-out.


North

1.  Baltimore Ravens
2011 Prediction:  12-4
2011 Standings:  12-4

The Ravens are one of the safest bets in the league to be a playoff team, despite their strong divisional competition - it's the playoffs that bother them.  For the regular season, however, this team seems destined for another AFC North crown.  The passing game has plenty of room for improvement, while they can rely on superstar RB Ray Rice to keep the chains moving.  Despite an aging defense, they gave up the third-fewest points in the league last year.  They don't tend to wow you, but the steady Ravens will beat you more often than not just the same.

2.  Pittsburgh Steelers
2011 Prediction:  10-6
2011 Standings:  12-4

As symbolized nicely by their season sweep last year, I feel that the Ravens are starting to pull away from their bitter rivals the Steelers.  Both teams continue to ride incredibly well-designed, effective defensive systems with aging individuals and promising youngsters.  However, while the Ravens' can rely on RB Ray Rice to balance their offense, too much pressure is placed on the Steelers' Big Ben each week.  Even with his huge frame, he is constantly getting beaten up (to be sure, he deserves it for his off-field behavior).  Developing players like WR Antonio Brown will keep the Steelers in the playoff hunt, but I don't expect the consistency from them that I do from the Ravens this year.

3.  Cincinnati Bengals
2011 Prediction:  2-14
2011 Standings:  9-7

What a huge surprise the Bengals were last year.  I think they need at least another year to develop, but they'll be seriously challenging the Ravens and Steelers sooner rather than later.  The offense, despite sputtering for much of last year, feature a solid young QB-WR tandem in Andy Dalton and A.J. Green.  Plus they picked up a very steady new RB in BenJarvus Green-Ellis (aka the Law Firm).  Their defense isn't at the Ravens' and Steelers' elite level, but they are a force to be reckoned with.  Put them in another division, and this is a playoff team already.

4.  Cleveland Browns
2011 Prediction:  8-8
2011 Standings:  4-12

I'm sorry, Browns fans.  I truly didn't intend to jinx your team with my optimistic forecast for last season.  You had the fifth-best scoring defense in the league last year... and still finished with just four wins.  The offense doesn't seem likely to improve any this year:  the starting QB is rookie Weeden (who?), the #1 WR is Greg Little (who?) and the RB is Trent Richardson who has already undergone knee surgery in the preseason.  Looks like another fun season for you, Browns fans.


South

1.  Houston Texans
2011 Prediction:  10-6
2011 Standings:  10-6

I expected the Texans to take over as leader of the AFC South last year, but I didn't think they'd do so with their third-string QB playing six of those games.  If QB Matt Schaub and WR Andre Johnson stay healthy, they will have the league's most balanced, if not the most potent overall offense, in the league.  The revelation last year was the Texans' defense, going from literally one of the worst to one of the best in the league.  They did lose Mario Williams in the off season, but he missed much of last year due to injury anyway.  Coordinator Wade Philips has performed a miracle for that defense, and they should easily sweep their division and defeat most other foes, too.

2.  Tennessee Titans
2011 Prediction:  8-8
2011 Standings:  9-7

3.  Jacksonville Jaguars
2011 Prediction:  5-11
2011 Standings:  5-11

I'm just going to describe both the Titans and the Jaguars in the same space, since I think they're pretty similar.  Both teams are relying on young QBs (Titans - Jake Locker; Jags - Blaine Gabbert) who have questionable WRs (Titans - Kenny Britt; Jags - Laurent Robinson) and talented TEs (Titans - Jared Cook; Jags - Mercedes Lewis).  Both defenses are right around top-10 range.  And both teams have star RBs who have held out (Titans - Chris Johnson last year; Jags - Maurice Jones-Drew still holding out). The Titans certainly have better prospects this season, but neither team has good playoff odds.

4.  Indianapolis Colts
2011 Prediction:  8-8
2011 Standings:  2-14

Veterans DE Dwight Freeney and WR Reggie Wayne are pretty much all that remain of the Colts' glory days now that Peyton Manning is gone.  Rookie QB Andrew Luck looks to have a promising future, but the team is going nowhere this year.  The defense is even worse than it was in the Peyton era, and the offense is devoid of any dangerous playmakers (that I know of).  On the bright side, looks like another good lottery pick is on the way for the Colts.


