Bryce Zabel's MOVIE SMACKDOWN!

Quantum of Solace (2008) -vs- Casino Royale (2006)

The Smackdown.  It's the longest running movie franchise in the history of the world.  In total, it has grossed billions worldwide, surpassing perhaps the gross domestic product of many small nations.  In 1964, James Bond skulked from the hard-boiled cynicism of Ian Fleming's novels onto the Silver Screen, introducing the world to their Favorite Super Spy.  Yet time was unkind to the Bond franchise, and the films descended into stale parodies of themselves, straying further from not only Sean Connery's iconic debut but also the fascinating, amoral spy of Fleming's novels.  Then came "Casino Royale" and Daniel Craig.  With Daniel Craig, Bond found his relevance again, and his heart.  Today, facing high expectations in the wake of "Casino Royale", "Quantum of Solace" has stirred up violent controversy as to its quality against "Casino Royale."  Today, we let the newest Bond go up against the last Bond, trying to put what has become something of a media field day to rest.

The Challenger.  "Quantum of Solace" arrives under the direction of Mark Forster, scripted by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade and Paul Haggis.  The movie is a somber epilogue to "Casino Royale", with a betrayed and bitter Bond viciously hunting the mysterious organization behind his former lover's demise. Bond is largely unforgiving, a force that is at times both brutal and surgical.  As he nears the organization (named Quantum), Bond finds himself in the middle of a South American coup de tat, underscored by an oddly realistic attempt to horde the world's water supply.  Incorporating elegance and taste with the typical tropes of Bond, "Quantum of Solace" is a lean--if somewhat too short--depiction of a Bond that finds a cold place for Double-O Seven in the modern world.

Spy Smackdown: Bond -vs- Bond

Editor's Note:  Before "Quantum of Solace" finally hit the theaters, we asked two of our critics -- Beau DeMayo and Stephen Bell -- to go into Total Bond Immersion.  After all, there have been six Bonds (yes, six!) in this film franchise history.  The mission given to Beau and Stephen was to decide who really does (or did) do it better.  To level the playing field, they've taken these half-dozen Bonds back to their first missions.  That's the Smack: who did it better the first time around? 

The Smackdown.  (Beau DeMayo & Stephen Bell)  It's a name that has ignited decades of debate.  A name spanning generations.  A name that carries with it danger, sex, and a billion-dollar franchise.  And, no, we're not talking about James T. Kirk.  The name we have in mind: "Bond, James Bond."  Whenever another actor assumes the role of the world's greatest spy, the question is asked -- who is the best?  

Dr. No.  Sean Connery is often presumed to be the best James Bond.  It helps that he is also the first actor who received the chance to define the character for audiences, and carries with him a certain nostalgia.  In Dr. No, Connery's Bond investigates the death of a fellow MI-6 agent.  Along the way, he meets the very first Bond girl, fights a mechanical dragon, and squares off against the steel-wristed Julius No and his army of candy-colored bubble soldiers (seriously).  Despite its more fantastical elements, Dr. No's pulpy hard-boiled feel and Connery's dry, hyper-sexualized Bond set the standard for what would become cinema's longest and most profitable franchise.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service.  Who is George Lazenby?  A common question.  Faced with the daunting task of filling in Connery's polished loafers, Lazenby finds a lucky comfort in what is essentially a new take on the Bond Connery had established over his first five films.  In OHMSS, Lazenby's Bond abandons the pulp and fantasy of previous films and focuses instead on a misogynist spy who finds himself capable of settling down -- albeit with a crime lord's daughter.  However, all is not love and Louis Armstrong for Lazenby's layman Bond as arch-nemesis Blofeld returns with an army of hypnotized sex kittens, manipulated into unknowingly wrecking the world's economy.  The film has the touch of a serious filmmaker, whose gorgeous cinematography and sharp editing highlights what is essentially the Winter Olympics of Bond films.

