Movie Review: The Adjustment Bureau

The Adjustment Bureau *** ½
Directed by: George Nolfi
Written by: George Nolfi based on the story by Philip K. Dick.
Starring: Matt Damon (David Norris), Emily Blunt (Elise Sellas), Anthony Mackie (Harry Mitchell), Terence Stamp (Thompson), John Slattery (Richardson), Michael Kelly (Charlie Traynor), Donnie Keshawarz (Donaldson).

The Adjustment Bureau is my favorite type of science fiction film in that it is one that takes place in a world that could very easily be our own, except for one element. Science fiction films often get weighed down by action movie clichés, and futuristic fight sequences, and quickly get boring to me. But The Adjustment Bureau, despite the fact that it does end in an extended chase sequences, remains intelligent right to the end. It is how science fiction is supposed to be done.

The film stars Matt Damon as David Norris, once the youngest man ever elected to Congress, and now looking to become the youngest Senator for the great State of New York. But on the eve of the election, a scandal is uncovered – it’s nothing serious, just a prank caught on film – but it is enough to kill his election hopes for that year anyway. While practicing his concession speech in what he thinks is an abandoned men’s room, he meets Elise (Emily Blunt). They talk, they laugh, they flirt, they kiss – but then she leaves before he can get her number. She inspires him to loosen up and give an inspired concession speech, not the pre-packaged stuff we normally hear, and once again, he is the wunderkind – although he has to wait for a few years before he can run again. During that time, he cannot stop thinking about Elise. When he meets her again, he is elated – but he quickly discovers that there are forces beyond his control who do not want David and Elise together. I won’t reveal what they are, but needless to say, if you’ve seen the commercials, you know it has something to do with those men in the fedoras (Anthony Mackie, Terence Stamp and John Slattery).

The movie is essentially about the age old debate about free will versus predestination. Do we really control the choices we make, or do we only think we do? This has long been a fascination within the sci-fi genre, and for me, it has always been an interesting question. The Adjustment Bureau takes this question at least somewhat seriously (it never becomes heavy handed with it), and the result is a movie that is intelligent and thought provoking, underneath its highly entertaining exterior. I’m sure there will be some who can poke holes in its plot, or even in its logic, and I won’t argue with that. What I will say however is that while The Adjustment Bureau is running, it kept me entertained and thinking – somewhat of a rarity for Hollywood fare.

I think a great deal of the success of the movie comes from the cast. Matt Damon is a charming guy, and you can easily see him as a politician – and a romantic lead. Emily Blunt is great fun as the free spirited Elise, sexy and goofy in equal measure. It can sometimes be hard for me to buy a “meet cute” like this – where characters meet and instantly melt into each other, in love forever, but I had no such problems in this movie. These two just fit together wonderfully. The supporting cast helps a great deal as well – from Anthony Mackie’s sympathetic portrayal of a man who may not quite like his job, to John Slattery’s more businesslike man and especially the great Terence Stamp, who can be as coldly calculating as anyone out there. As farfetched as the premise is, they sell it.

I think The Adjustment Bureau could have been a truly great film had it just pushed itself a little harder. There is a wonderful scene between Stamp and Damon – probably the best in the movie – where Stamp explains the dangers of free will to Damon – and why people like him are necessary. This is not the standard issue evil villain speech, where he admits he’s evil, but argues he is necessary, because he does not believe he is evil. And in a very real way, presented with the reality that we have in the movie, he isn’t. The movie ends on a happy note, and yet if you stop and think about it for a second, it could very easily have had the exact same ending, and yet it be presented as a bad thing – something that could end up destroying everything. The Adjustment Bureau is a superbly entertaining film – great direction, intelligent writing, wonderful performances – but it holds itself back from true greatness because it doesn’t follow its premise to its logical conclusion. It is a very good film – but it could have been great.

The Best Films I've Never Seen Before: Wavelength (1967)

Wavelength (1967) **
Directed By: Michael Snow.