NFC:

East

1.  Philadelphia Eagles
2011 Prediction:  11-5
2011 Standings:  8-8

The Eagles got a little ahead of themselves last year as the supposed "Dream Team."  Still, it's obvious to see that they have the pieces of a title contender, and they showed some of their potential in the last few games of the season.  Despite their slow start, they still finished both eights in points scored per game and tenth in points allowed per game.  They've got an emerging RB star in LeSean McCoy, and dangerous QB Michael Vick has some good receiving options as well.  The Eagles have both a great pass rush and plenty of lockdown cover guys led by Nnamdi Asomugha.  With tempered expectations and a year playing together should put them on the right track.

2.  N.Y. Giants
2011 Prediction:  8-8
2011 Standings:  9-7

The Giants once again snuck into the playoffs as a wildcard, got on a hot streak, and upset a heavily favored, juggernaut TTSNBN last season.  This team struggles for regular season consistency, but with a core led by QB Eli Manning and coach Tom Coughlin that has won two Super Bowls together, they're unlikely to come unhinged, either.  The identity of that core has certainly changed, though:  Eli has gone from game manager to top five passing offense, while their running game is now dead last in the league.  They might still have a good pass rush but they still got burned badly through the air.  The Giants have some strengths, but over 16 games they have plenty of weaknesses to be exploited, too.

3.  Dallas Cowboys
2011 Prediction:  9-7
2011 Standings:  8-8

I keep waiting for the Cowboys' talent to break through and put them among the title contenders, but it hasn't happened and I think their window of opportunity is going to start to close.  In points scored and points allowed they ranked just about in the middle of the league last year.  QB Tony Romo is the foundation of this team, one of the league's most unfairly criticized players; if he gets help from his O-line and a full, productive season from RB DeMarco Murray, this could be a deadly offense.  The 'Boys had a stalwart rush defense last year but a porous pass defense, and Rob Ryan's system has yet to really click in Dallas.  I think it more likely that Dallas regresses than progresses this year.

4.  Washington Redskins
2011 Prediction:  3-13
2011 Standings:  5-11

Considering the resources poured into this team, the Redskins have to be one of the most pathetic pro sports franchises in recent American history.  Instead of overpaying for more mediocre talent (well, we'll see about Pierre Garcon...), Washington decided to go all-in this year, trading valuable draft picks to move up one spot in the draft and get a potential star QB in Robert Griffin III.  I guess last year's complete disaster of a QB situation finally convinced them to do something about it.  If the 'Skins scoring defense can match its yardage defense, and if it can give Griffin room to operate with a decent running game (they're middle of the pack), they could move out of the basement of the division.


West

1. San Francisco 49ers
2011 Prediction:  8-8
2011 Standings:  13-3

Oh, what could have been... the 49ers had broke out from the crap pack of the NFC West last year, falling just short of a Super Bowl appearance.  A dominant defense and good running game got them there, despite mediocre passing from QB Alex Smith.  This off season, the perfect gift fell in their lap:  future Hall of Famer Peyton Manning became a free agent.  If you're 49ers management, how the hell do you not offer him anything he wants?  With him at QB, the 49ers would instantly become Super Bowl favorites this year.  I predict that lack of a passing game will bring San Fran down significantly this year as they rely on their defense (which has some weaknesses) to keep the score low and a rushing attack led by a rapidly aging RB Frank Gore again.

2.  Seattle Seahawks
2011 Prediction:  4-12
2011 Standings:  7-9

The Seahawks managed to impress me for the first time in many years with some great games in the second half last year.  The QB situation is still a mystery - but rookie Russell Wilson and newcomer Matt Flynn have far more potential than last year's choice of Tarvaris "Short-Arm" Jackson.  RB Marshawn Lynch showed a Beast Mode that is difficult for opposing teams to stop.  The defense ranked seventh in points allowed.  And they continue to have one of the biggest home field advantages in the league.  I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm actually interested to see what happens with the Seahawks this year.

