2012 Oscar Predictions: Final (Major Categories)

After the Golden Globes and Critics Choice awards, everything seems to be much clearer. Here is how it will shake out on January 24^th at 5:30 in the morning Pacific Time (screw the east coast, no one cares)

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

The Predicted Five

1. The Descendants – Alexander Payne takes this for his second film in a row!

2. Moneyball – Aaron Sorkin can’t win two years in a row, can he? The Critics Choice win was big, though.

3. The Ides of March – The Golden Globes and Clooney love will probably secure this nomination

4. Hugo – The favorites in the major categories are normally mentioned here.

5. The Help – This is a dark horse for Best Picture. I can’t see it missing for a nomination here.

Others in contention

6. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – Got the WGA nom, but with ineligibility, basically anything could get mentioned there. I have a feeling this film is stronger than we are all anticipating.

7. War Horse – If it gets in for Best Picture which is not a certainty anymore, this will probably be another nomination for it.

8. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close – No one has really seen this, but the Critics Choice liked it. Why am I underestimating the sentimental Stephen Daldry again?

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

The Predicted Five

1. Midnight in Paris – Two wins in four days for Woody, but where is he? A good speech would really have secured his win!

2. The Artist – The default winner if it is the clean sweep it will likely be.

3. Win Win – The quietest of all contenders, but this nomination is a near certainty.

4. Young Adult – A past winner returns to form with a brilliant dark comedy. Seems like Oscar stuff.

5. A Separation – The Globes awarding this is big. It must just be a unanimous hit, but where is it playing? Will enough voters see it for it to get in this category?

Others in contention

6. The Tree of Life – Everyone is ignoring it, but this category is not out of the question.

7. Bridesmaids – Could be one of the worst screenplays ever nominated if it gets in.

8. 50/50 - A very dark horse, but the precursors are piling up. Can this pull a shocker?

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

The Predicted Five

1. Octavia Spencer – The Help – Seems ridiculous, but this is a lock for the win.

2. Jessica Chastain – The Help – The best in the cast, but stands no chance against her overrated costar.

3. Berenice Bejo – The Artist – Obvious nominee, but only if The Artist is winning EVERYTHING and The Help doesn’t get the major noms will she stand a chance at victory.

4. Shailene Woodley – The Descendants – She was amazing, and her movie is one of the favorites. She will likely snag a spot.

5. Janet McTeer – Albert Nobbs – The Globe nod helps, but this is really just a race for second place.

Others in contention

6. Melissa McCarthy – Bridesmaids – She sucked, but the SAG and Critics Choice noms are disturbingly telling.

7. Sandra Bullock – Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close – No precursors, but if they love the film (and we know they love her), she will get in.

Annual Tommy Lee Jones – In the Valley of Elah Shocker Nomination: Jeannie Berlin – Margaret

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

The Predicted Five

1. Christopher Plummer – Beginners – It’s over. It sucks, but it’s over.

2. Kenneth Branagh – My Week with Marilyn – Biopic role, beloved star. He is in for sure.

3. Albert Brooks – Drive – The only time an actor has missed the SAG nom and won the Oscar was Marcia Gay Harden in 2000. He can’t win, but his nom has to happen.

4. Nick Nolte – Warrior – His SAG nom showed the support from the right group of people. He has been nominated twice. Can this be an all veteran category?

5. Armie Hammer – J. Edgar – The SAG nomination is a good sign for him, who seems to be the forgotten one of the category. Make-up nom in the tradition of Josh Brolin in Milk?

Others in contention

6. Jonah Hill – Moneyball – Has the precursors, but this reeks of the Mila Kunis snub.

7. Viggo Mortensen – A Dangerous Method – A very quiet contender, but he has enough support to make a run.

8. Patton Oswalt – Young Adult – He has the Oscar scene, but the movie’s support may not be strong enough.

Annual Tommy Lee Jones – In the Valley of Elah Shocker Nomination: Brad Pitt – The Tree of Life

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

The Predicted Five

1. Meryl Streep – The Iron Lady – This is going to be a close vote, but 30 years without a win is just stupid with all those nominations she gets.

2. Viola Davis – The Help – She obviously has the support of her peers, but she is up against the woman that arguably made her career take off.

3. Michelle Williams – My Week with Marilyn – The Golden Globe win solidified her nomination. If Streep and Davis split, she could be a Tilda Swinton-esque winner.

4. Rooney Mara – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – Astonishing work. If we really were awarding the best performances, she would win. Since we aren’t, a nomination will just do.

5. Glenn Close – Albert Nobbs – Transformation role, veteran who has not won and is often snubbed. She will slide in.

Others in contention

6. Tilda Swinton – We Need to Talk About Kevin – She is said to be terrific, and she took a Globe nod. If enough voters see it in time, she could be a surprise mention.

7. Charlize Theron – Young Adult – She has the resume to do it, but I can’t see her supplanting one of the predicted five.

8. Elizabeth Olsen – Martha Marcy May Marlene – Excellent performance that will probably come up just short. Not quite the unanimous hit that Winter’s Bone was.

Annual Tommy Lee Jones – In the Valley of Elah Shocker Nomination: Olivia Colman - Tyrannosaur

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

The Predicted Five

1. George Clooney – The Descendents – Beating Pitt at the Globes locked this one up.

2. Brad Pitt – Moneyball – The nomination is obvious, but I don’t think he can win anymore. As Clooney said, “I would like to live in a world where Brad Pitt is an Oscar winner.” We may never see that day, sadly.

