The Late, Great Sidney Lumet's 10 Best Films

According to the IMDB, Sidney Lumet had 72 directing credits to his name when he died last week – of those, 43 were feature films, 1 was a documentary and the others were all television work – either series or TV movies. I haven’t seen all of Lumet’s films – only about half – but he is one of my favorite directors, one of the first filmmakers I came to truly love when I started really liking movies as a teenager. Now that the legendary filmmaker is gone – just a few months shy of his 87th birthday – I thought a fitting tribute would be to look back at my 10 favorite Lumet films. Lumet was a New York filmmaker – just as much as Martin Scoresese, Woody Allen or Spike Lee are. He often shot on the streets of New York, and his best films have an authenticity that only comes from shooting on location. Not often listed among the greatest American directors in history, Lumet deserves to be considered alongside the the best cinema history has to offer. Here are my 10 favorite Sidney Lumet films.

10. Serpico (1973)

Al Pacino was given one of his most famous roles in this dark tale of police corruption in New York. Pacino plays Frank Serpico, a NYPD officer who is tired of the corruption he sees all around him, and goes undercover to try and expose it. He is met with threats and intimidation on all sides, but never gives up, continually pushing for reforms. Lumet shot the film on the streets of New York, giving the film a gritty realism that few films can match. In Pacino, he found the perfect Serpico and the film remains a landmark of police movies – which pretty much every film in the genre afterwards owes a debt to.

9. Running on Empty (1988)

In some ways, Running on Empty is a different sort of film for Lumet, as it does not take place in New York. And yet, what it shares with his best work is a perception of the people at its core. It is the story of a couple of 1960s radicals (Judd Hirsch and Christine Lahti) who blew up a building in protest back then, and ended up killing a janitor. They have been on the run ever since. They do not really regret having to give up normal lives, but they are now seeing the cost it has taken out of their son (River Phoenix) who has a chance at a normal life – but one that will cost him his family, and they him. This is an emotional movie – a scene between Lahti and her father Steven Hill is a highlight – and also one of the best showcases ever for Phoenix, who we lost far too young. This is one of Lumet’s lesser known masterworks, but it deserves to be seen.

8. Prince of the City (1981)

Prince of the City is much less well known than Serpico, but it deals with the same issue – police corruption – and in my mind is deeper, better film. It stars Treat Williams, who unlike Serpico is not a squeaky clean cop, but one who has broken the rules, gets caught, and has to face a series of unthinkable decisions. He will tell prosecutors all he knows about how narcs do their job – how they take kickbacks, how they string junkies along to use as enforcers, how they trade drugs for favors, etc. But he does not want to rat on his partners – the great Jerry Orbach especially. I have a feeling that if Treat Williams had become a bigger star, than this movie would be better known than it is. Williams delivers his undeniable best performance here, as a man who does not know what it is right any longer, but continues to try and do the right thing. In the world he inhabits, there is no right thing left – no matter what he does, it will destroy someone.

7. The Pawnbroker (1965)

The Pawnbroker was a groundbreaking film in 1965 – it was the first mainstream American film to show a female breast, although the context was far from sexual. This is a dark tale of a Holocaust survivor (Rod Steiger in perhaps his greatest performance), who saw his children killed and his wife raped in the camps. Now, he runs a pawnshop in East Harlem, and is bitter and lonely – rebuffing the offer of friendship from those around him, including his shop assistant, a young Hispanic man who idolizes him. For me, the plot of The Pawnbroker is secondary to the character study of Steiger’s character, as a bitter, lonely, angry man, still dealing with the Holocaust two decades latter. This was the first film to deal with the Holocaust from the point of view of a survivor – and it remains one of the very best. Lumet, as he would often do, shot the film on location on the streets of New York City, giving the film authenticity that is enhanced, not detracted, because of its low budget. A landmark film for both Steiger and Lumet.

6. Dog Day Afternoon (1975)

Dog Day Afternoon is a about a man (Al Pacino) who robs a bank in order to finance his lover’s sex change operation. If you think this is the setup for some sort of screwball comedy, you’d be forgiven, but you’d also be wrong. Here is a movie about a hostage situation that every movie afterwards about hostages has been compared to, and found wanting. Pacino makes his character believable, touching and sympathetic. He is a good guy, even if he has taken a bank full of hostages. The cops outside are also good guys – just trying to get through this the best way they can. The movie hums with the everyday reality of New York, which is what makes this movie as great as it is. One of the most famous of Lumet’s films, it deserves all the praise it has received and then some.

