Bryce Zabel's MOVIE SMACKDOWN!

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) -vs- Mission: Impossible III (2006)

CLASSIC SMACK:  from August 2007...
Listen, Do You Want to Know a Secret?

The Smackdown. A good secret agent can give lift to a film franchise and turn it into a multi-billion dollar industry. We have two inside-the-CIA runs going with "Bourne" and "Mission: Impossible," and both have gone into a third installment in the last year. The latest, "The Bourne Ultimatum," gives us the ending of the Bourne Identity Trilogy and stars Matt Damon in the title role as Jason Bourne. Last year, it was "Mission: Impossible III" or "M:i:III" with Tom Cruise playing the lead character Ethan Hunt. Both take audiences on whirlwind tours of world hotspots where awesome stunts never let you go and intrigue, such as it exists, does so only to serve the action. This all works so long as you care about the person involved in the action. Our question: in the battle to own the CIA franchise who do you trust, Jason Bourne or Ethan Hunt? Which actor is more successful in bringing reality to their character? And which franchise should be coming back for more in the future?

 

The Challenger. This week I saw the Directors Guild screening of "The Bourne Ultimatum" at LA's Pacific Design Center, followed by an hour of Q-and-A with director Paul Greengrass. He talked at length about the challenges of "franchise" films (he also directed "The Bourne Supremacy") and how each one has to deliver more sizzle than the last one. His challenge with "The Bourne Ultimatum," as he analyzed it, is that the films merge an indie sensibility and global flavor with Hollywood sheen. Bourne films are supposed to look and feel real, or at least more real than the always re-inventing itself James Bond franchise. You don't see much CGI in this film, it's real stunts, shot as powerfully as any I've seen. In fact, there's a fight in this film that probably takes two minutes of screen time that is the single best fight I have ever seen and, according to Greengrass, they spent five entire days shooting it. It shows. So, too, does the director's concept that this will not be a movie that stops for character scenes in between action scenes. Every scene (almost) is framed in action. It's exhausting and exhilirating to watch. But there are also times (especially after the film is over and you're walking to your car) where you start to question the logic behind the story -- something you had no time to consider in the slam-bang action you've been watching. One thing the film sets out to do, and accomplishes, is telling the viewers who Jason Bourne really is, and how he got to be who he is.

The Defending Champion. Like the challenger in our Smackdown, "M:i:III" largely exists as a vehicle to string along an audience that has already shelled out many millions of dollars for the first two installments. Even though it may not have been apparent to all viewers, this third film is actually the best of the bunch. The first one was so amazingly opaque about who's doing what and why that I'm convinced it only succeeded because of the ultra-recognizable theme song and the fact that Tom Cruise in a movie promised the audience that money had been spent to make a grand piece of entertainment. Even though it is unevenly handled, "M:i:III" attempts to give the Hunt character some new dimension, showing us who he is when he's off duty, namely a guy who is conning his sweet girlfriend nurse Julia by telling her he's a traffic control engineer. This film puts not only Ethan's friends in jeopardy, but also his woman, something that is hardly heroic, but in the fast-pace of the film almost possible to ignore because it gives him a rock-solid reason to endure any pain and keep on fighting. Hunt, however, never quite knows what he's fighting for -- it's something called the "Rabbit's Foot" and everyone knows it's important -- but it's never really spelled out. Still, director J.J. Abrams puts the pedal to the metal here, spins out non-stop action with lots of special effects, and everything is done to a degree of technical perfection that leaves no complaints.

The Scorecard. Matt Damon has made his portrayal of Jason Bourne his signature role in his career so far. Tom Cruise has done the opposite. He was probably more accepted as Ethan Hunt in the first film but as his real-life persona has zigged and zagged his reality in the films wanes further with each new chapter.

Not that either film is very real at all, but there's no doubt that the gritty, hard-charging "Bourne" films feel more real than the latex-mask gimmick approach of "Mission: Impossible." Feeling real, however, is important to the experience and when you actually compare what you're getting here in a head-to-head fight, Bourne beats Hunt.

The two trilogies we have in the ring together have given themselves much different marching orders. The "Mission: Impossible" films are about giving Ethan Hunt a James Bondian-villain and problem to overcome, and to let him be seen as a super-agent and the only good guy standing between us and world destruction. Like Bond. Bourne, on the other hand, is a guy who's been messed with who's taking it personally. He's not on any mission at all for the Agency, except to kick the asses of the people who've done this to him. The three Bourne movies are all telling the same story with many of the same characters. Hunt, on the other hand, is a brand-new set-up each time.

