TV: Fall 2013 Shows (new and returning)

Fall 2013 TV

Well, my predictions on future blog posts have been poor this fall.  September surprisingly saw the release of more films that I was interested in than October.  I have been tempted to go see Captain Phillips, as I like Tom Hanks a lot and it got great reviews - but it seemed like another bleak drama, and the premise just didn't grab me (Netflix for sure, though).  The good news is that I can guarantee that there will be a lot more movie reviews coming soon - not next week, but the week after with either 12 Years a Slave (PLEASE show this one, local rural theater!!!) or Ender's Game, followed by the new Thor, Hunger Games, and on we go.

But I didn't want to go too long without a blog post.  What to do?  There have been some interesting stories/surprises in the NFL at the midseason mark, but not enough for a whole post.  I haven't looked at the coming NBA season enough yet to do a preview (hopefully have one next week).  And I've almost done a political post recently (shutdown/debt ceiling thing), but haven't found the right way to do a quick essay form post.  However, I hope to do some research on gerrymandering (possibly with campaign finance) and post about that sometime this fall or winter.

But what about this week?  It occurred to me:  I've never done a blog post about TV shows (nearly did one on Lost a few years ago after Netflixing the whole series).  I've been able to watch a little more this fall thanks to my new DVR (I will never have cable without DVR again).  So here's a look at what I've been watching, and recommendations thereof.


ABC

Modern Family
Wednesdays @ 9:00 PM

If you've never heard of this show, you've probably been living under a rock.  Now in its fifth season, Modern Family has been growing in popularity each year, while achieving critical success from the beginning (it's won Outstanding Comedy at the Emmys every year it's been on air).  Using the mockumentary style made famous by The Office (one of my all-time favorite shows), Modern Family combines it with the traditional sit-com's family dynamics and values to create a new classic.  Each episode switches among three units of an extended family, each of which has uniquely hilarious dynamics.  My favorite/funniest characters are Cam (Eric Stonestreet), Phil (Ty Burrell) and Jay (Ed O'Neill) - although young Lily is becoming really funny this year, too.

Modern Family was laugh-out-loud hilarious in seasons one and two, then regressed significantly in season three (in my opinion) and recovered somewhat last year.  Season five, I'm happy to say, is back to the show's original fantastic form.  The show has rid itself of the cliches it started to pick up in the last two seasons, as well as its focus on the kids (they're fine strictly as supporting parts - NOT in the lead).  The ingenious plot connections among the three units are back in strong form, as is the overall sheer cleverness.  The best comedy series of the fall so far, by a wide margin.

Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Tuesdays @ 8:00 PM

Made thanks to the incredible popularity of The Avengers, this show had the good fortune of being created by that film's director, Joss Whedon.  In its first season, Agents of SHIELD has established itself as an hour-long family adventure (probably appropriate for middle-school kids and up) in the model of Lois and Clark and similar shows.  The show focuses on, of course, the shadowy agency known as SHIELD, and on one particular unit led by Agent Coulson (familiar from recent Marvel films - same actor, too).  Working with Coulson is a team of five:  two (non-"super") butt-kickers, two nerdy scientists, and one mystery who used to work for a "Wikileaks"-like organization.  The structure is fairly conventional, with a plot-of-the-week, although there's been considerable character development (for some of them anyway) and the beginnings of an overarching nemesis organization.

Being a comic book-film fan (strangely, though, I've never bought or read a comic book), I had to try this show.  Plus, I figured ABC and Marvel would pour plenty of resources into it considering the popularity of its inspiration.  The result so far:  Agents of SHIELD is a surprisingly good show.  It isn't deep or a critical darling, but it is simply very entertaining.  Coulson and the mystery girl - former "Rising Tide" (ie: Wikileaks) hacker Skye - are the main characters, and form a solid foundation.  The others aren't much more than stereotypes yet, but they are all easy on the eyes.  The show has a lot of potential for growth, but it's already well worth watching.


CBS

The Crazy Ones
Thursdays @ 9:00 PM

Two huge names - from very different past roles - team up for CBS' new hit comedy.  Now, I need to get off my chest that I am somewhat biased against CBS - I think most of their shows (granted, a lot of it I've only seen in commercials) are incredibly simplistic, redundant and purely commercial crap (how many ****ing NCIS, CSI, GHJ, ABC and XYZ investigation shows do you need?!?!).  Putting two huge names together - Robin Williams and Sarah Michelle Gellar - seemed like another obvious ploy that the uber-rich CBS pulled to get mega ratings.  Still, I LOVE Robin Williams - so I had to try it.  He stars as the head of an ad agency, and Gellar is his daughter who works for him.  Also involved are two male and one female assistants.  I'm a few weeks behind on this (they're waiting on my DVR), but to this point each episode revolves around the ad agency trying to create campaigns for various clients with a mix of embarrassing failure and heart-warming triumph.

