Bryce Zabel's MOVIE SMACKDOWN!

The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009) -vs- Crimson Tide (1995)

The Smackdown.  People trapped inside the cold steel of big machines. Check. Ticking clocks relentlessly counting down to disaster. Check. Battles of will between A-list actors. Check again. Director Tony Scott must have known he had a good thing in 1995's "Crimson Tide" and was looking to repeat it with this year's re-make of the classic "The Taking of Pelham 123."  As far as action directors go, Scott (brother of Ridley) is in the very elite. He makes movies that are almost always worth the price of a ticket at the cineplex. The best are tense, scary, hard-edged ones where his screenwriters give him high stakes and the dialogue to support them (often for Denzel Washington) and then he paces the hell out of the film itself. We have a real fight on our hands with some Scott-on-Scott violence.

The Challenger. The 2009 "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" takes its inspiration from the 1974 film "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three" which took its inspiration from the same novel written by John Godey. In the hands of current screenwriter Brian Helgeland, the central idea -- bad guys board a New York subway and take the passengers hostage while demanding a huge ransom -- remains the same. He's given us a few new twists, like the lead hijacker, Ryder (John Travolta) is now an ex-con and the negotiator, Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) is now a transit executive. Then director Scott bends and twists it through pacing, tone and special effects. In this film, Travolta drives the action but it's Washington who gets put on the spot in one particularly tough moment when, without benefit of waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques, the hijacker gets the negotiator to confess to a crime of his own. It's one of those "what would you do" moments and particularly effective as played by Washington.

Up (2009) -vs- Wall-E (2008)

The Smackdown.  A year ago on this very site, a small, garbage-collecting robot named "Wall-E" dethroned the king of computer animation, Pixar's beloved "Toy Story." The film found gigantic success, being hailed by critics, winning the Academy Award for best animated feature and receiving a nomination for Best Screenplay. "Wall-E" transformed the genre and pushed the limits of innovation and creativity.  Now, a year after its historical upset, "Wall-E" stands ready to defend its title against the newest of Pixar's animated giants, the high-flying adventure story "Up." Headlining opening night of the Cannes Film Festival, a feat never before accomplished by an animated feature (let alone an American one,) "Up" and its cast of elderly men, children and talking dogs (you heard me) have entered the world of cinema at full steam, their focus fixed solely on taking our favorite robot's crown. Will "Wall-E" have enough strength to put down its first challenger, or will his reign prove a short one? Let's find out!

The Challenger.  "Up" tells the story of Carl Fredricksen, an elderly balloon vendor who once dreamt of adventure with his wife Ellie, but now resigns himself to sitting on his front porch while the world moves on around him. In order to keep a promise he had made to his Ellie a lifetime ago, Carl decides to leave the world behind and relocate their home to the mythical Paradise Falls in Venezuela, the last known origins of Carl and Ellie's childhood hero, adventurer Charles Muntz. His plan - to lift their home out if its foundation by thousands of colorful balloons and sail through the heavens to his Paradise Falls. However, what Carl doesn't plan for is to accidentally take Russell, an energetic young boy scout, with him on his adventure. Nor does he plan to be thrown into the middle of a battle for a mysterious giant bird known as "Kevin," a conflict that has the potential to jeopardize his promise to Ellie.

Contact (1997) -vs- Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

 

The Smackdown. If you're old enough to remember the marketing campaign for "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," then you'll remember the goosebumps you got when you heard the phrase, We are not alone.  What was great about that simple sentence was that it promised a movie about aliens that was about wonder and mystery and wasn't about the same old Hollywood treatment of life in the universe, namely that if it bothered to interact with humans it was for a nefarious reason, everything from "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" to "War of the Worlds" to the later "Independence Day."   Twenty years after "Close Encounters" came another film that promised to make first contact a matter of humanity's growth out of the cradle and not some intergalactic cage match. Both "Close Encounters" and "Contact" were aliens for smart people brought to you first by the immense talent of Steven Spielberg and later by the immense intellect of Carl Sagan.  In my Hollywood career, I've had the good fortune to discuss UFOs and extraterrestrial life with both of these men and found them to have some very different visions of the subject.  They each have used film to express their views about life as it might exist "out there."  The question is, which version comes closest to what might be the truth about first contact, and which one is the better film?

The Challenger. "Contact" (the movie) directed by Robert Zemeckis is a faithful film adaption of Contact (the novel) written by Carl Sagan.  In both tellings, radio astronomer Dr. Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster in the film) hits the cosmic jackpot when the giant radio telescopes that are part of S.E.T.I. (Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence) actually turn up a non-random signal from across the universe.  Someone is talking to us or, more accurately, talking back.  You see, they've picked up the very first television transmission the Earth ever leaked outward, amped it up and sent it back to us.  It's an excellent surprise and -- without spoiling it -- let's just say that the first TV signal that went out from Earth is, well, unexpected.  After that, the story kicks into where no film has really gone before.  There's another signal buried in that TV re-transmission that is, basically, the blueprints for building a gigantic spacecraft... for one person!  Well, if there was ever a situation designed to stretch our humanity to the breaking point, it would be trying to determine who's going to be that lucky (or, in failure, unlucky) person.  Where will they go?  Will they ever return?  Will they die?  Is it some kind of trick?

