Sports: 2012 NFL Playoff Preview

2012 NFL Playoff Preview

As I skillfully predicted, the NFL regular season was once again unpredictable.  With the season wrapping up yesterday, it's time to move on to the playoffs where more unpredictable things are sure to occur.  Here's an attempt to guess what might happen, and why I think it'll play out this way.

AFC:

Round 1:
#6 Cincinnati Bengals (10-6) at #3 Houston Texans (12-4):  Houston - 16, Cincinnati - 13

Here we have a rematch of the first round of last year's playoffs, which resulted in a Texans blow out.  I would certainly be surprised see another blow out this time.  Houston, after dominating most of the regular season, lost three of their last four games and dropped to the third seed; meanwhile, Cincinnati fought their way back into the playoffs by winning seven of their last eight games.  Still, the Bengals are a young team and don't possess the firepower needed to get the Texans out of their comfort zone like TTSNBN did.  The Bengals' defense is significantly improved and should keep them in the game, but I see the Texans' running game controlling the tempo enough to pull out a close one.

#5 Indianapolis Colts (11-5) at #4 Baltimore Ravens (10-6):  Indianapolis - 27, Baltimore - 23

Despite winning the AFC North, the Ravens have been mostly a mediocre team this season, certainly regressed from last season.  The steep decline of their defense will especially hurt against the Colts and explosive rookie QB Andrew Luck.  Although the Ravens have had a strong home field edge in the past, they've lost two of their last three at home.  Certainly the Colts have not been a perfect team, benefitting from an easy schedule, and their defense may be at the mercy of a Ravens offense that has at times scored at will and at others ground to a halt.  I see a relatively high-scoring game here, but I already trust the Colts' rookie QB over the Ravens' Flacco who has stagnated the last few years.

Round 2:
#3 Houston Texans at #2 Team That Shall Not Be Named (12-4):  TTSNBN - 38, Houston - 24

Unfortunately, we saw how these teams match up in the regular season, and it's not good.  The Texans' defense, so stellar last year, has fallen back a little, especially in pass defense and that's exactly where TTSNBN kills you.  On the other hand, Houston relies on a steady ground game, which TTSNBN defends reasonably well, while they can't take advantage of TTSNBN's weak pass defense.  TTSNBN does not look quite as formidable as they did last year, and if Houston's defense can hold them to field goals or less early, they have a chance.  But I think it's just a bad matchup for Houston here, they don't have as much experience, and there's always the hope of a nice jinx.

#5 Indianapolis Colts at #1 Denver Broncos (13-3):  Denver - 34, Indianapolis - 17

It's Peyton Manning against his old team - and I'm shocked to see both teams in this position.  The Colts are surely the biggest surprise, going from 2-14 to 11-5.  But although I thought the Broncos could be decent this year, I had no idea that they would get the #1 seed in the AFC.  Quite simply, the Broncos have the most balanced team in the league at the moment.  The only knock on them I have is that after the early season - when they struggled - they really haven't played any tough games.  But the young Colts, playing with a rookie QB in a hostile environment against fearsome pass rushers?  I can't see this game being truly competitive.

Round 3:
#2 TTSNBN at #1 Denver Broncos:  Denver - 31, TTSNBN - 27

I doubt Tom Brady thought he'd be facing Peyton Manning this late in the playoffs again after seeing his old rival miss all of last season with the neck injury.  Making this pick scares me because I don't want to jinx the Broncos... but I think it's the right call.  Home field advantage should make Denver's younger players comfortable, and Peyton is surely hungry to slay TTSNBN again.  Just as Denver has not faced stiff competition recently, TTSNBN has not faced an elite QB since, well, these two teams played in the regular season.  I could really see just about anything happening in this game of the AFC's two best teams, but home field and a more well-rounded team give Denver the edge.


NFC:

Round 1:
#6 Minnesota Vikings (10-6) at #3 Green Bay Packers (11-5):  Green Bay - 28, Minnesota - 17

I got to see this game last weekend, and now to have an encore?  I give the Vikings a lot of credit not just for the effort they put forth to win last week, but also to battle hard just to get to the playoffs over the last few weeks.  Since Minnesota won last week, they obviously could win again, but I don't think so for a few reasons.  First, you've got to think that at some point RB Adrian Peterson is going to have a less-than-super game as the offense has been on his shoulders for months now.  And I don't trust QB Ponder one bit to pick up any slack.  On the other hand, the Packers have elite QB Rodgers, home field, and quite of motivation of their own.  They pull away in the second half, I predict.

#5 Seattle Seahawks (11-5) at #4 Washington Redskins (10-6):  Seattle - 13, Washington - 10

Here we have two of the hottest teams in the league right now, both led by sensational rookie QBs.  If this game was being played in Seattle, I would take the Seahawks comfortably.  But on the road they're not quite as good.  I see a defensive slugfest with a LOT of punting.  Both teams have very good RBs to complement their athletic QBs, but I think the defenses will prevent the big plays and force long, slow marches down the field.  Both these teams have bright futures, and for an "ugly" game, this one should still be entertaining and exciting.  I think Seattle's edge in defense will outweigh Washington's edge in passing offense.