5. Long Day’s Journey Into Night (1962)

Sidney Lumet adapted several plays into movies over the years – The Iceman Cometh, The Fugitive Kind (based on Tennessee Williams’ Orpheus Rising), but  his version of Eugene O’Neil’s legendary final play Long Day’s Journey Into Night is one of the best stage to screen adaptations ever. It takes place over that long day in that sprawling house in Connecticut inhabited by the Tyrone family. Father James Sr.(Ralph Richardson), the alcoholic stage actor who places demands on his family they cannot live up to, mother Mary (Katherine Hepburn), a morphine addict recently out of the hospital, who medicates herself not only with morphine but with self delusion, older son Jamie (Jason Robards), also an alcoholic and an actor, who in many ways is life his father and hates himself for it, and finally younger brother Edmund (Dean Stockwell), more like his mother who adores him, but is sick and fragile with TB. All throughout the long movie (over three hours), these characters will talk and attack each other. Unlike many filmed plays, Long Day’s Journey Into Night does not feel like a filmed play at all – but a real film. Lumet’s camera moves throughout the house, capturing its darkness, and the characters in all their painful, brutal reality. One of the best play adaptations in history.

4. The Verdict (1982)

Lumet was as comfortable in a courtroom as any director in history. He made many legal films and they remain among the best the genre has ever produced. What makes The Verdict so special – even as it follows the legal genre’s basic framework of a lawyer determined to fight large odds and win justice for his client, culminating in a final courtroom showdown – is that it is more about the main character than about the case. In Paul Newman, Lumet found the perfect man to play his “hero”, an alcoholic lawyer who barely works anymore, and his handed a simple case in which a settlement is a foregone conclusion, and he’ll walk away with some easy money. But he is determined to try this case – not only to win it for his client, who is in a coma after all, but to redeem the life he has wasted. Lumet fills out the supporting cast with great actors – Jack Warden, Charlotte Rampling and especially James Mason, but this remains Newman’s showcase, and rarely has one of the greatest actors in history been better than he is here. A truly great movie.

3. Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead (2007)

Lumet’s final film is one of his best, and his most underrated. It stars Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke as two brothers who could not possibly be more different. Hoffman is a real estate accountant, who has had some shady deals go wrong, and is in desperate need of money. Hawke has always been irresponsible, but lovable, and could always use money. Hoffman hatches a plan to rob a jewelry store to get them both what they need. Of course, the jewelry store is their parents, and things go horribly wrong, leading to a downward spiral of violence. Hoffman has one of his best roles here, as the man desperately trying to hold onto everything he has – the nice apartment, the beautiful wife (Marisa Tomei, also brilliant). Hawke hasn’t been this good in years. And Albert Finney, as the patriarch, cold bloodedly walking into his son’s hospital room at the end is wonderful. Right up until the end, Sidney Lumet knew how to make crime movies – and knew how to make them better than almost anyone else.

2. 12 Angry Men (1957)

Lumet’s first film probably remains his most famous and most beloved for many people. It has been remade several times, most brilliantly in Russia just a few years ago. Aside for very brief scenes at the beginning and end of the movie, the entire film takes place inside a jury room, where 12 men debate the guilt or innocence of a young, Hispanic man accused of killing his father. For 11 men, it seems like a slam dunk – the boy is guilty. But one man, played by Henry Fonda in one of his greatest roles, is not convinced and argues the case for reasonable doubt. One by one, the other jurors start to turn and see things from his point of view. Lumet’s film, which runs the danger of seeming too staged, never falls into that trap. His camera moves effortlessly around the small room. As usual, Lumet gets great performances from his cast – not just Fonda but great character actors like E.G. Marshall, Martin Balsam, Jack Klugman, Ed Begley, Jack Warden and especially Lee J. Cobb as the angriest of the men. Lumet’s film is about the justice system, and how everyone deserves their chance at a fair trial. The casual racism that the film exposes is handled with subtlety and tact. We never really find out whether the boy is guilty or innocent – it doesn’t really matter. Lumet who made a number of great courtroom dramas in his career never topped this one in that regard. In fact, I’m not sure anyone has.

1. Network (1976)

The further away we get from 1976, the more Network looks like prophecy and not satire. Truly, is Glenn Beck all that far away from Peter Finch’s Howard Beale – the Mad Prophet of the airwaves, whose insane rants draw huge ratings for the failing network, until he goes too far and has to be eliminated. Finch’s performance is the film’s most famous – it had to be a blast for the actor in his last role (he died before he won his Oscar for it) to go wildly over the top – especially in one of the most famous scenes in cinema history when he gets people all across America to go to their windows and scream “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”. But while Finch works brilliantly well as a sideshow in the movie, there is lots of other great things in the movie. William Holden’s sad, old news man, trying in vain to hold onto a little bit of dignity in his business. Faye Dunaway as the heartless, young exec who sleeps with Holden, but still has no qualms about turning the news into a freak show. Beatrice Straight, in the shortest Oscar winning performance of all time, as Holden’s jilted wife who in one brief scene tells you all you need to know about her character and her life. Ned Beatty as a shadowy exec in one of those big, long, dark conference rooms that exist only in the movies. Robert Duvall as the appropriately named Frank Hackett, trying to juggle all the balls the best he can. Network is satire at its finest – harsh, unrelenting, cynical and hilarious. True, a lot of the credit has to go to Paddy Chayefsky, who wrote one of the most brilliant screenplays of all time for the film, but Lumet captures it all perfectly – becoming the best partner in crime Chayefsky ever had behind the camera for his biting wit. This is a masterwork – one of the great American films of all time. And Lumet’s best film.

