Movie Review: Buried

Buried *** ½
Directed by: Rodrigo Cortés.
Written By: Chris Sparling.
Starring: Ryan Reynolds (Paul Conroy).

Buried is one of the most claustrophobic movies I have ever seen. It takes place entirely inside a coffin buried somewhere in the middle of the desert in Iraq. Inside the coffin is Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds), a civilian truck driver whose convoy was attacked. Most of the others were killed, but he was kept alive and buried in this coffin. All he has is an old cell phone, half out of batteries, and a Zippo for most of the movie (he will later discover more helpful sources of light). Unlike the upcoming 127 Hours, which also features a single character trapped by himself, this movie offers no flashbacks, no chance encounters with others. It quite simply traps you in the ground with Paul as he tries in vain to communicate with people on the cell phone. He can make and receive call all right – he spends most of the movie on that phone – but he can seemingly never get anyone to listen to him.

But oh how Reynolds tries. He tries calling 911, and ends up talking to an operator in Ohio, who has no idea how to help him. He calls the company that employs him, and they send him through a maze of voicemails. He contacts the FBI and Homeland Security, and is constantly put on hold. He finally does get through to someone who is actually trying to find him – but he isn’t given much hope. He also gets periodic demands from his captors, who want him to get the government to give them $1 million for his life, and then to make a ransom video with his cell phone. Everyone seemingly gives him contradictory advice, and for some reason his wife isn’t answering either the home phone or her cell. But he keeps calling.

Buried is first and foremost a tense thriller, and it does that brilliantly. It plays off the audience fear of being trapped – being buried alive. Aside from a few shots that pull back farther than a camera really could to look at him trapped, the entire movie is spent in close proximity to Paul. This is perhaps the most difficult kind of role for an actor to play as he is essentially by himself, but Reynolds is surprisingly more than up to the challenge. I have at times enjoyed his work, but often feel he is trying too hard to be liked. Here, he is stripped of his good looks, which are hidden behind a face full of blood and dirt, and doesn’t try to make us like his character, but instead to share in his frustration. He is, after all, buried alive with only a few hours to live, and he is constantly put on hold, directed to voice mail and told there is nothing they can do for him.

And there is lies the other layer of the movie – the one about communication or the lack thereof in our society. Even buried alive, Paul can make phone calls and shoot video on that tiny cell phone. He can communicate with anyone in the world, and yet no one seems to be listening. They are all focuses on their jobs, and not Paul’s life (a phone call with a representative from his company is particularly heartless and cruel). But just because we have the tools to communicate, it doesn’t mean that anyone out there is actually listening to you.

There are only a few moments where the movie steps wrong. A sequence involving a snake is one of the most intense scenes in the movie – and yet no matter how well it is handled, it seems a little out of place in context to the rest of the film. The ending is a little too cruel as well for my tastes – I don’t mind a dark ending mind you, but this one seems to be toying with us simply for the sake of toying instead of because it is actually fits into the movie.

But those are minor complains. Overall, Buried is extremely effective at what it does. It is a gimmick movie – and most of those do not produce satisfying films, but this one is different. It is brilliantly handled by Reynolds, written by Chris Sparling, and director Rodrigo Cortes deserves a lot of credit for making this movie visually effective from beginning to end. This is a must see for thriller fans.

Movie Review: Waiting for Superman

Waiting for Superman *** ½
Directed by: Davis Guggenheim.
Written By: Davis Guggenheim & Billy Kimball.

America’s education system is cracked and broken. While there are many public schools across the country that do a fine job at preparing children to move on and become successful adults, there are far too many that do not. They are filled with teachers who don’t care, but cannot be fired. They do not get the funding they need to do the job successfully, and many are convinced that children from underprivileged areas will never be able to overcome the negative aspects of their lives outside of school in order to achieve well in school. The No Child Left Behind program was supposed to fix this problem – a National system that wanted children to achieve at the same level no matter where they come from. The problem is that the Federal government isn’t the only one who funds public education. So do the States, and they all want their say as well. Then there are many autonomous school boards within each state that have their own standards. And then there are the power Federal Teachers unions, who care more about job security for its members than about educating its students. It has become nearly impossible to fire teachers, even ones who sit there and do little to nothing every day. The education system is so clogged with bureaucracy that the chances it is going to improve are next to nothing.

This is the situation that Davis Guggenheim’s new documentary Waiting for Superman addresses. He was raised in public education, and always thought he believed in it. But then he had children, and because he has money, decided to put them in private school. He drives past three public schools every day to drop his kids off. Why does he do it? Because he doesn’t believe that his kids will receive a good education in public school. And the overwhelming statistics say that he right. No Child Left Behind had the lofty and admirable goal to have 100% of the kids in America proficient in reading and math by 2014. It’s 2010, and the stats are startling – hovering somewhere are 30%. That means that 70% of kids in America are not proficient in reading or math at the grade level they are currently in. But you almost cannot trust the stats, because although the tests are supposed to be standardized across the country, each state views things differently. And again, everything gets mired in bureaucracy and red tape.

There are some public schools – known as charter schools – that have produced great results, and often in the poorest neighborhoods that so many educators gave up on decades ago. Although these schools are publicly funded, they run independently from school boards and are by people with the authority to do what needs to be done. The problem is, there are only so many of these schools, and they each only have so many spots. When they have more applicants than spots – and all the best ones always do – a lottery system comes into play. Kids are not chosen by merit, but rather by a random number. The ones who get in, have a much better chance at achieving their educational dreams, than the ones who don’t. And there are far more people who don’t.

The Charter school system really isn’t fair. After all, they are publicly funded, and everyone pays the same amount of taxes to support both them and the regular public schools, yet some people’s kids get a much higher quality of education than others. Yet what is the alternative? The bottom line is that public education in America is broken, and charter school ensure that at least some students are given the education they deserve – if they didn’t exist, the chances are all of them would receive poor educations. It isn’t fair, it isn’t right, but the alterative is perhaps even worse.

Davis Guggenheim (An Inconvenient Truth) has made an insightful, informative documentary here – one that is certainly an advocacy kind. But he is less overtly political and in your face than Michael Moore, and as a result his films are a little less entertaining, but also perhaps more effective at inspiring debate. The film does argue its case well, but if there is a case for the other side, it isn’t really made at all, which means the film will undoubtedly draw some criticism.

But I cut Guggenheim some slack here, because the system is so obviously broken. The problem is, just like with Health Care in America, is that the people who need it the most, are the ones with no money and no power. Until the stand up and demand changes – and speak with their votes – the system will never change. Movies like this make me happy to be Canadian. Yes, our education system has some major problems of its own that need to be addressed, but we are nowhere near as far gone as America.

Movie Review: It's Kind of a Funny Story

It’s Kind of a Funny Story ***
Directed by: Anna Boden & Ryan Fleck.
Written By: Anna Boden & Ryan Fleck based on the book by Ned Vizzini.
Starring: Keir Gilchrist (Craig), Zach Galifianakis (Bobby), Emma Roberts (Noelle), Lauren Graham (Lynn), Jim Gaffigan (George), Dana DeVestern (Alissa), Jared Goldstein (Ronny), Alan Aisenberg (Scuggs), Zoë Kravitz (Nia), Thomas Mann (Aaron), Jeremy Davies (Smitty), Viola Davis (Dr. Eden Minerva), Lou Myers (Jimmy), MacIntyre Dixon (Roger), Bernard White (Muqtada), Novella Nelson (The Professor), Matthew Maher (Humble).