Moola (2008) -vs- The Amateurs (2007)

Big Dreamers in Small Towns

The Smackdown. Not every film gets exhibited in a movie theater.  And not every film that misses out on that opportunity is bad.  Sometimes they can be good, or funny, or just plain awesome, and still not get into theaters because the economic model for film marketing seems to be risk aversion.  Period.  This means that, sometimes, a DVD of a film you've never heard of but see on a store shelf, whether it be Wal-Mart or Blockbuster, can be a diversion for the night.  It might not suck at all and, because you haven't seen a dozen trailers and been attacked by viral marketing, you might even find it unexpected and surprising.  Enter "Moola" and "The Amateurs" -- two films worth renting you probably haven't heard of -- both about a group of loveable losers who get caught up in unorthodox schemes to make it big and populated by actors you probably actually know.

The Challenger. Yep, that's the creepy "Other" Ethan above on the pink bike in Don Most's "Moola" where actor William Mapother plays Steve, a guy who's about to see a string of hard luck turned around.  He and his loser business partner Harry (Daniel Baldwin) are about to lose their chemical light sticks business to bankruptcy, their marriages are headed south, and then it happens.  "It" is a call from a farmer explaining that he wants to order more Omniglow light sticks because it turns out to be of real practical value in getting cows to get down with bulls.  At least that's what I think the deal is, but it really doesn't matter because the movie is not about bovine sex as much as it is about the deal that must be structured to procure this magic wand.  Before it's over, people have acted like they've got money they don't have, greedy people have cheated and lied, and the whole bit has gotten seriously out of hand.  Disclaimer: I actually cast the director, Don ("Donny") Most, as Timothy Leary on my "Dark Skies" series and as a past-life hypnotist on "The Crow: Stairway to Heaven" but no money has changed hands here and I think we can treat the review as an "arm's length transaction."

The Defending Champion. I've lived through some tough economic times in my entertainment career but I've never thought to myself, "Gee, maybe if I made some hard core adult film, it would make money and turn my life around."  That's exactly what Jeff Bridges' character Andy Sargentee thinks, though, in writer-director Michael Traeger's "The Amateurs."  Andy goes out to recruit his low-brow friends around town to the cause and he turns up some pretty high profile actors in the roles: from Ted Danson and Joe Pantoliano to William Fichtner and Patrick Fugit and even Lauren Graham, Jeanne Tripplehorn and Glenne Headley.  Seriously, this is one hell of a cast for a film that was made in 2005 and still hadn't seen the light of day until recently.  As for tone, you'd have to say that they were going for a very naughty Capra-esque feel and they come pretty damn close most of the time.   

The Scorecard. The star power meter probably pegs closer to "The Amateurs" because of its bigger names, led by a bona-fide feature player like Bridges.  "Moola," though, catches fire whenever Daniel Baldwin is on the screen which is a revelation about his talent but, aside from the relative cult status of William Mapother and Curtis Armstrong, he's the biggest name, too.  Not that this isn't a winning ensemble, it is.  "The Amateurs" has an across-the-board strong cast, too, and also lets William Fichtner inhabit one of the most intriguing characters this great actor has been able to jump into in his career.  Advantage: Close, but "The Amateurs."

Where "Moola" comes storming back, though, is in the sheer craziness of its underlying idea about, basically, cows hooking up, and what big money it could be.  It's so specific that it feels real (and it is, actually, inspired by true events).  In contrast, "The Amateurs" feels like a comedic set-up, a chance to say provocative sexual things (i.e. needing "a half-dozen guys unloading on a gal until she looks like a melted candle") and get more than a few cheap laughs.  "Moola" doesn't have relentless comic force but when it gets a laugh, it's earned it.  The same applies to the characters.  By the time "Moola" wraps it up, we care about these people and when they dance together in celebration, it's just freaking charming.  Part of that is a function of the film taking extra time to set the characters up and get a feel for them so that we are in the same car on their roller-coaster ride. Advantage:  "Moola."

"Moola" also seems to have a real theme which is something to do with our perception of ourselves, self worth, etc.  "The Amateurs" wants us to buy into that, too, but it wants to be about regular guys making a porno even more.

Finally, in the everything is connected world, Don Most who directed "Moola" also played Ralph on "Happy Days" which starred Ron Howard who played Opie on the "Mayberry RFD" series from which "The Amateurs" steals all of its names.  Six Degrees of Richie C., anyone?