There are times when a movie critic just has to admit that a certain film is not for them. For me, Michael Snow’s Wavelength is a film like that. I think I understand what this film, generally considered to one of the best Canadian films of all time, and a film that has been called the Birth of a Nation of Structural film, is getting at. I think it even had the effect on me that Snow wanted it to have. For me though, the experience didn’t add up to very much. I get what the film is saying – I’m just not sure why it needed to be said.

Wavelength has been described as one 45 minute zoom shot, but that isn’t actually accurate, as there is definitely some editing in the film – as we can see when at different moments the screen turns different colors, or the simple fact that it quite clearly goes from day to night and back to day again in that 45 minute span. But it appears to be one 45 zoom take, which is the point. Snow positions his camera at one point looking at a large room with four windows along the far wall, and 3 pictures tacked in the middle wall. And gradually the shot gets closer and closer to one of those pictures. There are people in the movie – but the are merely a distraction – simply a way for Snow to play with our expectations of what a film should be. At the beginning of the film we see a woman and some delivery men dropping off some sort of dresser, then the woman and another woman coming in and sitting down and listening to The Beatles Strawberry Fields. Then nothing but the room. At around the half way point, a homeless man enters and apparently drops dead on the floor, where he stays for the rest of the movie – although as the camera zooms, he gradually gets cut out of the frame. Late in the film a woman enters and calls someone, presumably the police, on the phone about the dead body. And finally, the movie ends with one of the pictures – one of waves in the ocean – taking up the entire screen. And then it’s over.

I have just described the entirety of Michael Snow’s Wavelength. I know many of you are probably wondering why this film was made, and why it ranks on a list of the greatest films ever made, as it does. What the point of Wavelength is, I think, is to show the difference between reality and illusion – and how cinema can easily manipulate the truth. If a person were to stand in the same spot for 45 minutes and look in the same direction, then what they saw would never change. They would have the same perception of the room and everything in it. But the camera is different. Throughout the film, we get different views of the same room, because the camera zooms – and suddenly the reality of the room has changed. When it comes right down to the end, it feels like we are at the ocean, or at least looking at the ocean, because the picture takes up the entire frame. But in fact, we are in the same room we have always been in – and the dead body is still on the floor, and nothing has changed except for our perception.

I’m sure that all of this makes for an interesting debate – and I’m sure they’ve had some in various film classes over the years. Had I seen the film in that sort of setting, and had a debate about it afterwards, perhaps I would feel more strongly toward the film. But I don’t. To me, the film, not matter what meanings Snow gives it, or his audience reads into it, is really just a movie about an empty room. I understand why Snow made the film this way – filling it with other people and a plot would distract from his point, so he gives us just enough of it to make us wonder what is happening, to get us to the end of the film. The people are pointless – they don’t need to be there (and in fact some critics have argued that the people are the one flaw in Wavelength, which would have been a more pure film without them). The film, which can be infuriating and boring at the same time, has the precise effect on the audience, or at least it did on me, as Snow wants it to have. He wants us to stare at seemingly nothing for 45 minutes, as that is the only way to make his point.

When it comes to assigning a star rating to a film like Wavelength, I am somewhat tempted to simply throw up my hands and say I have no idea. On one hand, it is precisely the film Snow wanted to make; it makes it point clearly, and had the effect on me that I think Snow wanted to have. On the other hand, it is an extremely boring film about a room that for the most part is completely empty. I have described the film that I saw, and what I think it all means. If you are still reading this, you already know if you want to see this film or not. Something tells me 99% of people fall in the not category.

The Best Films I've Never Seen Before: Zero for Conduct (1933)

Zero for Conduct (1933) *** ½
Directed by: Jean Vigo.
Written By: Jean Vigo.
Starring: Jean Dasté (Surveillant Huguet), Robert le Flon (Surveillant Pète-Sec), Du Verron (Surveillant-Général Bec-de-Gaz), Delphin (Principal du Collège), Léon Larive (Professeur),
Louis Lefebvre (Caussat), Gilbert Pruchon (Colin), Coco Golstein (Bruel), Gérard de Bédarieux (Tabard).