When you’re a teenager everything seems so damned important. You get pressure from your parents and teachers to do well in school, so you can get into a good college and get a good job when you graduate. You feel pressure from your friends to fit in and be cool. You feel pressure from yourself to try and make all of these people happy, and yourself, but when the girl you like is dating your best friend, things seem hopeless. Utterly, completely hopeless. It isn’t of course, and things will get better if you just hang in there for a few years – but try explaining that to a 16 year old.

It’s Kind of a Funny Story gets that. It understands, and remembers, what it is like to be a teenager when it feels like the weight of the world is on your shoulders. A lot of critics have disliked the movie so far, complaining that the main character is a spoiled, whiny brat of a teenager. And they’re right – he is. But that doesn’t mean that the movie isn’t good – or even that it isn’t true. Many kids are spoiled and whiny, thinking the world revolves around them. It’s standard operating procedure in the life of a teenager.

Craig (Keir Gilchrist) is a 15 year old living in New York. He goes to the best school in the city – one whose purpose is to mold the young minds of tomorrow into becoming stock brokers and CEOs. The workload is intense, and they are expected to go to school year round to keep up. He looks around at the other students, his friends, and it seems like everything comes so easily to him, but is so hard for him. Of course, like him, they are putting on an act, and are going through the same thing – but teenagers often don’t think like that. They think that they are the only ones.

When the movie opens, Craig is having another one of his bouts of suicidal depression, and ends up at the ER telling them he is going to kill himself. They check him into the adult psychiatric ward, because the teen one is under renovations, for a five day observational period. It doesn’t take Craig long to realize that compared to some of the other patients, he has it fairly good. He has a loving family and some decent friends. Many others don’t have that, and on top of it, have more serious mental health problems. His relationship with two of the patients – Bobby (Zach Galifiankis) a 30 something year old who comes in after his yearly suicide attempt, and another teenager Noelle (Emma Roberts) who is there because she cuts herself – that makes Craig see that his life really is worth living.

The film is at times, a bit of a mess. Writer/directors Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck (Half Nelson, Sugar) have adapted Ned Vizzini’s young adult novel into a movie that is perceptive about mental health, but also goes a little too far at times to make this into a feel good story of a kid overcoming his problems. It all seems a little too pat, too predictable, too upbeat. This is One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest territory, but wrapped up into a happier package.

But the performances save the movie for the most part. Gilchrist nails his performance as the kid who just feels too much pressure. He has a hard time explaining to everyone what he feels and why, and grows frustrated. But he remains a believable character throughout. Emma Roberts has less time to develop Noelle, but she does a fine job as well – and perhaps it’s best that they never explain her actions, as it allows the audience to reach their own conclusions. Best of all is Galafianakis who is truly excellent as Bobby. He puts on an act of being the wise guy, the funny guy, the guy with all the answers, when in reality he has none. He tries so hard, and fails so often, that he has pretty much given up. It is interesting to see Galafianakis in this role, because his character isn’t all that far off his comic persona as seen in The Hangover – but he has a little more awareness of his problems and his failings. This is a great performance, and he makes Bobby into the single most interesting character in the movie.

The film isn’t as good as Boden and Fleck’s previous films. Both Half Nelson and Sugar moved with confidence, knew its characters from the inside and out and presented us with them without judgment, but with eyes wide open. Here, they try a little too hard to be accessible – and the flights of fancy the film goes on occasionally are the least successful moments in the film. The work better when they are more subdued.

But overall, I think It’s Kind of a Funny Story works well. How well may just depend on how well you remember your teenage years – and as such how much sympathy you can muster for Craig. This is a movie that I see smart teenagers liking a whole lot more than adults.

Movie Review: Secretariat

Secretariat ** ½
Directed by: Randall Wallace.
Written By: Mike Rich inspired by the book by William Nack.
Starring: Diane Lane (Penny Chenery), John Malkovich (Lucien Laurin), Dylan Walsh (Jack Tweedy), Kevin Connolly (Bill Nack), Margo Martindale (Miss Ham), Nelsan Ellis (Eddie Sweat), Nestor Serrano (Pancho Martin), Amanda Michalka (Kate Tweedy), Dylan Baker (Hollis Chenery), Otto Thorwarth (Ron Turcotte), Scott Glenn (Mr. Chenery), James Cromwell (Ogden Phipps), Fred Dalton Thompson (Bull Hancock), Carissa Capobianco (Sarah Tweedy), Sean Michael Cunningham (Chris Tweedy).

Secretariat represents Disney’s annual foray into the inspiration sports drama. In recent years they have produced movies like Remember the Titans, Glory Road, The Rookie, Invincible and Miracle. The template for these movies is pretty much the same – find a true sports story that happened against all odds, and package it as a movie the whole family can enjoy. For the most part, these movies work – they don’t represent film at its finest, but they are well made, and for people like me who are suckers for inspirational sports movies, they get the job done. Secretariat is exactly the movie you expect it to be – so you probably already know whether or not you’ll like it – but to me it was just a little too cheesy. Yes, all of these movies are cheesy, but this one lays it on especially thick.

The story of Secretariat is well known. He is the last Triple Crown winner in horse racing – winning the three big races in 1974. Since then, many horses have been able to pull off the first two victories, but fail in the dreaded third race – the Belmont. It hadn’t been done in more than 20 years before Secretariat, and the reason remain the same – horses that were built to win the first two races, cannot compete and win the third. That Secretariat did it at all is remarkable, that he did it with the time he did, and margin of victory in that third race – is what makes him the greatest race horse in history.

This would be enough for an inspirational sports movie, but Secretariat has the good luck that the people behind Secretariat were also unlikely winners. Penny Chenery (Diane Lane) grew up on her dad’s horse farm, and loved everything about it. Now married, with a brood of kids and living in Denver, nowhere near the farm in Virginia, she has been away from it for a while. But when her mother dies, her father who is already pretty much lost to Alzheimer’s, she is forced to take over again. Everyone wants her to sell the farm, but she has a feeling about a horse that is yet to be born. This horse, of course, turns out to be Secretariat. Unsatisfied with her current trainer, she fires him and hires Lucien Laurin (John Malkovich) a fiery, French Canadian trainer who as one person puts it “dresses like Superfly”. He has the same feeling about this horse because of his lineage. So together, they are determined to turn their horse into a champion. They get help along the way, from the ever loyal secretary (Margo Martindale) to the even more loyal stable hand Eddie (Nelsan Ellis), and have a great jockey as well. It isn’t long before the horse is paying dividends.

There are money problems, and family problems abound in the movie. Penny’s husband (Dylan Walsh) isn’t happy that his wife is running off to look after a horse, instead of staying home and raising her family. Their oldest daughter (Amanda Michalka) is adamantly against the Vietnam War, despite Walsh’s feeling that it’s all commie crap. And they need money – lots of money. Racing horses isn’t cheap.