Movie Review: Hanna

Hanna *** ½
Directed by: Joe Wright.
Written by: Seth Lochhead and David Farr.

Starring: Saoirse Ronan (Hanna), Eric Bana (Erik), Cate Blanchett (Marissa), Jessica Barden (Sophie), Aldo Maland (Miles), Olivia Williams (Rachel), Jason Flemyng (Sebastian), Tom Hollander (Isaacs), Sebastian Hülk (Titch), Joel Basman (Razor).

If you stop and think about it, Hanna is an utterly ridiculous movie. Thankfully, the filmmakers never really give you a chance to stop and think about it. This is a movie that moves at a fast, exciting pace throughout – and yet, unlike most action movies, actually does find time for character development behind all the flash. Everyone in the film is a little more developed than they really have any right to be.

The movie opens in the arctic, where Hanna (Saorise Ronan) has been raised by her father Erik (Eric Bana) to be a survivalist, and essentially, a killing machine. She speaks nearly every language there is, and can take down an elk with a bow and arrow from 100 yards. Although she has spent her life this way, she knows that there is something missing – something not quite right about the arrangement. Erik tells her that when she is ready, she can leave – but that until she kills a woman named Marissa (Cate Blanchett) then she will never be free. Hanna decides the time is now – so Erik digs out one of those fancy tracking devices with a flashing light on top and tells her to flip the switch. Once she does, Marissa will know where they are. The two then split up, and agree to meet in Berlin. The game is on.

What follows is a cross continent chase, where basically Marissa tries to track and kill Hanna – and Hanna meets up with a more “normal” family and sees what life is like for most of us. There is a lot of nonsense about genetic engineering, but the filmmakers do not take it very seriously. They need it to give the story a reason for existing, but they tick it off and move on.

What impressed me about the film is the direction of Joe Wright. Up until now, he has been known for his costume dramas – Pride and Prejudice and Atonement – and his failed musical drama The Soloist. Wright is excellent at his period pieces, as his version of Pride and Prejudice may just be my favorite Jane Austen adaptation ever, and Atonement, which brought Ronan to the Oscars as one of the youngest nominees ever, had a tragic weight that is tough to get right. Here, he is one of the exact opposite end of the cinematic spectrum, and once again, he delivers the goods in a difficult genre. I think that Wright, as much as he liked making those other films, may have felt a little trapped in the period setting – so in Hanna, he lets it all hang out and goes for it with gusto. The film has as much style as a Michael Bay or Zack Snyder movie, but in this case, the style actually works and is not just a bunch of prepubescent stylings of making things look really cool. Aided a great deal by a terrific, pulsating techno score by The Chemical Brothers, he makes Hanna a stylish, violent action movie.

Wright is also aided a great deal by the performances. I don’t think there is another young actress who could have played the calm, cool psychopath at the heart of the movie like Ronan does. She has piercing blue eyes, and yet there is something missing in them in this film – certain humanity. She is playing at being normal, when underneath lurks the heart of a killer. In some ways, you could compare her character to the one Chloe Grace Mortez did such a great job at playing in last year’s Kick Ass – the difference being, here it isn’t played for laughs. It’s deadly serious. Add this to her resume that includes her Oscar nominated work in Atonement, her brilliant work in the flawed The Lovely Bones, and her great work in yet another flawed film, The Way Back, and I think it’s safe to say that Ronan has built up the best resume of any actress under 20. Eric Bana, that talented Australian actor who for some reason has never really become a movie star, plays his secretive role brilliantly well. He tries to protect Hanna, while preparing her at the same time. His role is not very vocal, but he does a lot with a little. Tom Hollander is having a blast as an evil man Marissa hires to track down Hanna. Best of all is Cate Blanchett, doing an over the top American accent, and chewing the scenery wonderfully well as the evil Marissa. It’s the best role of its kind since Meryl Streep in the remake of The Manchurian Candidate.

Hanna is a superbly entertaining movie from start to finish. No, you cannot take it all that seriously, but who the hell would want to? It is an action movie where the camera is actually used properly – no shaky camera effects here that make it impossible for the audience to orient itself to the action. And although you can probably predict the final line of the movie, it is a killer.

NHL Preseason Predictions - How I Did

Since the regular season is over, I thought it would be fun to look back at my preseason predictions. My added comments are bolded - the non-bolded is what I wrote then. Have a look.

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.
Where they ended up: 1.
I was right!

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.
Where they ended up: 2
2 for 2!

3. Chicago – Despite all the losses, they still have a great, young core. Turco can be average.
Where they ended up: 8
Okay, so they sunk more than I expected them too. They shouldn't have.
4. Detroit – One last time, the Red Wings make a push.
Where they ended up: 3
Pretty much right, except I didn't see them taking the division.