Jean Vigo was just 29 years old when he died of Tuberculosis in 1934. His entire filmmaking career exists of four films – two of which I had never really heard of, and question whether or not they still exist, along with the two films for which he is most well known – Zero for Conduct (1933) and L’Atalante (1934). L’Atalante is the more famous of the two films – one of the greatest romances in cinema history, a seemingly simple story of a naïve young wife and her husband aboard his barge with his crew. But Zero for Conduct is a wonderful film as well. Watching the film, I couldn’t help but see the films it inspired in its brief, 40 minute running time – most notably Francois Truffaut’s The 400 Blows and Lindsay Anderson’s If…. There is a reason why Vigo was one of the biggest influences on the French New Wave that had such an impact on filmmaking in the 1960s.

Zero for Conduct falls into the category of boarding school dramas – which seem to take on two forms, the nostalgic look back in time of Goodbye Mr. Chips, or the darker version presented here and elsewhere. The film is about a group of boys returning to boarding school after vacation – and immediately falling back into the same routines that make them feel like prisoners, not students. With the exception of one teacher, who is whimsical and does a mean Chaplin impression, the teachers at the school are rigid and cold – bordering on cruel at points. The headmaster is played by a little person, which is probably Vigo’s point, that he is a small, and petty little man who values order above all else. Four of the boys in the school decide to rebel against the structure and discipline, and throw a wrench into the plans for an anniversary celebration for the school.

Vigo’s visual mastery is on full display in the film. It isn’t realism he is after, more a dreamier look and feel- something that would be even more apparent in L’Atalante. His film is full of images that remain in your mind after the film ends – the schoolboys being led through the streets by their teacher comes to mind, as does the iconic final shot of the four main boys arm in arm walking down the street. Vigo was, for lack of a better term, a visual poet and his images here stand alongside some of the best in cinema history.

If I knock the film down a grade, it is only because I think ultimately Zero for Conduct is more interesting for how it led to L’Atalante, the true masterpiece in Vigo’s filmography, and how it inspired films like The 400 Blows and If, then because of anything in the film itself. The characters are rather broadly sketched – not as much as individuals, but what they represent. This was most likely a necessity of the film’s length, and because Vigo’s point is more about the French school system than about these characters as people (and he obviously touched a nerve, as this film was banned for 13 years following its release). The film is undeniably from the same maker as L’Atalante, and it’s interesting to see his visual style evolve from one film to the next – and its one of the great tragedies of the cinema that it did not get a chance to evolve further because of Vigo’s untimely death.

As for The 400 Blows, it may well be Truffaut’s greatest film as a director, and it is unimaginable without Zero for Conduct. But Truffaut’s film is a deeper film – a more fully realized one, that takes aim at the same targets as Vigo’s, but hits them more dead on because of its character, and because its view is more expansive – for example in its depiction of its hero escape into cinema. And as for Lindsay Anderson’s If, it must be said that Zero for Conduct is certainly the inspiration for that film, as the essentially follow the same plot, to the same inevitable conclusion (even if in Vigo’s version, the children merely throw things from the roof, while in Anderson’s they open fire with rifles). But Anderson’s film is much harsher than Vigo – less whimsical.

Ultimately, I think Zero for Conduct is a near great film – and one that takes on added dimensions when you know what came next for Vigo, and what the film would end up inspiring 30 years later. It saddens me that I have nowhere else to go to explore the work of Jean Vigo.

Movie Review: Hall Pass

Hall Pass ** ½
Directed by: Peter & Bobby Farrelly.
Written by: Peter & Bobby Farrelly & Pete Jones & Kevin Barnett.
Starring: Owen Wilson (Rick), Jason Sudeikis (Fred), Jenna Fischer (Maggie), Christina Applegate (Grace), Nicky Whelan (Leigh), Richard Jenkins (Coakley), Stephen Merchant (Gary), Larry Joe Campbell (Hog-Head), Bruce Thomas (Rick Coleman), Tyler Hoechlin (Gerry), Derek Waters (Brent), Alexandra Daddario (Paige). Joy Behar (Dr. Lucy).

