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
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.
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.
Score: ****1/2 out of ***** (A)
Long Story Short: Perhaps the most popularly anticipated movie (certainly for me) in the past few years, The Dark Knight Rises finally swoops in and everyone knows it's the last hurrah for Bale and co. The old standbys (Oldman, Caine, etc.) are just as prominent as ever, but the film also finds crucial roles for a new set of characters as well, led by Hardy and Hathaway. The first half of Rises shines brightly and promises an epic climax. Those final fireworks might not meet the (super high) expectations of every fan, but the last few minutes provide a fitting end to the tremendous trilogy
Now we're talking! This is the most anticipated movie for me in years, after the sheer brilliance of the Nolan Batman franchise's second entry, The Dark Knight. Before I go any further, though, let me give an overview of this blogpost since it's not going to be quite the same as usual. I'll review the film itself pretty much as normal, and then I'm going to give some brief thoughts on the two earlier films in the Nolan Batman franchise, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, as well as on the franchise as a whole.
So, The Dark Knight Rises at last. Thanks to a variety of factors, particularly my soaring expectations for the it, Rises is one of the most difficult films to review. I only saw it last night, and yet my opinion of it has shifted around quite a bit already. Before I get into the main review, I'll address two things related to the film but not actually affecting its quality: one trivial and one tragic. First, the title is kind of dumb; not only is it the same as its predecessor save the addition of one word, but that one extra word is one of the most overused in today's film culture. Second is the tragedy that occurred two nights ago during a midnight premiere showing of Rises in Colorado. You all know the gist of it, and many probably know more details than me. Needless to say, it's a horrifying tragedy, and, although the film setting really is irrelevant, it put the event in a different perspective for me and many other fans as well, I'm sure. I guess it's the juxtaposition of great excitement and feeling of comfort with chaos and destruction. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families and community.
OK, now that that necessary but grim acknowledgement is out of the way, I hope we can have a better time discussing this entire film. The Dark Knight Rises was directed, of course, by Christopher Nolan, and returns Christian Bale as Batman as well as Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman. Newcomers include Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Marion Cotillard, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt.
Spoiler warning: I'm not going to discuss the film's bigger surprises (ie: not hinted at by trailers) in detail, but I will discuss much at least in the abstract. I'll try to toe the line, but fair warning. The Dark Knight Rises takes place eight years after The Dark Knight. As the characters explain in brief here, that film ended with the defeat of the Joker, but also the fall of District Attorney Harvey Dent, the city's "white knight." Batman (Bale) and police commissioner Gordon (Oldman) decided to cover up Dent's crimes, though, placing the blame instead on Batman. So Batman has been dormant in those eight years and Bruce Wayne, lost without either Batman or the love of his life, Rachel, has holed himself up in his manor.
The city's politicians and power players meet at Wayne Manor, however, to honor the eighth anniversary of Dent's death. Gotham is rid of organized crime, thanks to the muscle of the Dent Act, but there is scheming both at the top, among some new faces, and at the bottom, with a sneaky thief named Selina Kyle (Hathaway) crashing the party. Kyle removes something of value from the Wayne Manor to give to a rival businessman. As Gordon and the police give chase, Gordon stumbles upon a mysterious operation run by the masked terrorist Bane (Hardy). Gordon manages to escape and gets picked up by young cop John Blake (Gordon-Levitt), an enthusiastic officer motivated by his troubled childhood. As it becomes evident that Gotham is not as secure as we thought, Wayne feels pressure to don the cape and cowl once again. But does he still have what it takes, physically and emotionally, to be the city's savior?
For any film, let alone a superhero movie, The Dark Knight Rises boasts a formidable cast. Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne and Batman is, of course, the main character. I am pleased to say that Bale turns in his finest performance yet. The film's enhanced focus on the dichotomy of his identities is helpful, but Bale grabs hold of the material and gives it all he's got; from brooding to bright, vulnerable to implacable, he hits all the right notes at all the right times. Michael Caine as butler Alfred is also even better this time around, with a show of genuine emotion and intensity, despite less screen time. Morgan Freeman is a big name in a minor role again, most notable for his humor, but he's still a most welcome part of the team. Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon has an expanded role, though unfortunately a good chunk of it is wrapped up in the film's weakest sections (I'll get to it later). Still, particularly early in the film, he easily produces the air of a grizzled veteran in charge of Gotham's security.