All of this is handled fairly well by director Randall Wallace. I particularly loved the horse races themselves – which are visceral and physical beyond what I have seen in most other horse racing movies. He even manages to make the last race exciting – even though Secretariat won it by more than 30 lengths. The acting is universally solid, and in a few cases more. Diane Lane is determined, yet chipper, in the lead role. She knows that everyone views her as “just a housewife”, but she is determined to let that get to her, and it doesn’t. John Malkovich has a blast – and as a result so does the audience – every time he is on screen. It is a great comedic performance, with a little fire underneath it.

But there are also too many scenes filled with dialogue which is just overly cheesy – and these moments took me out of the movie completely. Dialogue that is too on the nose, or moments like when Diane Lane seems to commune with the horse to get him ready for a race, that just rung hollow. After all of these moments, it took a few minutes to get back into the movie, and as a result, the film loses its flow, its momentum.

Don’t get me wrong – Secretariat is a fine movie of its sort. It’s unlikely that anyone who enjoys these types of movies is going to walk away disappointed in this one. But while the other movies flirted with overt cheesiness, Secretariat goes a little far overboard for my tastes.

Note: I am aware of the arguments that the film has inspired, mainly because of Andrew O’Hair’s review of the film, and Roger Ebert’s response to it. O’Hair compared the movie to Nazi propaganda, citing Secretariat as a genetic freak of nature who was bred using eugenics, and the movies rose colored view of its time period and its Christain values, as a cynical attempt to appeal to the Tea Party movement, and that the movie trades in racial stereotypes. As to the first charge about the genetics of the horse, of course it’s true. This is how race horses are bred – always have been, always will be, so unless you object to horse racing in general – which is a valid point to make – than I don’t see how Secretariat is any worse than any other horse racing movie. And if you object to this type of breeding, then you also have to object to pure bred cats and dogs as well. As for the Tea Party thing, I didn’t really see it in the movie, unless you count a loving, Christain family as being “conservative”. The religion in the movie is so muted that it is pretty much obsolete. And, yes, the 1970s is looked on a little too nostalgically, yet it does address the political controversy with the oldest daughter, and even has Diane Lane tell her that while their political beliefs may differ, she is proud of her daughter for standing up for what she believes in. As for racial stereotypes, yes Eddie Sweat is a little too over the top as the African American stable hand – but he is treated with respect by everyone in the movie, and hardly just a glorified slave. The owner of Secretariat’s chief rival is a little swarthier than the rest of the cast, but I hardly made the connections O’Hair did. Too me, all this is much ado about nothing.

Year in Review: 1960

By any standard, 1960 was a great year for movies. In many other years, the bottom five films on my top 10 list could have easily been the top five, and it still be considered a strong year. I know I have been accused in the past of being too auteur centric in my choices, but I’m sorry, this year all the best films are by major auteurs. Deal with it.

10. Spartacus (Stanley Kubrick)
I know that Stanley Kubrick had to compromise his exacting vision a little bit to get Spartacus to the screen, but that doesn’t mean that his sword and sandals epic is still not a great film. After being fired from One Eyed Jacks for clashing with Marlon Brando, Kubrick again clashed his star, Kirk Douglas, here but stayed on anyway. The result is a film that may not be Kubrick’s own entirely, yet remains one of the best films this genre ever produced. Douglas is truly great in this Roman epic as the rebellious slave Spartacus – but I think that Laurence Olivier, as his evil, powerful rival, is even better. That doesn’t even mention the Oscar winning turn by Peter Ustinov as a slave trader or Charles Laughton, John Gavin, Jean Simmons and Tony Curtis – along with an overall great cast. The film is stunning visually – I still do not think there have been better gladiator battles ever put on screen – and has an emotional pull that is different from the usual Kubrickian coldness. I am a huge Kubrick fan, and although I think Spartacus is one of his lesser efforts, it still deserves a place on this list.

9. Shoot the Piano Player (Francois Truffaut)
Francois Truffaut’s Shoot the Piano Player is one of my favorite films from this hero of the French New Wave. It s a playful film, using the hallmarks of the French New Wave – jump cuts, extended narration and a time hopping narrative to tell the story of a widowed piano player (Charles Aznavour) who plays at a seedy Paris bar after his wife’s suicide. He seems like just another sad sack, but the secrets from his past will not leave him alone. Shoot the Piano Player is Truffaut’s playful salute to the American film noir – a fast paced, and funny little film. The film jumps genres from noir to gangster film to comedy to tragedy with ease. Does the film really mean anything? Not really, but it is so well done, so well handled by Truffaut, that we don’t care. It is a wonderful little film.

8. The Bad Sleep Well (Akira Kurosawa)
Akira Kurosawa was a big fan of Shakespeare – after all, this is the man who took MacBeth and King Lear and turned them into samurai epics with Throne of Blood and Ran. With The Bad Sleep Well, Kurosawa turned Shakespeare’s Hamlet in a Japanese noir film with great results. Toshiro Mifune plays a man who gets a good position at a seemingly respectful corporation – only to discover corruption that is rotting the company from the outside in. He decides to fight the corruption, but it is bigger than he is, and he cannot really do it alone. The Bad Sleep Well is a cynical film – it ends with no happy ending, but essentially has the bad guys winning. Yet even Mifune, the hero of the movie, isn’t an entirely good guy – he uses people for his own needs, and even if those needs are honorable, he destroys people just as thoroughly as the bad guys do. Kurosawa’s film is an indictment of corrupt corporate culture and the evils of greed and capitalism. Like most of his films, although set in Japan, The Bad Sleep Well could relate to anywhere else in the world. It is a great film, one of Kurosawa’s lesser known masterworks.

7. Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock)
Norman Bates is one of the most famous of all movie characters. Played by Anthony Perkins, Bates became one of cinemas first “slasher” villains – in a way characters like Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers all spring from Bates – the sad, pathetic, lonely Mama’s boy, sitting all alone in his hotel just waiting for someone to come along. The first time we meet Bates, we sense something is off. He is a little too shy, a little too quiet, sitting there surrounded by his taxidermy experiments, talking to the film’s heroine, Janet Leigh. Leigh is in fact the main character at the start of the movie, as we watch her embezzle money from her boss and hit the road, this seems to be a movie about another one of Hitchcock’s famed icy blonde man killers, but all that changes when we reach the motel run by Bates. The shower scene is just infamous – perhaps the most famous cinematic murder of all time – but the film is full of Hitchcock’s trademark touches. For many people, Psycho is Hitchcock’s most famous, most remembered and “best” films, yet although I do think it is a masterpiece, I wouldn’t go that far. For one thing, it is virtually impossible for a newcomer to Hitchcock’s film to be shocked the way audiences back in 1960 were – we know Bates is a psycho, and we know Leigh is going to get killed in the shower, etc. But even when the mysteries are known, Psycho has the power to draw us in and get under your skin and stay there.

6. L’Aventurra (Michelangelo Antonnini)
A young woman, on a boat trip with a bunch of her friends, goes missing on a small, seemingly deserted island. Everyone looks for a while, but she appears to be nowhere so they leave. Her boyfriend and best friend continue through Italy under the guise of continuing to search for her – but that isn’t what they are really doing. After all, how would she have gotten off the island? And if they are both so concerned for her, why do they start sleeping together? And why, when they talk, do they rarely mention her? Antonnini’s breakthrough film is a mystery that he never bothers to resolve, because that’s not really what the film is about. It is about the shallowness of the people, the idle rich, drifting through a modern world that gives them everything except for happiness. It doesn’t matter where the girl goes, because she was barely existing in the first place. The people in the movie are all too self involved to really care all that much, all too wrapped up in their own petty concerns to see outside themselves. This is a theme that Antonnini would derive a lot of use out of throughout the 1960s, and then would perhaps take too far for the rest of his career. But this film, which brought him to the upper echelons of filmmakers in the 1960s, remains a haunting, beautiful masterpiece.