5. Los Angeles – Without that top line scorer, they remain in the middle.
Where they ended up: 7
Had Kopitar not been hurt with 7 games to go, this is probably where they would have been.
6. Phoenix – Was last year a fluke? We’ll find out.
Where they ended up: 6
Another one right.

7. St. Louis – Perpetual underachievers finally make good.
Where they ended up: 11
The one team in the conference I predicted to make the playoffs and didn't. Injuries and inconsistency killed them.
8. Nashville – Every year they look like crap on paper. Every year Barry Trotz gets them into the playoffs.
Where they ended up: 5.
I'm telling you, Barry Trotz should win Coach of the Year every year for getting this team to the playoffs.

9. Calgary – The definition of insanity is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.
Where they ended up: 10
Just wrong on the positioning.
10. Colorado – The future looks bright, but they won’t surprise anyone this year.
Where they ended up: 14
Ouch! Injuries hurt, but they shouldn't have hurt that much.

11. Anaheim – Great forwards, solid goaltending. Horrible Defense. Will have to put in 5 every night to win.
Where they ended up: 4
My biggest mistake was not believing that they could actually score every night. When they did, they won, and they did it a lot.
12. Edmonton – Great rookies, who will score highlight reel goals, but make a lot of mistakes. And what about defense and goaltending?
Where they ended up: 15
My analysis was correct - my bet on where they'd finish was wrong.
13. Minnesota – Can anyone on this team score?
Where they ended up: 12
Pretty much nailed it!
14. Dallas – Ownership issues, no improvements in the off season, the Stars continue to sink.
Where they ended up: 9
I have no idea how they came so close, but good for them.
15. Columbus – Poor Rick Nash.
Where they ended up: 13
Pretty much sums its up.
Eastern Conference

1. Washington – Built for regular season success. Can they do in the playoffs?
Where they ended up: 1
Nailed it!
2. Pittsburgh – Better defense will help them along. Malkin on the wing gives them some support. Crosby still the best in the league.
Where they ended up: 4
With Crosby/Malkin, they would have been 2nd. Almost did it without them.
3. Boston – They underachieved last year. They won’t this year.
Where they ended up: 3
Nailed it!
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.
Where they ended up: 11
Ouch. They played like the belonged in the playoffs from January on. But that godawful start killed them.
5. Philadelphia – A dysfunctional team, with goaltending issues. But still a hell of a lot of talent.
Where the ended up: 2
I was right about the team, wrong about their placement.

6. Buffalo – The best goalie in the league will help win a lot of games.
Where they Ended up: 7
Miller wasn't the best goalie in the league this year, but still they ended up about where I had them.
7. Tampa Bay – Big improvements over last year. Still an offense first team, but one that will be fun to watch.
Where they ended up: 5
I didn't think the turn around would be quite this big in one year, but I did have them in the playoffs.
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.
Where they ended up: 6
I was wrong about Price.
9. Ottawa – Their time has come and gone, and they don’t seem to realize it.
Where they ended up: 13
I was right! I should have put them lower.
10. New York Rangers – Highly paid underachievers. Frolov won’t help.
Where they ended up: 8
Frolov didn't help. But they did sneak into the playoffs.
11. Toronto – Solid goaltending, great d – but can anyone other than Kessell score?
Where they ended up: 10
The goaltending was solid only when Reimer showed up. The d wasn't great. The scorers overacheived. Still, about right.
12. Carolina – Just can’t seem to get out of neutral.
Where they ended up: 9
Skinner helped a lot. Still couldn't get into the playoffs.
13. Atlanta – A team without an identity or superstar. They fall back this year.
Where they ended up: 12
Pretty much nailed it.
14. New York Islanders – Other than Tavres, what is worth watching here?
Where they ended up: 14
Moulson and Grabner were also worth watching.
15. Florida – The worst team in the league. By far.
Where they ended up: 15
So they weren't the worst in terms of points, but they were pretty damn bad.

Overall, I think I did pretty good. I did predict 14 of the 16 playoff teams (missing Anaheim and the Rangers for St. Louis and New Jersey).

NHL Playoff Predictions

Western Conference Playoff Preview

Once again, this season showed just how close things are in the Western Conference. For example, if the Kings and Black Hawks had won their last game each, they would have met as the 4 and 5 seeds in the first round – since they lost, they dropped to 7 and 8. The difference between these teams is thin – and upsets are a definite possibility, so let’s look at the matchups.