Round 2:
#3 Green Bay Packers at #2 San Francisco 49ers (11-4-1):  Green Bay - 24, San Francisco - 13

This should be an interesting game, certainly different from their week one match.  If Green Bay does get past Minnesota, they should have some nice momentum or at least rhythm, while San Francisco will have had some much-needed rest.  I think the game probably rests on how QB Colin Kaepernick plays - and this being his first playoff experience, I would be surprised to see another huge game from him.  If Green Bay can contain Peterson, then surely they can do the same to RB Gore.  While the 49ers have a great defense, TTSNBN showed that even a big lead is not necessarily safe from a dangerous passing attack.  I think the Packers will have the focus and experience necessary to win this one.

#5 Seattle Seahawks at #1 Atlanta Falcons (13-3):  Atlanta - 20, Seattle - 17

An interesting matchup here.  As surprising as it sounds when you just look at the seeds, Seattle could be the Vegas favorite here, due to Seattle's late-season play and the Falcons' notable playoff woes.  And just like in the first round, if this game was being played in Seattle, I would take them comfortably.  But I like the Falcons here:  they're great at home, tired of losing in the playoffs, mad at being talked down, and a truly different team than what they've been prior to this season.  Matt Ryan has shown great improvement and he has great receiving threats; they even learned how to successfully mix in their weaker running game.  Seattle could very well win, but I think this is a statement game for Atlanta.

Round 3:
#3 Green Bay Packers at #1 Atlanta Falcons:  Green Bay - 35, Atlanta - 28

Despite an important win in round 2, I think Atlanta will fall in the conference championship.  After facing bitter divisional foes and the 49ers' fierce defense, the Falcons' cushy dome and soft defense will seem downright friendly to Rodgers and co.  I highly doubt that this will be low-scoring game, at any rate.  I think maybe it comes down to Green Bay being hungrier than simply advancing in the playoffs - they want and expect another Super Bowl.  And, of course, Matt Ryan is still looking up to Aaron Rodgers in the league QB hierarchy.  Should be an entertaining one, if it comes to these two teams.


Super Bowl:

Denver Broncos vs. Green Bay Packers:  Denver - 30, Green Bay - 21

More and more, it tends to be the elite, or at least clutch, veteran QBs who end up in the Super Bowl.  2007 with Rex Grossman (!) was the last time it didn't happen; since then it's been Brady vs. E. Manning, Roethlisberger vs. Warner, Brees vs. P. Manning, Roethlisberger vs. Rodgers, and Brady vs. E. Manning (with the same happy result).  A Denver-Green Bay finale would give us P. Manning vs. Rodgers, which would certainly continue the trend.  This game would put Peyton back into his natural habitat (a dome), and the Broncos' defense is much better than the Packers'.  Even with all of Denver's advantages, though, I would expect this to be a fun, competitive match.  We'll see!

Movies: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  The Hobbit entered theaters with enormous expectations and, while not as good as The Lord of the Rings, it proves itself both entertaining and worthy of inclusion in director Peter Jackson's sensational franchise.  In a series of great casting choices, Martin Freeman stands out as one of the best as Bilbo the Hobbit; the dwarves may be average company, but Gandalf is a welcome companion.  Come for the humor, sense of adventure, and Gollum, but prepare yourself for a CGI-fest.


The roller coaster ride of great movie releases starting in late October has swept us into the last few weeks of 2012.  There are still some very interesting films out or yet to come out; I'm not sure how many I'll get to see (e.g.: limited releases).  As for The Hobbit, this was one of my most anticipated films of the year.  You may know that I'm a big fan of several action/adventure franchises, and The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of my favorites.  After a rocky journey, to say the least, Peter Jackson at last managed to get the precursor to LotR on the big screen - despite being just one book (and a shorter one at that), The Hobbit will be spread out over three lengthy films.  The first installment was directed, of course, by Jackson, and stars Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, and others.

The Hobbit opens with Bilbo, circa start of The Fellowship of the Ring (60 years after The Hobbit) giving the background of his adventure to his nephew, Frodo.  Back in Hobbit time, Gandalf the wizard pays his little friend a visit in the land of Hobbits known as the Shire.  He invites Bilbo along on an adventure, and though Bilbo declines, he receives thirteen uninvited dwarf guests for dinner that night.  Eventually Bilbo decides to join them in retaking the dwarves' old mountain fortress which had been overrun and captured by the dragon Smaug for its immense wealth.

Thus Bilbo starts off on the the first great Hobbit adventure.  He and the dwarves tangle with trolls, crazy hippie wizards, elves, goblins, stone giants, and more.  The main story focuses on the merry band's struggle toward their destination, but along the way elements foreshadowing the events of The Lord of the Rings sprout up, including a first meeting with Gollum and his precious.