Recount (2008) -vs- The Late Shift (1995)

Winners and Losers

The Smackdown. Only HBO had the courage to give us the behind-the-scenes truth about the two greatest contests affecting our civilization in recent memory: the battle to decide the election between George Bush and Al Gore and, perhaps more importantly, the NBC decision about whether Jay Leno or David Letterman would get to host the Tonight Show and, thus, change life as we know it. The question is: if you're just watching these films as films and not metaphors or cautionary tales, which one's the best investment of a couple of hours?

The Challenger. The PR buzz for "Recount" is only just now building on the sides of buses, premiere parties, ET mentions and in interstitial spots on HBO itself. "Recount" came into my life last month, as a TV academy member, in the form of a "For Your Consideration" DVD. I've already written about this millenial political period on the "Instant History" site and remember, vividly, how transfixed we all were for that month of misery in 2000. Now, of course, we have the Clinton/Obama tie to bring us together on cable news channels and we may start to forget how many twists and turns there were in the Florida recount. HBO turned director Jay Roach ("Meet the Parents") loose on the project after Sidney Pollack turned them down, and Roach has done a fine job here making us re-live the headlines. I remember most vividly that the entire campaign was a debate about what to do with a budget surplus that disappeared after 9/11 never to be seen again and that both Gore and Bush were universally loathed by the electorate, accounting for their dead heat as much as the blue state-red state divide.

 

The Defending Champion. Back in the day, Johnny Carson ruled late night until he decided to quit in 1992, and then all hell broke loose as NBC managed to publicly court and humiliate the two princes who would be king: David Letterman and Jay Leno. The smoke eventually cleared in Leno's favor but the story behind the story became a book by Bill Carter that skewered all the characters involved for being true-to-life Hollywood sharks. As directed by Betty Thomas ("The Brady Bunch Movie"), this film stirred up all kinds of "inside baseball" controversy for HBO -- from its portrayals of Leno (Daniel Roebuck) and Letterman (John Michael Higgins) themselves to Leno's insane manager Helen Kushnick (Kathy Bates) and Letterman's insane agent (Michael Ovitz). This movie amused me a lot because I actually knew some of the players -- I'd been at Ovitz's agency CAA for a few years earlier in my career, I did a TV series with NBC's Warren Littlefield (Bob Balaban), and my son, Jonathan, had actually been a child actor portraying young Jay Leno on the Tonight Show for eight or nine appearances.

The Scorecard. Political junkies will love "Recount" in the same way that TV junkies loved "The Late Shift." They are insider pieces with real people being portrayed by some familiar actors. Tom Wilkinson, for example, does a killer James Baker and Laura Dern turns in a loopy Katerine Harris in "Recount."  Bob Balaban's in both films, but he was best in "The Late Shift."

The thing is, we already know how both films turn out. We know that Bush wins in the Supreme Court and goes on to invade Iraq while Gore grows a beard and re-discovers global warming. We also know that Leno gets the NBC gig while Letterman goes to CBS but gets the last laugh because he gets to watch from the sidelines as NBC does it again and publicly elbows Leno out for Conan O'Brien. In any case, though, since we know the endings, our enjoyment has to be all about the ride.

The ride feels less bumpy in "Recount" because the material is more important and is not 100% dependent on that HBO ironic tone in order to succeed. Sometimes it can just settle for telling its story. But the subject matter in "The Late Shift" seems smaller and therefore less compelling. This means it better be funny. It is, but only in fits and starts.

Funny, of course, is in the Eye of the Beholder and if you think you'd like to see Roeback in a latext chin playing Leno or Higgins with a gap-toothed denture playing Letterman, then you're in for a treat. If not, you will spend the film eyeing them the same way you look at formerly hot women with too much plastic surgery. They look mostly right, but something is at least a frame off. To the best of my knowledge, none of the actors in "Recount" are prosthetically enhanced.

"The Late Shift" actually has a few scenes with Dave and Jay together which should have been great, but fall flat. "Recount," on the other hand, has Denis Leary and I'm one of those viewers who can't get enough of this guy's peformances. He and Kevin Spacey share a lot of scenes together, but this is not Spacey's strongest performance. It feels like he method-actored his way into a study of the real guy he's portraying who must be very low-energy but the performance is a mistake.