1) Vancouver vs. 8) Chicago
If Vancouver could have chosen their first round opponent, they would have picked anyone else rather than Chicago – the team that has put them out of the playoffs in both of the last two years. Yes, Vancouver has strengthened their team since last year – given themselves more depth both offensively and defensively, and Roberto Luongo is coming off his best year ever in a Canucks uniform. And yes, Chicago is a shadow of the team they were last year – losing forwards like Byuflin, Ladd and Versteeg that drove the Canucks crazy, losing depth on defense (Sopel) and, just like last year, having to depend on an untested rookie goalie in net (last year it was Niemi, this year Corey Crawford). But the history is still there. Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Bolland, Keith, Seabrook, Campbell are still there as well. And the Canucks have suffered some injuries – there defense looks to be getting healthier, but they will be without their great checking line center Manny Malhorta. Still, given the year the Canucks had this season – given that the Sedin are firing on all cylinders, that Kesler has found more offense this year than anyone thought possible, given their overall depth, they should be able to beat the Black Hawks easily this year. If they don’t, than it will be the biggest choke of this year’s playoffs. I think the Hawks will send a little scare into Vancouver, but ultimately the defending champs will be eliminated.
Prediction: Vancouver in 6.

2) San Jose vs. 7) Los Angeles
My beloved Kings had such a strong second half of the season that it really looked like they’d be able to hang onto 4th, even without Kopitar, but after back to back losses to Anaheim to end the season, they dropped all the way to 7th. The Kings remain one of the best defensive teams in the NHL, amazing in their own zone and on the Penalty Kill. But in the 7 games without Kopitar, they have only managed 11 goals. Dustin Penner has yet to make an impact on this team, and Smyth has been slumping since January. The return of Williams, albeit at 80%, will help, but the Kings will still have problems scoring. And you cannot win if you cannot score. The Sharks on the other hand have been perhaps the best team in the NHL since January, making up for their horrible start, with great play. They are no longer a one line team – in fact Thornton, Heatley and Marleau have been a little disappointing this year, but the likes of Pavelski, Setoguchi, Clowe and super rookie Couture have more than made up for that. The Sharks are also deeper on defense they were a year ago, and they finally have a number 1 goalie in Annti Niemer who is a proven playoff performer. My heart says my beloved Kings will find a way to grind the Sharks down with their big bodied forwards and defense, and get top notch goaltending from Quick, and score just enough to win the series. My brain says that the Sharks are going to make it all the way to the Stanley Cup Finals.
Prediction: LA in 7 (I believe in miracles!).

3) Detroit vs. 6) Phoenix
This is a rematch of last year’s first round series that the Red Wings took in seven games over the then upstart Coyotes. It was a hard fought series, where the veteran Wings were finally able to prevail. But this year, I expect the result to be different. The Wings have been weak defensively all season long – even Lidstrom is a minus player for God’s sake. Their goaltending is questionable – Jimmy Howard has not had the year he had last year. Zetterberg may well be hurt to start the series, and the Wings top forwards are almost all aging. The Coyotes on the other hand remain one of the hardest working teams in the league. Without an offensive superstar, they rely on offense by committee – and it works. On defense, they have a legitimate Norris candidate in Keith Yandle (if he doesn’t win, it’s because no one watches the Pacific division). In net, Ilya Bryzgalov remains one of the best, most consistent goalies in the league. Yes, it is silly to bet against the Wings, who have so much playoff success in their recent history. But this year, I suspect that the Coyotes will be the better team.
Prediction: Phoenix in 7.

4) Anaheim vs. 5) Nashville
This series could very well turn out to the most entertaining of all the first round matchups – which makes it sadder that no one will watch it. Anaheim has one of the most potent offenses in the league – in Ryan-Getzlaf-Perry, they have perhaps the best line of anyone in the league, and their second line of Blake-Koivu-Selanne has been playing great – especially Teemu, who at 40 is still one of the best scorers in the leaque. They are weak on defense however, dispite the fact the Lubomir Visofsky is a likely Norris contender (more for his offense than defense), and they have huge questions in net – as first stringer Hiller still has vertigo, second stringer Emery is still hurt, so they have to go with Dan Ellis in net (who, promptly became one of the NHL’s three stars of the week for the final week of the season). Nashville on the other hand doesn’t have the scoring power of Anaheim, but are rock solid defensively, and have one of the league’s best goalies in Pekka Rinne. Coach Barry Trotz deserves an award for getting this team, who on paper looks weak, into the playoffs year after year after year. This is going to be a battle of wills and styles, and will likely go the distance, with either team a decent bet to win.
Prediction: Nashville in 7.

Eastern Conference Playoff Preview
The Eastern Conference playoff race may not have been as exciting as the Western conference was, but the top 8 teams are all still excellent, and should make for an exciting first round. So let’s look at these series.

1) Washington vs. 8) New York Rangers
Despite a number of “What’s wrong with Washington?” stories in the first half of the year, the transformation between all offense and mix between offense and defense seems to be complete in Washington. They are much better prepared to play in the playoffs this year then they were last year, where they won the President’s trophy and got upset in the first round. Additions on defense, and Jason Arnott down the middle help. The question will be whether the goaltending can hold up. No such goalie questions plague the Rangers, who in Lundqvist have one of the best in the business. The question for them is if they have the depth up front and on defense to compete with the Capitals. Without Ryan Callahan, I doubt it.
Prediction: Washington in 6.