3. Jean Dujardin – The Artist – Playing the Jeremy Renner overlooked role in the favorite film sucks, doesn’t it? Oh, and stop trying to be quirky at the ceremonies. We get it. The movie is silent and you are French. Hilarious…

4. Leonardo DiCaprio – J. Edgar – The Clint movies are never completely ignored…

5. Michael Fassbender – Shame – He seems to be the talk of the year, along with Ryan Gosling. He is so good in this movie, that I can see this being the Javier Bardem late entry nominee.

Others in contention

6. Gary Oldman – Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy – Another snub for Oldman? This is getting ridiculous.

7. Michael Shannon – Take Shelter – Everyone who saw it knows he should win. If enough see it, he may just pull off a nom.

8. Demien Bichir – A Better Life – How the hell did that SAG nom happen? Whatever. He is a contender, I guess.

Annual Tommy Lee Jones – In the Valley of Elah Shocker Nomination: Paul Giamatti – Win Win

BEST DIRECTOR

The Predicted Five

1. Michel Hazanavicius – The Artist – The Best Picture-Best Director awards almost never split anymore. Sigh…

2. Martin Scorsese – Hugo – The Globe win helps, but he always wins there.

3. David Fincher – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – The guilds minus the SAG loved his film. Sound familiar?

4. Alexander Payne – The Descendents – The Globe win for Best Picture-Drama was vital. His film could win it all with some luck and a few more horrible speeches by the crew of The Artist.

5. Woody Allen – Midnight in Paris – The guilds loved it. The Globes and critics adored it. He is back in form. Maybe he will show up for this one.

Others in contention

6. Steven Spielberg – War Horse – The frontrunner goes down! Good, he didn’t deserve it anyway.

7. Terrence Malick – The Tree of Life – We thought the Director nom with no Picture nom splits were over now that the nominees increased. If any film is worthy of that, it is this one.

8. Tate Taylor – The Help – The major awards noms are obvious, but this one is more difficult. The DGA snub hurt.

9. Bennett Miller – Moneyball – The Acedemy loves a good underdog. Will they take anoint Moneyball with this nomination?

10. Stephen Daldry – Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close – Screw it. I refuse to underestimate him again. I should just predict him and get it over with.

BEST PICTURE

The Predicted Ten Seven

1. The Artist – The one to beat. It almost cannot lose at this point, unless the voters do not want to listen to another one of those speeches.

2. The Descendents – The Golden Globe win speaks volumes. With a possible SAG win, this could make it close.

3. Hugo – All the techs do not mean Best Picture anymore.

4. The Help – Is going to get a strong push, but it doesn’t have Weinstein behind it.

5. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – It is getting all the right noms as of late. Will the Academy be awesome for once and give this a chance?

6. Moneyball – I fear a snub here, but it seems to have the support to make it at least to the ceremony. If Pitt was a more solid Actor contender, then this would be a lock.

7. Midnight in Paris – It is obviously proving the early release date critics wrong. Will one last Woody Allen work of art be a contender for the prize? Probably not, but it deserves consideration.

Others in contention

8. The Tree of Life – Missed all the important awards, but it only needs 5% first place votes. Are there enough Malick fans?

9. War Horse – His snubs recently are shocking. I don’t see a nom happening.

10. Bridesmaids – The PGA, SAG, and WGA noms showed that people care, but are there enough of those stupid people?

11. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close - Maybe not enough people have seen it. It could surprise.

Read More

Zach's Amazing NFL Playoff Picks: Divisional Round

I’ll gladly take going my 2-2 record in last week’s games knowing that the Steelers will not be hoisting the Lombardi trophy at the end of the season. To be fair, I did predict the Broncos would play really well – but this was in the same column where the following words were uttered: “No way Houston gets to 30 points,” “I see Tebow pulling something tragic . . . Or maybe it will be the first game to head to overtime and Tebow will pull a McNabb and misunderstand the rules,” “I’m picking Atanta.” The lesson, as always, is never listen to me.

New Orleans at San Francisco

The ’00 Titans. The ’01 Bears. The ’05 Bears. The ’06 Ravens. The ’08 Titans. And now the ’11 49ers. What did all of these teams have in common? A lot, actually…

Wins Seeding Def. Rank (Points/Yards) Off. Rank (Points/Yards)

’00 Titans 13 1 2/1 13/14

’01 Bears 13 2 1/15 11/26

’05 Bears 11 2 1/2 26/29

’06 Ravens 13 2 1/1 12/17

’08 Titans 11 1 2/7 14/21

’11 49ers 13 2 2/4 11/26

Now the most common element between the first five teams is that they lost their first playoff game at home and were knocked out of the playoffs. In those playoff games, on average, the five teams scored 13.2 points and lost by an average margin of just under 10 points.

The even more sobering news for the 49ers is that none of those teams even squared off against good offenses, with the exception of the 2006 Ravens, who lost to the eventual Super Bowl champion Colts. For the other four teams, they lost to a playoff opponent which, on average, ranked 18^th in offensive yards gained (although they averaged a more modest 10^th best in points scored). In case you’ve been living under a rock the past four months, the New Orleans Saints did not simply gain more offensive yards than any team in 2011, but more than any other NFL team in history. Maybe they were slipping in offensive points scored, since their 547 was 13 points less than the Packers, and good for only 4^th all-time. But who’s counting?