Another oddball comparison here is that most viewers will watch these films thinking that the wrong guy won. By now, Gore's star has long-eclipsed Bush's with all but the most partisan crowds. At the same time, Johnny Carson always said he'd have picked Letterman if given the chance and it was Letterman's boyhood dream to host "The Tonight Show."

Imagine an America where President Gore fought global warming instead of Iraqi insurgents and "The Tonight Show with David Letterman" ruled the late shift. Dream on...

Iron Man (2008) -vs- Batman Begins (2005)

Self-Made Heroes

The Smackdown.  It's been a dark time for comic book movies since Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins" and Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns."  Over the past two years, "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer," "X-Men: The Last Stand," and "Spider-Man 3" raised red flags with audiences and critics alike: is the comic book movie Golden Age finally imploding upon itself?  If Marvel Studios, Marvel Comics newly-launched production company, has an answer, it's "NO!"  Jon Favreau's "Iron Man" marks Marvel Studios first independently-owned production (distributed by Paramount).  It follows the high-tech adventures of billionaire Tony Stark, as he soars into the world as the red and gold avenger, Iron Man.  Amongst us comic book nerds, when we're not debating if Wolverine could take Superman, a frequent discussions is how Iron Man is Marvel's Batman.  So in honor of us comic nerds' long-standing debates, we'll see how Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins" stands against the high-flying, repulsor-blasting "Iron Man."

The Challenger.  Meet Tony Stark: womanizer, billionaire, alcoholic, genius.  A child prodigy, Tony Stark is responsible for the world's most deadly military weapons, developing and funding his inventions via Stark Industries.  Robert Downey Jr. plays our hero, a self-absorbed braggart who suffers a mid-life crisis after being abducted by Middle East terrorists and barely escaping with his life.  Determined to make a difference in this dangerous world he's help create, Downey's Stark takes to building a suit capable of mitigating the disasters in the world.  Surprisingly funny and well-acted, but also with its serious moments, "Iron Man" is a testament to movie audiences that comic book movies are not dying.  Jon Favreau's sharp direction and Downey's well-thought acting clearly form the backbone of this avenger's journey, an adventure that sometimes suffers from clunky pacing and unsure character moments.

The Defending Champion.  As a movie icon, Batman was all but dead following Joel Schumacher's nipple-clad, hyper-colored "Batman & Robin."  Somehow, Christopher Nolan relaunched this franchise by tossing aside the previous films and starting from scratch.  And when we say scratch, we mean scratch -- a young, vengeful Bruce Wayne wandering the world, lost in his own misery.  There is no Batman.  Nolan's psychological action-thriller traces Wayne's journey in becoming the legendary Dark Knight, and his first attempt to defeat a overzealous terrorist mastermind who shares Batman's hate of corruption but wishes to eradicate it using genocide.  Complex and a tad heavy-handed, "Batman Begins" captivates audiences with great casting, amazing action set pieces, and a darker tone that encourages a contemplative movie-going experience.

The Scorecard.  Believe it or not, this is actually a hard one.  As comic book adaptations go, "Iron Man" is perhaps the most faithful comic book adaptation ever made.  Favreau's attention to the Iron Man mythos is impressive -- from Tony's technological prowess, his building of the suit, his arrival as Iron Man.  You actually feel like you're watching a comic book on film. But faithful adapting does not alone make a superior film.

While "Batman Begins" makes significant alterations to the mythos, its exploration of Bruce Wayne's psyche is more well-rounded and fulfilling.  This is due to the simple choice of what the audience gets to see on screen.  In "Iron Man," Tony Stark suffers at the hand of his kidnappers and then returns to the United States, and announces that he's shutting down Stark Industries' weapon developing sections.  This announcement, occurring at a press conference, is just as much a surprise to the press as it is to the audience -- who really hasn't been prepared for this selfish egomaniac's massive character shift.  On the other hand, Bruce Wayne is already yearning for a change in his life and the audience watches discovering the morality and the philosophy of his mission.  We see it develop, unlike Tony Stark's sudden "weapons are bad and must be stopped."

In "Batman Begins," Bruce Wayne's mental and physical transformation occur on screen and pay off thematically with the film's end -- which has Bruce facing a villain whose goals are similar, but whose means are much more extreme.  This symmetry is lacking when Tony Stark goes up against the film's villain, a stereotypical corrupt businessman who just feels like the obligatory third-act challenger.  That, and the excessive use of one-liners during the film's overly bombastic climax, steals some of the class and sophistication that "Iron Man"'s first two acts mastered so well. 