2) Philidelphia vs. 7) Buffalo
For much of the season, the Flyers looked to be the cream of the crop in the East. But they have fumbled and stumbled in the last 6 weeks, and do not really look like a Stanley Cup team right now. With Pronger questionable to be able to go, they could be in trouble – even with one of the deepest teams up front of anyone. And who among the three goalies they are currently carrying will step up? Buffalo on the other hand stumbled for much of the first half of the season – but came on strong at the end. If Ryan Miller is truly over his injury, I think the Sabres, who are flying high since they got a new owner, could give the Flyers fits in this round.
Prediction: Buffalo in 7.

3) Boston vs. 6) Montreal
The Bruins got Tomas Kaberle from Toronto in the hopes of making their power play better – and so far it hasn’t worked. Up front, the Bruins are deep, but do not really have a superstar to carry the load for them. On defense, beyond Chara, they are merely average. But in Tim Thomas, they have the best goalie in the league this season – and that may take them a long way. The Canadians still have the same small forwards that worked last year in the playoffs, and basically the same D as well – although the addition of Wisnewski and Sopel will help. And in Cary Price, they have the second best goalie in the league this season. This is going to be an epic battle, as it seems to be whenever these two teams meet.
Prediction: Boston in 7.

4) Pittsburgh vs. 5) Tampa Bay
Will Crosby come back this series? My guess is no – there is something wrong here, since he has been skating with the team for a while, but still is not cleared for full practice. But without Crosby, coach Dan Blysma has done an extraordinary job of getting this team to play better team defense, and get what they can in terms of scoring. Marc Andre Fleury looks like the goalie he was when the Pens won the cup – and not the one who blew it last year. The Lightning on the other hand have one of the most potent offenses in the league – led by St. Louis, Stamkos and Leclavier (who is playing like the Vinnie of old recently). The question mark for them is on the back end – and whether Dwayne Roloston can really be a Stanley Cup goalie again. Should be a good series.
Prediction: Pittsburg in 7.

Movie Review: Meek's Cutoff

Meek’s Cutoff ****
Directed by: Kelly Reichardt.
Written By: Jonathan Raymond.

Starring: Bruce Greenwood (Stephen Meek), Michelle Williams (Emily Tetherow), Will Patton (Soloman Tetherow), Shirley Henderson (Glory White), Neal Huff (William White), Paul Dano (Thomas Gately), Zoe Kazan (Millie Gately), Rod Rondeaux (The Cayuse).

Kelly Reichardt has quickly established herself as one of the best filmmakers of her generation. She specializes in those movies that make some in the audience complain that “nothing happened”, but that’s only because her films are so subtle, so quiet that many people miss the little things that make her films so special. It is in those quiet moments between two people in her films that everything happens – and seemingly small incidents are really the turning points of her stories.

Meek’s Cutoff is her latest film, and while it is larger in scale than her previous films, Old Joy and Wendy and Lucy, it is no less well observed. It is a film that takes place on a wagon train journey across Oregon in the 1840s, and yet it is completely devoid of the clichés that usually make up those films. The film opens with the settlers gathered around in a circle talking about whether or not they should hang their guide Meek (Bruce Greenwood), who they hired to bring them to their new home, and who ended up leading them on a shortcut to nowhere, and are now helplessly lost. Later in the film these same settlers, along with Meek this time, will gather again to discuss whether or not they should hang the Cayuse Indian they have captured, because they think that he is following them – setting them up for slaughter at the hands of his tribe some time down the line. Although she is not truly involved in these discussions – it is work for men – it really is Emily Tetherow (Michelle Williams) who holds the most sway. She is the moral center of the movie, who will argue against hanging either man, because they need them to lead them out of the desert they find themselves in. Only in a film by Reichardt would a simple act of kindness – like Emily repairing the Cayuse’s shoe – be the real turning point in the movie. “I want him to owe me something” she says at the time – and depending on how you read the ending, which is as ambigious as the infamous ending of John Sayles Limbo, it may be the smartest thing she ever does.

Meek’s Cutoff is a daring movie for several reasons. For one thing, audiences raised on Westerns have certain expectations of a wagon train movie like this (see John Ford aptly titled Wagon Master for an example), and Reichardt provides none of those things in her movie. She makes the interesting choice to shoot in 1.33:1, instead of the typical widescreen that you would normally use for a movie that provides this many opportunities for sweeping vistas shots – opportunities that Reichardt does not use. She keeps her camera squarely on the people in her film – eliminating their past and their future, concentrating solely on their present predicament, The guide is supposed to be some kind of hero, but Greenwood’s Meek is anything but. He has wild hair, a crazy beard, and strange eyes, and really he leads them all out to the middle of the desert with no exit strategy (prompting many to see the film as an allegory for the current War in Iraq, which is certainly a valid interpretation). The women are supposed to be weak and subservient, but Michelle Williams’ character is really the strongest of them all. She controls her husband (Will Patton), who controls the rest of the group – including the weak willed Thomas (Paul Dano), and the overly religious William (Neil Huff), who refuses to eat to the point of starvation.