Like LotR, The Hobbit benefits from some great casting.  First up is Martin Freeman as Bilbo, who is to The Hobbit what Frodo was to LotR.  A brilliant choice, Freeman is a natural Hobbit with a perfectly understated, hilarious sense of humor.  Freeman is essential in livening up a somewhat slow beginning, and grounding the events of the action-packed finale.  Even among all the other phenomenal casting choices in LotR and The Hobbit, Freeman might already be my favorite.  The other main character is returning star Ian McKellen as Gandalf the Grey.  I think it goes without saying that McKellen is a tremendous actor, and he truly seems to enjoy playing the character.  Gandalf is a bit more adventurous and risk-taking in The Hobbit than he was in LotR, but he has the same kindness, humor, and wisdom.

Thirteen dwarves share this adventure with Bilbo and Gandalf, and to be honest, I marked them as the "hero," the "granddaddy," the "twins," the "fat one," and the rest kind of blurred together.  Thorin (ie: "the hero") is kind of the Aragorn of The Hobbit, but he's a poor replacement.  Not bad, just not very noteworthy.  The dwarves provide some good humor, but I really saw The Hobbit as Bilbo and Gandalf's journey with the dwarves tagging along rather than the other way around (which is technically how it's supposed to be).  There are some more familiar faces, too, most notably Andy Serkis (well, his digital face) as Gollum.  Although he's limited to one extended scene (which also happens to be perhaps the best in the film), Serkis is at least as good as ever as the slimy, treacherous, two-faced yet pitiable creature.  Also involved are Hugo Weaving as Elrond, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel (both elves), and Christopher Lee as Saruman the White (even by The Hobbit he's already kind of an asshole).

Just as a baseline to be successful, in my opinion, The Hobbit needed to retain the feel of LotR, and in this it succeeded for the most part.  (For a franchise reboot that did not retain the feel of its predecessors to its detriment, see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull).  This is particularly true early on in the Shire - a convenient base to start from since LotR started in the same place.  The Hobbit contains roughly the same mixture of action/adventure and characterization as LotR - if anything, this film scales down the epic and tries to incorporate more character background (kind of strange since it is a prequel, but still).  The quality of the action is probably where The Hobbit suffers the worst in comparison to LotR; there's just too much CGI (no more humans dressed up in Orc costumes) and at times it gets a little ridiculous even for a fantasy movie.  On the other hand, the film has a really good sense of humor, especially early in the film before the action gets rolling (thank you, Freeman).  Finally, it's great to have Howard Shore back on board as composer:  he retains several themes from LotR while adding some new ones which, while they need to grow on me, certainly fit the Tolkien universe just as well.

***

The Hobbit is a very good film; only those who hate the genre in the first place or are already nostalgic for Frodo, Sam and the rest from LotR should disagree.  The biggest point of contention on The Hobbit seems to be the decision to break that one, small book into three expansive films.  First, I'll say that I think Peter Jackson loves the Tolkien world so much that this was not primarily a financial decision.  Second... OK, perhaps An Unexpected Journey was a little bloated.  If I were the editor, I would have cut down on the final extended action sequence and some of the LotR-preview stuff.  But I think I was bothered more by the overuse of CGI than the length of the film.  Seeing this made me appreciate just how much the "human" orcs really engaged me in the action of LotR.  Sadly, some of The Hobbit's action comes off more like a video game (for specifics, compare the main orc bad guy in Fellowship to the one in The Hobbit).  But, like I did for Lincoln, I'm mostly picking nits.  The fact is, Jackson successfully plunged back into his unique Tolkien world without missing a beat.  Is it as good as LotR (at least two of which were A+ in my book)? No... but that's not exactly an insult.  One final thing:  I saw this in 2D (ie: neither 3D nor the 48 FPS version).  The Hobbit trilogy has a strong anchor in Bilbo and Gandalf; I highly recommend the first chapter, and am eager for the next.

Movies: Life of Pi

Score:  ***** out of ***** (A+)

Long Story Short:  Ang Lee faced significant challenges in translating the book to the big screen but, like Joss Whedon with The Avengers earlier this year, succeeded far beyond my expectations.  The film follows the book faithfully and does it great justice with visual flair, both in the best use of 3D to date and the realistic ocean and animals, and performances that support the significant narrative and emotional weight.  Highly recommended - and please, go see this in 3D.


With a break of just a week, the fall film season marches on.  Yesterday I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which I will be reviewing next weekend.  However, I finally got to see Life of Pi before that.  As likely many of you know, Life of Pi is an adaptation of the book by Yann Martel.  I read and loved it in high school, and was intrigued when I heard that it was being turned into a film.  At the same time, I was a little dubious about how well it would translate into that medium.  Once I saw the great reviews it was getting, though, my decision was made.  Life of Pi was directed by Ang Lee (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; Brokeback Mountain) and stars Suraj Sharma and Irfan Khan, both playing the main character Pi at different ages.

If you've read the book, I'll start off by saying that the film is quite faithful to the book (although I haven't read it in some years so I might be forgetting some parts).  For the rest of you, it starts with a novelist in Canada coming to the home of an Indian named Piscene "Pi" Patel.  The novelist has been directed to Pi by someone who told him that Pi had a spectacular tale to tell, one that would "make you believe in God".  So Pi starts off by giving the novelist a background of his life as a child in India, the son of a zoo keeper, owner of an oft-ridiculed name, and sampler of religions.  Then the family is forced to move to Canada.