Also, Nolan seemed to have a better handle on the development of the hero's arsenal.  Favreau nearly copies it, and it feels as such.  We spend nearly a half-hour watching Stark build things . . . and it's really not all that interesting.  As Bruce Wayne builds his arsenal, he struggles with forming allies, reclaiming a lost love interest, and deciding the morality of his quest.  For Stark, he's dealing with a talking computer who makes sarcastic quips back to him.  One of the thing that both these films have going for them are their action sequences, with "Iron Man" being the clear superior in terms of orchestrated action set-pieces in terms of just choreography and special effects.

For Our New Readers from American Movie Classics

We sure do appreciate the fact that AMC has made us the "Site of the Week." With all the new eyeballs checking us out, we offer up this retrospective of last year's Oscar nominees and what treatment they got at the hands of our critics. In a lot of ways, the Oscars and other awards shows are really the Ultimate Smackdown, although a little cluttered for our tastes, given our preference for mano-a-mano film-on-film violence. Just click on the link above each picture to read the full-on Smack...

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN -vs- FARGO

Review by Mark Sanchez

THERE WILL BE BLOOD -vs- GANGS OF NEW YORK

Review by Mark Sanchez

MICHAEL CLAYTON -vs- THE RAINMAKER

Review by Randal Cohen

JUNO -vs- KNOCKED UP

Review by Sloane Hayes Skala

ATONEMENT -vs- THE KITE RUNNER

Review by Bryce Zabel

Thanks for dropping by... Remember your comments are always welcome!

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008) - vs- The Passion of the Christ (2004)

The Passion of the Critic or the Critic of the Passion?

The Smackdown. A few years ago, as the story has been passed down to believers, a great prophet named Gibson  proved that religion was not poison at the box office.  Gibson begat Stein who walked in the sandals of Moore into the desert determined to prove that Gibson's Law would apply to Documentaries.  Half-baked metaphors aside, clearly the King of all (movie) Kings is Mel Gibson's "The Passion Of The Christ."  While this enormously successful film was as much a cultural and theological phenomena as a cinematic one, there's no question it struck a responsive chord with millions of Christians worldwide.  Now, four years later, there is another movie that has deep religious undertones and a swirl of controversy surrounding it -- Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."  Can prophet Stein match prophet Gibson when it comes to turning the Meek loose on the Earth?  Will "Intelligence" trump "Passion?" 

The Challenger. This movie follows Ben Stein as he seeks to determine whether religious-based Intelligent Design is a pseudo-science trying to undermine evolutionary biology or whether it is legitimate science being suppressed by a scientific establishment that is hostile to any deviation from the status quo.  Good question, but as they say in Hollywood, it's all about the execution.  Stein is a former White House speechwriter under the Nixon Administration, probably better known for his droll wit on "Win Ben Stein's Money."  First-time director, Nathan Frankowski, works with two neophyte screenwriters with only one previous credit between them, Kevin Miller and Walt Rulof, and, of course, Stein as the religious right Michael Moore.  Maybe the film should have been called, "No Experience Allowed."  Anyway, there are a few head-scratchers in this film, probably topped out by the time Stein and his camera crew visit Hitler's concentration camps and ill-advisedly correlate Darwinism to Fascism and Nazi Germany.  As long as I'm giving advice on film marketing, maybe they could try "Stein Kampf" for the DVD release.  Give him credit, he certainly doesn't pull any punches when it comes to being vitriolic -- even the most stalwart Bible-belt Baptist may find this analogy harder to swallow than Jonah.

The Defending Champion.  Remember the old Spaghetti Westerns of the 1960s?  Mel Gibson certainly does, based on this religious opus which could have been titled "A Fistful of Floggings."  (Note to Distributors: My re-titling services are available at a reasonable fee.)  As the lead, James Caviezel certainly has the right physical look and the emotional intensity to take on a seemingly never-ending series of horrific flailings and beatings.  This is a hard film to watch, seeing anybody (but especially Jesus) endure this kind of on-screen cruelty.  Still, there is no dispute that it made "The Passion Of The Christ" a powerful movie-going experience for millions and millions worldwide.  This, despite a screenplay by Benedict Fitzgerald and Mel Gibson himself that arguably has no plot, no plot points and no character arcs.  As a result, there's not all that much you can hang your shroud on.  Still, there's no denying that "Passion" succeeded despite a bevy of filmmaking flaws -- sometimes such details as cheesy sets, a cartoon-like moon in the opening scene (think a Basil Rathbone film) and Jesus sporting a silver filling on his right molar simply don't matter.  Talk about a "miracle."