It's too early to have a final verdict on this show, as I could easily see it becoming either great or terrible.  Robin Williams is still hilarious, and when he is the focus the show is hilarious.  Gellar (or rather the character they wrote for her) isn't bad but certainly the weak link - an adoring daughter who messes up then figures out how to fix it (usually only with her dad's help).  The other three are still wild cards.  They have set up Zack (James Wolk) and Andrew (Hamish Linklater) to have clearly defined and opposing personalities - so far, they've worked at times and failed at others.  I'll keep watching it and hope it develops, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it falls apart.

The Big Bang Theory
Thursdays @ 8:00 PM

Here's another one that you'd have to be culturally-deficient not to know about.  I came to this show a little late, but really enjoyed watching random re-runs and getting to know the characters.  The premise, shocking for a CBS show, is actually fairly creative, with a band of super smart nerds and one single "normal" young woman living in the same apartment building.  The cast has grown to include female counterparts for Sheldon and Howard - Amy and Bernadette.  To me, by far the funniest parts of the show have been the interactions of Sheldon, he of the severe case of Asperger's, and Penny, the ordinary country girl now living in the city.  Howard, while occasionally funny, is far more repulsive than amusing; and unfortunately the new cast members have not been too good.

I actually only watched the season premiere episode of this show, and have not seen one since.  While the early seasons of Big Bang were quite good, it has become pretty bad now.  I watched it last season, but only because I was with a group of people who did still like it - but last year was also terrible.  Why is it so bad now?  For one, they have run out of good ideas and are rehashing plots/situations that they have done twice, three times, or more.  The characters have changed as the show has become more popular - developing would be one thing, but they are cynical and "cool", a disastrous trend.  Unless I get a compelling case from someone to do so, I will not be watching new episodes of this show again.  Old re-runs are still good, though.


NBC

Parks and Recreation
Thursdays @ 8:00 PM

This show started off very quietly in the shadow of the massively popular The Office in 2009.  Another mockumentary-style show, Parks & Rec is about a small town's government department (guess which one?) led by eternally optimistic and hard-charging Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler).  The show provides an interesting - albeit silly and over-the-top, of course - look at both the strengths and weaknesses of (local) government in modern society.  The department is hilariously headed by libertarian Ron Swanson, who oversees a mostly ragtag crew:  Knope (the one motivated employee), stylish Indian American Tom, goofy Andy, exasperated Ann, serious nerd Ben, workout freak Chris, and more.  My favorite/funniest characters are Ron (Nick Offerman), Tom, (Aziz Ansari), and Andy (Chris Pratt).

The show changed pretty substantially from the first two seasons to season three and beyond.  I actually really liked the super-awkward style of the first two seasons - maybe even more than the current style - but the new style works very well (finally getting some awards recognition, too).  I have to admit, though, that this season has not been up to the show's standards.  Andy, one of my favorites, has been absent for most of the season, but that doesn't explain everything.  I think it's probably just a slump but, now in its sixth season, perhaps another big shift is needed or the show simply needs to wind down soon.  I'll definitely continue to watch new episodes, though.  And if you have not seen the show yet, I definitely recommend you go through it on Netflix.


Fox

Brooklyn Nine-Nine; New Girl; The Mindy Project
Tuesdays @ 8:30, 9:00, 9:30 PM

I've decided to lump these three back-to-back-to-back shows together - not just because of the scheduling but because of their other similarities.  New Girl is, ironically, the oldest, now in its third season; followed by The Mindy Project in season two; and Brooklyn Nine-Nine started this fall.  All three shows are single-camera comedies (no laugh track), although I'd say Brooklyn is the only one that could qualify as a mockumentary.  New Girl follows three guys (Nick - funniest character, Schmidt - most annoying, and Winston - weirdest) and one girl (Jess) who live together in an L.A. apartment.  The Mindy Project is about a young female doctor and her (mostly work) friends and attempted relationships.  Brooklyn Nine-Nine is about a police precinct starring Andy Samberg as the hotshot (but often screw-up) detective, Andre Braugher as his unamused boss, and supporting cast.

Although I enjoy all three shows, I'm a little worried about them.  New Girl had a great first season, not as good second season, and worse still this year.  Mindy started off great last year, but isn't quite as good this year.  Brooklyn has followed suit with a nice first season so far.  I'm not sure if these shows just inherently don't have great longevity, or if they just aren't being steered very well, since they have all followed a downward trajectory.  General advice for all:  avoid making romantic relationships (esp. if both are main characters) the focus.  Both New Girl and Mindy have done that this year, and it doesn't work.  Each show, while similar in some ways, has its own personality, and I'm hopeful that the writers can sustain or improve them going forward.