3.  Arizona Cardinals
2011 Prediction:  5-11
2011 Standings:  8-8

Congratulations, Arizona, you are the new Seattle Seahawks in my eyes.  They cobbled together one of the luckiest 8-8 seasons in recent NFL history when the "strength" of their team was defense... which ranked basically in the middle of the league.  The QB situation is still a total mess:  they have to choose between Kevin Kolb, a horrible signing last year who looks frightened and average 2 yards per pass, and John Skelton, who is so daring that he throws far more interceptions than touchdowns.  Poor Larry Fitzgerald.  Oh, and they're relying on either RB Beanie Wells, who is persistently injured, or Ryan Williams, who missed his entire rookie year with an injury, to balance their offense.  Good luck.

4.  St. Louis Rams
2011 Prediction:  9-7
2011 Standings:  2-14

What a brutal season.  After showing signs of promise in 2010, the Rams completely face-planted yet again in 2011.  The only good things were another strong year from RB Steven Jackson, and a decent pass defense (of course, they faced Alex Smith, Tarvaris Jackson, and the Cardinals' QBs six times).  I know the WR corps got hit hard by injury last season, but still... Sam Bradford must make major improvements this year.  The whole team does, frankly: there's nowhere to go but up from last season.


North

1.  Green Bay Packers
2011 Prediction:  13-3
2011 Standings:  15-1

What an odd season for the Packers last year.  As defending Super Bowl champs, they somehow almost flew under the radar a bit even as they nearly achieved a 16-0 record.  Then they got knocked out of the playoffs in their first game, against the Giants.  QB Aaron Rodgers is certainly one of the best in the league, but they have to be hoping to get a little more from their running game this year.  Their pass defense also fell off a cliff compared to their Super Bowl team, forcing them into several shoot-outs despite their stellar record.  I guess the question is:  how hungry are they for another Super Bowl?  Is this a complete team, or is it going to be Aaron Rodgers bailing them out each week?

2.  Detroit Lions
2011 Prediction:  10-6
2011 Standings:  10-6

Unlike the Rams, the Lions made good on their potential last year.  Star QB Matthew Stafford and WR Calvin Johnson both finally stayed healthy all year, and are among the best at their positions.  Still, this team is basically Packers-lite:  the running game is beyond pitiful, and the defense gets worked over consistently.  There is a lot of risk but also potential for this team.  Their defense can only improve, in theory, and any kind of a running game would take enormous pressure off Stafford and Johnson.  There could be a temporary regression this year, but I expect overall improvement.

3.  Chicago Bears
2011 Prediction:  6-10
2011 Standings:  8-8

I was very dismissive of Chicago before last season, but they showed some pretty good stuff, at least before injuries destroyed their offense and thus their season.  QB Jay Cutler finally let go of some of his enormous ego and allowed talented RB Matt Forte to provide great balance to the offense.  A few remnants of the dominant defense that took, yes, Rex Grossman to the Super Bowl five years ago are still around, but while their rush defense might be stout, their pass defense was shredded repeatedly.  With Cutler and Forte together, the Bears never failed to score fewer than 24 points in a game, though, so their defense may not be as vital if those two stars can stay healthy.  This is a playoff contender.

4.  Minnesota Vikings
2011 Prediction:  7-9
2011 Standings:  3-13

How the mighty have fallen.  One final good year from Favre helped them to a good run in 2009, but those days are long gone now.  If the Vikings could only play in a league where passing was banned, they might do well with their decent rush defense and superstar (although coming off major injury) RB Adrian Peterson.  But they don't, and passing has become dominant in the NFL.  Not only do the Vikings pin their hopes on second year Christian Ponder, but they also have a pitiful passing defense.  If RB Peterson is limited, this could be an ugly year for the purple guys.


South

1.  New Orleans Saints
2011 Prediction:  9-7
2011 Standings:  13-3

Boy, was I wrong about the Saints last year.  If anything their offense seemed to be better than ever, thanks to the additions of TE Jimmy Graham and RB Darren Sproles.  Of course, everyone is worried about the impact of the "bountygate" punishments, robbing them of their head coach and a few players.    But I think the worries are exaggerated.  This team knows what it does well; Drew Brees can run the offense himself, and he has a surprisingly effective running game behind him to balance it out.  The defense can't really get any worse in the passing department, too; good luck trying to score enough points to beat the Saints by running the ball.  I think the Saints will be just fine.