The Scorecard.  When it comes to commercial success and box office results, the scorecard is not yet determined, although betting on Mr. Ed to win the Kentucky Derby would have better odds than to believe "Expelled" will come anywhere close to approaching the numbers run up by "Passion."  Both films, at least in this reviewer's opinion, are flawed due to a wide variety of production issues that, quite frankly, are more than appalling.

Having said this, Herr Stein has certainly been beyond bold in presenting his case on behalf of Intelligent Design.  In addition, his film has a far more complex subject matter so he deserves extra consideration.

The climax of "Expelled," for example, features Stein going head-to-head with Richard Dawkins, a renowned atheist and author. It really doesn't matter which side you're on, both of these guys are undeniably intelligent, and it raises issues.  By the way, this film doesn't spend that much time focused on the details of the debate between evolutionists and creationists.  Instead it really focuses on it key thesis that the debate itself and its proponents have been ignored or pushed out of classrooms and academia.  In a country that still believes in the First Amendment, this is at least something worth thinking about, even if you think the other side has their head in an anatomically incorrect place.

Smart People (2008) -vs- Wonder Boys (2000)

The Awful Plight of Pittsburg College Professors

The Smackdown. Why is it that actors who have made a decent living as leading men want to take roles where they look like crap, struggle with books in serious need of editing and, worse, have to live in Pittsburg? I mean no offense to the place, mind you, although they did support Clinton in that recent political Smackdown, but I digress... the point is that the movies that Dennis Quaid and Michael Douglas chose for their post-hunk lives want us to believe that they're really smart guys who, basically, can't quite seem to dress themselves after their wives have gone. My wife is still sticking with me so far but I think maybe, after seeing these movies, she's just worried that if she leaves I'll trash her reputation with my fashion choices.

The Challenger. "Smart People" gives us Dennis Quaid as a really grumpy professor who, after the death of his wife (yes, that again) is trying not-so-successfully to hold his family together. He plays Lawrence Wetherhold who specializes in Victorian literature and being a pretentious, arrogant and pompous pain-in-the-ass -- and he's very good at that, I should say. Fortunately, Quaid is surrounded by a great ensemble of actors that includes Thomas Haden Church, Sarah Jessica Parker and Ellen Page. All of them play seriously messed up people, too, but only Church pulls it off spectacularly. His stoner "adopted" brother is so damn funny without trying -- it's his best role since "Sideways."  The plot, such as it is, moves erratically along a path that is not very surprising -- Quaid's Wetherhold will try to get over his lost wife, his kids will be damaged and say mean things to him and each other, the loser brother will prove invaluable, and the girl who can't possibly replace the wife, naturally, will.

The Defending Champion. You have to hand it to Michael Douglas for having the guts to play Grady Trip in "Wonder Boys." After a series of movies where he was actually reported to have a 28-inch waist, Douglas shows off his shabby side here and actually is seen more than once in a fuzzy pink woman's bathrobe. Now that's acting! This film was based on a book by Michael Chabon (great) and was adapted by Steve Kloves and directed by Curtis Hanson coming off "L.A. Confidential." It's a shambling affair that moves in surprising ways, never quite letting you know what's going to happen next. Another great set of actors pass through this film: notably, Robert Downey Jr., Tobey Maguire, Frances McDormand and, even, Mrs. Tom Cruise. The plot involves a long-overdue novel, the accidental murder of a dog, a gay book agent who preys on transexuals or college boys with equal abandon, and all the insecurities of writing and trying to live up to people's expectations.

The Scorecard. The first five minutes of "Smart People" rank as among the worst first five minutes of any movie I've seen in years. Every character seems lame and hateful. It was so bad that my wife bolted from the theater and sat this one out and snuck into "Baby Mama" across the cineplex. Dennis Quaid's character is such an a-hole in so many ways that my wife's despair was completely reasonable. If I didn't have this Smackdown in the back of my mind, I'd probably have joined her. The film, although predictable, does rally as it continues and even though it doesn't surprise, on more than a few levels it still manages to satisfy, sorta.