AMC

The Walking Dead
Sundays @ 9:00 PM

AMC has gone from just another cable channel to one of the hottest on TV the last few years.  Mad Men  and Breaking Bad (I've seen the first few seasons of Mad Men only; want to catch up on both via Netflix) gave AMC an impressive combination of critical and ratings success.  The Walking Dead has become even more popular - the most watched show on TV in the 18-49 demo, I believe.  The show takes place in a post-apocalyptic Georgia, following deputy Rick Grimes who, after waking from a coma, finds but a few survivors among hordes of zombies.  He miraculously finds his wife and son alive, and joins the group that they were with.  So far, it's mostly been a story of survival, whether it be avoiding the undead, finding food and shelter, or dealing with other group of people.

Season one of The Walking Dead, a mere six episodes, is probably my favorite so far - an extremely tense series of episodes that slowly unveiled the mystery that the show throws you right into the middle of.  Seasons two and three were both good - and also opposites.  Two was perhaps a little too slow, focusing mostly on the emotional impact of living without modern society; while three was perhaps a little too action-packed, with plenty of excitement but losing much of the nuance that marked the show earlier.  Season four has been very good so far, in providing a better combination of exciting action with character development (and my least favorite character is gone!  Yes!).  If you're very squeamish, this might not be the show for you (usually I am, but this doesn't bother me); if not, try it on Netflix.


Other shows I watch occasionally or haven't started new seasons:  Louie (brilliant), SNL (wow, the Bruce Willis episode was horrific; I miss Bill Hader!), Orange Is the New Black (Netflix original; I'm about halfway through the first season, and it's great).

Bottom line:  If you want to follow just two TV shows this fall, I would recommend Modern Family and The Walking Dead.

Movies: Gravity

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  One of 2013's first big Oscar contenders, Gravity, floats into theaters.  A surprisingly straightforward film (for all its awards fanfare), Gravity seizes your attention by immersing you in its zero gravity environment and following the terrifying action without breaks in the action (or edit) for tension-filled minutes at a time.  Bullock astounds with her physical acting, and Clooney is a comforting presence.  Go see it, in 3D.


Now that we're into October, it's fully fall movie season (although September surprisingly offered up two good films as well).  This is where we get most of the year's best dramas, many of which will show up at 2014's Oscars.  As I've noted, 2012 had a spectacular fall movie season, and hopefully 2013 can impress as well.  For as long as I've known about Gravity, I've heard good things about it; based on the trailer, though, I was confused about what kind of film it was.  Still, the raves kept coming in, and I also found it was directed by Alfonso Cuaron - the director of Children of Men, one of the best movies I've seen, period.  Along with Cuaron's directing, Gravity stars Sandra Bullock and George Clooney.

Well, since there's not much of a conventional "plot" to Gravity, and since much of it should be kept secret until you see it, this is going to be a short summary.  We start off in space, with a team from NASA - scientist Ryan Stone (Bullock), astronaut Matt Kowalski (Clooney), and an engineer.  They are working on a telescope, but it isn't long before they get a warning of impending danger from mission control.  Unlike the approaching rumble of an army or beast, this danger gives no sonic warning (being in space), and soon disaster strikes.  Kowalski locates a frightened Stone in the aftermath, but suddenly space just got a lot bigger and scarier - and the initial disaster will strike them again unless they get back to Earth in time.

Gravity features basically two performances.  The lead is taken by Sandra Bullock as expert scientist but amateur astronaut Dr. Ryan Stone.  Having read about the innovative way they filmed this, I have enormous respect for Bullock (they basically put her in a box for hours and told her to act as if she were in space).  For that technical prowess, Bullock likely deserves an Oscar nomination.  However, hers is not a particularly well developed character - more on that later.  Clooney, in a smaller role, plays confident veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski.  As the shit hits the fan and flies out into space in all directions, Clooney is the one comforting, reassuring part of the situation.  I totally bought him as a hotshot but compassionate astronaut and what he brings to the film is essential.

Based on all the raves I'd been hearing about Gravity, I assumed that it had a large philosophical or character-based component - but no, this is essentially a thriller (albeit a whole new kind).  And that's not a bad thing.  Everything in this film is directly related to the central crisis - there are a few minutes at the beginning and the end that serve as introduction and conclusion, but they are welcome respites from the tension throughout the rest of the film.  The two main elements that make Gravity stand apart are its immersion and continuous editing (which reinforce each other).  The immersion is created by the unique filming mentioned earlier - the actors float through much of the film, and the camera is almost always right on top of them (one particular scene at the beginning has Bullock spinning upside down out of control to a degree that I almost felt sick).  The continuous editing is kind of self-explanatory:  there are entire scenes that consist of one extended shot - in other words, the action doesn't shift to another camera angle or skip crucial seconds of action.  The immersion and continuous editing make for quite an intense experience.