This is a movie where the subtlest moments are the most important. To the unobservatant, it may look like “nothing happens” in Meek’s Cutoff, but that ignores the quiet moments where the entire movie dynamic changes. It takes skill in the performance to pull this off – and Michelle Williams proves once again why she is one of the best actresses of her generation, as she is able to be the moral center of the film, without upstaging the rest of them. But everyone has their moments – even the largely quiet Rod Rondeaux as the Cayuse Indian, who cannot communicate with the others on the journey, but still observes so much. The cinematography for the film is wonderful, and brings out these subtle moments, and has a wonderful dusty, dirty feel to it, that reminded me of the 1970s work on Terence Malick (even if Malick preferred widescreen). Meek’s Cutoff is a subtle film, but one that builds tremendous emotional power as it goes along. Nothing happens? Only if you’re not paying attention.

The Best Films I've Never Seen Before: The Lusty Men (1952)

The Lusty Men (1952) *** ½
Directed by: Nicholas Ray.
Written by: David Dortort & Horace McCoy based on the book by Claude Stanush.
Starring: Robert Mitchum (Jeff McCloud), Susan Hayward (Louise Merritt), Arthur Kennedy (Wes Merritt), Arthur Hunnicutt (Booker Davis), Frank Faylen (Al Dawson), Walter Coy (Buster Burgess), Carol Nugent (Rusty Davis), Maria Hart (Rosemary Maddox), Lorna Thayer (Grace Burgess).

There was always a wounded masculinity about Robert Mitchum – one of the great actors of all time. He is one of those actors who says a lot without saying anything – you can read the pain his characters have lived through and with in his every facial expression. He was only 35 when he made The Lusty Men in 1952, but he seemed older, more broken down than that. This is one of his best performances, as an rodeo rider who has finally called it quits after a great career. He has had too many injuries, and he doesn’t think he’ll recover from his latest one – at least not enough to continue on the circuit. Yet despite the fact that he has made lots of money over the years as a star on the circuit, he is broke. He spent the money on booze, cards and women and no he’s left with nothing but his broken down body. And this is just the beginning of the movie.

Mitchum is Jeff McCloud who after his injury returns to his rundown childhood home in Texas – it was rundown when he left it 20 years before, and its still rundown now. He meets a nice young couple Wes and Louise (Arthur Kennedy and Susan Hayward) who dream of buying his childhood home and setting up a ranch there– but have nowhere near the $5,000 needed to do so. Wes works as a cattle hand at a nearby ranch, and since he recognizes Jeff from his rodeo days, he offers to help get him a job at the same ranch. Wes has ulterior motives however – he idolizes Jeff and wants him to help him become a star on the rodeo. If Jeff will help, Wes will give him 50% of whatever he wins. Much to the chagrin in Louise, Jeff accepts – and soon Wes is a star on the rodeo, and suddenly to him life on that ranch doesn’t seem all that great. He starts drinking, partying, chasing women and getting a big head. Meanwhile, Jeff is starting to see what he missed out all those years by growing closer to Louise.

Nicholas Ray often made films about outsiders – about people who chose to take chances and live a life where freedom meant more to them than responsibility. The Lusty Men is in many ways similar to those other films – including such films as Rebel without a Cause (1955), In a Lonely Place (1950) and my personal favorite Bigger Than Life (1956). And yet, in some ways, it is actually quite different. It’s the same because both Jeff and Wes have to make the same decision Ray characters always make – to either be the outsider, or be tied down to family. Most of the time, Ray seemingly came down on the side of being the outsider – that playing it safe was the same as death. In The Lusty Men, he seems to be saying just the opposite. The movie ends with Jeff embracing his outsider status, and being punished as a result, whereas Wes gets to go back and live the life he dreamed about all along – and simply lost his way for a while on the rodeo. Perhaps that’s why to me, The Lusty Men, while an excellent film, doesn’t quite live up to the best of Ray’s work – because the ending feels a little forced and unnatural to me. Throughout the movie there are other such moments – the three leads are all great in their roles, but the supporting cast of largely stock characters feel hollow to me. But it was the ending I was disappointed in – it didn’t feel to me that Ray truly felt his ending.

I first heard of The Lusty Men a while back when I was talking to a friend about Darren Aronofsky’s The Wrestler (2008) a film I had loved, and he was lukewarm on. He suggested I see The Lusty Men, because it was similar, but to his mind better. The two films are in many ways similar – they are both about broken down former stars in their field whose bodies have betrayed them, but have no other real skills they can fall back on – and probably wouldn’t want to even if they did. I still think The Wrestler is a better film – I remember watching that film at TIFF for the first time, and having to walk out of the theater in tears at the end of the film. The Lusty Men didn’t hit me the same way – and it goes back to what I said before. I think Aronofsky felt the ending to The Wrestler – it is after all similar to how he ended Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain and Black Swan. Yet I think if Ray had his way, The Lusty Men would have ended differently. Sometimes the ending makes all the difference.

