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?

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.