But let’s stay focused on San Francisco for just a second. There is no doubt they have the weapons to stop the Saints’ attack (if the Rams could do it, couldn’t the 49ers?) They led the league in fewest turnovers (a record-tying 10), most takeaways (38, good for 10^th all-time), and fewest rush yards allowed. They didn’t allow a rush touchdown until December 24. As for their passing defense, they were around the middle of the pack, but their ability to force turnovers nullified otherwise strong performances by Matthew Stafford, Eli Manning, and Ben Roethlisberger. Yes they played the NFC West, but they also played 9 teams with .500 records or better. The turnover stat may be a bit deceptively optimistic; the other three teams in NFL history who turned the ball over less than 13 times in a season were the 2008 Dolphins, 2008 Giants, and 2010 Patriots – all of whom lost their first playoff game.

There is no point in talking about what the Saints can do, except it does need to be noted that on the road, they eclipsed 30 points on only three occasions. Their five victories came against the Jaguars, Panthers, Falcons, Titans, and Vikings – not really a killer lineup. On the road, Drew Brees threw 17 touchdowns and 8 interceptions, but 5 of those touchdowns came in one game against the lowly Vikings. The Saints also struggled to create turnovers; in no away game this year did they force more than 1 turnover, and their turnover margin on the road was an unimpressive minus-seven. Their running game also suffered. Including last week’s win over the Lions, the Saints averaged 165.8 rushing yards at home; away, that average spiraled down to just over 100 yards. At home, the 49ers gave up an average of 68.6 yards.

The running game is critical for the Saints’ success in opening up the passing game. Their three losses came when they were held to 81, 70, and 56 yards on the ground, respectively. I think it’s safe to say that the New Orleans running game will not be the same; but their prolific passing offense make up the difference?

I say it can, based primarily on the similarity between this year’s 49ers and the other five teams listed earlier. Previous success is a key indicator in games like these, where the “hot” team’s strengths will be tested by an otherwise unproven, less experienced squad. No way the Saints go into this game more intimidated than the 49ers. I love how the 49ers play; run the ball, do nothing fancy, play for field position, put from the opponent 40. Bill Simmons pointed out earlier this week that San Francisco never deviates from this conservative, ball-control strategy, even if they are trailing by double-digits (look at the Baltimore game). The Saints are a great example of a team that gets erratic when panicked (witnessed even a little bit in the second quarter of last week’s Wild Card game).

I really want to pick the 49ers in this game, mostly because they public overvalues the way that the Saints are playing, and have been deceived by the weak level of their opponents over the last several weeks. Few people have seen this San Francisco team, the unique game plans they run, and how 2000 Ravens-like the defense looks at times. But in a stroke of supremely horrible luck, the 49ers drew arguably the most prolific offense in history, and I don’t think the mild January San Francisco weather will stagnate Brees and company too substantively. Any other opponent – and I mean any other opponent – for the 49ers and we would be talking about a different result.

Prediction: New Orleans 31, San Francisco 24

Playoff doppelganger: 2005 NFC Divisional Round, Carolina 29, Chicago 21. People don’t remember how great the 2005 Bears defense was, with Urlacher, Briggs, Tommie Harris, Mike Brown, and Charles Tillman. Unfortunately, their quarterbacks were Rex Grossman and rookie Kyle Orton, and the team’s fastidious ball-control strategy quickly had to be abandoned after the Panthers, who had made the Super Bowl two years earlier, went up 13-0 early. Steve Smith 1.0 couldn’t be stopped, with 218 receiving yards, 2 TDs, and some serious jumping on the goal posts.

Denver at New England

Last week was a classic Tebow performance of “You Doubted Me So Now I (And Jesus) Will Show That You’re Wrong.” So why shouldn’t we believe Tebow can do the same thing against the Patriots? If he can throw for a season-high 316 yards against the league’s best pass defense, why can’t he put up even bigger numbers against a New England defense that allowed more than 316 passing yards on eight occasions this season?

The answer, though, is that he cannot and will not (actually, I’ll restate this: I don’t think he will. I hate idiotic sports writers who make guarantees as though they’re clairvoyant.) You can point to the matchup last month between the two teams, and look at Tebow’s statistics – 11 of 22 for 194 yards, 0 TDs or interceptions – and infer that it was easily the Patriots best performance against the pass all season. But what was more important was the Broncos defense’s inability to get to Brady. He was sacked only twice, and when pressure can’t get to Brady, he burns defenses every time.

As a Patriots fan, I can’t deny that I have serious doubts about this team. They didn’t beat a team with a winning record all season, and only three other teams had easier schedules (the Broncos game, in fact, may have been their most impressive victory.) This is a team that found itself trailing 17-0 and 21-0 at home to the Dolphins and Bills, respectively, over the last two weeks of the regular season. We all know about how horrific their pass defense was, but their rush defense wasn’t anything special either, ranking 17^th in rushing yards allowed and 24^th in yards per carry. And as a Patriots fan, I cannot (nor ever will be able to) entirely erase the memory of last year’s horrific home playoff loss to the Jets. Never as a football fan was I more upset at a game in my life.

Can the Broncos do it again? The story isn’t too different from the Jets last year; one month prior to their playoff meeting, New England had destroyed them in the regular season, 45-3 (New England beat Denver 41-23 on December 18). But although they have flaws, there are too many other positive things the Patriots do to have me pick against them. In their eight games since November 13, the Patriots have turned the ball over a total of 3 times (they forced 20 turnovers). They score an average of 30.75 points at home; the Broncos allow an average 25 points per game on the road. So you have to think the Broncos must score over 25 points to win the game, which they’ve only done twice this year, including last week. New England has scored 25+ points in all but three games this season. Don’t expect the blowout some are predicting (the 13.5 point spread for New England is too much), but it’s mostly a no-brainer.