2.  Atlanta Falcons
2011 Prediction:  12-4
2011 Standings:  10-6

The Falcons should give the Saints some tight competition for the division crown, however.  Pathetic exit from the playoffs aside, the Falcons are a very talented team.  They have steadily shifted the emphasis of their offense from the pounding RB Michael Turner (whose tread is wearing thin) to a fast-paced passing attack with QB Matt Ryan, dependable WR Roddy White, and explosive youngster WR Julio Jones.  The Falcons, like the Saints, are vulnerable to opposing pass offenses, but their rush defense is one of the league's strongest.  With more consistent offensive execution and even slightly improved defense, I expect the Falcons to make noise in the NFC.

3.  Carolina Panthers
2011 Prediction:  3-13
2011 Standings:  6-10

The big story for Carolina last season, of course, was Cam Newton's surpassing even the loftiest of expectations.  Interestingly, though, it was only at the end of the season, when Newton's numbers leveled off, that the Panthers actually started to win games.  They do still have RBs DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart, potentially the best rushing duo in the league.  That's great potential for Carolina on offense, but they were terrible on defense, rush and pass.  The Panthers will likely go for a ball-control, slower offense, and so they can't afford to be digging out of big deficits each week.

4.  Tampa Bay Buccaneers
2011 Prediction:  11-5
2011 Standings:  4-12

Oops.  Another rather embarrassing projection for me.  After an interesting year in 2010, the Bucs finished 27th in points scored and dead last in points allowed.  Ouch.  There was literally no bright spot for this team last year.  The only edge they had over the Rams was that they played in a much tougher division.  Obviously, this is a team that is rebuilding not only at the player level but at the coaching and administrative levels as well.


---


Projected Standings for 2012 NFL Season:

AFC

East
1.  TTSNBN
2.  Buffalo Bills
3.  Miami Dolphins
4.  N.Y. Jets

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

North
1.  Baltimore Ravens
2.  Pittsburgh Steelers
3.  Cincinnati Bengals
4.  Cleveland Browns

South
1.  Houston Texans
2.  Tennessee Titans
3.  Jacksonville Jaguars
4.  Indianapolis Colts


NFC

East
1.  Philadelphia Eagles
2.  N.Y. Giants
3.  Dallas Cowboys
4.  Washington Redskins

West
1.  San Francisco 49ers
2.  Seattle Seahawks
3.  Arizona Cardinals
4.  St. Louis Cardinals

North
1.  Green Bay Packers
2.  Detroit Lions
3.  Chicago Bears
4.  Minnesota Vikings

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

Playoff Seedings

AFC
1.  Houston Texans
2.  TTSNBN
3.  Baltimore Ravens
4.  Denver Broncos
5.  Kansas City Chiefs
6.  Pittsburgh Steelers
7.  Cincinnati Bengals
8.  Buffalo Bills

NFC
1.  Philadelphia Eagles
2.  Green Bay Packers
3.  New Orleans Saints
4.  San Francisco 49ers
5.  Atlanta Falcons
6.  Detroit Lions
7.  Chicago Bears
8.  Seattle Seahawks

Super Bowl:  Philadelphia Eagles defeat TTSNBN

Movies: The Campaign

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B-)

Long Story Short:  The Campaign enlists two of today's most popular comedians, Will Ferrell and Zack Galifianakis, to duke it out on the campaign trail just as the real political season heats up.  It offers a large dose of absurd humor dealing with many issues relevant to today's society yet avoids areas that are particularly controversial.  And of course, there's plenty of raunchy stuff, too.  Its tidy run time is blessedly opposite of an actual political campaign, but if you prefer gentle, subtle humor, this one's probably not for you. 


Back to a more usual genre by filmgoing habits, The Campaign was next up on my list of summer films to see.  As soon as I heard the premise - Will Ferrell and Zack Galifianakis as opposing candidates in a political film - I knew I had to see it, being a big fan of both comedians.  As trailers and commercials came out, as well as generally positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes (66%), there was no doubt I was going to see this one.  The Campaign was directed by Jay Roach (Austin Powers films), and stars the above mentioned comedians.

