3 stars out of 4
"Super 8" is summer entertainment at its best. Suspenseful. Action scenes that aren't just about the action, but more about how the characters are affected. Characters that we can relate to, that aren't two dimensional, and that are developed so that we care what happens to them. It is a film that keeps the audience guessing, but doesn't wait until the final frames to clue us in. We get bits a pieces of the puzzle as we go, and we're allowed to form opinions with enough time left to revise and modify. Perhaps even better, the plot allows the characters to go through the same process.
True to all Spielberg-touched mystery/dramas, we don't see the monster until well into the film. And though Spielberg produced the film and his influence is clear, JJ Abrams wrote and directed, so most of the credit must be placed on his shoulders. The gas station scene in which we first get a glimpse of the monster is directing perfection. Instead of seeing the monster straight on, we see its reflection in a pool of gasoline on the ground. A gas station attendant sees what we want to see - the monster eye-to-eye - and though we get an idea of what is lurking in the shadows, we still aren't fully satisfied, and so the suspense builds. This particular scene reminded me a lot of Jurassic Park. Instead of just waltzing out the T-Rex, Spielberg first showed us the vibrating water. We knew what that little ripple meant. But Spielberg made us wait just a bit longer, letting our imaginations run wild before giving us what we wanted.
The main characters are middle-schoolers, but this isn't a kid's movie. One, Joe, has been visited by the worst of tragedies. Just before he would discover the opposite sex, his innocence was destroyed in a much worse way, and though his strength is clear, he carries an enduring pain in his face. Another, Alice, is more than just the cutest girl in her grade. A new addition to the group, she reveals in a powerful scene within a scene that she has either been forced to deal with issues beyond her age, or she has always hid a deeper disposition behind her pretty face. The other kids, like Joe and Alice, do things kids do. But the train wreck they witness acts as a catalyst to reveal their strengths and their flaws, and instead of seeing a group of irrational children, we see individuals coping like adults, and better than adults in many instances.
Besides the awesome special effects, the well-conceived plot, and the total lack of "gotcha" moments, I was relieved to find a good mystery populated by real people. Some have secrets, prejudices, assumptions, and fears. We suspect that some of the characters have more complicated pasts than we know, pasts that intertwine in substantial ways. And when those suspicions are addressed, they aren't fanciful or illogical. Instead, we're given answers that make devastating sense. Just as life tends to be, the connections are simple and unfair.
Ultimately, Super 8 doesn't aim to deliver any message or principle, and I'm glad for that. We're asked to acknowledge the misguided nature and limits of human beings. But all the while, we watch a select group of people, both young and old, demonstrate the kind of qualities that make us so special. We adapt, and we are open minded. We are courageous, even in the face of the unknown. We are deeply compassionate and have an unfathomable ability to forgive, especially when that forgiveness is desperately needed by another. If the film does have a message, it is that these qualities are not necessarily universal, but that they are universally recognized for their rareness and immeasurable worth.
Super 8 is not a perfect film, and it may well be the second best film of the summer. It has missteps, namely the fact that we are forced to consider unnecessary characters at the expense of being forced to accept the rushed development of important parent-child relationships of the two primary characters. But Super 8 is still a fine film.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Georgia Bulldogs in 2011 - Post #10
This post will be a little different. Instead of looking at a facet of Georgia's team, I'm going to talk about the one SEC that will fall below expectations, and the one SEC team that is being overlooked. Also, I'll address the web chatter that is anointing Georgia as the dark horse of the SEC, and whether that is an apt choice.
BIG DISAPPOINTMENT -- LSU
Though my post-spring ball pick to win the SEC was LSU, I can't deny that of the three hyped SEC teams (LSU, Alabama, and South Carolina), LSU is the most likely to finish with a whimper instead of a bang. South Carolina is a lesser team, but it also plays in the weaker SEC East and its major non-conference game is against Clemson, a good team that may soon reach the next level, but not this year. I think Bama and LSU are very much alike, they have common weaknesses and question marks in similar places. But it is clear that Bama has a much friendlier schedule than does LSU. Simply put, LSU has a smaller margin for error. And so, though it seems counterintuitive to tab my post-spring favorite as the likeliest failure, the extenuating circumstances require the designation.
BIG SURPRISE -- FLORIDA
This is probably a surprise, and I admit that. But let me explain. The "Big Surprise" team must win at least 9 games.
I don't see Tennessee accomplishing such a feat. Their schedule is beastly, and they're still low on talent.
Mississippi St. seems to be a beneath-the-radar team, but I'm selling cowbell stock. They're in the West (which translates into "death row" this year), the offense won't be spectacular, and I think the absence of Manny Diaz will be harshly felt.