Both "Wonder Boys" and "Smart People" have marijuana scenes in them and the way they are handled tells you a lot about the tone of the two films. In "Smart People," Church's character gets his 17-year-old niece played by Page stoned. Nothing much comes of it, except that it is shorthand for his "let it roll" persona and allows her "Young Republican" to relax a little. We've seen it before in dozens of films. In "Wonder Boys," however, Michael Douglas's Grady Trip actually has a marijuana problem. He's getting high all the time, using it to hide from truths that need to be faced, and it's interfering with his life. It means something beside a quick smile.

Another thing that both films have in common are performances by the supporting actors that steal the oxygen from the scenes they're in. Church's stoner and Downy's gay lech both compel your attention every time they are on screen.

Yes, both films are strongly acted to be sure. Still, praising a film because it has good actors is a little like praising a film because it has good cinematography. It's important and powerful if the film justifies it, but good emoting and pretty pictures have to happen in the service of a greater cause to really mean something.

Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (2008) -vs- Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (2004)

The Search for the Perfect Buzz

The Smackdown. Every generation needs its stoner buddy comedy where the plot is more smoke than fire. The sixties gave us Cheech and Chong and now we've got another multi-cultural duo looking for some killer weed and trippin' good fun with Harold and Kumar. Back in 2004 when John Kerry was getting swiftboated, Harold and Kumar Go to the White Castle gave us our updated comedy of stoners in search of burgers and sex. Since then, as the Bush administration has wheezed its way to its endgame, that first H&K film found a specialized audience and a welcome home in many DVD collections. Now, the sequel -- Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay -- picks up where White Castle left off and shows up just in time to give the comic finger to hard-ass security types and terrorists in orange jump suits. Does Guantanamo Bay build on the loopy charm of White Castle, or is it just blowing smoke?

The Challenger. Escape from Guanatamo Bay picks up where Go to White Castle leaves off, although it's hardly crucial knowing that. Harold (John Cho) thinks he has a chance with Maria (Paula Garces) from his apartment building, only she's leaving for Amsterdam for ten days. He decides to find Maria there and Kumar (Kal Penn) tags along because marijuana is legal in the Netherlands. Strong premise, huh?

The road to love (or a good high, apparently) is never direct, and certainly not for Harold or Kumar. In the airport we meet Kumar's old flame Vanessa (Danneel Harris) headed to Texas and her oily fiance with White House connections, Colton (Eric Winter). The flight to Amsterdam is turned back after Kumar's fumbling attempt to light a bong on board has them sent to Guantanamo Bay as suspected terrorists. H & K escape and from this point on the rain of potty language, potty humor and stereotyping comes down heavy. They enlist unlikely allies in their quest to clear their names. One pal in Florida offers a view of full frontal nudity that will make you think "Osama Bin Laden." Neil Patrick Harris appears for no reason  --  as he did in White Castle  --  to inch the plot forward. Harold and Kumar wind up in Texas, where a different George W. Bush steps up to help. More information than this will spoil your appreciation, if that's possible. Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg wrote and directed.

The Defending Champion. White Castle introduces us to Harold, Kumar and their vacation from convention. Harold works in financial services, Kumar half-heartedly aims for medical school. Both prefer getting high and that's what happens. Now they have the munchies and only White Castle burgers will satisfy. During their wrong way road trip Harold and Kumar encounter  punks, racist cops, religious sex freaks, an enraged raccoon and Neil Patrick Harris. Harold and Kumar reach their goal, but in view of the abuse and toilet humor they witness it's hard to imagine they still had an appetite. Danny Leiner directed Hurwitz and Schlossberg's script. Watching it the first time, thinking about its lineage to Cheech and Chong, you have to wonder about when special interest groups call for more diversity in acting roles in Hollywood films, is this really what they were thinking of?

The Scorecard. This is not Masterpiece Theatre and both movies would be easy to dismiss if not for Harold and Kumar's chemistry and quirky humanity. Socially they are miles beyond Cheech and Chong, but not so far ahead we lose track. H & K question the lives they've laid out and challenge the cruelty and intolerance they see in the convenience store and station house. Harold loves Maria and Kumar loves something other than sensemilla. Cho and Penn are well suited and several familiar faces are effective in minor roles (Christopher Meloni in White Castle; Beverly D'Angelo and Rob Corddry in Guantanamo Bay; Neil Patrick Harris in both).

There are distinct differences. White Castle has stronger production values and comic pacing, although Guantanamo Bay takes some mild pokes at homeland security and President Bush. If you were not kindly disposed to Harold & Kumar's first adventure, the second one won't change your mind.