Prediction: New England 28, Denver 20

Playoff Doppelganger: 2010 NFC Divisional Round, Chicago 35, Seattle 24. OK, I don’t get any points for originality here. Lots of loser talking heads talking about the similarities between this Broncos team and the unlikely 7-9 Seahawks from last year. They have radically different styles, but both benefit enormously from homefield advantage in the Wild Card round. No team finishing .500 or below has won more than one playoff game, and Tebow is unlikely to start that trend this year.

Houston at Baltimore

Quietly, the most intriguing matchup of the divisional round. On paper, everything should point to a Baltimore victory. During the regular season, the Ravens went 8-0 at home, with an average margin of victory of 13 points. In Week 6, they beat the Texans 29-14, and that was with a healthy Matt Schaub, Arian Foster, and Ben Tate. They went 6-0 against playoff teams this year, and the fans will be pumped for the Ravens’ first home playoff game in five years. Flacco has one at least one playoff game each year of his career.

But I am not sold entirely on the Ravens. For a team that prides itself on tough, grinding physical football, they are wildly inconsistent at times, especially when they are unable to run the ball with success. When they ran the ball over 26 times, the Ravens were 12-0; when they ran the ball 17 times or less, they were 0-4. In their losses, they averaged 14 rush attempts for 61 yards, and Ray Rice averaged only 39 yards per game. Keep in mind that their four losses all came against unimpressive teams that missed the playoffs. Not to mention that the ’08 Panthers, ’09 Patriots, and ’10 Patriots each went 8-0 at home in the regular season before blowing their first home playoff game.

And then there’s Joe Flacco. There’s no denying that there’s a Roethlisberger-esque stench about him; in other words, the more he gets involved in the Ravens offense, the worse the rest of the team plays on a whole. And Cam Cameron was not afraid to have him air the ball out on several occasions; Flacco threw over 32 times in eight games this season (the Ravens went 4-4 in those games). Flacco looked great a few times, such as Baltimore’s crucial win in Pittsburgh, and in both victories over Cincinnati. But then there was the quarterback who completed under a third of his passes against the Jets, and the quarterback who had 23 incompletions against the Seahawks, and the quarterback who forgot to show up in San Diego. In 2011, he completed a career-low 57.6 percent of his passes, good for 26^th in the league; Rex Grossman, Tavaris Jackson, Carson Palmer, and Kevin Kolb all ranked higher.

Flacco is inconsistent at best, and he’ll need to play well against a defense that has excelled against the run all year. The Texans haven’t allowed a 100-yard rusher since October 16, when (appropriately enough) Ray Rice eclipsed the century mark. So why haven’t I focused on T.J. Yates going against another steller Ravens defense? Because although statistically they’ve looked good against the pass (allowing a league-low 11 passing touchdowns), they are playing a team which fundamentally does not need to rely on a solid passing game to win. Kinda like the Titans, Jaguars, and Seahawks. Just sayin’.

Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know. This is a difficult game to find many concrete reasons defending my pick; everything on paper says Baltimore (I didn’t even mention that Houston had the NFL’s easiest schedule this year). But something isn’t right. Maybe it’s that, the last game I saw Ravens play, they were laying a massive egg against the Chargers. Maybe it’s knowing their disappointing recent playoff history, and the sting of last year’s Divisional Round loss to the Stealers. Maybe I’m taking too much from how good the Texans looked against a pedestrian Bengals team. But I see the Texans taking a quick 7-0 lead, and the Ravens hastily turning to the pass, leading to disastrous results. You cannot win a Super Bowl in this era with a bad quarterback, and Flacco has not definitively proven he is not one. T.J. Yates, meanwhile, still hasn’t made that crucial rookie mistake that kills his team’s playoff hopes. It won’t be happening this week either.

Prediction: Houston 16, Baltimore 13

Playoff doppelganger: 2009 AFC Divisional Round, NY Jets 17, San Diego 14. Low-scoring, unspectacular, fairly boring game that turned in favor of the road underdog after the home team’s quarterback made too many gaffes. The Chargers had won 11 straight games heading into the matchup and, like the Ravens, it was hard to justify why they would lose except for the disappointment of their recent playoff history.

New York at Green Bay

Probably the easiest game of the weekend to pick.

I’ll briefly make the biggest arguments for the Giants: They had the third-toughest schedule in the league, playing ten teams finishing .500 or above and four playoff teams (they became the first team since 2006 to beat Tom Brady in Foxboro in the regular season); their running game finally looks intact, and (including last week) the Giants were 8-0 in games where they rushed for 102 yards or more; if you buy into this whole “2007 all over again” vibe, you can point to the fact that the ’07 Giants lost to the Cowboys, Packers, and Patriots in the regular season before defeating them in the playoffs (defeating Green Bay at Lambeau). When the Giants played the Packers in Week 13 this season, they kept pace with the Packers and nearly pulled off an upset.

Also, my favorite random Giants stat: Since 2006, every team that has made the Super Bowl has played the Patriots at some point during the regular season. The only NFC team to play the Patriots this year: The Giants. OK, that was a stupid, but undeniably interesting, fact.

Believe it or not, this is Aaron Rodgers’ first home playoff game. The Packers finally get Greg Jennings (and a couple of key offensive linemen) back, and you could certainly argue that giving up 41 points to the Lions at home in Week 17 was a fluke, since so many defensive starters were on the bench. They have the second-best scoring offense of all time going against a Giants defense that gave up just under 27 points per game on the road. But it’s reasonable to throw out regular-season statistics with New York, because according to the regular season, the 2007 Giants should have lost their first playoff game.