To those four familiar faces are added four new ones in Rises. Tom Hardy portrays Bane, the film's main villain. Bane doesn't get to the level of Ledger's Joker (only the greatest villain in any superhero film, and one of the greatest villains in film history period), but he's still top tier in the genre. Bane's power comes from two things mainly: first, of course, is his incredible physical presence; whenever a character stands near the guy, you fear for their life. Second is his voice, a surprisingly high-pitched British accent muffled by his mask. It exudes absolute confidence and thinly veiled threat at all times. Just as good is Anne Hathaway's Selina Kyle (no one ever calls her "Catwoman"). Kyle is also a supremely confident character, but hers is driven instead by emotional vendettas. Hathaway, both bodily and behaviorally, makes Kyle very sexy, but this is simply another highly effective tool in her arsenal, distracting the baddies and causing them to underestimate her. Helped by a mischievous sense of humor, Kyle provides a needed counterbalance to the film's grim overall tone.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt's John Blake is the film's only new butt-kicking good guy. Gordon-Levitt makes him extremely likable, as he always does, and yet the character definitely has an edge to him thanks to his tragic roots (and connection to Bruce Wayne). Unfortunately, Blake is also slightly infected by the condition Gordon has (be patient, it's coming). Finally we have Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate in the smallest of the new roles. She's a wealthy philanthropist, and everyone keeps trying to match her up with Bruce Wayne despite them having little in common. Suffice it to say that she's mostly a plot device, but I'll leave it at that. ;-)
As you've probably heard if you've even skimmed other reviews, The Dark Knight Rises goes all out in every way, all guns (and bat-gizmos) blazing. Sadly, there really aren't any hidden gem set pieces that aren't at least hinted at in the trailers and commercials. The opening scene (which I did not mention in the synopsis) is exhilarating even if it is hinted at in the commercials, and one of the fight scenes you know is coming will still take your breath away at how disturbing it is. Although the action in the second half has higher stakes and is bigger, I actually preferred most of the stuff in the first half of the film, featuring the kind of ingenuity that made The Dark Knight's set pieces so thrilling. Rises is hardly all action, however. Nolan makes the personal stakes just as important as those for Gotham as a whole, and there are plenty of clever twists and turns that will drop your jaw in horror in some places, and happiness in others. While the tone is grim - Bane is the biggest threat Gotham, or Batman, has ever seen - there is still well-placed humor, primarily involving Kyle, Blake, Fox, and even brooding Mr. Wayne. I was too intent on the verbal and physical action to pay much attention to the score, but worry not: the low-brass heavy theme is in force to herald the hero's exploits, adding additional weight to the action.
***
The Dark Knight Rises is a unique film to score. As unrealistic as they were, my expectations were fully to see an instant 5-star classic that blew my mind. It was unfair. My expectations caused the film's flaws to be blown way out of proportion in my mind. I know that I will be seeing this film at least once more in the theater, and then I'll probably have a better sense of how good it is as a whole. But I wanted to get this review out as soon as I could, so I'm doing the best I can. The main flaw I found in that first viewing was Bane's plot. It's essentially what the Joker did in The Dark Knight - just on a grander scale. The resulting.... situation following Bane's spectacular opening attack is a little tough to accept. It's to this situation that I refer Gordon and Blake's roles in the weakest part of the film. It's not the actors fault; I just didn't totally buy the set up. This part also dramatically alters the film's pacing, and results in the film being a bit too long. Maybe a second viewing will change my feelings on this to some degree. One example of changing opinions: at first I really didn't like how they handled the Tate character, but now I realize that it was actually done quite well, taking the film as a whole. Now for the strengths: the renewed focus on Wayne and Batman, the arc created and its resolution. Connecting the dots back to Batman Begins. Bane. Selina Kyle. The retention of the franchise's style yet addition of a whole new flavor. The fight scenes, so well choreographed and shot. And the entire first half of the film, creating such excitement and promising so much more... Perhaps the fact that the second half, with its ups and downs, didn't quite measure up to my high hopes was inevitable. Perhaps Nolan is just a master at set up of both grand plots and ideas, but is hit or miss with the blossoming (succeeded in The Dark Knight; failed with Inception). I will say that the very last few minutes, after the last explosion has gone off and the last punch thrown, are just about perfectly executed. And that is the ending this trilogy deserved.