***

While Gravity is "only" a thriller, it is a kind that you've never seen before (see notes about immersive and editing techniques above).  I also went to see it in 3D - forced to, since there was only one 2D showing per day, but I am very glad that I did.  Like Life of Pi, this film actually uses the extra dimension to add realism and depth to the film rather than as a gimmick.  The first two-thirds or so, at least, is just a roller coaster ride - but there were so many new elements that were available to Cuaron, taking place in outer space.  Constantly being feet, inches, or millimeters from the abyss keeps the characters - and audience - in perpetual dread.  Still, not all is perfect with Gravity.  At a certain point - I can't be specific without ruining some things - it starts to lose steam and/or originality.  This is the same point at which Gravity tries to turn toward Stone's past as motivation for her survival.  There just isn't enough to be meaningful or interesting, so it just ends up bogging things down - a totally straightforward survival story would have been preferable.  That's why Gravity falls short of a straight "A".  Still, I highly recommend this film - and don't just see it in the theater, go see it in 3D.

Movies: Don Jon

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  Don Jon is truly Joseph Gordon-Levitt's film - in addition to being the lead, he wrote and directed it as well.  And under his control, we get a very solid film, equally entertaining and thoughtful.  Gordon-Levitt doesn't tread lightly around the controversial subject of porn, but nor does he gross you out (OK, not too much, anyway); mostly he makes you laugh about it.  Along with a strong script and good performances (esp. from Johansson), this is a film well worth seeing.


Who would have thought?  Two interesting, good movies released in September - and available in my non-city area!  With Gravity coming out this weekend, I'll have at least three consecutive weekends with a movie review, and it could very well keep going.  As for Don Jon, I heard a little blurb about this being written, directed, and starred in by Joseph Gordon-Levitt in a preview of 2013 movies.  The little film has finally gotten a wide release after being showcased at film festivals.  I am a fan of Gordon-Levitt's, and with an interesting premise and good reviews (~80% on RT), I decided to give it a try.  In addition to Gordon-Levitt's involvement, Don Jon stars Scarlett Johansson and Julianne Moore.

Before the primary story breaks out, Jon Martello (Gordon-Levitt) shows and narrates the life he's living.  He's a young man (early/mid-20s?) with a very specific routine in which he conveys manliness to the outside world while his own world is consumed by porn.  Both his friends, who hang out with him at clubs, and his family, who encourage him to start his own family ASAP, drive him to keep up this lifestyle, albeit for opposing reasons.  One night at the club, Jon finds a particularly sexy woman, Barbara (Johansson), but she refuses to go home with him.  Still, Jon determinedly pursues Barbara over the next few weeks, and eventually goes on a date with her.

It isn't long before Jon is disappointed despite getting to date his "dream girl"; Jon finds himself returning to porn, and she has her own not-so-secret obsessions.  Jon begins to go to night classes to try to improve their relationship, but he doesn't fit in with the people there - including an older single woman (Moore) who seems attracted to him - and he becomes even more dissatisfied.  Something's gotta give - you'll just have to see what it is!

Don Jon has an impressive, charismatic cast that's well-suited to the tone of the film.  Gordon-Levitt is the lead as "Don" Jon Martello, and he does a very good job.  Yes, the film is in part rom-com, for which Gordon-Levitt's natural charm is a good fit, but he is just as effective in portraying a realistic, horny young man.  He's perhaps a little too earnest to ever be an elite actor, but his style works here and provides some great humor (describing his porn habits in his macho-infused, unironic way of speaking, for example).  Scarlett Johansson does perhaps the best acting I've ever seen from her, playing girlfriend Barbara.  She has all the little details of her character down perfectly, from the accent to the body language.  Without giving anything away, I was expecting her character to develop one way and was pleasantly surprised that it didn't - to Scarlett and the script's credit.

Julianne Moore, one of the best actresses around at the moment, does well as night student Esther.  She manages to combine her character's life experience with an equally deep sense of loneliness and a little insecurity, too.  Although I found Joseph and Scarlett's character's more interesting, Julianne makes hers as good as it can be.  Tony Danza plays Jon's father, and is another good fit.  He doesn't really stand apart from other similar working-class fathers (de Niro's character in Silver Linings Playbook came to my mind), but he provides good humor.  Finally, watch for some brief but hilarious cameos from other stars in clips from some fake films.

