Bryce Zabel's MOVIE SMACKDOWN!

Saving Private Ryan (1998) -vs- The Thin Red Line (1998)

The Smackdown. War is hell. And until Steven Spielberg got involved, we'd never really experienced war through the eyes of a soldier. We'd come close, with filmmakers as diverse as Coppola and Oliver Stone all giving us their interpretations, but it always seemed to be at a safe distance.  The viewer was taken on a journey, but not our own journey. Unlike Ron Kovic or Ben Willard, who undertake a journey for us, Spielberg attempted to give us our own experience in war without having to leave the cinema. "Saving Private Ryan," which graphically shows us the D-Day landings of a group of US forces in 1944, opens with an assault on the senses unlike any we'd ever seen. It thrust us into the heat of battle, the confusion and carnage of an assault that beggars description. It wanted us to know exactly what war is really like. 

At the same time, at a different film studio, a reclusive film director had also embarked upon a journey to show us the inhumanity and insanity of war. Terrence Malick, who had disappeared from the Hollywood radar for the better part of two decades in a self-imposed exile, had returned with a lengthy, languid exploration of the mental anguish of fighting the war in the Pacific, the other major theater of World War II. Gathering some of the cream of Hollywood talent and star wattage, Malick constructed a story of broken hearts, hope and devastation, the jungles of the Pacific cast as a beautiful backdrop to some of mankind's darkest moments. With "The Thin Red Line," Sean Penn and James Caviezel lead a massively talented cast into battle, told in a style that is so completely different to Spielberg's more grimy effort, so ensuring that we experience both styles of film-making to endure the horrors of war. 

Two mighty juggernauts of cinema, lined up head to head. Both set during WWII, both featuring a large cast of known names, all vying for screen-time, all with a story to tell. This Smackdown will be a brutal, casualty ridden affair that will leave only the bravest, the strongest standing. Soldiers, open fire!!!

Mad Men (2009-2007) -vs- Revolutionary Road (2008)

 Trouble in Paradise 

The Smackdown. In the age of instant communication, instant gratification looking back 50 years seems like a trip in the way-back machine. Many of us remember this as the time our parents scrambled to attain a level of security described by the catchall American Dream.

We tie this period before the Cuban Missile Crisis to hula hoops, fallout shelters, drive-in movies, TV dinners and American Bandstand. This was a time when people in the background --mostly men-- worked overtime branding these cultural signposts as passports to the good life. This period matters. It directed the shape of many of our lives.

Against that backdrop, "Mad Men" began a low-key run on cable's AMC channel. The program caught fire and soon begins a third season. The ensemble drama is set in a fictional New York advertising agency, Sterling Cooper and follows hotshot Don Draper (Jon Hamm) in and out of the office. Along the way, dramas play out in a time capsule where the look of that material world and the attitudes of the time strike a consistent, convincing note. Even better dramatically, all is not right in this artificial paradise. So far, "M-M" has pulled in six Emmys, three Golden Globes plus a BAFTA award and the critical run may not be over.

Director Sam Mendes visited this creative neighborhood in 2008's "Revolutionary Road," just out on DVD and Blu-ray. Featuring his real-life wife, Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio breathe discomforting life into Richard Yates' 1961 novel. Both look right in the environment. They have problems, and it's not a giant leap in logic to imagine the DiCaprio and Hamm characters running into each other at the train station.

Good drama plays well on large screen and small and this Smackdown! will focus on the smaller elements that advance the story: Which project evokes the stronger sense of historical authenticity and anxiety in this big apple to big apple comparison?

The Soloist (2009) -vs- Shine (1996)

 Soundtrack of the Heart 

The Smackdown. Better late than never. Recession or no, it's still a little surprising "The Soloist" reached the cineplex at all, five months after its original release date. The story is simple and focuses on human grace. Even with A-List talent on board - Robert Downey, Jr. and Jamie Foxx - it's a risky bet. It contains none of the noise, contrived violence or costumed characters the studios factor into many releases.

"The Soloist" tells a story about extraordinary gifts connected to a very compromised life. If this sounds like something straight from the headlines, it should. LA Times columnist Steve Lopez wrote about a man who changed his life, first encountered in a skid row plaza near a statue of Beethoven.

 

What follows is complicated like any messy life, and it will have you wondering: Haven't I seen something like this already?

Yes. You have. Director Scott Hicks brought us "Shine" in 1996, earning Geoffrey Rush a Best Actor Oscar in a well-made, well-regarded film that touched many of the elements now reworked by "The Soloist." 

Both stories tell us about real people who inspire and piss off their friends in roughly equal measure. Both will open the eyes and heart. Does one create a more indelible portrait of dignity among people who are only too human? That's our Smackdown.

Sunshine (2007) -vs- 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

 One Way Tickets to the Stars 

The Smackdown. Exactly how crazy can you go during a long space journey -- as you begin to realize you probably won't surivive, or maybe just that the rules have changed so much, nothing you knew before really mattered? Before director Danny Boyle took home an armload of awards (including the Oscars) for "Slumdog Millionaire," he placed "Sunshine" into the space zeitgeist, cocky enough to weather comparison to the One True Champion, namely, "2001: A Space Odyssey." Let's get one thing out of the way right now  -- "2001: A Space Odyssey" is a true film classic,it deserves its praise, and it deserves to be seen in any good film school program. If you haven't seen it, you should. But it does not have a lock on this decision. It's almost forty years old now, much has changed: in the world, in filmmaking techniques, in the reality of spaceflight. At this point in time then, in 2009, looking back on the efforts of 2007 and 1968, which is the better space journey film? Which one will truly blow your mind, be beautiful to look at, and feel important?

The Challenger. The same team behind "28 Days Later" -- writer Alex Garland and director Danny Boyle -- want you to believe that, this time, instead of a zombie infestation, the sun is actually dying about four-billion years before we thought it might. The kick is that, as in their earlier collaboration, for the most part they actually make you believe it. "Sunshine" tells the story of an eight-person astronaut crew speeding toward our sun in a small space-ship attached to a Very Large Bomb. The idea is to fire the bomb into the sun, jump-starting it back to health. Have I mentioned that this is probably a suicide mission? Yeah. And let's not miss the irony here. While we're holding world-wide consciousness raising concerts to battle global warming, the Earth in this film is freezing... fast.

Beau Goes Batty: The Oscars Blew It!

Let me be clear. "The Dark Knight" was shafted. There. It's out. I'm biased. I'm all bat-mania. Whew! I said it...but damn, I'm still really aggravated. I sort of feel like the dodgeball captain during team selection, when you've got to pick from the last four people left. That's what the 81st Academy Awards Best Picture Nominees are: finding the cyclops among the blind because, hey, one eye's better than none.

But let's back up and look at some other categories and how they should go down. I think it's clear who commands the gold for Leading Actor:  Sean Penn. His turn as Harvey Milk is amazing, compelling, convincing, and it lacks the "hey, look at me coming back or being a star" shenanigans of Mickey Rourke or Brad Pitt's stone-faced Button who spends a tedious three hours channeling some rather mild indifference. Frank Langella did good as Nixon. He gets a deserved nod--but come on...it's Richard Nixon.

Actor in a Supporting Role.  Heath Ledger.  That's all.  If you need me to actually list the reasons outside of his untimely death, you probably wouldn't have the mental facilities to understand anything past a two syllable word and my efforts would be in vain.  Just go watch "The Dark Knight."