The Farrrelly brothers have made a career of appealing to the lowest level of taste possible. Their films from Dumb and Dumber to Kingpin to There’s Something About Mary to Shallow Hal to The Heartbreak Kid and everything in between have had more jokes about bodily fluids than pretty much any other directors films. And yet, although they have made some absolutely horrid movies (none worse than The Heartbreak Kid), there films as stupid as they are, are also rather clever and quite often hilarious. Their best films have a sustained comic momentum that make them among the best comedies in recent years. Their latest Hall Pass has moments as gross and hilarious as anything in their filmography - yet it does not have that sustained comic momentum that would make it truly great.

The premise of the film is simple. Owen Wilson and Jason Sudeikis play Rick and Fred, two fairly happily married guys, who still spend most of their time talking about sex. Their wives, Jenna Fischer and Christina Applegate, are getting tired of all this sex talk, and decide to take the advice of their friend Dr. Lucky (Joy Behar) and give them a Hall Pass. Essentially, this means a week off from marriage, where the guys can do whatever they want to with no consequences to their marriages. The girls go up to Cape for the week, and the guys decide to make it a week of debauchery and sex. But as we expect, they are more talk than action - and they learn a valuable lesson.

There is a lot of sex talk in the movie - and Wilson and Sudeikis are able to deliver their one liners with ease and great comic timing. Wilson is a little more down to earth and restrained - not just coasting on his easy charm as he has done in the recent past (How Do You Know and Little Fockers being prime examples). Sudeikis doesn’t really have much of a character to play - its mainly a series of one liners, but he does it well. The supporting cast is mostly quite good - especially Fischer, Applegate, and Ricky Gervais’ good friend Stephen Merchant as one of the guys friends.

There are many great moments in the film that are quite simply hilarious. An early scene where Wilson and Sudeikis where they do not know they are being over heard that is brilliant. There is a moment that will be talked about by anyone who sees the movie with one of the girls Sudiekis takes home, and starts to feel ill that is disgusting and hilarious at the same time.

But overall, Hall Pass has too many moments that feel the same - too many scenes that play out the same way, that are too similar to each other, and are quite lazy. They get their big moments right, but the rest of the film doesn’t quite come together. The Farrelly brothers have not embarrassed themselves like they did with The Heartbreak Kid, which took a minor masterpiece and turned it into one of the worst films in recent memory, but they have not regained their prior form either. Hall Pass is a fun distraction for a couple of hours - yet it doesn’t reach the levels that the Farrellys are capable of, so ultimately, it ends up as a disappointment.

Movie Review: Of Gods and Men

Of Gods and Men *** ½
Directed by: Xavier Beauvois.
Written by: Xavier Beauvois & Etienne Comar.
Starring: Lambert Wilson (Christian), Michael Lonsdale (Luc), Olivier Rabourdin (Christophe), Philippe Laudenbach (Célestin), Jacques Herlin (Amédée), Loïc Pichon (Jean-Pierre), Xavier Maly (Michel), Jean-Marie Frin (Paul), Abdelhafid Metalsi (Nouredine), Sabrina Ouazani (Rabbia), Abdellah Moundy (Omar), Olivier Perrier (Bruno), Farid Larbi (Ali Fayattia).

There is a calmness in truly religious people that even though I am an atheist, I cannot help but admire. I’m not talking about the people who are fanatical in their beliefs, who feel the need to try export their beliefs on anyone who will listen to them. The monks at the center of Xavier Beauvois’ Of Gods and Men qualify as first kind of religious people. They live in a monestary in Algeria, surrounded by poor villagers who are almost exclusively Muslim, but they do not try change minds. Instead, they try to help the poor around them. They want to leave in harmony with man, nature and God - and they do that.

There is a timeless quality to Of Gods and Men, because of the area in which it takes place. For the most part, this film could take place pretty much at anytime in history, because this is an area that modern technology has never reached. But it does take place in the mid-1990s when Algeria was in the midst of a civil war. The war doesn’t really effect the monks or the villagers, who are more interested in living their lives than in political upheaval. But they cannot hide from the war forever, as it comes to them. The Islamic terrorists who are leading the “revolutiuon” show up in town, and demand help and medical attention from the monks - who refuse. They don’t have a lot of medicine, and it is important to help the villagers, not extremists. There is a begrudging respect from the leader of the extremists, who respect the fact that the monks are helping the poor, not exporting their beliefs, and respect the Muslim faith themselves. Sooner or later though, things will come hard at them.