The zoo animals are packed onto a huge shipping vessel to sell, and the family stays with the ship's crew.  However, a monster storm sinks the ship, with only Pi making it off on a small lifeboat along with several animals from the zoo.  Soon, the inhabitants of the boat are down to two:  Pi, and a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker.  Pi is forced to try to not only survive in the middle of the ocean, but also co-exist with the deadly animal.  I doubt I'm spoiling it for you when I tell you he makes it - but just as important are the ways in which the journey fundamentally changes him.

Life of Pi has a small cast, as you might imagine.  Pi is obviously the main character, with Suraj Sharma getting the biggest part as the Pi on the boat.  He does an excellent job, primarily with expressing vivid emotions of fear and anger in dealing with the tiger, as well as quiet stares that convey everything from despair to yearning.  His performance is essential to anchoring the audience in the story, and he succeeds.  Irfan Khan, the Pi narrating his experiences, also gets a chunk of time, and he was well cast. He shows an inner calmness that reflects the fact that this man, now living peacefully with a family, has endured and learned so much that he can take it all in stride.  The only other notable character/actor is Santosh, Pi's father played by Adil Hussain.  With limited screen time, he effectively portrays a strong, reason-driven man who is strained by Pi's religiousness but loves him deeply.

Life of Pi is only the third film I have seen in 3D.  The first was Avatar; I found the effects to be pretty, but significantly overrated.  Like the film itself, they were just too big and impersonal to leave much impression.  The second film was Prometheus, which was simply because the 3D showtime worked better for my schedule; it added little to nothing to the film.  Life of Pi, on the other hand, was a perfect choice for using 3D; and an acclaimed, innovative director such as Ang Lee was the perfect filmmaker to handle it.  Life of Pi uses the 3D to astounding success in portraying the close quarters danger as well as some dream-like and hallucinatory sequences.  Beyond the 3D, the ocean environment is also incredibly well done (the ship sinking sequence is utterly terrifying); and the animals are surprisingly realistic, particularly the tiger.

What propels Life of Pi into greatness, however, is the third wheel of the film (in addition to effective human performances and visual excellence):  the story as parable.  Now, those who have read the book know the most direct meaning of "parable" here, and it's included in the film.  However, out of what seems to be a fairly simple tale of a boy and a tiger surviving in the middle of the ocean, there is so much that can be taken.  The best part is, exactly what you take from it can be different from audience to audience, and even separate viewings from the same person can evoke different reactions.  To give you a sample of one of the film's themes to me:  with a sense of spirituality (not necessarily a belief in one God or another), life can become a series of stories that take on meaning deeper than the immediate struggles or joys that they entail.

***

Life of Pi is my first five-star rated film (since the start of my blog in summer 2010).  I consider this A+ rating to mean one or more of the following:  the film is simply perfect in just about every way (I can't think of any off the top of my head); the film holds up or even improves on its excellence over time/ repeat viewings (obviously, not a consideration for these reviews); or the film is excellent and also especially appeals to me personally.  Life of Pi falls into this third category; I can certainly understand how others might not like the film as much.  But at the same time, the strength of the visual style and narrative structure, and the performances to a degree, can't be denied.  If you think you'd like to see this film, I strongly recommend that you see this in the 3D at the theater at least once.  Let the visuals suck you into the story and then sweep you away, and open yourself to the ways in which the fantastic story can be reflected in your own life.

Movies: Lincoln

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Long Story Short:  Spielberg continues his historical drama bent with Lincoln, a much different film than last year's powerful War Horse but one that's at least as good.  Day-Lewis somehow surpasses expectations in portraying Abe with an utterly breathtaking performances that is one of the best I've ever seen.  The other main strength of the film is its restraint, bypassing much of the weighty times of Lincoln's presidency and taking place during a single month just before his death.  Whether or not you are a frequent moviegoer, I urge every adult to see this film, in the theater or elsewhere.


Fall movie madness continues, with Lincoln being the latest in not only one of the longest strings of films I've seen in consecutive weekends but also the highest quality of such back-to-back films.  My reasons for wanting to see Lincoln were plentiful.  First was the presence of Steven Spielberg as director, probably my favorite director of all time, and he has shown himself especially capable and respectful in filming historical dramas.  Abraham Lincoln is one of the most intriguing figures in our country's history, and to have Daniel Day-Lewis, possibly the best living actor, portray him was exciting.  Thus it was not surprising at all to see Lincoln get an excellent score on Rotten Tomatoes.  Lincoln was directed by Spielberg and stars Day-Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field, and others.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia's plot chronology, which I rely on since I often don't remember it very precisely, is nonexistent for this film.  Lincoln does start rather abruptly, on a rainy night following a bloody battle in the Civil War.  President Lincoln (Day-Lewis) sits hunched, almost grandfatherly, below a shabby roof while he listens to Union soldiers express their support for him but also demand for their sacrifice to mean something.  The action soon shifts to Washington, D.C., where the film's central plot comes into focus:  the attempt to pass the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution, which outlawed slavery.