Live and Let Die.  A gentle, slightly-aged Bond, Roger Moore brings a certain bored charm, a detached sense of superiority, to Double-O Seven's repertoire.  Highly groomed and witty, Moore's Bond debuts in a plot similar to Connery's debut: Double-O Seven investigates the mysterious murders of fellow MI-6 agents.  Ambling through a disjointed and campy plot, Moore matches wits with Mr. Big and his alarmingly-stereotyped army of superstitious black men dedicated to monopolizing America's drug trade.  Moore also gets a chance to court a tarot-card-wielding Jane Seymour, whom Stephen refers to as, "a super, super sexy young Dr. Quinn."  Who knew?  Apparently, she did.  She can read the future.

The Living Daylights.  By the end of Moore's run, Bond had swapped his License to Kill for a License to Social Security.  The franchise had reached a low-point, having already exhausted Bond creator Ian Fleming's original novels.  Enter Timothy Dalton, a darker and somber Bond who finds himself embroiled in an international conspiracy after assisting in the defection of a KGB officer.  A low-key thriller with no over-the-top villains or schemes, The Living Daylights suited Dalton's toned-down and funless Bond.

Goldeneye.  Stephen perks up whenever we mention this movie.  There's a reason.  Pierce Brosnan jumps into Bond by bungee-jumping into a Soviet arms factory.  With the Cold War done and over, Brosnan's Bond enters the modern era with an assertive female spymaster in Judi Dench, a treacherous Double-O agent, and a plot to sabotage the Western world's credit system.  An unofficial reboot in both tone and style, Goldeneye offered Brosnan a clean foundation on which to build his confident, charismatic, well-acted, non-smoking Bond.

Casino Royale. Casino Royale relaunched the Bond franchise, taking the story back to the very first of Ian Fleming's novels.  Daniel Craig inherits the Bond mantle, portraying the newly christened Double-O as an unsophisticated, brutal force that often times acts more instinctively than wisely.  In Casino Royale, Craig's arrogant and untested Bond battles Le Chiffre, accountant-extraordinaire for a mysterious terrorist organization operating well beyond the reach of MI-6.  Like OHMSS, this film showcases a vulnerable Bond who grows through tragic love. 

Casino Royale (2006) -vs- On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

The Smackdown.  Nobody ever forgets their first time.  And get your mind out of the gutter, I'm talking about James Bond and what it takes for an actor to play him on an initial outing.

James Bond has a long franchise of adaptations, interpretations, and revitalizations spanning nearly fifty years.  With such a lineage, it's only natural that there'll be some intra-family rivalry.  Today we put up two highly-touted revampings designed to help Bond fans overcome two of the most popular actors to depict James Bond: Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan. 

On Her Majesty's Secret Service attempted to co-opt the loyalty of Bond fans by paying respect to Ian Fleming's original stories beyond just their titles, and of course sliding in newcomer George Lazenby as Bond... James Bond.  Casino Royale did much the same, using an orthodox choice in Daniel Craig to return to source material while retooling Bond for Jason Bourne-style audiences.  While Daniel Craig's Bond is certainly meaner and tougher, can this blond-haired Bond match up against the man better known as the post-Connery Bond?  Which one makes good on their promise to decrypt Double-O Seven and break territory ignored by previous Bond formulas?

The Challenger.  Fans felt there'd be no dying another day for the Bond franchise after Pierce Brosnan's last Bond outing in the overwrought and cheesy Die Another Day.  Faced with serious spy thrillers like Alias and The Bourne Identity, producers scrambled back to Ian Fleming and his first Bond novel, "Casino Royale." Daniel Craig, "the new guy," sparked hell among fans for his demeanor, blond-hair, and overall scruffy appearance.  Introducing the legendary spy at the beginning of his career, Casino Royale pits a cocky and inexperienced Bond against the poker-playing banker of the world's terrorists, Le Chiffre.  Although adding entire sequences and ideas absent in Fleming's novel, the film stays loyal to the novel in that Bond learns a harsh lesson from too easily trusting, and loving, a beautiful colleague in this high-stakes thriller.