Ole Miss? No.
I'm most inclined to say Auburn could surprise people. Partly because so many are predicting the Tigers to struggle since they only return 8 starters, and mostly because a certain Heisman Trophy winner and 1st overall pick will no longer be playing QB in the Plains. But Chizik and company have recruited very well, Gus Malzahn is still the best OC in the country, and I think Auburn has built the type of foundation that allows programs to reload year in and year out.
But the 2010 NC bought Chizik a lot of time, and I for one think he will use it to build for 2012.
That leaves Florida, almost by default, but also because a few factors are playing in their favor.
The schedule isn't bad, the East is weak again, and I foresee the Muschamp era beginning with fewer hiccups than your normal transition of power. Meyer resigned (not fired), stayed around to help foster a sense of normalcy, and then the two big reasons why I think Florida could surprise people.
1) Smooth Transition
The coaches that couldn't help (like Addazio) left, and the ones that could (the better ones like the S&C coach) stayed. Then, in comes Muschamp and Weis - two coaches that have a long track record of first-year success in new places. The SEC is rarely gentle with first year coaches. 2011 Florida may be an exception.
2) They have the talent
The roster is still choked with big time players. Weis could transform Brantley into the QB he was touted as coming out of HS. There is a lot of speed and skill on offense, and Weis is probably one of the best offensive minds in the country so he will play the cards he's been dealt. Most importantly, the defense could be downright nasty if the D-line is as advertised coming out of spring ball. If there is one first principle in college football it is this: it is better to have a mediocre offense and a great defense than the other way around.
GEORGIA THE DARK HORSE?
Granted, most of the love Georgia got came earlier in the spring, post-recruiting boon and pre-Trinton Sturdivant injury. But there are still many smart college football people out there that have hinted at a resurgent 2011 for the Dawgs. Personally, I reluctantly say that this banter is probably a product of people believing that CMR has to improve dramatically for obvious reasons, and from the knowledge that he has produced great teams in the past, thus meaning he can do so again. So, these predictions come more from gut-feeling than X's and O's.
If I had to make a prediction, I'd say it's 60-40 that the Dawgs have a breakout year. Not a sure thing, but not a hope and a prayer either. I say that not because we return Murray and Charles. Not because I hope Crowell will be a beast. I say that because I think the defense may surprise people.
The D-line and the linebackers could be dominant. And I don't say that lightly, because Georgia hasn't been dominant at either unit in quite some time. But the pieces are there if they can fit together.
If those two units are as good as they can be, they should protect a weaker secondary than one would like. But that is just where I start to get optimistic. I don't see many teams on our schedule that will try to throw the ball a lot on us.
Boise is more balanced than people think, and they lost their best WR's to the draft.
Spurrier considers running the ball more than passing it to be similar to having a double root canal, but he knows Lattimore is his best player so he will be persuaded to lean on the running game.
Auburn, Tennessee, and especially Ga Tech don't have the players to rely heavily on the passing game.
I only worry about Florida, who will have adopted Weis's pro-style passing offense. But they don't yet have any big time WR's, and if they wisely choose to rely on their speedy playmakers, those players are RBs who I think our fast LBs can matchup with very well.
Don't get me wrong, I'll be the last person to say that I was surprised to see the Dawgs reel off a 10 win season. The talent is there, the coaching is there, the schedule is right, and I think the team is hungry. Some interesting quotes came out of the spring. Talk of addition by subtraction, of being rid of "cancerous" players who either were too lazy or too focused on their draft status. We'll see. If the leaders of the team are truly all in, then this could be a dangerous team come October. But like I said. We'll see.
BIG DISAPPOINTMENT -- LSU
Though my post-spring ball pick to win the SEC was LSU, I can't deny that of the three hyped SEC teams (LSU, Alabama, and South Carolina), LSU is the most likely to finish with a whimper instead of a bang. South Carolina is a lesser team, but it also plays in the weaker SEC East and its major non-conference game is against Clemson, a good team that may soon reach the next level, but not this year. I think Bama and LSU are very much alike, they have common weaknesses and question marks in similar places. But it is clear that Bama has a much friendlier schedule than does LSU. Simply put, LSU has a smaller margin for error. And so, though it seems counterintuitive to tab my post-spring favorite as the likeliest failure, the extenuating circumstances require the designation.
BIG SURPRISE -- FLORIDA
This is probably a surprise, and I admit that. But let me explain. The "Big Surprise" team must win at least 9 games.