Movie Review: Win Win

Win Win *** ½
Directed by: Thomas McCarthy.
Written by: Thomas McCarthy.
Starring: Paul Giamatti (Mike Flaherty), Amy Ryan (Jackie Flaherty), Alex Shaffer (Kyle), Bobby Cannavale (Terry Delfino), Jeffrey Tambor (Stephen Vigman), Burt Young (Leo Poplar), Melanie Lynskey (Cindy), Margo Martindale (Eleanor), David W. Thompson (Stemler), Mike Diliello (Jimmy Reed), Nina Arianda (Shelly), Marcia Haufrecht (Gina Flaherty), Sharon Wilkins (Judge Lee), Clare Foley (Abby).

Looking over Paul Giamatti’s screen credits on IMDB, I am surprised by how few villains he has played. Not to be mean about it or anything, but actors who look like Giamatti normally have to make their living playing creepy bad guys. But for the most part, Giamatti has avoided those roles, and instead built a career out of being a classic everyman. And unlike most actors who play “everymen”, Giamatti actually looks like one. He perfectly plays the types of men that no one really notices in real life. Lovable losers, sad sacks, family men, etc. Giamatti plays these guys better than just about anyone else out there right now. So it’s only natural that Thomas McCarthy cast him to play Mike Flaherty in his new film Win Win – it is a roll that no one could play better.

Mike is a nice guy. He is a lawyer, but not a very successful one, having trouble making ends meet in his small practice where he basically represents old people looking to do wills and the like. He is married to Jackie (Amy Ryan), and they have two daughters, and he is worried about how much longer he can keep the practice going. His latest case is representing Leo (Burt Young), who is in the early stages of Alzheimer’s, and who the state wants to put into a home. Mike loses the case, but convinces the judge to let him become Leo’s guardian instead – this pocketing an additional $1,500 a month for the job. He then punks Leo in the old folks anyway, even though he told the judge he wouldn’t. He doesn’t see the harm. Leo has no family, except for one daughter he hasn’t seen or heard from in more than a decade, so who really is he hurting?

Things get more complicated when Kyle (Alex Shaffer) shows up. He says he is Leo’s grandson, who had to leave home because his mother is in drug rehab (not for the first time), and her boyfriend in an asshole, so he came to stay with the grandfather who never even knew he existed. Not wanting to leave the kid on his own, Mike and Jackie take him in for what is supposed to only be a few days, but of course turns out to be much longer. Mike, who coaches wrestling at the local high school brings Kyle to practice one day – and discovers that is good. State champion good. The two begin to bound – and Kyle begins to bond with Leo as well – but hanging over it all is the lie Mike told, and the realization that it will eventually come out. When Kyle’s mother Cindy (Melanie Lynsky) shows up, things get more complicated.

Win Win is a somewhat predictable movie, and one that is built on the type of coincidence that rarely happens in real life. I mean, truly, what are the odds that Kyle would be a great wrestler who just happens to being staying with a high school wrestling coach? But when a movie is as lovable as Win Win, you hardly notice or care about these things. This is a movie that moves effortlessly between comedy and drama, and remains at its heart a character driven film anchored by wonderful performances.

This is director Thomas McCarthy’s third film, following The Station Agent which gave wonderful roles to Peter Dinklage, Bobby Canavale and Patricia Clarkson and The Visitor, which gave great roles to Richard Jenkins and Hiam Abbass. A character actor himself, McCarthy clearly loves working with actors, and crafts roles that seem perfectly suited for the people he casts. Giamatti is wonderful in the lead role and carries the film, but the entire cast is excellent. Amy Ryan in some ways has the typical supportive wife role, but it is deeper, more humane than most of others. Alex Shaffer is a find as Kyle, who perfectly captures the bitter, lonely, quiet yet overall lovable teenager he plays. Great supporting work is done by Jeffrey Tambor, as Mike’s assistant coach, Cannavale (in his best role since The Station Agent) as Mike’s best friend, and Melanie Lynsky (a personal favorite of mine) as Kyle’s mother – even if she is the most coherent and healthy drug addict I’ve ever seen in a movie. There are no throwaway roles here – they are all crafted with care, and McCarthy gets the best out of his actors.

I know Win Win is not exactly groundbreaking or original, but it is a film I couldn’t help loving. It is a film that sees clearly the difficulty to make ends meet in today’s world and yet remains a feel good story. The movie never gets bogged down or depressing, nor overly sentimental. It is a film that made me laugh quite a bit, smile almost constantly and as I walked out of the theater, I felt happy. It is one of those rare films that I feel I could recommend to just about anybody, and feel confident that they'd like it.