They are told by the Algerian government that they should leave. They cannot protect them, and as foreigners, they will be targets. But the monks refuse to leave. They have been called to serve God in this area, and do not concern themselves with threats. This is not a steadfast belief amongst all the monks - Beauvois’ film shows a few of the monks in a crisis of faith. But this is an honest examination of that crisis. It contrasts the calm, confident faith of the monks, and the extremists of the Muslims. The movie takes pains to not paint all Muslims with the same brush - the villagers, who are also Muslims, complain that the extremists do not understand the Muslim faith, and question whether or not they have ever read the Koran. While I suspect many close minded people will embrace the film as an attack on Muslim terrorists, but I think the specific religions at play in Of Gods and Men is beside the point - this is about the conflict between the truly religious and the fanatics of any religion.

Of Gods and Men is a calm, quiet film. I was reminded of Roberto Rosselini’s The Flowers of St. Francis, which was another calm, quiet film about religious faith. The film starts slowly, and puts us into the world of the monks, into their religious rituals, their daily routines. The performances by the actors playing the monks - particularly the quietly confident Lambert Wilson as their leader and the great Michael Lonsdale as the doctor among the monks, are great. Beauvois takes his time in setting everything up. The film does get a little more action as the film movies along.
Of Gods and Men is a fine film - a meditative film, and one that is relevant to the current cultural and political landscape, both in Europe and North America. It is a film that some people will be frustrated by the slow pace, but it is a film that won me over with its calmness. Few films takes religion as serious as this film - especially true amongst films that are not trying to argue for one religion over another. It is a quietly profound film.

Movie Review: Drive Angry

Drive Angry ***
Directed by: Patrick Lussier.
Written by: Todd Farmer & Patrick Lussier.
Starring: Nicolas Cage (Milton), Amber Heard (Piper), William Fichtner (The Accountant), Billy Burke (Jonah King), David Morse (Webster), Todd Farmer (Frank), Christa Campbell (Mona), Charlotte Ross (Candy), Tom Atkins (Cap), Jack McGee (Fat Lou), Pruitt Taylor Vince (Roy).

About 30 seconds into Drive Angry, I knew I was in for something a little different for an action movie. This is a film that goes wildly over the top from its first scene, and just continues to go further and further out there as the movie progresses. This film takes no prisoners, and is an old school, 1970s style exploitation film - full of brutal, gory violence, more sex and nudity than any movie in recent memory, and about as much colorful swearing as in GoodFellas. A lot of people with be offended by the movie - accusing it of misogyny or worse - and many others will think it completely ridiculous. I cannot really argue against that, but for me Drive Angry, despite how ridiculous it is, is the most fun I’ve had at the movies in months. If you liked Machete last year, this one is similar, but much, much better.

Perhaps only Nicolas Cage could have made this film work. If I was writer-director Patrick Lussier, and Cage didn’t agree to be in the film, I may not have even bothered to make this movie. Cage takes a lot of crap from critics for his performances - and rightly so, there are few actors of his stature who has as many horrible movies and performances on his resume. But in a movie like Drive Angry, there is no one better, He has no shame - he will go wildly over the top like no other actor out there, and in a film like this, you need that. Cage is brilliant here, as a man who has escaped from hell to try and save his granddaughter from a Satanic cult who murdered his daughter and are planning are sacrificing the baby. Oh, and by the way, he stole a gun called the “God Killer” that can kill anyone, and send them into nothingness - no heaven, no hell, just nothing. So, subtle performances don’t work here. You need to go wildly over the top, and Cage does it brilliantly.

It should also be mentioned that the rest of the cast seems to follow Cage’s lead. Amber Heard plays a waitress with an abusive boyfriend, who ends up on the road with Cage chasing the Satanic cult. She has been the “next big thing” for a while now, and this is the first time where I can say I actually loved her. She is gorgeous, that’s a given, but she does her job her just as she should. Billy Burke also has no shame, going over the top as the Satanic cult leader - how can you not love a villain who uses a femur as a cane. And William Fichtner plays The Accountant - another guy from hell who is there to try and bring Cage back, and he is hilarious.