Sorry, I’ll stay on the Packers. The only team that stopped the Packers this season was the Chiefs in Week 14 (a time when injuries were seriously beginning to stack up for this team). Kansas City controlled the ball for 36 minutes, did not turn the ball over (the only team all year that didn’t turn the ball against the Packers), picked up 23 first downs, and sacked Aaron Rodgers four times . . . and only beat Green Bay by five. In other words, it is extremely difficult to beat this team. You need a balanced offense that can keep Rodgers off the field and completely eliminate turnovers. And that still doesn’t account for Rodgers’ remarkable accuracy and poise when he’s on the field.

In some ways, that loss to the Chiefs may have been a good thing for the Packers, since they are now no longer under the same kind of pressure for perfection as the 2007 Patriots. The Giants are a tough first draw, but I don’t see how their secondary can contain Green Bay’s passing game. This will be a high-scoring game which will not be as close as the scoreboard may reflect.

Prediction: Green Bay 38, New York 29

Playoff doppelganger: 2007 AFC Divisional Round, New England 31, Jacksonville 20. The Jaguars were a genuinely good team that season, and were coming off an awfully impressive performance against the Steelers. But the Pats offense and Tom Brady were just too much to ask for that secondary.

Read More

The Artist (2011) Review

The last couple years there has been a concerning trend occurring in the movie industry. As technology continues to expand the style of effects we can see on the screen, the special effects have been showcased at the theatres. This was not necessarily intended to be, but has become, a showcase at the expense of quality storytelling. Hollywood's love for special effects and 3D technology in fact led to fewer and fewer great films made over the last few years, and very few of those great films have utilized all this new technology. What ever happened to good storytelling? It really has been lost among all the explosions and eye-popping graphics. Why not just strip it all down to the way movies used to be and just tell a simple story? Let's go all the way back to the era of Charlie Chaplin before people were even talking in the movies. It's not really that needed. Sounds crazy, doesn't it? I would have thought so too. Then I saw The Artist.

George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is the biggest movie star of the 20's. His films are loved by all in that golden era of silent film. By chance, one day Valentin meets Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), a young beautiful woman, and both their lives are changed forever. Peppy gets some notoriety for their chance encounter and turns it into a movie career for herself. She becomes the face of the new era of "talkies" and Valentin finds himself now irrelevant. He could go into talkies, but he sees silent films as an art form, and as an artist, he refuses to compromise his art. These two people, who are obviously attracted to each other, watch their career paths head in opposite directions as we watch how they cope.

This film is almost completely a silent movie. Some would think that would make the film boring, but in fact it is so well done it makes you wonder why they ever decided to make films any other way. The two leads are so perfectly cast in their roles that words are not needed. Their faces say everything that needs to be said. Also, although the two leads are no named actors, the supporting cast are all veteran character actors such as John Goodman and James Cromwell. However, this is not simply a modern silent film, but an ode to silent films of old. It holds the classic silent films of the 20's and 30's so reverently that if you didn't know better you would think it was made then.

My silent film viewing has been limited so far in my life to Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times so I wouldn't consider myself an expert in any way. This was my first viewing of a silent film in a theatre which brought about some interesting and amazing aspects to viewing this style of film. For most of the film, all you hear is the beautiful soundtrack that is one of the best I have heard in some time. However when the music stops, an unexpected dynamic was produced that continued to add to the beauty of this film. In the silence and quiet times of the film, the audience is allowed to be its own character in the film in a way a talkie wouldn't allow. You hear the old ladies behind you chuckle at the funny moments. You catch the person sitting next to you explaining to their friend some details that they missed so they understand what is happening. In the distance, you faintly hear the whisper of a couple trying to predict what will happen next. In a talkie, these moments are either annoying as the audience commentary distracts from the dialogue on screen or they are never even heard because of the sure volume of the big budget film. Silence is never allowed in today's movies. What I discovered while watching The Artist is the silence allows the sounds of the audience to be noticed, and it actually enhances the viewing of the movie. This speaks less to the brilliance of The Artist in particular, but more to the art of silent films in general. However, it does speak to this film because it is all about exploring the lost art of the silent film in story line and in producing this film in the 21st century.

I loved every moment of this film more than I ever thought I would. It honestly makes you ask why they ever stopped making films in that format. In the first few moments after the movie ended and the credits were rolling, I questioned how I ever got through life just watching talkies. It was as if I had just discovered the true art of film and everything else was a step below. It is one of the best movie-going experiences I have ever had and in the end they prove Goerge Valentin right: the art is in the silence.

Rating: 4 stars

Read More

Zach's Amazing NFL Playoff Picks: Wild Card Round

It’s the playoffs! What more can I say? When people write stupid, glib introductions to their playoff predictions, I usually skip them, so I imagine you’re skipping this too. I don’t blame you.

Cincinnati at Houston

At the end of the day, Andy Dalton or TJ Yates will emerge as a playoff-winning quarterback. And they doubted that 2012 would result in utter world catastrophe…

In all seriousness, this is the annual Wild Card game featuring two teams that (A) no one really watched all season, (B) arguably don’t really belong there in the first place, and (C) will probably result in a boring-ass game. At least that’s what conventional wisdom tells us – the same conventional wisdom that wrote off the ’06 Colts, ’07 Giants, and ’08 Cardinals. The reasons seem to be stacked for each side why they will blow this game:

Some reasons that the Bengals will lose: They went 0-7 against playoff teams this year; they haven’t won a playoff game since 1991 and have never won a postseason game on the road; since November 6, they’ve won one road game, and it was against the Rams; they lost to the Texans at home on December 11, and gave up 300 yards passing to T.J. Yates. Oh, and they’re the Cincinnati Bengals.