Despite having a majority in Congress and a great deal of public support, Lincoln faced formidable challenges in passing the 13th amendment.  I won't go into detail, but the challenges come from both friend and foe:  Lincoln must persuade a number of Democrats to vote for it to get the supermajority needed, and do it before the surrender of the Confederacy.  He must also temper the enthusiastic support of "Radical" Republicans to not scare off his fragile coalition.  Even in his private life, Lincoln is enormously stressed by a son who wants to join the army and a wife who is on the verge of a breakdown over the death of their son three years prior.

Lincoln shines a bright spotlight on its cast and asks much of them, and they came through brilliantly.  Starring, and appearing in nearly ever scene, is of course Daniel Day-Lewis as Abraham Lincoln.  With all due respect to Denzel in Flight, Day-Lewis is guaranteed the Best Actor Oscar like no other I can remember.  I know it's a cliche, but it's about as accurate as possible:  Day-Lewis is Lincoln in this film.  In everything from his higher-pitched voice to his physical gestures and tendencies, he creates a man whose every characteristic is consistent with the whole and which also matches with someone I could easily believe as the real Abraham Lincoln.  Day-Lincoln tells story after story which could easily have become repetitive and boring, but each time he captures your complete attention and interest.  He gives a few extended, powerful rants, but also some abbreviated, everyday speeches with equal skill.  He is an honorable man, but one not above using lawyerly, morally ambiguous methods to achieve his crucial ends.  Day-Lincoln gets a mischievous twinkle in his eye when he tells a joke, listens passively in agony as his wife screams at him, and gives sad, quiet condolences to those who suffered losses in the Civil War.  Day-Lincoln is the film, plain and simple.

But there are some great supporting performances, too.  Tommy Lee Jones leads the rest as Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens, who is most memorable in his epic and hilarious smackdowns of the slimy, racist Democratic Congressmen.  Jones also shines, though, when you can almost literally see him swallow his pride and accept smaller but achievable steps to true equality.  Sally Field shows a side of herself that I don't think I've seen before, depicting a brilliant woman on the edge of insanity, to whom tragedy has brought a constant state of rage; yet she also loves her living family fiercely.  David Straitharn (Bourne films) plays Secretary of State Seward with excellent formality and a steady dose of exasperation with his boss.  James Spader provides a nice shot of humor as a seedy briber tasked with securing/wrangling/begging the needed Democratic votes.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Lincoln's son Robert, but in contrast with the rest of the cast, doesn't really do much with the role.

The main genre of Lincoln is, of course, historical drama.  The subgenre is politics, politics, politics.  The entire film revolves around trying to pass the 13th amendment, and considering the stakes and the difficulties in doing so, it's certainly a worthy plot focus.  There are glimpses here and there of the real effects of the major influences on this amendment - the livelihood of African Americans, and the trauma of the Civil War - but again, the focus is really the Washington political machine and the push and pull between the executive and legislative branches of government.  This focus prevented the film from becoming diluted, and still managed to have some powerful emotional moments, typically dealing with either exhilarating political victories or critical moments in Lincoln's personal life.  Humor is sprinkled liberally throughout the film, fortunately, most of it coming from Day-Lincoln, Tommy Lee or Spader.  Finally, John Williams composed the music, as he always does for Spielberg, and it complements the various tones of the film while not attracting too much attention to itself.

***

Lincoln is about as good as its aim allow it to be; while those aims are perhaps a little limited - relatively speaking - the accuracy with which Day-Lewis and Spielberg hit the target is nearly perfect.  There is so much rich material to choose from in dealing with Abraham Lincoln's life, even if you are choosing only from his time as President, that I'm sure there was great temptation to do a sprawling biopic.  In fact, the screen-writer, Pulitzer Prize-winner Tony Kushner, initially sent Spielberg a mammoth script.  But Spielberg wisely pared that tome down to a one month period that represented perhaps Lincoln's greatest struggle and ultimate triumph.  Lincoln certainly gives a remarkable look at the titular man, and Day-Lewis is astoundingly brilliant, but it's more about his efforts and achievement for the nation than about the man himself.  I'm not sure, then, how much and how long Lincoln is likely to stick with me:  on the one hand, it's a tightly focused and expertly executed glimpse at one historical event, like Argo (although Spielberg is almost saying to Affleck, "good effort, kid, but this is how we do it in the big leagues"), and on the other hand, its smart decision to stay limited might prevent it from becoming an all-time classic.  My only gripe with it, really, is that the ending is drawn out a bit too long.  Anyway, I'm starting to nitpick:  Lincoln is a must see for all adults.

Movies: The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  The Perks of Being a Wallflower seems to be slowly working its way through theaters nationwide and is likely to be available on DVD and streaming soon.  It's a coming-of-age film of one year in the life of a high school-aged boy named Charlie.  Ezra Miller shines as one of his pals, and both Lerman and Watson improve along the way, too.  Ultimately, Perks represents the journey of high school faithfully and makes up for any imperfections with its emotional resonance.


It's almost like summer again as the films keep on coming.  This week I got to see The Perks of Being a Wallflower, initially released all the way back in September.  I was interested in seeing it then, but as a limited release it didn't get to my theater; I guess it's expanded since then, so I took the opportunity.  The main draw for me was simply the strength of reviews for it, and I also enjoy the occasional coming-of-age story.  The Perks of Being a Wallflower was directed by Steven Chbosky (who also wrote the novel that it's based on, in 1999) and stars Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, and Ezra Miller.