The violence in the movie is completely unrestrained. People blow up, limbs go flying, jaws fly towards the camera - in 3-D. There is even an extended gun fight that starts when Cage is in mid coitus with Charlotte Ross, and amazingly, it also ends with them in mid coitus. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen that before, and as ridiculous as it is, it works amazingly well.

Drive Angry was shot in 3-D, and this is the exact type of movie that works in 3-D. It isn’t serious in the least, the 3-D doesn’t detract from the movie at least, and adds to the old school, exploitation vibe of the film. Normally, I hate 3-D, but here it works amazingly well.

No one is going to mistake Drive Angry for a “good movie”. It really isn’t. But as Pauline Kael once said, and I never tire of quoting “Movies are so rarely great art, that if you don’t enjoy trash there is no point in going”. Drive Angry is trash - there is no doubt about that. But it is wonderful trash. If you like films like this, Drive Angry is a must see.

L.A. Kings February Recap

Overall Record: 35-24-4
Month Record: 8-2-3
Division Rank: 3
Conference Rank: 6
Goals For: 171 (Rank18)
Goals Against: 154 (Rank 6)
Powerplay: 39 for 226 (17.3%, Rank 18)
Penalty Kill: 186 for 222 (83.8%, Rank 9)
Scoring Leaders: Anze Kopitar (20-42-62), Justin Williams (20-29-49), Dustin Brown (21-23-44), Jack Johnson (5-35-40), Ryan Smyth (20-19-39), Jarret Stoll (17-20-37), Drew Doughty (10-24-34). Note: Dustin Penner (21-18-39).
Goaltender Stats: Jonathan Quick (28-16-2, 2.23 GAA, .917 SVG, 6 SO). Jonathan Bernier (7-8-2, 2.70 GAA, .904 SVG, 1 SO).

Trade Deadline News: There was a ton of activity leading up to the trade deadline this year, but very little of it actually happened on deadline day itself. The biggest move was obviously by the Kings, who traded prospect Colten Teubert, their 2011 First Round Pick and a conditional pick from 2012 to the Edmonton Oilers for Dustin Penner. I have to admit I was wrong – I didn’t think Dean Lombardi would make a major move this year, and clearly he did. In my defense, I thought the price to get Penner would be too high for Lombardi to pay – meaning a lot higher than what the Kings gave up. With the Kings depth in defensive prospects, combined with what has been by all accounts a disappointing season for Teubert in the AHL (don’t worry Oiler fans – he is 20, and this is his first year out of Jr. – growing pains are to be expected, and I think he will grow into a decent defensemen). In Penner, the Kings have finally solved their Line 1 Left Wing problem, by acquiring a proven 25-30 goal man, who plays the Kings style – puck possession and cycling, but has the ability to get more goals than anyone Kopitar has played with before. There is risk of course that Penner will not work out, but he is signed to a reasonable deal for next year as well, so things look good. The other big news was that the Kings signed their one UFA that they are likely to keep – Justin Williams – to a reasonable extension as well. The other UFAs, Michael Handzus, Alexi Ponikarvosky and Peter Harrold are likely not to be back – Handzus because he has slowed down, and the Kings will want to give Loktinov and Schenn a chance to play center for them next season, and Poni because he never worked out well in LA – although he has picked up his play in the last month. Harrold is currently our 8th d-man, so whether they sign him or not doesn’t matter. This has the potential to be a great deal for the Kings.

Overall: After a horrid January, that had Kings Fans practically slitting their wrists, the team came on in a HUGE way in February. They had to start the month on a season long 10 game road trip, and went 6-1-3 on it – beating some really tough teams like Washington, Philadelphia, Anaheim and Calgary. They then came home, and won two straight, before dropping their final game of the month against Detroit. Truly, I think the Kings only had one really bad game in February – against the Islanders where they were flat and slow, and never generated anything. Even though they lost 7-4 to Detroit to end the month, they didn’t play horrible in that game – the Wings got a couple of lucky bounces in the first period, and Quick had what was probably only his second really poor game this season. If there is reason to be nervous it’s that the last three months, the Kings seem to start a streak with their last game of the month – coming out of the horrid slide at the end of November, going into the horrid slide at the end of December, and coming out of that slide at the end of January. Every point matters right now and the Kings did a great job in February of getting points. They have to put the loss to Detroit behind them, and move on as things don’t get much easier.