Some reasons that the Texans will lose: They lost their last three games to the Panthers, Colts, and Titans; when your quarterbacks are T.J. Yates and Jake Delhomme, the word “playoffs” shouldn’t be mentioned in a five-mile radius; they’re the Houston Texans.

It’s a little difficult to assess the Texans based purely on statistics. Before Matt Schaub’s injury, they may have been the league’s most complete team – a two-headed monster running game, a perennial Pro Bowl quarterback and wide receiver, and maybe the stingiest defense in the league (they still ranked 2^nd in yards allowed and 4^th in points at the end of the season). They beat Pittsburgh, Atlanta, and blew a 9-point lead in New Orleans. Now we know all about Super Bowl teams that phoned it in the last few weeks of the year:

2005 Steelers: 4-3 in their final seven games

2006 Colts: 3-4 in their final seven games

2007 Giants: 4-4 in their final eight games

2008 Cardinals: 2-4 in their final six games

2009 Saints: 0-3 in their final three games

2010 Packers: 3-3 in their final six games

I originally picked the Bengals based on how poorly I thought the Texans had played over the last few weeks. But if you look closely, the only game in their 0-3 finish where they played badly was the Panthers game; the Colts loss was on the final drive, and they could have beat the Titans in overtime if they had opted to play for it. If there is any team on that list above the Texans remind me of, it’s the 2008 Cardinals because both Houston and Arizona (playoff newbies and 3 seeds) had already clinched their divisions, and there was little else to play for except for resting injured starters. The defense and running games for the Texans are still intact, the offense put up 412 yards at Cincinnati a few weeks ago. The Bengals have surprised a lot of people this season, but there really is not a single good argument why they win this game.

Prediction: Houston 20, Cincinnati 10

Playoff doppelganger: 2008 NFC Wild Card Round, Arizona 30, Atlanta 24. I should really stop comparing this team to the Cardinals (later I compare another 2011 playoff team to the ’08 Cards) but this was the only game I could really think of. Tons of people liked the Falcons in that game, who had shed their identity of Michael Vick, similar to the way the Bengals have distanced themselves from Carson Palmer and Chad Ochocinco. But homefield came up big, and the better team ultimately emerged victorious. No way Houston gets to 30 points though.

Pittsburgh at Denver

Excuse me while I delve into my usual end-of-the-year Pittsburgh rant.

As usual, I’m busy trying to find reasons why the Stealers are overrated, and how they could blow this matchup. First, let me thank the Football Gods for giving Pittsburgh their first away playoff game since January 2006 when, coincidentally, they played none other than the prolific Jake Plummer and the mighty Denver Broncos (later that the same month, referees outplayed Ben Roethlisberger in the Super Bowl). I’ll also try to forget the fact that, in their 8 playoff appearances since January 2006, they haven’t squared off against a single team seeded higher than four. Or the fact that since 2008 and including this weekend, the combined winning percentage of their last seven playoff opponents is 0.616 (by comparison, the combined winning percentage of the Ravens’ last seven playoff opponents since 2008 – all road games – is 0.732). Lucky bastards.

Now let’s look at this year’s team. This year, 11 of Pittsburgh’s 12 wins came against the following quarterbacks: Tavaris Jackson, Curtis Painter, Matt Hasselbeck, Blaine Gabbert, Kevin Kolb, Andy Dalton (twice), Tyler Palko, Colt McCoy (twice), and Kellen Clemens (OK, OK, I’m conveniently excluding Tom Brady in the Stealers’ home win against the Pats). Overall, they finished minus-13 in turnover differential – fifth worst in the league – and forced only 15 turnovers, worst in the NFL. In seven of their games, they scored 17 points or under. On the road, they lost to the playoff-bound Ravens, Texans, and 49ers by a combined score of 72-20. You could argue their most impressive road wins came over the Cardinals and Browns, the only road games where Roethlisberger did not turn the ball over.

OK, so you believe me that Pittsburgh is overrated. So why should we believe the Denver Tebows – the same team in the last three weeks that gave up 40 points to the Bills and could only muster 3 points against the Chiefs at home – has a fighting chance against the mighty Stealers? Well to be honest, I really don’t have any good reasons or statistics to back them up. The Broncos played better on the road (5-3) than they did at home (3-5). They only beat one team with a winning record: The 9-7 Bengals, and that was with Kyle Orton as their starter. In his last four games (three of which were at home), Tebow has a horrible quarterback rating of 52.5 and has completed 45% of his passes. In those four games, the Denver defense has forced only two turnovers, while the offense has fumbled the ball on nine occasions (losing five times).

But as Coach Edwards would say, it’s not all about the stats – you play to win the game, and football fans have selective, short-sighted memories if they forget the magic that Tim Tebow possessed only one month ago. Sure, it was against teams the likes of the Dolphins, Chargers, and Vikings. Sure, he needed help from Marion Barber’s fumbles and Nick Novak’s bladder. But Tebow proved that he has some serious clutch late in the game, and in spite of what the offense’s dour numbers would indicate, he actually does a pretty decent job of not turning the ball over (only six interceptions all year). Fans love him and Jesus has got his back. The only other quarterback who could claim such a following was Kurt Warner, who looked lousy heading into the 2008 playoffs, but was aided by homefield advantage in the Cardinals Super Bowl run.