We first get a glimpse of the main character, Charlie (Lerman), who is about to enter high school.  He lives in an average suburb with both of his parents and his sister Candace (Dobrev).  Charlie is quiet and intelligent, and at first the only connection he makes is to his English teacher (Rudd).  On a chance encounter at a football game, he sits down with a kid from his shop class, Patrick (Miller) and his stepsister, Sam (Watson), both seniors.  He sees them again at a school dance, and follows them to an after party where they begin to bond.  Charlie, attracted to Sam at first sight, tells her of his lack of romantic experience at Christmas as she expresses some affection, though she is dating someone else.

The trio, plus some of Patrick and Sam's other friends, begin hanging out together all the time, and a favorite activity becomes enacting The Rocky Horror Picture Show at a local theater.  Mary Elizabeth (Whitman) asks Charlie to the Sadie Hawkins dance and, under her controlling lead, the two start to date.  Growing frustrated with the relationship, Charlie acts rashly which threatens his friendship with the entire group.  Meanwhile, spring is approaching with Sam struggling to get accepted into college, Patrick dealing with his own difficult relationship, and Charlie feeling both blessed and cursed by the friends he's made in his first year of high school.

The performances of the young people in a coming-of-age film are crucial to establish relatable, believable events.  Logan Lerman as Charlie is the main character, but he acts more as the center rather than the focus throughout the film.  For the most part he portrays his quiet, polite, intelligent part well, with a few slips in character here are there.  Crucially, he does well in the most important, emotional scenes.  Emma Watson as Sam improves throughout the film after a little overacting at first.  She is well-cast, her strikingly beautiful face attracting Charlie's and the audience's attention; she flirts almost off-handedly, something few can pull off well.  The third member of the group, Ezra Miller as Patrick, is the best, though.  He oozes charisma, and also comes across as the most believable teenager in the entire cast.  Swinging between the extremes of petty pranks to deep pain and alienation, Miller pulls it all off and steals most of the scenes he inhabits.

There are some nice supporting roles, too.  Paul Rudd, typically a leading man, does a fine job in just a few minutes of screentime as the English teacher.  Nina Dobrev as Candace is very convincing as Charlie's sister, trying to keep her little brother at bay at times and at others showing a deep, sisterly bond.  Finally, Mae Whitman injects some good humor into the role of Mary Elizabeth, a smart, sarcastic girl who fluctuates believably between cooly controlling and desperately clinging.

The cast provides the foundation of this realistic coming-of-age film; Perks also contains a story, structure, flow, and feel that makes it all the more relatable.  I mentioned that Charlie acts as the center rather than the focus of the film, and I mean that his are the eyes and ears through which the story is told.  He has a strong family, but aside from his sister, they are virtually ignored - as a real teenager would, focusing instead on his peers.  The foci throughout the film goes in a cycle - again, in the way a teenager's typically does - going from school concerns, to friendship, to romantic pulls, and back again. The structure is also clever:  it takes place over roughly one year, and shows the paradoxical high school feeling of being both temporary and timeless, as Charlie's new friends are all seniors.  There are just enough cultural cues to give the story a place in time, but it's still plenty relatable to most generations, I think.  There are several powerful yet genuine scenes, though not so many that it seems every day has a world-altering one.  Perhaps the most memorable is the most simple, utilizing the power of music, and recurring at the end as a perfect book end.

***

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a flawed film, but one that resonates in ways that elude the efforts of most other films.  The first act of the film had me thinking that it was headed down a very common, very predictable road but then it just kept on developing.  I would argue that the Charlie-Sam relationship is potentially most deserving of criticism:  it takes up the largest chunk of time, sometimes starts to drift into cliche; then it dies down, only to rise up again (better, yet briefer, this time).  I suppose, whether or not this was done intentionally, though, that it well reflects the awkwardness of the whole high school experience.  There are several different important strands of Charlie's relationships in the film, some of which occur simultaneously and others consecutively, and it's interesting to see them all interact and yet stay in their own little bubbles apart from each other.  Although my own high school experience was much different in detail than Charlie's, of course, I could relate to many of his feelings and some of the more powerful moments.  Perks is a movie worth seeing at least once and, like our memories of high school, worth revisiting from time to time.

Movies: Skyfall

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  007 is back after a four-year hiatus, and is receiving great praise from critics as well as success at the box office.  Craig, already great in his first outing as Bond in Casino Royale, mirrors his character's own development of greater confidence by having more fun than in the two previous films.  Yet Bond faces not only a sinister foe in MI6 rogue Silva (villain master Javier Bardem) but also questions of his own role in defending the modern world.  Seen best (in my opinion) as the third act of Craig's Bond trilogy, Skyfall also represents the finest quality of today's action genre.