First to be introduced in The Campaign is Cam Brady (Ferrell), a Congressman from North Carolina.  He is shown running a typically vanilla re-election campaign ("___ are the backbone of America!") as he has not been challenged for the seat in years.  Despite his clean-cut public image, though, Brady is a rather lusty fellow and his philandering finally leaks out.  Hearing of this, local business titans the Motch brothers recruit naive local tourist man Marty Huggins (Galifianakis) to run against Brady.  After the two candidates' first public meeting, it's obvious that Brady is out of Huggins' league, so the Motch brothers hire shady campaign manager Wattley (McDermott) to help him.

The odds thus evened, the campaign intensifies into a back-and-forth circus of attacks and blunders.  Some of these, no doubt, you've seen in the commercials or trailers, but there are still a number of surprises along the way.  Things also become more complicated when Huggins discovers the real reason behind why the Motch brothers are supporting him.  The Campaign provides a happy ending (no, not that kind), but I'll leave further details of the journey unspoiled.

The cast in The Campaign is very good, and that strength goes beyond the two leading men.  Will Ferrell has probably been my favorite comedian for the last decade or so, and I try to see most of his films.  He does a good job here, but, for the first time I can remember, he really isn't either the clear leading man or even the main focus of attention.  Other than the philandering and a few obligatory Ferrell freak-outs, Brady is really one of Ferrell's more normal, calmer characters.  Galifianakis is definitely the focus here, and he steals the show.  Yes, the film fleshes out his character much better than Ferrell's, but Zack really dives into the role and makes him a unique, believable guy.  Apparently based on a character early in his career, Zack matches hilarious tangible characteristics (voice, walking style) with a surprisingly interesting personality.

Starring as the evil Motch brothers are veterans John Lithgow and Dan Aykroyd.  Given more screen time than you might expect, the two seem to be having a blast and ham it up appropriately.  The two campaign managers are also very good, particularly Huggins' Wattley (played by Will McDermott).  He very effectively portrays a ruthless political handler, which tends to lead to some dark/creepy but good humor.  Jason Sudeikis as Brady's Wilson is also good, though he's mostly just a good-natured guy frequently exasperated by his candidate's blunders.  Two other small but notable roles are Brian Cox as Huggins' savvy but ruthless father, and Karen Maruyama as a vocally versatile maid.

If you think The Campaign's politics get too close to the 2012 election, you don't need to worry too much.  Neither Democrats or Republicans get even a single mention, although it's pretty clear that Brady is the Democrat (and John Edwards, to be specific) and Huggins the Republican.  A number of general modern political themes are present to make it relevant - religion, campaign finance, terrorism, etc., but few that are really controversial for the real 2012 election (OK, there's one reference to socialism, but it's so ridiculous and hilarious that it doesn't really count).  The humor itself is largely successful, in my opinion, and tends toward the absurdist.  A few scenes kind of fall flat, particularly when Ferrell tries too hard to incorporate his freak-out humor, but Zack's change of pace makes up for it.

***

There are a lot of good things about The Campaign.  It doesn't dawdle or, as many comedies in recent years, drag itself out with too many unnecessarily "dramatic" scenes.  It's a good length.  The film doesn't lose much steam at all in the final act, something most comedies, even Ferrell's, have done more and more in recent years.  Most of the political humor really is hilarious, and hits the right balance of being extreme enough to not poke too close to real politicians, but not so out there that it loses its meaning.  Although the humor probably appeals a little more to liberals than conservatives, the film does not take sides on any issue, only points out absurdities on each side.  With one exception:  the Citizens United decision, which is flayed mercilessly and, in my opinion, gloriously (oh, and the brothers behind it who are basically the Koch brothers).  So what's wrong with The Campaign?  I was a bit disappointed with Ferrell.  Particularly after his SNL Bush impression, I thought he had a lot more to add to a political comedy, but he doesn't quite get there.  Also, the film tends to shift focus between absurdist political comedy and down-to-earth personal issues, which becomes jarring.  I'd like to see this one again as I was a pretty tired when I saw it.  But for now, I can say it's definitely worth a try in the theater if you're a fan of either of these comedians; if not, you probably should wait for DVD/Netflix.

