Bryce Zabel's MOVIE SMACKDOWN!

Twilight (2008) -vs- Edward Scissorhands (1990)

Edwardian Romance

The Smackdown. Teenaged girls are a force to be reckoned with. Like tsunamis and hurricanes. Oh sure, industry wisdom has it that teenaged boys go to the movies; they're the prime target audience. Anyone who ventures into the multiplex in the heat of summer knows that. But never underestimate the awesome power that is a teenaged girl with a crush...for that crush can easily become an obsession...and that obsession can turn into some serious cash. Witness last weekend's seventy million dollar box office take for the eminently crushworthy vampire teen romance, "Twilight."  For almost twenty years, "Edward Scissorhands" has been my uncontested poster boy for doomed Gothic-tinged star-crossed romance. Can Edward Cullen, Twilight's fangless undead hunk unseat Tim Burton's most memorable creation? It's the Battle of the Edwards...a Battle to the Death. And beyond.

The Challenger. Well, she was just seventeen. You know what I mean. Bella Swan. Barely enough blood in her brooding body to bring a blush to those perfectly smooth cheeks. Listless. Lifeless. Secretive. So deeply sensitive that the slightest of smiles might overstate any case for happiness. A child of divorce shuttled between dry hot Arizona and cold damp Washington State. Phoenix to Forks. Frying pan into the fire.

"Twilight" is the blue-hued film that perfectly captures all the angst, ennui and bliss of being a teenager in love. Based on the incredibly hot series of novels by Stephenie Meyer and brought to the big screen by director Catherine ("Thirteen") Hardwicke and screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg, what we have here is a chick-let flick of impeccable pedigree. 

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 Godfather (1972) -vs- The Godfather, Part II (1974)

Vote Now: An Offer You Can't Refuse...

The Smackdown.  By now it's all become a part of our collective cultural memory -- the horse's head showing up in the bed, making an "offer he can't refuse" and that haunting score by Nino Rota.  Imagine being in the theaters though, almost four decades ago when the original "The Godfather" was in release back in 1972. For years new viewers of the Godfather Trilogy were exposed to either increasingly degraded theatrical prints or VHS or DVD copies that were, in many cases, even worse.  For the past two years, though, Francis Ford Coppola and a small army of digital restoration experts have been at work reclaiming the golden glory for high-definition Blu-ray, standard DVD and even a few more theatrical prints out in some major cities.  It's not the purpose of this Smackdown to lay out that process but if you want to know more about "The Godfather: The Coppola Restoration," there have been some excellent articles including The New York Times and Slate Magazine.

What is most astonishing about "The Godfather" which won the 1972 Oscar for "Best Picture" is that two years later "The Godfather, Part II" also won the Oscar for "Best Picture."  This pretty much qualifies the second film as the unquestioned best sequel of all-time (although there are supporters now for "The Dark Knight").  And, of course, it triggers a Smackdown to find out which of these two extraordinary films is the best.  We'll give the competition our usual treatment with an added bonus.  Five of our critics weigh in at the end with their individual essays.  Joe Rassulo, Scott Baradell, Sherry Coben, Mark Sanchez and Jay Amicarella all come at the material with damned unique POVs, and it's a fun read.  Finally, at the end of this review, you can put in your own two cents by voting in our Smack-Poll.

The Defending Champion.  If you think about it now, the "Godfather" films are the modern world's version of those Shakespeare plays about kings and princes.  This is the film where Vito Corleone, the aging Don of a powerful Mafia family hands off the power, reluctantly, to his youngest son Michael, delivering one of the saddest lines in cinema, "Michael, I never wanted this for you."  Al Pacino's Michael Corleone is one of the greatest acting performances on screen ever and his transformation from shy son to ruthless criminal makes you forgive any of the actor's excesses over the years.  The film opens on a wedding where Michael has returned from World War II just in time to see his sister Connie get married. All of the men in Michael's family are involved with the Mafia and it's assumed that the older brothers will handle the criminal duties while Michael lives a legit and decent life. It's truly the story of the family but the engine that drives the action is about a drug dealer Virgil Sollozzo who wants Don Corleone (Marlon Brandon) to go into the drug trade with him.  Corleone refuses, gets shot by hit men, barely survives.  This opens the door for his son to begin a violent mob war against Sollozzo that changes him and his family forever.  It's the story of the old ways surrendering, violently, to the new ways.  You probably know all this.  Beautifully photographed, scored, directed, written.  Most people have it on their Top Ten lists and more than a few place it as #1. 

Deep Impact (1998) -vs- Armageddon (1998)

It's the End of the World as We Know It

The Smackdown.  Ten summers ago, during the Year of Lewinsky, Paramount/DreamWorks got into a game of chicken with Touchstone.  The result was two disaster films about comets that were about to hit the Earth and destroy all life.  I won't tell you how the Earth fared yet, but I can tell you that the point of impact in the theaters was about two months apart.  Talk about operational redundancy!  In any case, the summer of 1998 gave us a cinematic laboratory experiment in how the same story can yield entirely different results.  Having watched these two films back-to-back, here's my take.  10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1... we have lift-off...

I've been thinking a lot about this topic a decade later because I'm writing a miniseries for Animal Planet about mass extinction events ("Animal Armageddon") set to air in early 2009, and the latest episode I'm tackling is the one where the asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, most of them within a single hellish hour some 65-million years ago. 

In doing this research, I've also come across an excellent article in the June 2008 Atlantic by Gregg Easterbrook, "The Sky Is Falling."  In it, Easterbrook makes the point that scientists are coming to the conclusion that we have vastly underestimated the probability of these cosmic impacts because they have way underestimated how many of these viable "planet killers" are out there in our vicinity.  Here's their video link.

The point is, these two films aren't just hypotheticals.  This kind of extinction level event has happened before and it could happen again -- maybe even on our watch.

In Hollywood, we like to talk about the "log-line" of something, the equivalent of a "TV Guide" listing.  So, before we get into talking about how these two films are different, let's state their similarity in a single log-line that both could share:

• When a "planet-killer" sized comet is discovered to be on an imminent collision course with Earth, an international space effort -- led by the United States -- sets out to deflect the object by setting off nuclear weapons deep inside its core so that it will miss Earth and, therefore, save humanity.

Even though "Deep Impact" was the first in the theaters, for our purposes, we're giving the "Defending Champion" designation to "Armageddon" because it won at the box-office.  "Armageddon" grossed $553-million world-wide to the "Deep Impact" gross of $349-million.  Incredibly, IMDB (the Internet Movie Data Base) has it as a virtual tie with both films scoring a 5.9 out of ten audience rating.  So, let's start with "The Challenger"... "Deep Impact."