It's been a great fall movie season so far, with the fantastic Argo and Flight.  Now it's 007's turn, and one of my most anticipated films of the year.  I am a huge James Bond fan, and was thrilled with the series reboot in 2006's Casino Royale (my favorite of the series so far).  Quantum of Solace was also very good - severely underrated, in fact - and then 007 fans were subjected to another long drought between films thanks to MGM going into bankruptcy.  Fortunately, Daniel Craig stayed on as Bond, and I was quite excited by both the trailer for Skyfall and by the inclusion of Javier Bardem as the villain.  Skyfall was directed by Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition) and stars Craig in his third 007 adventure, Judi Dench, Ralph Fiennes, and Bardem.

Skyfall drops the audience straight into one of 007's missions, this one in Istanbul.  Bond (Craig) finds a meeting gone awry, and M (Dench) instructs him to abandon a fallen fellow agent there are go after a stolen hard drive.  A great Bond chase ensues, going from car to motorcycle to train.  As Bond grapples with the bad guy, M instructs another MI6 agent to shoot - taking out 007 instead, accidentally.  Bond survives, of course, and takes his time getting back to home base; meanwhile, MI6 is hacked and under attack by cyber terrorists.

Bond's only lead is the man who stole the hard drive - containing the identities of NATO secret agents - and he manages to track him to Shanghai.  There, 007 meets a voluptuous woman who takes him to the boss, who turns out to be a former MI6 agent named Silva (Bardem) gone rogue and insane.  It seems that Bond has the situation under control, but Silva knows exactly what to expect from his former handlers and remains two steps ahead of them.  Bond is forced to dump the agency playbook and make Silva fight on his terms, resulting in not only an explosive finale but one that brings 007's mysterious origins in contact with his new "family".

Acting is hardly the most important aspect of a Bond film, but Skyfall has a strong cast.  Craig retains the same gritty style that he introduced in Casino Royale, but his 007 is now a shade more confident, in particular deploying a sense of humor more often.  Craig's Bond is unique in that the first three films all build off each other (more on that later) rather than stand alone, and so the character has evolved.  I personally still prefer Pierce Brosnan, the 007 I grew up with, but Craig does a superb job with his own interpretation of the iconic spy.  He really hit the ground running (literally and figuratively) in Casino Royale, and has ably guided the character along from there.

Judi Dench has her largest role yet as M (which she started in 1995's Goldeneye), and her character (along with 007) is under pressure from the start as being past her prime.  Unsurprisingly, both Dench and her M prove themselves up to the challenge.  Javier Bardem as Silva is sensational, and an instant classic villain in the 007 pantheon.  If you've seen No Country For Old Men, just imagine a metrosexual Anton Chigurh - equal parts creepy and frightening.  His introductory scene, basically a monologue, is perhaps the most entertaining in the entire film.  Naomie Harris plays an MI6 agent "Bond girl" and, in limited screen time, flirts with Bond effectively.  Ralph Fiennes plays a hard-nosed bureaucrat who breathes down M and Bond's necks, yet remains fiercely loyal to the country.  Last but not least the new Q is introduced (yay!), and the young Ben Whishaw plays him with the same bored, hilarious exasperation as the legendary Desmond Llewelyn.

Skyfall has plenty of action befitting a proper James Bond film, and Mendes eschews the often-confusing shaky cam from Quantum of Solace.  The opening Istanbul chase is a very good one, employing classic 007 tricks yet in the grittier, imperfect mode symbolizing Craig's style (I have to admit, the opening is the best action of the film and the rest is fairly pedestrian, by 007 standards anyway).  Daniel is very convincing as a hand-to-hand fighter (unlike the beefy Roger Moore) and also shows himself as a mortal, taking almost as much punishment as he dishes out.  Of course, just when you think "what's so special about this guy?", he takes down half-a-dozen baddies in two seconds, taking your breath away. There is considerably more psychological and emotional "action" as well in Skyfall, particularly in questioning the effectiveness of MI6 in the modern world, and delving (like Casino and Quantum) into Bond's past and what drives him.  Fear not, Skyfall is not all battle:  Bond trades quips with Harris' agent and Whishaw's Q like the old days, and Dench and Bardem even add some humor, too.  One last thing:  Adele's title song is one of the best Bond themes and I hope that she, in the style of Shirley Bassey, returns to the series.

***

Skyfall, taken by itself, is a very strong action film.  But I have to admit that the first time I saw it (yes, I've seen it twice already), it left me with an empty feeling.  Thanks to an observation from another reviewer, I went into my second viewing with another perspective and it worked much better.  How did this happen?  I went in the first time expecting one of those classic 007 films which have - despite a lot of variations, of course - a certain formula and style.  I could tell Skyfall was moving toward that classic 007 feeling, but it didn't quite get there.  The second time I saw it, I thought of it more as the third film in a trilogy and was much more pleased.  Unlike any Bond films before them, Craig's have all built on each other, and Quantum is even a direct sequel to Casino.  Skyfall has a completely new plot, yes, but it retains the overall theme of developing James Bond into the legend on display in films one through twenty.  And the last scene of Skyfall rather clearly shows that at last, Craig's 007 is truly the Bond of "shaken, not stirred," "the name's Bond, James Bond," etc.  So for full effect, I recommend that you watch Casino Royale (see this regardless!) and Quantum of Solace before Skyfall.  Yeah, yeah, it's just an action film - but it's a great one by itself and even better for those who follow 007.