5. Peeping Tom (Michael Powell)
Peeping Tom is one of Michael Powell’s greatest films – one of the greatest films ever made about filmmaking – and yet it pretty much ended his career as it was reviled upon its initial release. It is a film that pretty much traps us with a serial killer, played by Karl Boehm, who films his crimes so he can watch them again and again in his small, dark apartment. His murder weapon is his camera, where he has a knife blade attached to the leg of the tripod, and he films his victims as they realize they are about to die for the fear on their faces. He is a director just like any other, frustrated when his actors don’t perform the way he wants them to. Powell gives us reasons why Boehm got as screwed up as he is – he himself plays Boehm’s father, who we hear behind the camera as he conducts his own experiments in terror on his young son. Peeping Tom is a film about voyeurism, and unlike most films on the subject, it implicates the audience as much as the characters – we are watching things we should not see, filmed by a man who should not film them. But without an audience, would he have even done it? Peeping Tom is a thriller that Hitchcock would have been proud of.

4. Rocco and His Brothers (Luchino Visconti)
Most people would probably say that The Leopard is Luchino Visconti’s best film – but in my mind, I would have to choose Rocco and His Brothers, a stunning cinematic achievement by the master filmmaker. Rocco and His Brothers is a film that should not work – it combines the neo-realism that Visconti favored in his early career with the operatic melodrama that he loved later on. These two styles would seem at odds with each other, but somehow the movie doesn’t just work, it becomes a stunner. The movie stars the great Alain Delon as Rocco, the third of five brothers, who along with their mother movies to Milan after the death of their father. They are all crowded is a small apartment, all trying to find work. The main action in the film revolves around the love triangle between Rocco, his brother Simone (Renato Salvatori) and a prostitute (Anne Giradot, who is simply stunning in the film). She is at first with Simone, but he is dumb and cruel, so she leaves him. When she later meets Rocco again, the two fall madly in love, but this pretty much destroys Simone who becomes a jealous maniac. The film is full of scenes with of staggering power. So much happens in the film that it is overwhelming at times, and yet someone the sum is greater than the parts. Rocco and His Brothers is a film like no other.

3. La Dolce Vita (Federico Fellini)
Fellini has certainly made more ambitious films than La Dolce Vita – 8 ½ for example – but I still think that La Dolce Vita is my favorite of all of his works. Marcello Mastroinani is brilliant as a tabloid reporter who spends his days hanging out with the rich and frivolous in Rome. His one connection to the more serious world in a professor, whose eventual suicide will pretty much seal Marcello’s fate – he will be trapped forever with the beautiful, but shallow, people who surround him – going to parties, drinking, going to orgies. The film is long at nearly 3 hours, but never dull or boring. It is a film that changes the more you watch it – depending on who you are at the time. You can view it as a fun and sexy film – a portrait of a lifestyle that everyone wants to live. Or you could view it as a film about the soul sucking power of the people it portrays – people without a care in the world, and who spend much of their time thinking they are happy. Since there is no real difference between thinking you’re happy and actually being happy, this woks for a while – but eventually Marcello has to wake up and face the day in front of him – the day that will be exactly like all the rest.

2. The Apartment (Billy Wilder)
Some of Billy Wilder’s films were too cynical to be hits with the general public. Some of his films were a little too sweet for my tastes – but in The Apartment the master comedy director got the balance perfect. This is a movie that starts off a cynical movie about a mild mannered accountant (Jack Lemmon) who, in order to get ahead in his large company, lets the executives use his New York City apartment as their own private love nest for their mistresses. This includes Fred MacMurray, whose mistress, unbeknowest to Lemmon, is Shirley Maclaine, the elevator girl he is secretly in love with. The movie is hilarious at points, but is really a little more serious and daring than most Hollywood comedies in the early 1960s. I don’t think that Jack Lemmon or Shirley Maclaine were ever better than they are in this movie – the perfect screen couple in one of the best comedies to ever come out Hollywood – and one of Wilder’s greatest films.

1. Breathless (Jean Luc Godard)
Over my years on this blog, I have been rather hard on Jean Luc Godard. I pretty much find all of his work after around 1967 to be utterly and completely pretentious. Godard lost whatever grip he had on narrative filmmaking and has decided to make films that are deliberately so dense that almost no one seems to know what the hell the films are about. I have tried to watch many of these films, and it always boggles my mind to read rave reviews of them where critics claim they are deep and meaningful, when to me they often seem to be just a random assortment of images, without any connecting tissue. But if Godard were not capable of such greatness, I wouldn’t be so disappointed in his later work. Breathless was the director’s first feature – and it belongs on that very short list of films including The Birth of a Nation and Citizen Kane as one of the films that forever changed the medium. True, Godard may not have invented the jump cut as many claim he did, but he perfected it here. His characters – a low level hoodlum (Jean Pierre Belamondo) and his girlfriend (Jean Seberg) are both not very nice – he is a murderer, and she is someone who betrays him, which ends with his death, making her a de facto murderer herself. But the film, even 50 years later, feels fresh and alive as so few films do. It moves effortlessly and draws us into its narrative, its strange rhytm, and grips us – even in the extraodrinarly long dialogue scene between the two of them in his apartment. Breathless is a one of a kind film – and film that broke the mold at its time, and remains vital today. Godard, no matter how good some of his other 1960s films are, has never come close to matching his debut in his career – it is a true masterpiece.

Just Missed The Top 10: Elmer Gantry (Richard Brooks), The Entertainer (Tony Richardson), Eyes Without a Face (Georges Franju), Inherit the Wind (Stanley Kramer), Sergeant Rutledge (John Ford), The Virgin Spring (Ingmar Bergman).

Notable Films Missed: The Alamo (John Wayne), Black Sunday (Mario Bava), Chroincle of a Summer (Jean Rouch & Edgar Morin),The Cloud Capped Star (Ritwik Ghatak), Late August (Yasujiro Ozu), The Magnificent Seven (John Sturges), Plein Soliel (Rene Clement), Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (Karel Reisz), Sons and Lovers (Jack Cardiff), Strangers When We Meet (Richard Quine), The Sundowners (Fred Zinneman), Wild River (Elia Kazan).

Oscar Winner – Best Picture & Director: The Apartment (Billy Wilder)
The Apartment is one of my favorite Best Picture winners ever for a number of reasons. For one, it is a comedy, and those rarely win the big prize. The fact that it is a great comedy is just icing on the cake. For another, Billy Wilder is one of the best directors in history, and although he had already won an Oscar for Director, he deserved another. One last thing, the film is sandwiched between two HUGE Hollywood films in the Best Picture list (Ben Hur on one end, West Side Story on the other), so it is great to see a smaller, black and white film win this prize (other than Schindler’s List, this is actually the last black and white best picture winner).