So it is with great regret that, once again, I say that the Stealers emerge once more as lucky bastards. I think the Tebows give them all they can handle. I certainly think they can cover the ridiculous ten point spread for Pittsburgh; you’d have to be a fool to take ten points on a team that only beat the Colts, Chiefs, and Browns on the road by a combined 12 points. A team which won’t be able to run or have solid pass protection. But as I’ve said many times, the only two ways to beat the Steelers are to force multiple turnovers or successfully throw the ball downfield. The Broncos cannot do either. Case closed. The bad guys win again.

Prediction: Pittsburgh 17, Denver 15

Playoff doppelganger: 2006 NFC Divisional Round, Seattle 21, Dallas 20. Certainly some resemblances to 2007, when the Steelers came limping into the playoffs sans their starting runningback and ran into an upstart Jaguars team. But the most glaring and obvious parallel comes from 2006, when the Seahawks beat the Cowboys – or, as it is now known, the Tony Romo Game. Like Tebow, Romo took over a struggling team mid-season and electrified fans with his subpar passing and occasional 7 yard runs outside the pocket. But Romo cemented his legacy with a boneheaded botched snap that broke the heart of millions. I see Tebow pulling something similarly tragic – like Tebowing on the field instead of picking up a crucial third-and-short late in the game. Or maybe it will be the first playoff game to head to overtime and Tebow will pull a McNabb and misunderstand the rules. As Paul Verhoeven once quipped about Showgirls, “It’s like the resurrection [coming] after the crucifixion.”

Detroit at New Orleans

The first battle of 5,000 yard quarterbacks in NFL history. For Drew Brees, perhaps this title is not surprising; but Matthew Stafford? A quarterback who, in his first two seasons combined, threw for 2,802 yards? From 2009 to 2010, Stafford threw 19 touchdowns; in 2011, 41. Go figure. Along with Cam Newton, Stafford wins the 2011 award for Fantasy Player Who Made Millions Of Diligent Free Agent Watchers Win.

If Stafford has been sensational down the stretch (14 touchdowns, 113 QB rating in his last four games), Brees has been downright unbelievable. The Saints haven’t lost since October 30, when they inexplicably blew a road game to the Rams (similarly head-scratching was their loss two weeks earlier at the hands of the Buccaneers). In those eight games, Brees has thrown for 2,700 yards, 27 touchdowns, and 4 interceptions. What is even more remarkable about those statistics is that, in Brees’ other eight games, his numbers really aren’t too radically different (2,700 yards, 19 touchdowns, 10 interceptions). The 2011 Saints set an NFL record for most yards of total offense (7,474 yards, or 467 yards per game.) The second highest is the 2000 Rams – the Greatest Show on Turf – who “only” had 7,075.

The Saints are unbeatable at home. They are 8-0 in the Superdome, and scored 40 points or higher in five of those games (they never scored under 27). When the Lions played them in the Superdome one month ago, they trailed 17-0 by the second quarter, and committed 11 penalties. They only lost by 14, but gave up 438 yards of offense and forced no turnovers.

Look, there is no way the Saints lose this game. However successful the Lions have been this year (and it is great to see them back in the postseason), they have no running game, they commit too many dumb penalties, and calling their secondary “soft” would be a compliment. This is the same defense that gave up 480 yards through the air to Matt Flynn last week in a game that was entirely meaningless for the Packers. I don’t expect the Saints passing defense (third worst in the league) to suddenly become the 2000 Ravens, but it is worth noting that at home, New Orleans has allowed 18+ points to only two opponents. Let’s also not forget that two years ago, this team won a Super Bowl, and last year, they were upset by the lowly Seahawks. They are out for revenge, and Detroit is their first (and likely not their last) victim.

Prediction: New Orleans 48, Detroit 23

Playoff doppelganger: 2004 AFC Wild Card Round, Indianapolis 49, Denver 24. Like Brees, Peyton Manning was coming off a record setting passing season (49 touchdowns, 121 QB rating). They averaged 36.1 points per game at home in the dome, and Manning was riding an 8-game losing streak. They had blown out the Broncos in the playoffs one year earlier, and it was no different this time; Manning went 27 of 33 for 458 yards and four touchdowns, and the game was over by the second quarter.

Atlanta at New York

Maybe the toughest game of the weekend to predict. On the one hand, you really gotta like the Giants. Eli quietly had one of the great quarterback seasons of recent years (4,933 yards, 29 TDs). What gets overlooked, however, are the six fourth quarter comebacks or game-winning drives he led; I might be late in saying this, but Eli may be the most dangerous quarterback in the two-minute drill. Six of the Giants’ nine victories came against teams .500 or above, and of all the playoff teams, New York had the toughest schedule.

There are weaknesses. The rush attack – the best in the league only three years ago – ranked dead last in 2011, due in large part to injuries to Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs. But when both runningbacks played healthy, the Giants went 7-3, with two of the losses coming inexplicably against the Redskins, New Yorks’ kryptonite of 2011. One could argue they were inconsistent, with the losses to the Redskins twice and the Seahawks at home (all three of which were by double-digits). But they were also the first team in five to beat the Tom Brady in Foxboro during the regular season. Additionally, they beat Tony Romo twice, and played the Packers harder than any team this season outside of Kansas City.

I consider Atlanta a bland, vanilla team that plays well enough to win more often than not, but does nothing exceptionally well. As opposed to the Giants, they won every game they were supposed to win, and lost every game they were supposed to lose. They beat one playoff team (the Lions) and lost to the Packers, Texans, and Saints (twice). They were 10-1 in games where they scored 23 points or higher; in games of 16 points or lower, they were 0-5. They are also 0-5 when Matt Ryan attempts 43 or more passes.