Bat-Nolan
Rather than repeating the clunky phrase "Nolan's Batman franchise" over and over again, I will refer to his trilogy from here on as "Bat-Nolan." Now that The Dark Knight Rises has been released, I'd like to look back at the series as whole, which in my opinion is worthy of mention with the likes of the Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones (I'm not counting the 2008 film) and other great trilogies. I love these series (not just trilogies), because I think it combines the best of TV and film. Film series offer more than the isolated effects of a single film while avoiding the accompanying drag of even great TV shows; in other words, each film is a grand and moving production in itself, with emotional roots and character growth strengthened from previous material. Bat-Nolan took full advantage of these benefits.
In 2005, Batman Begins (****1/2) told a great origin story and established an entirely new world for a superhero film, one that was unprecedentedly gritty and realistic. Nolan immediately established society itself as a major theme, one that would be important throughout his trilogy. In Begins, Gotham is terrorized not by super villains but simply by the mob, which has de facto rule over the city because no one in a position of authority has either the power (Gordon) or courage (courts) to confront it. Bruce Wayne, once kept out of touch with Gotham's realities, gets drowned in that world one tragic night, and spirals down to the lowest pits of the earth. Armed with experience of the highest ideals (thanks to his father) and the psychology of the criminal, Wayne turns the power of fear against evil. Batman can inspire the authorities to tackle the mob, but his unique skills are what's needed at the end of the film to defeat the "super" villain (Ra's al-Ghul), who comes when he sees the tide turning.
If Batman Begins was about the importance of introducing a spark of light in a dark world and letting it grow, The Dark Knight (*****) introduced the moral ambiguity created by the very struggle to extinguish evil. Hoping to hand over the reigns of Gotham's safety to the lawful jurisdiction of the police, Batman is forced by the Joker to stay in the game. Batman himself is a "necessary evil," as the Joker points out, and when society feels safe (ie: once the mob is defeated) they will turn on him for being mysterious and strange - for not being like them. Yet it's Batman who holds onto his sanity and his morality as the Joker spreads chaos without reason and without mercy, and it's "white knight" DA Harvey Dent who falls apart in despair at the hands of the Joker's senseless evil. Even when the Joker is brought to justice, Batman and Gordon can only contain the damage he's done by creating the lie that it was Batman who broke and not Dent.
The Bat-Nolan trilogy is a triumph of the superhero genre, representing the pinnacle of an archetype that has become ubiquitous over the last decade-plus. Bat-Nolan created a fully realized world, both in the personal sense of Bruce Wayne and his friends and family, as well as the ebbs and flows of the society in which Batman operates. For the most part, Batman is fighting against the large, intangible damage done by his enemies, although to be sure both Ra's al-Ghul and Bane have destructive plans of great proportions that must also be stopped. There are plenty of moments, despite the realism of the trilogy, that require suspension of disbelief (none more so than The Dark Knight Rises), yet it's easier to do so when the stakes tend toward the intangible rather than the physical battles. Bat-Nolan enjoys a tremendous ensemble cast to deepen the emotional connections among the films (so you're "rooting" for them) as well as to show the effects of the fight against evil on a variety of individuals. It's not all grim battle for survival in a world filled with evil; the characters smirk as they toss off one-liners to hold onto their humanity; bystanders and cops alike stop fleeing or fighting to cheer on Batman as he chases after the bad guys; when Batman is ready to go to work, the pounding, dissonant score comes together in a confident, powerful, harmonic blast.
Bravo, Nolan and company.
Score: *** out of ***** (C+)
Long Story Short: Amazing Spider-Man boldly swoops in five years after Raimi and Maguire last were at it with yet another superhero reboot. Even with a decent cast (three cheers for Stone, meh for Garfield), the film ultimately boosts Marvel's and Columbia's coffers much more than its creative cache. Newbie blockbuster director Webb experiments with other people's ideas to create one damn messy spider web, and not nearly enough of it holds together.
For the first film of July, I'm back to the superhero genre. Under the direction of Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire, the first three film adaptations of Spider-Man (released in 2002, -04, and -07) were all quite popular and, especially the second, critically praised. I also enjoyed them quite a bit; again, especially the second film; and found that the franchise created its own nice little niche in the sprawling genre. When I heard news of a reboot just five years after the last film came out, I was a bit skeptical. Still, it's a tentpole summer blockbuster, and it got good (mid-70%) reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. This reboot was directed by Marc Webb ((500) Days of Summer) and stars Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) and Emma Stone (The Help, etc.).