Injuries: When Marco Sturm was claimed off waivers by Washington, the Kings lost an oft-injured played who never really worked out. The only person injured right now is Scott Parse, and since he has only played 4 games this season, it’s easy to forget about him. If he does come back, I have no idea where the Kings would play him. He most likely will have to earn his spot at next year’s training camp.

Offense: Despite how well the Kings played in February, they actually dropped five places – from 13th to 18th overall – in terms of offensive production. The Kings mainly won because of their defensive play and their goaltending. Things did get better as the month moved along though – with Kopitar and Brown ending scoring droughts, along with increased production from Wayne Simmonds and especially Drew Doughty who had four goals at the end of January and has ten at the of February. He has look like the Doughty of old. But this was obviously an area of concern, which is why Lombardi picked up Dustin Penner. Hopefully, it means the Kings score more going forward.

Defense: On defense, this was the first month where everyone was healthy for the entire month this season – and the results speak for themselves. They were 8th in goals against at the beginning of the month, and improved to 6th by the end. The Kings are set with their top five – Doughty, Mitchell, Johnson, Scuderi and Greene, and the play of rookie Alec Martinez has mostly been strong. They have started to produce more offensively as well. In short, I still think the Kings have one of the best d-cores in the league.

Goaltending: Despite the last game of the month, Jonathan Quick continued to have a season that should garner him some Vezina consideration – although it really hasn’t. Look at his stats though – they measure up to any other goalies in the league in wins, shut outs, save percentage and goals against average. Jonathan Bernier continue to improve this month – he didn’t lose in regulation once and his numbers all came up – and I think he has proven he can be trusted in big games. There will probably be a goalie conflict for the Kings at some point – like Price and Halak in Montreal – but for now, everything seems fine.

Powerplay: The powerplay woes continued to haunt the Kings in February. Yes, they did better than they had in previous months, and looked better much of the time in terms of cycling and getting chances – but at some point effort is not enough, and you need to produce results, which so far this powerplay hasn’t. Penner has been effective on the powerplay for the Oilers this year, so let’s hope he can help out there as well.

Penalty Kill: I’ve talked about the Jekyll and Hyde nature of the Kings Penalty kill before – but thankfully, up until the final two games of the month, in February it was almost all Jekyll. They took away time and space from the opponents, cleared the pick nicely, and got big saves from their goalies. There were even several long 5-3 kills that the Kings handled. The key will be to keep this up, and not let it slide as they have in the past.

Looking Ahead: With only 19 games left in the season, the Kings are in a dogfight for a playoff spot. They are currently tied for 5th with Chicago with 74 points apiece – just two points back of 4th place Phoenix and four points back of 3rd place San Jose. So obviously, winning the division is still a possibility for the Kings. Having said that, they are only one point up on 7th place Calgary, two points up on 8th, 9th and 10th places Dallas, Minnesota and Nashville, 3 points up on 11th place Anaheim and six points up on 12th place Columbus (who has two games in hand). So realistically speaking the Kings could finish as high as third in the West, and as low as 12th – that is how ridiculously close it remains in the Western Conference. The Kings have played good now for over a month (remember, despite how awful January was, they did win their last three games), and they need to continue to do that. The addition of Dustin Penner will certainly help – but I would caution expecting too much from Penner. He isn’t a Kovulchuk – a guaranteed sniper – but he is a solid 25-30 goal man, with size and skill who should give the Kings offense a boost. If the Kings get into the playoffs – and I fully expect that they will – then I think at least they will be a tough out for any team. If they manage to come above the 7th position (which would mean they avoid Vancouver or Detroit in the first round), then I think it would be realistic to expect them to win at least one round this year. But obviously, that is a long way off. There are 19 games left – all against conference rivals- and 14 in the month of March. To make the playoffs, you’ll need around 95 points – which means the minimum goal has to be to go 10-8-1 in the last 19 games. If they can get those 10 wins in March, even better.