I don't see Tennessee accomplishing such a feat. Their schedule is beastly, and they're still low on talent.
Mississippi St. seems to be a beneath-the-radar team, but I'm selling cowbell stock. They're in the West (which translates into "death row" this year), the offense won't be spectacular, and I think the absence of Manny Diaz will be harshly felt.
Ole Miss? No.
I'm most inclined to say Auburn could surprise people. Partly because so many are predicting the Tigers to struggle since they only return 8 starters, and mostly because a certain Heisman Trophy winner and 1st overall pick will no longer be playing QB in the Plains. But Chizik and company have recruited very well, Gus Malzahn is still the best OC in the country, and I think Auburn has built the type of foundation that allows programs to reload year in and year out.
But the 2010 NC bought Chizik a lot of time, and I for one think he will use it to build for 2012.
That leaves Florida, almost by default, but also because a few factors are playing in their favor.
The schedule isn't bad, the East is weak again, and I foresee the Muschamp era beginning with fewer hiccups than your normal transition of power. Meyer resigned (not fired), stayed around to help foster a sense of normalcy, and then the two big reasons why I think Florida could surprise people.
1) Smooth Transition
The coaches that couldn't help (like Addazio) left, and the ones that could (the better ones like the S&C coach) stayed. Then, in comes Muschamp and Weis - two coaches that have a long track record of first-year success in new places. The SEC is rarely gentle with first year coaches. 2011 Florida may be an exception.
2) They have the talent
The roster is still choked with big time players. Weis could transform Brantley into the QB he was touted as coming out of HS. There is a lot of speed and skill on offense, and Weis is probably one of the best offensive minds in the country so he will play the cards he's been dealt. Most importantly, the defense could be downright nasty if the D-line is as advertised coming out of spring ball. If there is one first principle in college football it is this: it is better to have a mediocre offense and a great defense than the other way around.
GEORGIA THE DARK HORSE?
Granted, most of the love Georgia got came earlier in the spring, post-recruiting boon and pre-Trinton Sturdivant injury. But there are still many smart college football people out there that have hinted at a resurgent 2011 for the Dawgs. Personally, I reluctantly say that this banter is probably a product of people believing that CMR has to improve dramatically for obvious reasons, and from the knowledge that he has produced great teams in the past, thus meaning he can do so again. So, these predictions come more from gut-feeling than X's and O's.
If I had to make a prediction, I'd say it's 60-40 that the Dawgs have a breakout year. Not a sure thing, but not a hope and a prayer either. I say that not because we return Murray and Charles. Not because I hope Crowell will be a beast. I say that because I think the defense may surprise people.
The D-line and the linebackers could be dominant. And I don't say that lightly, because Georgia hasn't been dominant at either unit in quite some time. But the pieces are there if they can fit together.
If those two units are as good as they can be, they should protect a weaker secondary than one would like. But that is just where I start to get optimistic. I don't see many teams on our schedule that will try to throw the ball a lot on us.
Boise is more balanced than people think, and they lost their best WR's to the draft.
Spurrier considers running the ball more than passing it to be similar to having a double root canal, but he knows Lattimore is his best player so he will be persuaded to lean on the running game.
Auburn, Tennessee, and especially Ga Tech don't have the players to rely heavily on the passing game.
I only worry about Florida, who will have adopted Weis's pro-style passing offense. But they don't yet have any big time WR's, and if they wisely choose to rely on their speedy playmakers, those players are RBs who I think our fast LBs can matchup with very well.
Don't get me wrong, I'll be the last person to say that I was surprised to see the Dawgs reel off a 10 win season. The talent is there, the coaching is there, the schedule is right, and I think the team is hungry. Some interesting quotes came out of the spring. Talk of addition by subtraction, of being rid of "cancerous" players who either were too lazy or too focused on their draft status. We'll see. If the leaders of the team are truly all in, then this could be a dangerous team come October. But like I said. We'll see.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Georgia Bulldogs in 2011 - Post #9
This post is a response to Andy Staples' current article on SI.com listing his take on the top 20 jobs in college football. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/06/03/best-college-football-jobs/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t12_a2
His top ten goes like this:
1. Texas
2. Ohio State
3. Oklahoma
4. Florida
5. Georgia
6. LSU
7. Alabama
8. Penn State
9. Auburn
10. Oregon
Staples ranked the top 20 not on prestige or legacy alone. He factored in whether a program has to battle other instate rivals for recruits, whether the pressures of the job border on certifiable insanity, and whether a program currently has the resources to produce elite teams year in and year out. I won't pick at the rankings. I just want to react to his decision to place Georgia at #5, ahead of the likes of Bama, LSU, Auburn, and many other fantastic programs.