Oscar Winner – Best Actor: Burt Lancaster, Elmer Gantry
Burt Lancaster had been one of the best actors in Hollywood for well over a decade by the time he finally won an Oscar for his role here, as a crooked preacher in Richard Brooks wonderful little film. In many other years, Elmer Gantry would have been on my top 10 list, but there just wasn’t room here. Lancaster certainly does command the screen for the entire length of his performance, carrying the film on his shoulders. Is it Lancaster’s best performance? No, that would be Sweet Smell of Success or The Leopard or Atlantic City, but it’s a great performance nonetheless.

Oscar Winner – Best Actress: Elizabeth Taylor, Butterfield 8
I have not seen Elizabeth Taylor’s Butterfield 8, because not even Taylor thinks much of this movie. By this time, she was one of the biggest stars in the world, and despite several nominations, she had not yet won the Oscar yet. So the Academy threw her a bone with her first Oscar win. Shirley Maclaine was the best of the nominees that I have seen, and Anne Giardot is simply stunning in Rocco and His Brothers, but whatever. I didn’t see it, so I can’t complain.

Oscar Winner – Best Supporting Actor: Peter Ustinov, Spartacus
I love Peter Ustinov, who I have always kind of thought of as his generation’s Charles Laughton - a larger than life actor that rips into his roles with an over the top theatricality that no one can do very well anymore. His first of two Oscar wins in a very short span (his second was in 1964), was here as a slave trader in Stanley Kubrick’s epic (strangely, this is the only performance in a Kubrick movie ever to win an Oscar). He is wonderful, hilarious and over the top, and is certainly the best of the nominees. Like Lancaster and Taylor, I think they wanted to give him an Oscar, so in a year without a real competitor, they gave it to Ustinov. I have no problem with this win.

Oscar Winner – Best Supporting Actress: Shirley Jones, Elmer Gantry
Yes, Shirley Jones has won an Oscar - and for playing a young, pretty prostitute no less (that’s right both of this year’s female Oscar winners won for playing prostitutes. I have not counted but I think more women have won for playing hookers than any other single profession). It’s not a large part, but Jones certainly does leave an impression on you while watching it. Personally, I would have preferred Janet Leigh to win for her role in Psycho (and isn’t it too bad that Leigh, who has a number of iconic performances on her resume has never won an Oscar). But the supporting actress category has always been about rewarding pretty newcomers. Jones is worthy, even though she would not have been my choice.

Oscar Update: Acting Categories

Last week, we looked at the 20 plus films looking for those 10 Best Picture spots, even though that has since changed, since apparently Peter Weir’s The Way Back WILL be released in 2010 afterall It is said to be very grim, but it is the type of film that the Academy could flip for – so I’d certainly add it to the Top 20 – probably even top 10. This week, let’s look at the acting races. I really haven’t added in The Way Back actors, since I don’t have a sense of who will be running, but they should be kept in mind.

Best Actor
1. Colin Firth in The King’s Speech – Coming off his first nomination in last year’s A Single Man, Firth has new found Oscar cred – and his performance here as King Edward with a speech impediment seems like the stuff Oscar nominations were made of. We know audiences love it as well.
2. James Franco in 127 Hours – James Franco has been circling the Oscars for a while now, never being able to break through. I think his harrowing performance as a man literally trapped between a rock and a hard place will finally get him in. He does the whole movie pretty much solo – which they love.
3. Javier Bardem in Biutiful – The acting branch is willing to nominate darker films here, but not as much in Best Picture. Bardem has become one of the most respected actors in the world, so you know they will watch it, so I think it gets in regardless of how the film does overall.
4. Jessie Eisenberg in The Social Network – Eisenberg has quietly built up quite a resume for himself. Playing a complex lead role in one of the Best Picture frontrunners will certainly help him score here. The critics need to get behind him too though.
5. Jeff Bridges in True Grit – Not many actors have both the balls and the talent to step into a role made iconic by John Wayne. Jeff Bridges is one of them. If he can pull it off, and I have no reason to think he can’t, it is a hell of a role.
6. Robert Duvall in Get Low – They do love Duvall, and his role as a many looking back at his mistakes could touch a chord with the Academy. He will wait to see if anyone ahead of him falters.
7. Mark Wahlberg in The Fighter – He had a breakthrough with The Departed, and its easier to get nominated the second time around. He needs the film to hit big with the Academy though, and since it is unseen, I don’t really know if it will.
8. Paul Giamatti in Barney’s Version – They love Giamatti, and I think this years spanning role could get him back in the race. But, will they really be able to mount an effective campaign for him? When is this coming out?
9. Ryan Gosling in Blue Valentine – They love Gosling, and he has gotten great reviews for the film so far. I do wonder though if the late December release date will hamper him, plus the fact that the film is seen widely as an acting movie only, means the film may not have enough support.
10. Jim Broadbent in Another Year – A previous Oscar winner, so you know they like him. A film that is looking like a Best Picture nominee helps in a big way. But everyone talks about Lesly Manville first, which puts him at a disadvantage.

Also: Stephen Dorff in Somewhere will hope that working with Sofia Coppola will jumpstart his career and awards cred. Johnny Depp in The Tourist is someone who they want to give an Oscar to, but is this an Oscar movie? Jake Gyllenhaal in Love and Other Drugs is someone they like, but this is a romcom. Sean Penn in Fair Game is someone they LOVE, but the films buzz has been quiet since it debuted at Cannes. Matt Damon in Hereafter working with Clint often gets actors nominated, but does this film have the support? Robert DeNiro in Stone is someone everyone wants to see return to form, but the film has gotten very mixed reviews. Aaron Eckhart in Rabbit Hole is still looking for Oscar love, but he maybe overshadowed by his female co-stars. Leonardo DiCaprio in Shutter Island/Inception they love Leo, and he has two great performances this year – in films that will either be ignored, or not get noticed for acting. Robert Downey Jr. in Due Date is probably not an Oscar role, but was Tropic Thunder?

Best Actress
1. Natalie Portman in Black Swan – Career best reviews are already pouring in for her work in this dark thriller. She is already an Oscar nominee, so getting that second nomination is easier than the first. They may or may not respond to it for Best Picture, but for Actress, I think she’s a lock.