Like Prisoners, Don Jon has two main objectives in mind; here, it's to be both romantic comedy and dramatic analysis of media's affect on our lives.  The romantic comedy part is to be purely entertaining and draw in couples (which seemed to work at the show I went to); the best part of this is that Don Jon ends up subverting the rom-com genre expectations - not completely, but still more than enough for me.  The more interesting, serious (although humor is appropriately, effectively used, too) part is the less glamorous portrayal of everyday life (mostly from Jon's young-man perspective, but also some commentary on women's lives, too).  Gordon-Levitt smartly replays the routines of Jon's life using key details (eg: the hum of a computer turning on) to symbolize repetition - a repetition, by the way, that does not get tiresome.  Don Jon shows that we can get mentally and emotionally addicted to not just specific activities (porn), but also to plain old routine itself.

***

As Gordon-Levitt's debut as the director and writer of a feature film - not to mention its star, too - Don Jon is a very impressive achievement.  I enjoy him in just about everything I see - from 3rd Rock to Looper to The Dark Knight Rises - and now he shows great promise behind the camera, too.  The editing, writing and filming all display professionalism; although you could argue that the emphasis on routine in the story is a crutch for him to lean on (so that he didn't have to come up with something new each frame), the film works and that's all I care about.  The running time is also just about perfect at about an hour and a half.  A few things drag Don Jon down, such as threads that go nowhere and elements that seem superfluous, at least in how they're handled in the film (his religious faith).  And while Jon's addiction to porn is realistic, he could have used a few more flaws to make it even more believable (at times you can almost seem him think, "gosh, if I just weren't addicted to porn, I'd be perfect!").  Still, Don Jon moves at a good, entertaining clip, with charismatic performances, good humor, and some interesting bits for your brain to chew on.  Highly recommended.

Movies: Prisoners

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  Prisoners, a film with some big names but relatively little hype, is a thriller with bigger intentions.  Directed by newcomer Denis Villeneuve, the lead actors, Jackman and Gyllenhaal, really make the emotional impact and suspense work beautifully.  Although the film invites your guesses, it leaves the mystery of whodunnit - and whatwillJackmanbecome - a secret up until the very end.  Perhaps too much for parents of young kids to take, but for the rest of you, excellent entertainment.


Well, I guess that was a relatively short "drought" for movie reviews!  With the fall film season right around the corner, there should be still more reviews coming in.  I'm not expecting a fall season as good as 2012's, but hopefully there will be some interesting movies.  Again, in choosing films I tend to balance my interest in the premise and actors with its critical reception.  In choosing Prisoners, that balancing weighed heavily on the critics and the actors involved; I don't usually go for missing persons-type films.  However, Jackman and Gyllenhaal are great, and Jon Stewart seemed genuinely enthusiastic about the film when interviewing Jackman, so I gave it a try.  Prisoners was directed by Denis Villeneuve and stars the aforementioned actors.

Prisoners begins on a gray Thanksgiving day with the Dover family - father Keller (Jackman), mother Grace (Bello), teenaged son Ralph, and young daughter Anna - going to visit fellow nuclear family the Birches.  All seems normal, with Mr. Birch trying to loosen up the more serious Mr. Dover, and the families' kids pairing off to play with their closer-age counterpart.  Several hours pass, and Keller decides to check on his young daughter, but the older kids haven't seen her or the Birch's young daughter.  They quickly check the Dover's home (in the same neighborhood), but they aren't there, either.  The older kids bring the parents to check out an RV that the young kids had seemed interested in earlier, but it's gone, too.

Frantic, the families call the police; the search for the kids and the RV begins, with the RV being found within hours.  The driver is a strange young man, but also mentally handicapped, and he doesn't understand what's going on.  Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal) takes the lead on the case, and tries to reassure the families, particularly Keller, that he is doing everything he can - yet there is frustratingly little to go on.  As Loki painstakingly gathers little clues that may or may not go anywhere, Keller decides to pursue the one "lead" that the police have already discounted...

The cast of Prisoners is fantastic, portraying a very realistic set of normal characters thrust into the most stressful of situations.  Hugh Jackman as father of missing daughter Anna is a co-lead, and he plays brilliantly against type here.  Jackman tends to be either the nice guy, or even when rougher around the edges (Wolverine), is intelligently sarcastic.  Keller, however, is a simple, blue-collar family man driven by his emotions.  He is a "good guy" in that he is determined to find his daughter, but Jackman does a great job of only slowing realizing the dramatic consequences of his character's actions.  Gyllenhaal as Detective Loki is the other co-lead (I'd say they're equally prominent), and although he doesn't get the same level of emotional development, the realism of his acting is extremely impressive.  The case evolves from being just another job to a personal quest for him - sounds like a cliche, but Gyllenhaal makes it work like few, if any, others can.  Somewhat sullen, or maybe just reserved, Jake still makes Loki a guy you definitely are rooting for.