The Incredible Hulk (2008) -vs- Hulk (2003)

The Smackdown.  HULK SMASH!  I'm sorry, but I had to; it's just such a funny, quirky comic book phrase.  It's not often you get a Smackdown as clean as this one either where a project has been re-cast, re-conceived and the first director has been sent packing.  When you consider that The Incredible Hulk is the franchise follow-up to Ang Lee's 2003 Hulk, you have to take into mind that it's the new Marvel Studios steering the cinematic wheel.  Its recent Iron Man proved a ridiculously profitable and critical hit but, quite frankly, I shuddered at the thought of a second motion picture tackling this heroic green figure after the first installment created such a controversial cinematic history (gamma Hulk poodles anyone?).  I can see the halls of Marvel Studios one or two weeks ago, brimming with newly starched suits and promiscuous congratulations over Iron Man's $530 million plus heist.  Now, a bunch of execs sit around a table -- bleary-eyed, ties loose, coffee cups empty, cell phones nearby -- hoping their new Hulk shares more than the color green with a one dollar bill.   So while those overpaid studio execs worry over that, let's have a Hulk-sized SMACKDOWN between Ang Lee's Hulk and Louis Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk.  May the best conflicted angst-ridden monster win.

The Challenger.  The Hulk returns rebooted under the directorial guidance of Transporter director Louis Leterrier off a script originally penned by Zak Penn and rewritten by Edward Norton.  In The Incredible Hulk, Norton plays Stan Lee's classic Bruce Banner, a simple scientist whose brilliance leads to a tragic lab accident.  Now a fugitive from a military general who wishes to make him a weapon, Banner longs for a cure to his monstrous alter-ego and the forced isolation it demands.  Like Stan Lee's original Hulk, The Incredible Hulk focuses on Banner's struggle to contain this monstrous Neanderthal lurking inside him.  In fact, it's the film's petrol, blasting through Bourne-style chase scenes and WWF-style mutant throwdowns.  But like the green beast himself, Letterrier's film loses a bit of its humanity when it goes "Hulk."  Coupled with somewhat awkward pacing, the film may leave audiences like Bruce Banner after a "hulk-out": scratching your head asking where the hell am I and what the hell just happened?  Comparing the shooting script to the finished film, there are a plethora of scenes missing -- mostly character-oriented -- that would've better balanced the film.  Banner's therapy session with his lover's new boyfriend and Banner's attempted suicide are among them.  On top of this, some of the dialogue -- no matter how good the actor, or how green -- just can't be pulled off.

World's Finest Smackdown: The Big Men of DC Comics

EDITOR'S NOTE:  With this Smackdown first posted in May 2008, we begin a series of "Classic Smack" reviews that deal with super-heroes from comic book origins.  There's a poll at the end of the review where you can vote for your favorite film that launched or re-launched a single-character comic-based super-hero franchise.  Express yourself!

Superman Returns (2006) -vs- Batman Begins (2005)

The Smackdown.  Before going with the solo projects "Superman Returns" and "Batman Begins," Warner Bros. teased fans for years with the idea of a "Batman Versus Superman" film.  It's a fanboy dream, of course, to see DC's two most iconic characters in the same movie.  Since it's not going to happen (at least in the immediate future), Smackdown puts the recent reboots into the ring.  Both of these superheroes had rather shameful pre-21st Century franchise histories and great care needed to be taken with their re-imaginings.  "Batman Begins" clearly believes that the path to success is its ability to shine a light (Bat-Signal?) on a new tone while "Superman Returns" obviously believes the fastest way (speeding bullet?) is to get back to what worked before and get that right.

The Challenger. Superman Returns blasted onto movie screens with more of a whimper than a bang, presenting a soft, character-driven story about a god-like alien's search to find his messianic place on Earth and an old foe's attempt to exploit the hero's alien heritage.  Under Bryan Singer, fresh off his success with the first two X-Men films, Superman returns to Earth after five years of searching for his destroyed homeworld to find an engaged Lois Lane with child and his old nemesis, Lex Luthor, scheming to recreate Krypton on Earth.  Although having a plane rescue that is arguably one of the best shot, scored, and realized action sequences in superhero history, Superman Returns seems more comfortable in the tense silences between its characters as they struggle to find one another in this somewhat overly long movie.