One argument for Atlanta is that, after two failed attempts, they are bound to win a playoff game at some point. Last year’s home blowout loss against the Packers may have left a sour taste in players’ mouths; remember that the 2005 Steelers, 2006 Colts, and 2007 Chargers found playoff success one year removed from being the top-seeded team in the conference and losing early in the postseason. Another argument may be that inconsistent teams like the Giants tend to be nullified by consistent teams (for better or worse) like the Falcons.

But I’m picking Atlanta mostly because the Giants only play well when no one expects them to. They haven’t won a home playoff game in 11 years; similarly, they haven’t lost an away playoff game in five years. No one really expected them to beat the Patriots or Cowboys on the road; everyone thought victories over the Redskins and Seahawks would be easy. The team finally looks healthy and with momentum. The pass rush with Jason Pierre-Paul, Justin Tuck, and a finally-healthy Osi Umenyiora resembles the fearsome attack that singlehandedly defeated the Patriots in 2007. Bradshaw and Jacobs are finally healthy, and the Manning-to-Cruz connection has been unstoppable. They’re coming off big wins against the Jets and Cowboys. So naturally, this is the perfect recipe for a flustered Tom Coughlin and the return of the Manning Face in January.

Prediction: Atlanta 31, New York 13

Playoff doppelganger: 2004 NFC Wild Card Round, Vikings 31, Packers 17: Like the Giants, the Packers finished the ’04 season in a strong fashion, looking good on both sides of the ball, and hosting an 8-8 team which had struggled in the playoffs over the last few seasons. There was no reason to think they would lose. But Green Bay trailed 17-0 in the first quarter, and turned the ball over four times. Lesson to New York fans (and all fans in general): Don’t ever believe in your team.

Read More

Take Shelter (2011) Review

No film in 2011 has surprised me as much as the Jeff Nichols masterpiece Take Shelter. Not only is this just about the most believable drama of the year, but it is also a compelling thriller, but only if you want it to be. The film has so much to offer, even in the package of its tiny budget and somewhat simple story.

The film centers on a quiet, gentle man named Curtis (Michael Shannon), who works at a heavy construction site and makes his home in a small town in Ohio with his wife Samantha (Jessica Chastain) and his deaf daughter Hannah (Tova Stewart). Curtis, the son of a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, is worried about his own mental health in his mid 30s, about the same time that his mother was diagnosed. Curtis begins having self-destructive dreams about an apocalyptic storm that turns everyone insane and violent. This urges him to build up a long-dormant tornado shelter in his backyard, which in turn tears down his closest relationships and only intensifies his hallucinations.

In the hands of another director, this movie may have been a psychological thriller or some kind of puzzle. There is a major sense of not knowing whether Curtis is insane or some sort or prophet, but that is not the emphasis of the movie. Had this movie been taken on by Shyamalan or Nolan, it would have been supernatural and had lavish special effects, but Nichols is after something different. His visuals are subtle and effective. His story is disturbing and convincing. His characters are developed and true. Instead of being about the mystery of it all, it is about the psychological battle of Curtis.

Curtis is not a typical mentally challenged man in movies. He knows that his hallucinations are such most of the time. He is embarrassed by the fact that he has this illness, yet he cannot shake his visions. He somewhat secretly starts building his storm shelter, not only because it would cost a lot more than they have, but because he does not want anyone, not even his undeniably supportive and loyal wife, to ask questions about why he is doing this in a town that has not seen any sign of rain in some time. Curtis checks out books about mental illness and goes to a free consulting clinic in attempt to try his hand at a self-diagnosis. It is these traits that make him a starkly different and frighteningly real character. The mix of shame and conviction in Curtis is a side of mental illness that is not explored by normal movies.

Jeff Nichols, the superb new filmmaker who also directed the indie hit Shotgun Stories, has already established a style that is unlike any other working director. He has a small town setting in both of his films, and the disturbing realism is what makes the movies work. Take Shelter has more of a supernatural feel, but that is only a surface trait. The movie is about so much more. The film will leave the audience to ponder whether Curtis is crazy or prophetic, in a brilliant scene that culminates everything that happened prior to it.

The performances are in the actors’ eyes. Michael Shannon’s rough appearance sheds any sentimentality that the film may have had. Shame and pain is showed on his face the entire movie, but Curtis is a gentle man, which makes his inevitable outbursts and fits even more shocking and emotional. It is the performance of the year, and maybe the best in the last couple years. Nichols can really bring out the best in Shannon, gathering the actor’s two finest performances.

Jessica Chastain, who is in the midst of one of the most astonishing years any actress has had in recent memory, is brilliant as the supportive wife. She is somewhat oblivious to the fact that her husband might be crazy, suggesting that he go to the doctor when he wakes up in sweat or following a seizure, instead of going to a psychiatrist. Some of the most heartbreaking moments in the movie are simply Chastain looking bewildered at Shannon, not knowing who that man is or what to think. Chastain and Shannon work wonders together.

There is so much to appreciate about this movie. The final 45 minutes or so will have the audience absolutely spellbound and in total silence. The music is minimal yet very effective in reflecting the mood of the few scenes that it appears in. The majority of the movie is just really quiet and meticulous. It is sad and true. After the movie, there is a stunned feeling rampant in the audience, and there will undoubtedly be discussion about what the final scenes imply and how to analyze them, but to reduce the movie to being solely about those scenes would be diminishing a fascinating study of a man and his slow, painful descent into realized insanity and the impact it has on him and his family. Jeff Nichols has fashioned a masterpiece of minimalism, one of the best and most thought-provoking movies of the year.

Rating: 4 stars

Read More