Amazing Spider-Man, as most films seem to do these days, starts with a mini-prologue: a young Peter Parker (Garfield) is mysteriously whisked away from his home and dropped at his aunt and uncle's home, never to see his parents again. The film's present sees Parker as a high school teenager, a pretty typical nerd with skateboard who gets picked on by jocks and steals glances at pretty girls like Gwen Stacy (Stone). Before long, Parker finds a potential link between his missing father and a local scientist working on limb regeneration. He sneaks into Dr. Connor's lab, but gets bitten by a spider in one of his strange experimental areas.
Parker notices some new abilities as he makes his way home, but still seeks out Dr. Connor later on. A smart kid and the son of his old friend, Parker quickly becomes a companion of Connors, and soon stays out late working with him. After a family tragedy, however, a grief-sticken Parker turns to his new powers to seek revenge; meanwhile, Dr. Connors turns to drastic measures in his research due to corporate pressure. As you can imagine, the two friends turned genetic freaks soon find themselves deadly adversaries.
The cast of Amazing Spider-Man is pretty good, with a few highlights, and it's impossible not to compare them to their counterparts from the last decade. Andrew Garfield does a decent job, and in some scenes he shows his potential. But Tobey Maguire, in my opinion, was a much better Spider-Man. Part of the problem is the script, but Garfield doesn't quite fit the bill, pulling the character in too many different directions (a problem for the film as a whole). On the other hand, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy replacing Kirsten Dunst as M.J. Watson is a major upgrade. Stone is a great actress, and the film would have done better to include her in it even more. For lack of a better description, she simply makes her character believable. They broke out the star power for Parker's aunt and uncle, played by Sally Field and Martin Sheen. Both do a great job of course, but I think it might have been a better decision to use less well-known actors to portray them as the common folk they are. Rhys Ifans as Dr. Connors is acceptable but very forgettable. The cast standout beside Stone is, ironically, her on-screen father police chief Stacy, played by Denis Leary. Exceptional casting, a perfect fit, and he replaces some of the excellent dry humor from last decade's newspaper boss (J.K. Simmons).
Last decade's Spider-Man adaptations mixed fast-paced web-slinging action with both heartfelt drama and lighthearted humor. Amazing Spider-Man tries to do the same, yet also tries to differentiate itself - a difficult task. The action, in 2D at least, has a very few highlights, but mostly gets kind of dull and repetitive fairly quickly. It also requires the audience to suspend disbelief even more than its predecessors (Spider-Man gets thrown through walls and bounces right back up, yet gets shot once in the leg and is nearly immobilized? Well, for a few minutes at least). Parker's romance is more convincing in this film, although the Garfield-Stone chemistry has been overrated. There are also a few good moments of humor, an area of strength for Garfield and Leary, but they are pretty much alone in that arena. I don't remember a single note from the soundtrack, I'm afraid, unlike last decade's soaring themes from Danny Elfman.
***
The question that this film cannot escape is how it compares to the Raimi adaptations. Coming just five years after the last one, Webb and Garfield had to make a really, really good film and/or a very different interpretation in order to justify its existence. Put bluntly, they failed on both counts, moreso the first. It's been fashionable to throw young directors into genres they're unfamiliar with, and it was a poor choice here. Columbia tried to give Webb all the toys he could, both popular young stars (Garfield and Stone) and old standbys (Field and Sheen), as well as CGI aplenty. One problem is that Webb dabbles with a bunch of elements that have been successful in recent action films, but most of them seem randomly placed and serve to screw up any flow the movie tries to develop. Another problem is that in many ways the film seems to take itself seriously and tries to be very realistic, and yet there are many scenes that obliterate that attempt (mostly dealing with people ignoring the fact that Parker can suddenly do things like reverse slam-dunk a basketball from the three-point line and shatter the back board). I've mostly been complaining here, but the film certainly isn't all bad. If you're a big Spider-Man fan, wait to see it on Netflix. If you want a kick ass superhero film, hold off a week for The Dark Knight Rises (I. Can. Not. Freaking. WAIT!)