Paul Dano plays Alex Jones, the mentally handicapped driver of the RV.  Wow, does this guy give you the chills every time he appears on screen.  It's a fairly small - though crucial - part, and Dano really disappears into it; despite this, Alex is a passive character most important for how the other characters deal with him.  There are some other big names in this film, although none have really big roles; Viola Davis and Terrence Howard play the equally stricken Birch parents who are most intriguing when comparing their reactions to the Dovers'.  Melissa Leo plays Alex's aunt, and Mario Bello is Mrs. Dover - each has a few important scenes.

Prisoners is ostensibly a thriller, as the characters - and audience - try to solve the crime before it's too late for the victims.  But the film is also a deep, intriguing, and disturbing look at how normal people can respond to life-altering events.  Both of these aspects are given roughly equal attention, working together nicely and keeping the 2.5 hours running time sufficiently varied.  Prisoners is not a horror film, but I felt tense for most of the film, fearing equally either a surprise attack or gruesome discovery at every other turn (the script does a great job of making it come true only often enough to get you to expect it).  At the beginning of the film, a very simple but dark musical undertone heightens this tensions immeasurably (didn't notice it later on, but I may just have missed it).  It is difficult to get any specific sense of direction, either for the personal or thriller aspects of the film, which I think was a great idea - not just because it makes it harder to guess what will happen next, but also because that's just how life works.  If by now you're thinking, boy, this sounds a little too grim for me, fear not:  it has a (reasonably) happy, or at least satisfying, ending.

***

Prisoners is a great film, although it falls short of a straight-up "A" for me.  As I said, it works very nicely to have both thriller and personal/emotional elements to this film.  However, the two kind of go their separate ways as the film progresses, and so when it switches between the two, it's not as smooth a transition as it could be; you're thinking, OK, now what's happening with Keller/Loki now?  Also, while I think the ending is good in several ways, it's also a little anticlimactic and ultimately the explanation for the whole crime is maybe a little too neat and not a perfect fit for the rest of the film.  Still, I'm basically nitpicking:  although the two films are very different, Prisoners shares The Butler's gift of great performances.  You just can't wait to see what Keller/Jackman and Loki/Gyllenhaal do next.  The suspense is phenomenal, and, while I'd been prepared to witness extensive scenes of brutality, they really show just enough to give you the impression you need and then focus on the mental and emotional aspects again.  Final verdict:  if you do have small children right now, you may want to hold off on this for the moment (or risk nightmares).  Otherwise, highly recommended.

Movies: Tennis - Summer 2013

Summer Tennis Season

With good new film releases looking to be sparse for a few weeks, I thought it would be a good time to look back at the summer's tennis season.  For my purposes, this will be the span from Wimbledon, at the end of June, through the U.S. Open, which concluded just last weekend.  I'll give a recap of those Grand Slam events, then give a little summary of the top men's and women's players.


Wimbledon 2013

This year's tournament was one of the most bizarre in a long time, with upsets and injuries galore in just the first few days.  Rafael Nadal:  out in the first round (in straight sets!).  Serena Williams:  overwhelming favorite, out in fourth round.  Sara Errani:  #5 seed, out in first round.  Maria Sharapova: out in second round.  John Isner, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, and Victoria Azarenka:  retired in second round due to injury.  And most shocking of all by far:  Roger Federer, seven-time champion, lost in second round.  Unbelievable.  Without the top players around (especially for the women:  #4 Radwanska was the highest seed to make the quarterfinals), Wimbledon was significantly less fun this year.

Meeting in the men's final were top-seed Novak Djokovic and second seed Andy Murray.  After not dropping a single set in the tourney, Djokovic was taken to five sets by powerful del Potro before prevailing.  Murray also was brought to the brink by unranked Verdasco.  In the Finals, it was all Murray as he won in straight sets (6-4, 7-5, 6-4).  No one knew what to expect from the women, which ended up seeing #23 Sabine Lisicki and #15 Marion Bartoli in the Final.  Lisicki got there by beating the top remaining seed Radwanska in a 9-7 third set.  Bartoli got there with little trouble, beating young American Sloane Stephens among others.  It was all Bartoli in the final, winning 6-1, 6-4 (she would announce her retirement after the tournament).

U.S. Open 2013

The U.S. Open went much more according to plan.  The biggest surprises may have come before it even began, with Tsonga and Sharapova withdrawing due to injuries, and legend Roger Federer getting his lowest seed in years at #7.  The seed seemed appropriate, however, when Roger went down in the fourth round, ending his worst summer of tennis in probably more than a decade.  Other surprises included former #1 ranked Lleyton Hewitt making the fourth round after taking down del Potro.  American men's best hope Isner flamed out in the third round.  Errani, Wozniacki and other top 10 women's players lost before round 4, but nothing too shocking happened here.