Movies: Flight

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Long Story Short:  Denzel Washington gives an excellent, career-defining performance as main character pilot "Whip" Whitaker in Robert Zemeckis' Flight.  An edge-of-your seat opening gets the audience's attention and then turns it to the struggles of one man - seemingly a hero - with his own demons.  Supported and enriched by a great cast forming Whip's circle of friends and enemies.  Thanks to Denzel's performance and a fine balance between believability and inspiration, Flight soars into its place among the year's best.


The beginning of November signals the start of a nice long run of films I'm interested in seeing.  I caught this Flight last Monday; last night I saw the new James Bond movie (review coming next weekend!); my local theater finally released Perks of Being a Wallflower; and Lincoln is already out now, too.  First thing's first, though:  I saw the trailer for this during another theater trip, and the premise intrigued me.  Plus, Denzel is a great actor and when he stars in the more "serious" films like Training Day and American Gangsters, the result are strong.  With a good score on Rotten Tomatoes (76%), I decided to see it.  Flight was directed by Robert Zemeckis (Forrest Gump, Cast Away) and stars Denzel Washington, Don Cheadle, and John Goodman.

Flight introduces the main character, Whip Whitaker (Washington), waking up in a hotel room with bottles of alcohol strewn about and an attractive young woman casually walking around naked.  After ingesting a line of cocaine, we watch Whip stride out of the hotel - dressed for duty as an airplane pilot.  Whip is the captain of a short flight from Florida to Atlanta, from where he will debark to greet his estranged family.  Whip shows off his skills to his young, inexperienced co-pilot, but midflight he is awakened from a nap by turbulence and all hell breaks loose.

When the dust settles, Whip is a public hero, saving the vast majority of the lives on his plane.  But the pilot's union, represented by Charlie Anderson (Bruce Greenwood) quietly informs Whip of a positive toxicology report taken and summons attorney Hugh Lang (Cheadle) to defend him.  Whip grapples with his continuing addiction and finds himself pulled different directions by old faces, like dealer Harling (Goodman), and new faces, such as fellow addict Nicole (Kelly Reilly).  Both the NTSB and Whip search for the answer to this question:  is he a hero or a villain?

Flight sports a stellar cast, and it is led by a phenomenal turn from Denzel Washington.  The focus of the film is entirely on Whip; as the character went, so too did the rest of the film.  I'm pleased to say that Denzel knocked it out of the park with a moving and memorable performance.  Part of Whip's character is the typical calm, collected Denzel - but Whip is also a man utterly controlled by his addiction.  Whip can be a charming, thoughtful guy, but when he is confronted by others over his addiction, he lashes out in fierce, yet vulnerable, self-defense.  Beyond Whip himself, the film sets up his relationships with his family, friends and co-workers superbly and Denzel drops right into the middle of those interactions like he has lived that life for years.

While Denzel is the focus and the star, he has tremendous supporting players around him.  Kelly Reilly (whose face you'll likely recognize) does a great job in her role as a random acquaintance of Whip's, keeping control in a role that easily could have been overacted.  Goodman has kind of a similar role to the one he had in Argo, actually, and he's just as good - and funny - here.  Whip's co-workers Charlie (Greenwood) and Hugh (Cheadle) master their characters' superficial compassion and the ruthlessness they reveal only behind (sometimes literally) closed doors.  One last role that deserves mention is one I can't even find on IMDB - he's a cancer patient in Whip's hospital and provides an electric few minutes.

The hook of Flight, and what the studio surely hoped would get people to the theater, is the plane crash.  And certainly, the film does not slight this scene in the least, producing tension about on par with some of the better scenes in Argo.  But it's only the take off (pun intended) for a film about, as I described in Denzel's acting, a man dealing with addiction and perhaps his final reckoning.  Seeing how this man, a capable guy esteemed in his profession, brought to his knees time and again is powerful, as is seeing the results of his addiction, due to the crash or otherwise, on other people in his life.  Even with all of this serious stuff, Flight manages to sneak in some really good humor to help prevent things from getting depressing.  In fact, one of the miracles of the film is that it isn't depressing despite the subject matter.  A final note:  although the score is by Alan Silvestri, who did the beautiful themes in Forrest Gump, I can't remember any of the music except a few excerpts of Rolling Stones hits.

***

Put simply, even in a particularly strong year for film, Flight is one of my favorites so far.  A huge reason for this, I'll say it again, is Denzel Washington's bravura performance.  Another part is that it fits into a style of film that I really like.  After all, this is the director who did Forrest Gump, one of my all-time favorites.  Like in that film, Flight manages to straddle that tight-rope line between showing characters and their behavior that the audience can believe with characters and behavior that we want to see.  Nine times out of ten, if not more, a film does one or the other, either slipping into cheese and taking us out of the film's world - or being so real and bleak and depressing that we desperately want to get out of the film's world.  Flight achieves that rare balance, in my opinion.  Great main character, great relationships, great humor, a great range of emotional responses - oh, and a great ending, too.  Highly recommended - see it in the theater if you can (we need more films like this!) but rent or stream it later if you can't.