2. Annette Bening in The Kids Are All Right – One of their favorite actresses – with three nominations but no wins so far – in a smart, critically acclaimed indie film with solid box office, on its way to a Best Picture nod? I think Bening is in.
3. Lesley Manville in Another Year – Even when the Academy doesn’t nominate a Mike Leigh film for Picture – and this one looks it will get in – they often make room for the actors. Manville has one of the most critically acclaimed performances of the year, so I think she’ll overcome the fact that no one knows who she is.
4. Nicole Kidman in Rabbit Hole – She has not been able to get back in the Oscar race since she won her Oscar back in 2002. But her acclaimed performance in this film – based on a play that was awards bait – should get her back there this year. The film is dark, true, but that doesn’t hurt as much in the acting categories.
5. Jennifer Lawrence in Winters Bone – This year’s “it” girl, she already has great reviews, for a film that was really well liked by critics. They will need to get behind her even more as the season progresses, but it wouldn’t be the first time a gorgeous newcomer got into the race.
6. Sally Hawkins in Made in Dagenham – She has a lot of residual goodwill for just missing here a couple years ago for Happy Go Lucky. In this, a more Academy friendly, crowd pleasing film, she could easily slip in if any of the actress above stumble at some point.
7. Diane Lane in Secretariat – They do quite like her, and this does seem like the type of film that critics shrug their shoulders at, but audiences and the Academy eat up. There is no way this is happening unless the film hits big, and can get into the Best Picture line-up, but if it does, she moves up.
8. Reese Witherspoon in How Do You Know – Romantic comedies rarely hit with the Academy, but when directed by James L. Brooks, you cannot write her off either. The fact that she has an Oscar at home means they will take her more seriously. If this becomes a sizable hit, she could sneak in.
9. Julianne Moore in The Kids Are All Right – Some – like myself – actually prefer Moore in this film to her more highly acclaimed co-star Bening, which could mean they split the vote and neither get in, or that they pull off that rare feat and both get in. A few need to stumble, true, but they do love Moore.
10. Anne Hathaway in Love and Other Drugs – Her nomination for Rachel Getting Married two years ago helps in that it means they will take her role in this romcom a little more seriously (it also helps that Edward Zwick is directing). But, the film needs to become a big hit, and potential Oscar player in other categories, for her to really have a shot.

Also in the Running: Helen Mirren in The Tempest takes on one of Shakespeare’s best roles that was written for a man – they love her, so don’t count her out, but Julie Taymor is a little weird for the Academy’s tastes. Carey Mulligan in Never Let Me Go got some great reviews, and is coming off her breakthrough Oscar nom last year, but I think the film maybe too chilly for the Academy. Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine is a former nominee, who has done nothing but get better since, but I wonder if Blue Valentine is coming out too late. Hilary Swank in Conviction is an obvious Oscar favorite, but as we’ve seen more often than not, she needs a truly great role to stand out – and I’m hearing this isn’t it. Naomi Watts in Fair Game has been trying for a while to get back into the Oscar race, and this seems like an Oscar role, but after Cannes the buzz has died. Gwyneth Paltrow in Country Strong does seem like an Oscar role – drunken country music star making a comeback – but after Bridges last year, can she possibly compare? Gemma Arteron in Tamara Drewe is probably a little too modern, and little too critically divisive to get into the big race, but who knows? Rachel McAdams in Morning Glory seems like a standard issue Hollywood romcom, and Witherspoon and Hathaway have the advantage there – at least for now.

Best Supporting Actor
1. Geoffrey Rush in The King’s Speech – They love Rush, whether he is being serious or silly – and when he has a big role in a best picture frontrunner, you have to assume he’ll be in the race at least. People have so far flipped for the role, so I doubt he’ll be overlooked.
2. Andrew Garfield in The Social Network – Could be the breakout nominee of the year with acclaimed performances here and in Never Let Me Go, the future Spider-Man should find himself in the running.
3. Mark Ruffalo in The Kids Are All Right – He has been circling a nomination for years now, but has never quite been able to breakthrough. He has a great role here in a Best Picture frontrunner, so I have a hard time believing they won’t finally give him a nod.
4. Christain Bale in The Fighter – The preview makes his role seem like the best in the movie, and they have probably been looking to nominate him for a while – they just needed the right role. Since no one has seen it, no one knows, but if the film hits, so does he.
5. Josh Brolin in True Grit – True Grit has any number of supporting male performances – but nothing beats a bad guy, which is who Josh Brolin is in the film, and what he excels at. If the film is as good as it seems, he’ll get in.
6. Jeremy Renner in The Town – The star of last year’s best picture winner returns in the flashiest of the roles in this hit film, that could find its way into the Best Picture line-up. If that happens, and someone above him stumbles, he could easily move higher.
7. John Malkovich in Secretariat – Malkovich is an acclaimed actor, and two time nominee – although the last one was 17 years ago. Nevertheless, he has the pedigree, and this looks like a fun role. If the film gets into the Picture line-up, he could easily move up.
8. Bill Murray in Get Low – I honestly think they have been looking to get Murray back into the line-up since he lost for Lost in Translation back in 2003 – and this is probably his best chance since. I don’t see how he gets in if Robert Duvall fails to get in for Actor, but if people falter, he’s there.
9. Jack Nicholson in How Do You Know – Nominated for more acting Oscars than anyone not named Meryl, Nicholson reteams with the same director responsible for two of his three Oscar wins, so it would be silly to count him out, wouldn’t it?
10. Sam Rockwell in Conviction – Much like Ruffalo and Bale above, Rockwell has kind of been circling his first nomination for a while now, so his work here – which is said to be the best in the film may finally land him in the race. Having said that, word on the film isn’t quite as good, and how many of these guys can they nominate in one year?

Also in the Running: Vincent Cassell in Black Swan got great reviews for his work in Black Swan, but I wonder if this category is too crowded. Justin Timberlake in The Social Network will have to fight singer bias, and his co-stars, if he is really going to be taken seriously here. John Hawkes in Winters Bone is a well known character actor doing great work, but needs Lawrence to lock in before having a shot. Dustin Hoffman in Barney’s Version is an acting legend, and the role seems right up his ally, but I still wonder when the film is going to come out. Bob Hoskins in Made in Dagenham needs the film to be in the running for his role here to move up the list. Matt Damon in True Grit has on paper what is the least of the major roles in True Grit – but he’s a star, and perhaps he can make something of it. Zach Galifankis in Due Date is probably not really in the running, but then again he got a few surprise nods for The Hangover last year, so maybe. And finally, I’d add the last minute addition of Ed Harris in The Way Back – he is an Oscar favorite who has never won, so if they are able to build a campaign, he could move WAY up.

Supporting Actress
1. Helena Bonham Carter in The Kings Speech – The Academy loves their royalty, and playing Elizabeth II should get her the second nomination of her career. Nice to see her in something not directed by Tim Burton, but she may suffer unfavorable comparisons to Helen Mirren.
2. Dianne Wiest in Rabbit Hole – It truly is a great role for an older actress, and Dianne Wiest completely and totally nails every scene she is in. A two time winner, I doubt she’ll actually win, but I have a hard time thinking she won’t be nominated.
3. Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit – In actuality, this really should be a lead role, but since she’s new in a film full of stars, I think they’ll put her here. If she delivers the performance she should, she’ll get in no matter what category they put her in.
4. Miranda Richardson in Made in Dagenham – It seems odd to me to be predicting Richardson here, and not Hawkins or Hoskins, but that’s because this is a weak category this year. Certainly not a lock, but if they film moves, she will be.
5. Barbara Hershey in Black Swan – They do love Barbara Hershey, and Black Swan could be one of the major nominees this year. But her buzz seems to have faded a little since people have seen the film. Or perhaps they just can’t stop talking about Portman. Until I see it, I really don’t know.
6. Jacki Weaver in Animal Kingdom – Perhaps it’s just wishful thinking on my – and other bloggers – behalf, but Jacki Weaver’s mommie dearest performance in Animal Kingdom is clearly one of the best of the year, and in a weak category she could slide in – if they can convince enough people to watch the film that is.
7. Melissa Leo in The Fighter – The mother of the two sons at the heart of the story. She still ha residual goodwill from her work in Frozen River, so if the movie hits, she’ll move up.
8. Sissy Spacek in Get Low – If Get Low is able to gain some momentum, then her role could definitely benefit from a weak category, and the fact that the Academy loves her.
9. Elle Fanning in Somewhere – She got great reviews even from those who were lukewarm on the film itself. The Academy hasn’t warmed to the young women in Coppola’s films yet, but it could happen.
10. Kristen Scott Thomas in Nowhere Boy – She won a bunch of awards last year in England for this performance, she is a former nominee, and boomer nostalgia will help the Academy to at least watch this film. It could happen.