Djokovic ended up in the Final again - he appeared in each of the Grand Slam finals this year - where he faced Nadal.  After #9 seed Wawrinka shocked last year's champ Murray in straight sets, he took Djokovic the distance in five sets before losing.  Nadal cruised through in straight sets (never having to face rival Federer).  In the Final, Nadal was dominant, winning 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, 6-1.  On the women's side, we also ended up with #1 (Serena) versus #2 (Azarenka).  Serena torched her way to the Finals, losing three total games in the quarters and semis.  Azarenka played a little more against unranked opponents, but still beat them in straight sets.  The Final ended up being one of the most competitive in recent women's Grand Slam history - at least in the first two sets, before Williams shut down Azarenka in the final set, 6-1.


Player Notes (# in parentheses is player's current rank):

(1) Novak Djokovic:  my favorite player had another strong year, getting to the Finals of each Grand Slam though "only" winning one of them.  He started the year at #1 and still is, but Nadal is closing fast.  It speaks to just how dominant he was in 2011 that this is considered a somewhat disappointing year, coming up just short at several tournaments, especially the Grand Slams.  Djokovic is still great, no question, but even I could tell that he just wasn't playing with the same confidence against top players (esp. Nadal) that he had in that historic 2011 season.

(2) Rafael Nadal:  after an injury in the summer of 2012, Nadal missed months and many, including myself, questioned whether he could return to top form.  Well, consider that answered.  After missing the Australian, Nadal won just about everything, especially on his favored clay surface.  Wimbledon was disappointing, but he played better than ever on hard courts, winning master's level events in Canada and Cincinnati before taking the U.S. Open.  Remarkable come back season.

(3) Andy Murray:  it was an up-and-(mostly)-down year for Murray.  After losing to Djokovic again in Australia, Murray struggled in the clay court season, missing the French with an injury.  He did win Wimbledon, the first Brit to do so in decades.  When the season returned to the hard courts, Murray began to struggle again, though, and his defense of the U.S. Open title ended with a whimper in the quarters.  2012 was his break out year, and Murray will need to continue to stay hungry.

(6) Roger Federer:  shocking to see this low a number beside Roger's name.  Rumors of his decline have been floating (incorrectly) for several years now, but in 2013 they were warranted.  Getting to the semis and quarters in Australia and France was OK, but losing in the 2nd and 4th round respectively at Wimbledon and U.S. Open, historically his strongest tourneys, was shocking.  Not only have Djokovic, Nadal and Murray separated themselves from him, but Roger is increasingly vulnerable to non-elite players, too.


(1) Serena Williams:  not surprisingly, my least favorite player remains the dominant one in the women's game.  Williams had a somewhat slow start to the year, which isn't unusual.  She won the big tourneys leading up to and including the French, however.  After a shocking loss at Wimbledon, she came back with a vengeance on hard courts, winning Canada, Cincy, and the U.S. Open with little resistance.  Azarenka is the only player who can even challenge Serena when she's focused, even at age 31.

(2) Victoria Azarenka:  as opposed to Serena, Azarenka got off to a great start in 2013, winning in Australia and some other tourneys.  She played well but not great in the clay court season, then got injured at Wimbledon.  Azarenka managed to return in the hard court season, getting to the final of both Cincy and the U.S. Open where she lost both to Serena.  Azarenka is finally getting more consistent, and has the power and skill to become the top player assuming Serena retires some day.

(3) Maria Sharapova:  the first half of the year was strong, just short of great, but the second half has been an utter disaster.  From Australia through the French, Sharapova routinely got the the semis or finals - but only managed to win one tourney (Miami), with Serena usually defeating her.  Then she lost early at both Wimbledon and on the hard courts at Cincinnati.  An injury kept her out of the U.S. Open so, as opposed to Azarenka, Sharapova faces a lot of questions for the rest of the year and 2014.

Movies: The Butler

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Long Story Short:  This August's buzzy new drama was The Butler, a film praised by many and skewered by others who criticize its historical inaccuracies.  I am definitely one of the former, having loved this powerful, Forrest Gump-like story, inaccuracies be damned.  Forest (appropriate name) Whitaker gives a magnificent performance as the butler title character, and he's surrounded by a great supporting cast.  Ignore the naysayers; this is a film you need to see.


I wanted to get another film review in at the tail end of summer, and I did.  Good thing, because it will likely be the first and last of September, one of the worst months for film releases.  But that's OK:  it's the start of football season, both college and pro.  Next week, I will probably do a blog post about the summer of tennis (since the U.S. Open is finishing up this weekend).  As far as The Butler, I hadn't even heard of this film up to a few weeks before its release, let alone anticipated it.  It soon became one of the summer's most talked about dramas, however, so I looked into it.  With a good score on RT and some intriguing reviews, I decided to see it.  The Butler was directed by Lee Daniels (Precious) and stars Forest Whitaker and Oprah Winfrey.