Movies: Hope Springs

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  A film that perhaps would have seemed more at home during the fall Oscar season, Hope Springs is a nice change of pace towards the end of the summer nonetheless.  A simple story dealing with the complexity and often wrenching realities of a long-term marriage, Hope Springs above all showcases the tremendous acting talents of its leads, Meryl Streep and Tommy Lee Jones.  Funny and ultimately satisfying, it's worth a try even if you decide to wait for it on DVD.


In the latest hotly-anticipated superhero movie, Meryl Streep stars as - wait a second.  Not another superhero film?  That's right, I decided to take a (rather drastic) change of pace for my next summer film.  When I saw a preview for this in EW at the beginning of the summer, it looked intriguing, for the actors if nothing else.  Combined with my lack of interest in August's action films (another Bourne movie?  A Schwarzenegger remake?  Expendables 2?), this one made sense.  Hope Springs was directed by David Frankel (The Devil Wears Prada), and stars Meryl Streep, Tommy Lee Jones, and Steve Carell.

The first brief scene sets the stage for the rest of the film:  Kay (Streep) gets ready for bed in the Soames' average middle-class home, hoping for a moment of intimacy with her husband, Arnold (Jones), who completely misses the signal and walks to a separate room to go to bed.  The film proceeds to lay out the Soames' lives; both nearing retirement age, Kay works part-time at a clothing store and takes care of Arnold, who deals with taxes in some form.  Kay has reached a breaking point psychologically, and picks up a brochure for a week-long marriage therapy get-away in Maine.  Arnold is so disconnected, however, that Kay has to go to extreme measures to get him to come along.

Grumbling about everything from the Maine setting to the price of breakfast, Arnold grudgingly accompanies Kay to the first session with Dr. Feld (Carell).  Although Feld is soft-spoken and polite, he is straightforward with the couple, instantly causing discomfort between the emotionally distant Kay and Arnold.  There's no point in spoiling the individual twists and turns during their time in Maine, but suffice it to say that there are plenty of moments of joy, despair, and humor as the couple struggles to regain the spark in their relationship.

The cast of the film is, as I suspected going into it, the strength of Hope Springs.  I have seen few Streep films, and none in the theater before; for such a notable actress, it's amazing how well she disappears into the role of a quiet, fragile, yet hopeful and completely ordinary woman.  She picks her (somewhat few) spots well to command the screen, and otherwise retains her character's passivity.  Tommy Lee Jones is even better.  A far, far cry from his poor MIB3 performance, he commands the screen in virtually every scene.  Granted, the role seems well suited to his usual stern, grumpy demeanor, but he truly shines in the therapy sessions where he squirms internally, as well as in his earnest struggles to regain intimacy with Kay.  Steve Carell is also good as Dr. Feld, a character at the opposite pole from the immortal Michael Scott.  At times it seems he is merely watching Streep and Jones go toe-to-toe, but he makes for a very convincing therapist.

There isn't as much "miscellaneous" stuff to talk about in Hope Springs as there is in, say, The Dark Knight Rises, but I'll make note of what I can.  The setting in Maine does not stand out, but it is appropriate:  a quaint, quiet little town where Kay and Arnold can focus on each other rather than the other aspects of their lives back home.  I was surprised by just how funny this film was, primarily during the uncomfortable therapy sessions.  It almost all flows out of natural interactions, with just a few set up "jokes".  Here, again, Tommy Lee shines.  The soundtrack is also pretty good, although I seem to remember one song standing out as little out of place.

***

Hope Springs is really a very simple film in some ways.  Everything is focused on Kay and Arnold's marriage, and trying to regain a sense of true fondness for each other.  Of course, the film goes into all the aspects of why that intimacy faded, and why it is so difficult to bring it back - but there are only the barest details of other aspects of their lives (jobs, hobbies, friends), and it's all to help describe the state of their relationship.  This makes the film almost seem to drag in a few places, but overall it's well paced and about the right length.  And the depth and sincerity of the relationship struggle is made possible by, in part, a good script, but mostly the strength of Jones' and Streep's acting.  They both do a great job individually and they truly click as a completely plausible couple.  Obviously, there aren't any special effects in this film so a theater viewing isn't essential, but this is well worth checking out, in theaters or on DVD, no matter your age.