I have always felt that Georgia is a top 5 job. The program has a storied history, is undeniably the premier program in one of the most talent-rich states in the country, and has a massive yet relatively mature fan base. Sanford Stadium is a football shrine that dominates the campus, sitting right at the intersection of North Campus and South Campus, in a little valley that allows fans to peer down onto the field whether they are standing on the steps next to Park Hall or leaning on the railing of Gillis Bridge (often called Sanford Bridge).
Georgia's athletic department is also one of the richest in the country. This has allowed it to recently upgrade the football facilities to the point of rivaling any other in the country. Also, this war chest will allow the program to go after big name assistants (or head coaches) or through a bunch of money at a superstar coordinator in order to keep him from taking a head coaching job elsewhere. Of course, that would require Georgia to first have a superstar coordinator, which remains to be seen.
I could go on, but this is a good place to ask the pertinent question: If Georgia is a top 5 job, why hasn't Georgia produced more top 5 teams in the recent years?
This is, of course, the million dollar question. I think there are a few reasons ...
1. Georgia's fan base is an anomaly. While robust and dedicated, Georgia fans are a bit more down to earth than those found in Alabama and Louisiana. Georgia fans expect to win, but they do not encircle the head coach's house after a bad loss. They don't relentlessly demand undefeated seasons quite the way other fan bases do. Georgia is an odd great program in the sense that it does not truly have an arch rival whom Georgia must beat each year if the season is to be considered a success. Old Georgia fans consider Georgia Tech to be the rival, but younger Georgia fans don't share this sentiment and the fact that Georgia has dominated the series for the past 10 or 15 years doesn't really help in creating the level of tension that an Auburn-Bama rivalry has. Younger Georgia fans view Florida as the rival, but it isn't the traditional rival (that would be Tech), and the reverse of the Tech rivalry has been in effect as Florida has wholly dominated Georgia for the past 15 to 20 years.
2. It's true that many of the 5 star instate recruits in years past have been cherry-picked by other powerhouse programs. It is also safe to assume that had those players enrolled at Georgia, they would have had some measurable impact. But, Georgia's problem is not that it lets some of the local gems escape, it is player development. Georgia routinely finishes with one of the best classes each year, and yet the fruits of that labor have rarely been made evident on the field. Hopefully, Richt has addressed that over the past two years with firings and hirings. Much maligned DC Willie Martinez was fired and replaced with NFL coach Todd Grantham. Changes have been made in special teams coaching. Offensive line coach Stacy Searels was hired away (thankfully removed from Athens?) by Texas. And the strength & conditioning staff and program has been remade. Entering into 2011, Georgia has the potential to erase the memories of squandered high school talent.
3. Closely related to #1, for too long has Georgia rested on its laurels. The dominant SEC East program of the early 2000s, the aforementioned sensible fan base seemed to be late to sound the alarm bell after signs of trouble reared after the 2008 and 2009 seasons. More so, the coaching staff, and Richt in particular, appeared to let the most destructive cousin of success creep into the program -- complacency. Star players weren't pressed to be leaders. Players (and fans and media alike) talked too much about NFL draft potentialities instead of SEC wins. Bad losses were blown off instead of creating a sense of urgency and eliciting guarantees of redemption and revenge. I've long held that the '08 home loss to Alabama was both a demoralizer and a sign of worse to come. That Georgia team had the talent to win the rest of its games if it only could get pissed off, and show a little back bone. Instead, it would loose two more games. And it wasn't just that they lost two more. Georgia was blown out by Florida and then beaten by Georgia Tech -- its two biggest rivals.
So let us look again at Staples' top 10. Of those 10 teams, only Georgia and Penn State have failed to meet such lofty expectations in recent years. The two programs have commonalities, but more differences when you get down to the details. Paterno will retire as the all-time winningest college football coach. Aside from Johnny Vander Meer's back-to-back no hitters, Paterno's wins record may be the safest in all sports history. Richt has been successful, but Paterno is on the Rushmore of college football head coaches. Furthermore, Penn State and Georgia are like night and day in terms of expectations for each season.
And there in, as the Bard says, lies the rub. Georgia is not alone in the top 10 in terms of underachieving programs, but it has more in common with the other 8 programs than it does with the one other program that it shares this distinction.