Telling his life story as an old man, Cecil (Whitaker) begins with a momentous event in his life as a young boy at a cotton plantation in the 1920s.  Following the tragedy that occurs, the elderly caretaker of the plantation takes Cecil in to train him as a house servant.  He becomes quite good at it but leaves the plantation, which holds such traumatic memories, as soon as he can.  Wandering poor and lost through the South, Cecil is taken in by a benevolent baker, and he uses his one learned skill, serving, to advance quickly to better positions.  Cecil meets Gloria (Winfrey) while working in Washington, D.C., and they marry and have two children.  What happens next transforms Cecil's life from unlikely to unbelievable:  he is hired to work in the White House.

From there, we are taken through Cecil's work at the White House and his life outside it, from 1957 to his retirement thirty years later, to his witness of the first African American elected President of the United States.  During these years, Cecil is forced to deal with the conflict between his own relatively comfortable middle-class life and the suffering and injustice experienced by fellow African Americans that he sees not only in the news at the White House but in his own family as well.

The Butler is blessed with a terrific cast, one that embraces the film's script that calls for both nuanced as well as exquisitely raw performances.  Forest Whitaker plays Cecil, the film's lead, and he knocks it out of the park.  Forest completely disappears into the role of a butler - a remarkable feat for even the best Hollywood actors.  His professional skill as a butler - his quiet, dignified respectfulness - informs the way he acts in his personal life.  Thus, the few outbursts he does have are that much more powerful.  An outstanding performance.  Oprah Winfrey, whom I have not seen in any other film role, also does a great job.  Her part is of course much smaller, but she plays Forest's/Cecil's wife so naturally that you would think they just cast a couple to play the pair.  Like Forest, Oprah keeps her character's emotions restrained for the most part, but as opposed to Cecil, who is passive by training, Gloria is a force to be reckoned with underneath the surface.

David Oyelowo plays Louis, Cecil and Gloria's son, the troublemaker of the family.  The part could easily have been overplayed by another eager young actor, but Oyelowo does a great job in varying and controlling his character's large range of emotions.  There are some other very nice supporting roles, from Louis' brother and girlfriend/civil rights partner, to Cecil's co-workers (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) and neighbors (Terrence Howard).  But the last interesting bit of casting involves the Presidents.  Each has a small part but filled by big names:  Robin Williams, James Marsden, John Cusack, Alan Rickman, etc.  They each slide right into their roles and really work despite seeming to be odd choices.

Being a huge fan of Forrest Gump (top three all-time), I can't help but see this as kin to that film in not only structure but also style.  Of course, there is the trip through the second half of 20th century American history following a somewhat obscure yet remarkable individual.  Now, Cecil was a real person (actual name: Charles Allen), and I've heard that the film embellishes his life to put it mildly.  You can choose to see it as you wish, but I'm satisfied with the mere suggestion of the story being loosely based on his real life.  The other similarity is the style; by this I mean that both films are pretty direct about the historical aspects, but more nuanced (and equally if not more powerful) with their main characters' development.  Oh, and a third shared aspect I just remembered:  both feature soundtracks to match the historical era of the film as it progresses through history (Forrest Gump's being more effective, but The Butler's soundtrack is also very good).

***

It would be one thing if The Butler merely mimicked Forrest Gump in structure and style - and by the way, I have no idea of the director's or writer's intentions, so I'm not saying the similarity was purposeful.  But The Butler also has a tone all its own, and the quality is very high, particularly with the performances.  And the cultural message, conveyed at a personal level through Cecil, is powerful and quite complex despite being rather overt at times.  Should Cecil feel proud that he used the opportunities given to him to provide for himself and his family?  Should Cecil feel ashamed that he ignored other opportunities (albeit risky ones) to push for justice for those who started much like him but who ended up as victims?  Can/should he be proud and ashamed of his life?  Even with these serious themes, The Butler also has a great sense of humor, like Forrest Gump before it.  This is what movies are supposed to be, I think:  magical, only-in-a-movie, technically unrealistic events molded around the very realistic development of individual characters in ways that we can all sympathize with (even if the life paths that took us to those personal developments are much different).  I'll definitely be seeing this one again and may upgrade it to A+.  It's probably obvious by now, but I urge you to see this film, whether at the theater or at home.

Sports: 2013 NFL Preview

2013 NFL Season Preview

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

Divisional Predictions

AFC:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


NFC:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Playoffs

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

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

Super Bowl:  Denver Broncos beat Seattle Seahawks