Deja Vu (2006) -vs- Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

 Time It Was 

The Smackdown. Maybe it's because the summer of 2009 has given us another Tony Scott film in "The Taking of Pelham 123" and another episode in the Terminator franchise with "Terminator Salvation," but this Smackdown from 2006 has been getting lots of traffic. 

If people from the future could travel back to the past, wouldn't they have already done it? Would it be better to see into the past or into the future? Do they both exist simultaneously, along with the present, because time is relative to where you are? If you like these kinds of questions, we have a couple of films to really put your through Olympic-sized paces in the Suspension of Disbelief event. We've put a couple of major star vechicles in our time travel machine, both of them about scooting back through the years in order to change the future, both directed by major directors with reputations for getting the action up there on the screen. "Deja Vu" is the more cerebral -- "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" is the more literal -- but both of them cause your brain to short-circuit if you think too much about twists-and-turns of time travel as they would have you believe it works. But this is an entertainment site, not a physics lecture, so let's get to it.

The Challenger. The ever-likable Denzel Washington stars in the Tony Scott-directed "Deja Vu," a collaboration that must work for both men since they've done so many films together. This one starts with a terrorist bombing of a New Orleans ferry as a way to get at that time-honored sci-fi question -- if you could go back in time, could you also change the future? This film posits that with all those nifty satellites we have scanning the globe that there's a way to use them to "triangulate" and snoop on anybody we want exactly four days in the past. Okay, that's a stretch,  but it works well-enough that this flashy Jerry Bruckheimer produced, Tony Scott directed movie still works. In a heavily-plotted script by Bill Marsilii and Terry Rossio, Washington's ATF investigator uses this hot-new technology to time-travel back to save the life of a woman who holds the key to the terrorist's identity. Naturally, he will fall in love her. Even more obviously, this will never pass the logic test, but even so, the action and suspense never really flags. Bruckheimer and Scott, as a team, have reputations for delivering a great evening's entertainment with lots of loud explosions, fast cuts, and crazy violence -- they don't ask for too much thought but they do provide maximum diversion. The film works.

The Dark Knight (2008) -vs- Batman Begins (2005)

EDITOR'S NOTE:   It was June 15 -- four years ago -- when the highly anticipated re-conception of the Batman franchise, "Batman Begins," hit the screens nationwide.  Almost instantly it made audiences forget the increasingly lame series of films that had preceded it. Then, three years later, "The Dark Knight" extended that new franchise in ways that had previously been unheard of for a comic book movie.  (HBO will debut "The Dark Knight" on June 13).  In honor of the singular achievement of giving such new life to Batman, Movie Smackdown looks back at SmackRef Stephen Bell's 2008 ring match between the two films in which he predicts, among other things, that Heath Ledger had a lock on the Best Actor Oscar. Here's his review, as it appeared last year:

 When Is a Sequel Not a Sequel? 

The Smackdown.  Batman's back.  Unless you live in an isolated third world village, you knew this already and, frankly, even if that's where you live you probably know it anyway.   In 2005, Christopher Nolan reintroduced the world to the infamous Bruce Wayne, billionaire playboy by day, caped crusader by night. His film, "Batman Begins," reinvented the iconic hero for a new generation, discarding the camp and flash of the previous films and introducing a hero that strayed very far from the classic Boy Scouts we'd come to associate superhero films with.  He took a 16 year old franchise and wiped the mud off, breaking IMAX records and pumping life into a movie hero that had been M.I.A. since a Mr. Clooney pulled on the cowl (shudder).

The Challenger.  It is official. "The Dark Knight" has set the world on fire. Picking up where "Batman Begins" left off, we follow Bruce Wayne/Batman as he attempts to remove Gotham's worst from their position of power and pass the mantle off to a new hero, D.A. Harvey Dent, played by veteran star Aaron Eckhart. Since the conclusion of "Begins," Batman has been successful in striking fear in the hearts of Gotham's villains and it appears that he might actually see the light at the end of the tunnel in his fight against crime. Unfortunately for Batman, that light happens to be an oncoming train, embodied by none other than the most notorious of the vigilante's nemeses, The Joker. As you've no doubt already heard, this is not Jacky's Joker from the 1980's. This is Heath Ledger unleashed, a rabid dog of such unspeakable evil that nothing is left untainted in his wake. The Joker's mission is simple - bring chaos to Gotham. As he moves through the city like a maelstrom, it is up to Batman, Dent, Gordon (again played by Gary Oldman) and the rest of Batman's allies to save the city from the Joker and his corruption.