His top ten goes like this:
1. Texas
2. Ohio State
3. Oklahoma
4. Florida
5. Georgia
6. LSU
7. Alabama
8. Penn State
9. Auburn
10. Oregon
Staples ranked the top 20 not on prestige or legacy alone. He factored in whether a program has to battle other instate rivals for recruits, whether the pressures of the job border on certifiable insanity, and whether a program currently has the resources to produce elite teams year in and year out. I won't pick at the rankings. I just want to react to his decision to place Georgia at #5, ahead of the likes of Bama, LSU, Auburn, and many other fantastic programs.
I have always felt that Georgia is a top 5 job. The program has a storied history, is undeniably the premier program in one of the most talent-rich states in the country, and has a massive yet relatively mature fan base. Sanford Stadium is a football shrine that dominates the campus, sitting right at the intersection of North Campus and South Campus, in a little valley that allows fans to peer down onto the field whether they are standing on the steps next to Park Hall or leaning on the railing of Gillis Bridge (often called Sanford Bridge).
Georgia's athletic department is also one of the richest in the country. This has allowed it to recently upgrade the football facilities to the point of rivaling any other in the country. Also, this war chest will allow the program to go after big name assistants (or head coaches) or through a bunch of money at a superstar coordinator in order to keep him from taking a head coaching job elsewhere. Of course, that would require Georgia to first have a superstar coordinator, which remains to be seen.
I could go on, but this is a good place to ask the pertinent question: If Georgia is a top 5 job, why hasn't Georgia produced more top 5 teams in the recent years?
This is, of course, the million dollar question. I think there are a few reasons ...
1. Georgia's fan base is an anomaly. While robust and dedicated, Georgia fans are a bit more down to earth than those found in Alabama and Louisiana. Georgia fans expect to win, but they do not encircle the head coach's house after a bad loss. They don't relentlessly demand undefeated seasons quite the way other fan bases do. Georgia is an odd great program in the sense that it does not truly have an arch rival whom Georgia must beat each year if the season is to be considered a success. Old Georgia fans consider Georgia Tech to be the rival, but younger Georgia fans don't share this sentiment and the fact that Georgia has dominated the series for the past 10 or 15 years doesn't really help in creating the level of tension that an Auburn-Bama rivalry has. Younger Georgia fans view Florida as the rival, but it isn't the traditional rival (that would be Tech), and the reverse of the Tech rivalry has been in effect as Florida has wholly dominated Georgia for the past 15 to 20 years.
2. It's true that many of the 5 star instate recruits in years past have been cherry-picked by other powerhouse programs. It is also safe to assume that had those players enrolled at Georgia, they would have had some measurable impact. But, Georgia's problem is not that it lets some of the local gems escape, it is player development. Georgia routinely finishes with one of the best classes each year, and yet the fruits of that labor have rarely been made evident on the field. Hopefully, Richt has addressed that over the past two years with firings and hirings. Much maligned DC Willie Martinez was fired and replaced with NFL coach Todd Grantham. Changes have been made in special teams coaching. Offensive line coach Stacy Searels was hired away (thankfully removed from Athens?) by Texas. And the strength & conditioning staff and program has been remade. Entering into 2011, Georgia has the potential to erase the memories of squandered high school talent.
3. Closely related to #1, for too long has Georgia rested on its laurels. The dominant SEC East program of the early 2000s, the aforementioned sensible fan base seemed to be late to sound the alarm bell after signs of trouble reared after the 2008 and 2009 seasons. More so, the coaching staff, and Richt in particular, appeared to let the most destructive cousin of success creep into the program -- complacency. Star players weren't pressed to be leaders. Players (and fans and media alike) talked too much about NFL draft potentialities instead of SEC wins. Bad losses were blown off instead of creating a sense of urgency and eliciting guarantees of redemption and revenge. I've long held that the '08 home loss to Alabama was both a demoralizer and a sign of worse to come. That Georgia team had the talent to win the rest of its games if it only could get pissed off, and show a little back bone. Instead, it would loose two more games. And it wasn't just that they lost two more. Georgia was blown out by Florida and then beaten by Georgia Tech -- its two biggest rivals.
So let us look again at Staples' top 10. Of those 10 teams, only Georgia and Penn State have failed to meet such lofty expectations in recent years. The two programs have commonalities, but more differences when you get down to the details. Paterno will retire as the all-time winningest college football coach. Aside from Johnny Vander Meer's back-to-back no hitters, Paterno's wins record may be the safest in all sports history. Richt has been successful, but Paterno is on the Rushmore of college football head coaches. Furthermore, Penn State and Georgia are like night and day in terms of expectations for each season.
And there in, as the Bard says, lies the rub. Georgia is not alone in the top 10 in terms of underachieving programs, but it has more in common with the other 8 programs than it does with the one other program that it shares this distinction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)