Also in the Running: Rosamund Pike in Barney’s Version could happen if the movie hits right, but I still worry about a release. Dale Dickey in Winters Bone is great in a very natural performance in the film, but is it really an Oscar role? Amy Adams in The Fighter is a previous nominee, and someone they love, but her role maybe too clichéd, and she has to fight her co-star. Anne Marie Duff in Nowhere Boy got nominated for the same awards Scott Thomas did for this film, but she isn’t as well known. Ruth Stein in Another Year could ride the film, and her co-stars, tails if the critics support her. Keira Knightley in Never Let Me Go is excellent in this role, but like the film itself perhaps too chilly. Marion Cottillard in Inception was great in a difficult role, but Inception really isn’t an actors film, is it? Mila Kunis in Black Swan could benefit from love of the film, but needs to get past her more seasoned co-star. Helen Mirren in The Debt is the best thing about the film, but I don’t think it will be enough.

I haven’t decided what next week’s Oscar update will be. Given the fact that the deadline for Foreign Language film submissions was this past weekend, we should have the official list of potential nominees, so that is most likely.

L.A. Kings Season Preview

I know this is mainly a movie blog, but longtime readers know that occasionally I indulge myself and write about my other love – hockey. I will probably write more this year than ever before, because this coming season I convinced my wife to let me get NHL Center Ice – which should allow me to watch all the games I want. And what I want to see is the L.A. Kings games. It is probably odd for a guy from Southern Ontario to like the Kings – but I started when I was small, and Gretzky was my favorite player, so the Kings were by default my favorite team. There were a lot of us when I was a kid – and I’m the only one I know who hung on. Cheering for any other team just felt wrong. I will be a Kings fan until I die. So, with that in mind let’s look at the L.A. Kings line by line for the upcoming season. They had a great year last year – more than 100 points and there first playoff berth in 8 seasons. This season, I suspect will be more of the same. They still need to add a few players before they will be true contenders – but I do think that within 5 years, the Stanley Cup will be won by the Kings.

Forwards
Line 1
Ryan Smyth – Anze Kopitar – Dustin Brown
The first line is perhaps the Kings biggest problem. While Anze Kopitar gets better every year – which is scary because I think he is one of the top 10 centers in the NHL, and one of the top three or four in the west – he has never had the wingers he needs to perform at his peak potential. Last year he got over 30 goals and 80 points, but if he was playing with someone of his caliber, he could easily eclipse 100 points. This is why the Kings tried to land Kovulchuk (although I say now that us not landing him was a blessing in disguise) and every time a high profile forward is rumored to be up for grabs, the Kings are in the midst of things. It’s not that Ryan Smyth and Dustin Brown are not good players. But Smyth is aging, has never been a high skill guy, but more of a crasher and het presence without a booming shot. He has struggled with injuries as well. If he’s healthy, he should net 25-30 goals this season. For his part Brown is back with Kopitar after a year on the second line. He hopes to regain his 30 goal potential, and he may just do it. He often tries to do too much with the puck, but with Kopitar, he won’t have to. This is a decent line – but you know the Kings want to add a highly skilled sniper to play alongside Kopitar. When they do, they’ll be a true contender.

Line 2
Brad Richardson – Jarrett Stoll - Justin Williams
This line seems rather cobbled together to me – and it will change when Scott Parse comes back from injury (more on him later). To start the year, Brad Richardson, the Kings handy Swiss Army Knife player who seems to be able to go anywhere on forward they want him to, will start the year here. He has some skill, some speed, some grit, but he is better suited for a fourth line role. 20 goals would be considered a success for him. Stoll is not really suited for second line duty either – he is a solid two way player and great face off, but unlike most offensively minded centers, he is a shooter, not a passer. They would love to add some a second line center with more skill, but they haven’t been able to do so. Yet the biggest question mark remains Justin Williams. He is offensively gifted and has great speed – a former 30 goal scorer in the NHL and a Stanley Cup champion with the Hurricanes. But the guy cannot stay healthy. He hasn’t played more than 50 games in any of the last 3 seasons. This line will score some goals, and they are solid defensively – but again the Kings wish they had a little more skill here.

Line 3
Alexi Ponikarovsky – Michael Handzus – Wayne Simmonds
If both the first and second lines are solid but not spectacular, it must be said that I think this is one of the best third lines of any team in the league – and also one of the biggest. Ponikarovsky comes over to fill the gap left by Alexander Frolov’s departure (he’s slacking is now the Rangers problem). He adds size and some decent hands – he normally gets 20 goals every year. Handzus is aging, but he is still a great two way center, capable of shutting down his opponents and scoring to boot. Both of these guys are UFA after this year, and I doubt the Kings will bring either back – but that’s not because they aren’t great, but because they are aging, and they have young guys who should be ready to fill in. The most exciting part of this line is Wayne Simmonds – who at 22 is young, physical, speedy and has scoring touch. Every time a trade involving the Kings is rumored, Simmonds is apparently part of the deal, but we won’t give him up. He’s a great young player. This is our shut down line, and I’d put them against anyone.

Line 4
Kyle Clifford – Brayden Schenn – Kevin Westgarth
This line is pure speculation on my part, because we still don’t known really who is going to play here (I’ll get into that more below) and both Clifford and Schenn could be sent back to the CHL before the 10 game mark to avoid burning a year of their Entry Level Contracts (both are too young for the AHL). But if this turns out to be the line, than it has a lot of potential. Clifford is only 19, but he is fearless – a banger and crasher, who isn’t afraid to drop the gloves, but also has a scoring touch. He’s a key part of the Kings future. Schenn is even better – a legitimate two way center who puts up a lot of points, but can also shut down the opponents. Since both are 19, if they do stick with the big club, there will be growing pains, but it looks good for the future. In Westgarth, the Kings have a classic enforcer – not too skilled, but he can hit and fight better than anyone else (he broke a guy’s jaw in a preseason fight). I think that there will times when Simmonds or Brown are double shifted to give these guys more offense, but Westgarth knows his job, and will do it well.

Injured: Scott Parse
Parse is this year’s Matt Moulson or Teddy Purcell. That is, he is the guy the Kings are giving a chance to in the top 6 to see if he sticks – Moulson and Purcell did not, and now they are no longer Kings. It kind of sucks for him that he is injured to begin the season – he could lose his job before he even really got it – but Parse has genuine scoring skill, and seems to have improved defensively. No, I don’t think Parse is the future answer for the Kings for a Kopitar winger – but he could turn out to be a genuinely great second liner. He just needs to get healthy first.