Does one entry emerge from the smoke? Yup.

Primary Colors (1998) -vs- The Candidate (1972)

Absolute Politics Corrupts Absolutely

The Smackdown. With history being made in the Obama-Clinton battle, it seems right to take a glance in the rear-view mirror of our campaign bus and check out two classic election films. "The Candidate" really established the genre 35 years ago, giving us Robert Redford at the height of his charismatic on-screen presence as a JFK-like California senatorial candidate who wants to run on issues but ends up running on great hair and piercing eyes. A quarter of a century later, we got "Primary Colors" with John Travolta standing in for that horny guy who couldn't keep it zipped on the campaign trail or in the Oval Office. So those are the two nominees on our ballot. Let's see who's got the goods to win this cinematic election -- Redford/Kennedy or Travolta/Clinton.

The Challenger. The film comes from quite a pedigree: political writer Joe Klein wrote the book (originally as "Anonymous"), and the film was written by Elaine May and directed by Mike Nichols. Everything inside is paper-thin disguised as being about the 1992 Clinton campaign for the White House. John Travolta's Jack Stanton loves politics just like the real character he's based on and really cares about people, some of them so much he can't resist having sex with them. The reason to watch the film today, of course, is for insight into the Hillary character, Susan Stanton, as played by Emma Thompson (if you can get past how her repression of her British accent seems to give her Susan a sort of non-American blandness). Travolta's impression of our former president is a little too slow and scratchy and never quite nails down this character as someone who could win the presidency despite some huge errors in personal judgment. There's a great moment when Susan Stanton up and slaps the hell out of her husband's face after his latest infidelity: it's surprising and it's what you would hope Hill actually did to Bill at some point. However, this is a film that doesn't actually pick sides: Clinton haters will see it as proof that Bill was barely a moral level above pond scum, and Clinton lovers will see it as proof of his humanity, however flawed and imperfect.

The Incumbent. If our challenger film is about a candidate who loves politics too much, our champion -- "The Candidate" -- is about a candidate who doesn't love it enough, or even at all. Redford plays Bill McKay as a liberal lawyer fighting local battles for civil rights and environmental protection who is drafted into running a hopeless campaign, told he can say what he wants as a result and then starts to get close enough to victory to feel the need to compromise on his ideals. It illustrates the Catch-22 we have often put on American politics: namely, if a candidate wants to win, he must be suspect, and the best man has to lose or he can't be the best man after all. Written by Jeremy Larner and directed by Michael Ritchie, "The Candidate" isn't quite a comedy and it isn't quite a drama and, despite earlier admonitions that films aren't the way to send messages, this film is all about its message. It wants the audience to come away knowing that politics is a bad business that isn't really about governing at all, doesn't focus the issues but sands them down, and the system is so corrupt that the only way a good man or woman can prevail is to become corrupt and play the game. The deck is stacked at every juncture, but the details are beautifully realized and often subtle, throwing away the pay-off rather than ramming it home.

The Debate. The truth is that both these films have been bested by an independent candidate in this election. TV's "The West Wing" is superior to both in terms of laying out the mechanics of a modern political campaign and the show's final season pitting Alan Alda against Jimmy Smits was a great piece of film on an even larger and more complete canvas than either of our two main nominees.

First of all, "The West Wing" actually let its candidates talk about real issues with real answers. Both "Primary Colors" and "The Candidate" stage some of the most banal excuses for televised debates you'll ever see and, I'm not kidding, they actually make the latest round of Democratic and Republican debates look like sharp-edged battles over the issues.

It's also easy to argue that neither Travolta or Redford would ever have actually been elected as the characters they portray. Travolta is too phony and Redford is too removed. Even so, Redford's is the stronger performance. He feels real, within the context of his film, and Travolta feels like the caricature that he is and I didn't believe for a second that real voters would ever have supported him as portrayed.

On the other hand, there are wonderful performances in both films in supporting roles.  Peter Boyle is wonderful as the campaign manager in "The Candidate." Billy Bob Thornton steals every scene he's in as the James Carville political guru in "Primary Colors."

By the way, Stanton isn't the only cheater -- McKay also nails a young campaign worker out on the trail. With him, though, it looks like a one-time mistake and with Stanton it's obviously a bad habit he can't break.

Leatherheads (2008) -vs- A League of Their Own (1992)

For Love of the Game

The Smackdown. Here's your formula. Throw in some Americana about major league sports in times of transition, give us some