Bryce Zabel's MOVIE SMACKDOWN!

Away We Go (2009) -vs- Juno (2007)

THE SMACKDOWN. Did you ever have to make up your mind? Both "Away We Go" and "Juno" are about those decisions that come from life that can't be fudged, postponed or ignored. Even though both films involve pregnant leads who aren't married to the fathers of their unborn, there's more here than childbirth.  Each film lets us see a big life question presented in a way that shows there isn't always a "right" answer. Sometimes life forces us to choose. To pick up on one and leave the other behind. Well, we have to choose now, too. Should we go with the the couple of thirtysomethings who have to decide where to make their stand with a new baby; or the teenage girl who has a "go-no go" decision to make about a baby of her own and the boyfriend who's in way over his head?

THE CHALLENGER. "Away We Go" comes from the same director who gave us "American Beauty," Sam Mendes. The common thread in his work between these two films is the sharply drawn characters he finds living in an America he doesn't seem to like all that much. Written by the married couple of Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida, it tells the story of Burt and Verona -- who aren't married and are muddling through their lives knowing the clock is ticking, not biologically, but socially. Depending on who you talk to they're either nice or narcissistic, but either way they feel like their peers are getting along better than they are, they know something's wrong and they still haven't quite grasped what to do about it. When Burt's parents (Verona's are deceased) announce that they are moving to Belgium and, thus, won't be around to see their grandchild born, the young couple decides to hit the road, looking for a place that will have the right vibe to start their family (and, hopefully, their new & improved lives). Then it's planes, trains and automobiles as the story bounces from Arizona to Wisconsin to Florida and finally lands in what, for them, is supposed to be the land of Hope. Along the journey, they run into a lot of parenting advice and all kinds of disappointing people.

Superbad (2007) -vs- American Pie (1999)

The Smackdown. Can you believe that it's been ten years since the release of "American Pie"? July 9 marks a full decade since Eugene Levy caught his son Jim doing, well, unspeakable things to innocent baked fruit. I remember thinking that it was a great comedy if only I could keep my teenage boys from ever seeing the film. At the time, back in '99 when Clinton was riding out a rocky ending based on having oral sex in the Oval Office, it seemed kind of quaint to see the President of the United States getting impeached for doing something the kids in "American Pie" thought wasn't even real sex. Their theme was "All the Way by Graduation Day." Ah, nostalgia...

"American Pie" re-defined a genre and paved the way for "Superbad" to do it again eight years later in 2007. Both "American Pie" and "Superbad" remind us that you're never too old to relive the total humiliation of your teenage years, nor to remember (if you're a guy) just how much you wanted to get in the Club and to realize it might just be out of reach. 

Both of these raunchy films (with the now obligatory "heart") give us groups of horny high school guys who would really like to have shed their virginity so they can truly relax and enjoy graduation, knowing that they will not have to spend the rest of their lives lying about what they did and did not do by the end of that fateful senior year. They know, apparently, that a diploma for merely passing classes is so not what it's about. Both of these films -- released eight years apart -- hit the gold with audiences of all ages and theaters during both releases were filled with actual screams of laughter. This ain't gonna be easy...but let's get started with the challenger...

The Challenger. By the time "Superbad" came out, the option of somehow keeping my kids from seeing it had pretty much expired so I threw in the towel and went with my teenager. We'd just returned from a family vacation, jet-lagged as all hell but, as it turns out, this film was so entertaining and outrageous that the last thing you will ever do while watching it is go to sleep. As written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg (who named the two leads after themselves), the film starts with dick-jokes and similar raunch and never stops but, the thing is, the dialogue all feels very fluid and confident, even if underneath it all, it's also just a little sad. The point is, most reviews will now tell you, it's really not about the sex-jokes, it's about the friendship between Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera). Well, yeah, and the sex-jokes. A third-wheel friend, Fogell, played by new kid Christopher Mintz-Plasse pretty much steals the show and the moniker "McLovin" has probably forever entered the nation's vocabulary. These Three Musketeers have two goals for the evening of the last night of high school: first, supply booze to a party being thrown by a popular girl so they can achieve, second, some kind of sexual experience, no matter how messy and potentially humiliating.

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.

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?

Gran Torino (2008) -vs- The Shootist (1976)

EDITOR'S NOTE:  June 7 is the release date for the "Gran Torino" DVD -- after making $150-million domestic box-office since it came out in January of this year. Director Clint Eastwood shot it for a budget of $33-million proving to the powers-that-be that investing in his pictures is good business.  But is it the end of an era, too?  Here's our Movie Smackdown review based on an early screening in December 2008.

 Does Who You've Killed Make You Who You Are? 

The Smackdown. Rumor has it that "Gran Torino" will be the last film that Clint Eastwood acts in. In it, he basically plays a version of his tough-guy screen characters (think Harry Callahan) who, at the end of his life, has to deal with the fact that so much of who he is derives from who he's killed.  Thirty-two years ago, another tough guy -- John Wayne -- acted in his last film, "The Shootist," where he also played a character who, at the end of his life, had to deal with the violence that had surrounded his days on Earth. Both of these legendary tough-guys are portrayed as being brought down by disease, having cheated the bloody ravages they've inflicted on others, as they close out their screen personas in projects that say as much about their full careers as the actual films of the moment. Lending weight to the efforts is that added fact that both of these films parallel the goodbye to these iconic characters by playing them out against times that are changing: Detroit for Eastwood and the Wild West for Wayne. 

The Challenger. In what may be his swan song to acting, Clint Eastwood directs himself in "Gran Torino." He plays Walt Kowalski, a tormented Korean War vet and a character with a lot of relevance today, given that he's also a retired auto plant worker, still living in Detroit and wondering where and when it was that the whole thing fell apart. After his wife dies, it's just Walt, the family he really doesn't connect with, and the next door neighbors who are all Hmong immigrants. The story was written, not by some A-lister, but by Nick Schenk, a Minnesota wannabe who wrote the whole thing with pen and paper sitting in a bar, and then had Eastwood pretty much shoot every damn word of it. Part of what attracted Eastwood, no doubt, is how beautifully it allows him to give us a reprise of the Dirty Harry character, but wrap it in a bloody bow of human redemption at the same time. The narrative has Walt at his peevish best, hurling insults at the neighbors and his family, only to find himself in an odd-friendship with the Hmong kid next door who he catches trying to steal his prized Gran Torino, a car he himself had a hand in making back in the day when Detroit ruled the world. Yet violence and gangs prevent the film from being just a sweet or comic story of friendship: this is Clint's farewell to a character-type and he needs to go out in a way that pays off how he got in this world in the first place. I'll say no more on that score...