Press Box: Andrei Lotkinonov, Trevor Lewis
Let’s start with Lewis – he is most likely going to spend most of the season watching the games from the pressbox. They’ll slot him in those games for Westgarth when they don’t feel they need an enforcer, but generally he’ll sit. He’s old enough that the Kings know that his future is going to be a fourth line role if anything. As for Lotinonov, it’s going to be interesting. Until Parse comes back, I see him, Richardson, Clifford and Schenn cycling in and out of the lineup – splitting time between the second and fourth lines. When Parse comes back, I think two of the rookies – Lotki, Clifford and Schenn – get sent down (Lotki will go to the AHL if he gets cut), Richardson will take his spot on the fourth line, and the other rookie gets to stay. He could easily be in the lineup to start instead of any of those other guys. He has legitimate offensive skill, and is probably going to be Stoll’s replacement on the second line some day soon – but not this year.

Defense
Paring 1
Drew Doughty – Willie Mitchell
There is no doubt any more about Drew Doughty. The Norris trophy finalist is only 20, and is still one of the very best defensemen in the game – a legitimate two way guy who can beat you on the powerplay, and shutdown your top line. At only 20, he’s going to get even better. The question mark is newcomer Willie Mitchell – a great shutdown guy for Vancouver, he has been out since last January with a concussion. Although now he appears fine, the danger is always there. But as long he stays healthy, this is one of the best defensive pairing in the league.

Pairing 2
Jack Johnson – Rob Scuderi
Jack Johnson has been making slow but steady progress in the past few years. He has always been offensively gifted, but he has solidified his defensive game somewhat last year. Of course, being paired with Randy Jones last year meant that they were the weakest pairing defensively – something they are obviously hoping to change by putting him out with Scuderi – who did a great job with Doughty last season. Scuderi is a defensively minded guy first, and he’ll help to steady Johnson, who hopefully will be even better this season. This is a solid second pairing.

Pairing 3
Jake Muzzin – Davis Drewskie
You essentially have two rookies starting together on this third pairing until Greene comes back. Muzzin is straight out of the OHL – where he was named defenseman of the year last year as an overage player. He is big, he is defense first and he is solid. Davis Drewskie started here last year – but got injured and couldn’t stick it out. He is being given a second chance this year. Essentially, although they are paired together, they are competitors as well – trying to be better than the other so that when Greene comes back they stick. If Muzzin is the weaker of the two, then he’ll go to the AHL. Drewskie, I’m not sure about because it will be his second chance, and he is not waiver exempt. He could be traded. They should be okay, but I’ll feel better when Greene is back.

Injured: Matt Greene
Greene is a big, mean, physical defense first guy – who was very solid for us last year as out fifth man. Paired with Sean O’Donnell, they were a little slow on the rush, but adding either Drewskie or Muzzin alongside him will help. He will be fine in out fifth defenseman slot when he’s healthy in a month or two.

Press Box – Peter Harrold
Harrold is valuable because he play both forward and defense – although he is better suited on the back end. The Kings actually played much better in the playoffs with him in the lineup and not Randy Jones, but he didn’t get much of a chance. He’s a journeyman, who is hoping to get more action this year, but I think he’ll spend most of the year sitting.

Goaltenders
Number 1: Jonathan Quick
Back-Up: Jonathan Bernier

For those 8 seasons the Kings didn’t make the playoffs, goaltending was also an issue. We kept going back and forth and never found a steady goaltender – hell the year before last we played a total of SEVEN different goalies in at least one game. Finally, that changed last year. Jonathan Quick did a great job for the first three quarters of the season – setting a franchise record in wins with 39. He struggled down the stretch and in the playoffs – perhaps because he was essentially a rookie and Terry Murray overplayed, something he vows not to do this year. He could be a great goalie for years to come. But then again, there is Jonathan Bernier. The AHL goalie of the year last year, and a highly touted prospect for years now, Bernier is finally getting his chance to stick with the big club this year, albeit as a backup. If Quick falters, then Bernier gets in more and more. Somehow I think that although the plan right now is more like 60 games for Quick and 20 for Bernier, I think by the end of the year it will more like 50-30 or even 45-35 and we’ll have legitimate questions about who to go with in the playoffs. I like have this problem – it’s certainly better than putting Yutaka Fukufuji in net.

Overall: The Kings finished last season 46-27-9 for a total of 101 points, with 241 goals for and 219 goals against. I don’t think they’ll score many more goals than last season – they didn’t add a scorer anywhere in the line-up, but the addition of Willie Mitchell, making their second d-pairing stronger, and better overall goaltending, means I this they will let in fewer. In reality though, I suspect the Kings will finish pretty much where they did last year – somewhere between 4th and 6th in the Western conference (they were 6th last year). They don’t quite have the team to challenge San Jose for the Pacific division title yet (although every year that’s gets closer to reality), so I don’t expect them to make a big step forward this year – but I doubt they’ll step back either. Their best players are young, and getting better every year. Yes, the Kings need to add a legitimate sniper to their top line before they become one of the truly elite teams in the NHL. But they are getting closer every year.

For the Record, here are my predictions of where every team is going to end up this year.

Western Conference
1. Vancouver – The best crop of forwards in the west, solid d. Luongo can have another “average” season, and they could still take this spot.
2. San Jose – Great forwards with some gas left in the tank, and two solid goaltenders. Defense shouldn’t be too big a concern with Boyle there.
3. Chicago – Despite all the losses, they still have a great, young core. Turco can be average.
4. Detroit – One last time, the Red Wings make a push.
5. Los Angeles – Without that top line scorer, they remain in the middle.
6. Phoenix – Was last year a fluke? We’ll find out.
7. St. Louis – Perpetual underachievers finally make good.
8. Nashville – Every year they look like crap on paper. Every year Barry Trotz gets them into the playoffs.
9. Calgary – The definition of insanity is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.
10. Colorado – The future looks bright, but they won’t surprise anyone this year.
11. Anaheim – Great forwards, solid goaltending. Horrible Defense. Will have to put in 5 every night to win.
12. Edmonton – Great rookies, who will score highlight reel goals, but make a lot of mistakes. And what about defense and goaltending?
13. Minnesota – Can anyone on this team score?
14. Dallas – Ownership issues, no improvements in the off season, the Stars continue to sink.
15. Columbus – Poor Rick Nash.

Eastern Conference
1. Washington – Built for regular season success. Can they do in the playoffs?
2. Pittsburgh – Better defense will help them along. Malkin on the wing gives them some support. Crosby still the best in the league.
3. Boston – They underachieved last year. They won’t this year.
4. New Jersey – Lots of great forwards, solid d, and Brodeur in net. But they are starting the year with only 11 forwards because of the salary cap.
5. Philadelphia – A dysfunctional team, with goaltending issues. But still a hell of a lot of talent.
6. Buffalo – The best goalie in the league will help win a lot of games.
7. Tampa Bay – Big improvements over last year. Still an offense first team, but one that will be fun to watch.
8. Montreal – I think their playoff run last year was a fluke. Carey Price isn’t going to be great as the # 1. Still, they somehow sneak in.
9. Ottawa – Their time has come and gone, and they don’t seem to realize it.
10. New York Rangers – Highly paid underachievers. Frolov won’t help.
11. Toronto – Solid goaltending, great d – but can anyone other than Kessell score?
12. Carolina – Just can’t seem to get out of neutral.
13. Atlanta – A team without an identity or superstar. They fall back this year.
14. New York Islanders – Other than Tavres, what is worth watching here?
15. Florida – The worst team in the league. By far.