Bryce Zabel's MOVIE SMACKDOWN!

The Fountain (2006) -vs- 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

 Spaced Far Out 

The Smackdown. If a filmmaker sat down in a producer's office and rambled on about prehistoric ape battles, Mayan/Judeo-Christian theology, homicidal computers, oncology miracles, cosmic fetuses, and Heaven-bound bubble spaceships, he'd probably be shown the door with directions to one of Hollywood's many rehab centers.  Yet "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "The Fountain" seem to embrace new narrative techniques that allow them to mix-match elements heretofore unseen in films. Both are pioneers in science-fiction, turning the genre on its head and seeing what comes out. Both also faced heavy criticism upon their release, with "2001" obviously having an edge of 39 years to be appreciated. On top of critics, the characters of both "2001" and "The Fountain" encounter faceless, automated, merciless antagonists: a robot and death. And, of course, there's the added bonus this time of year in that current Oscar host Hugh Jackman plays the spaced-out one in "The Fountain."

The Challenger. Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain" follows one man through three times. In the past, Thomas Creo, a conquistador, is sent by the Queen of Spain to find the fabled Tree of Life in an attempt to save the Queen from death at the hands of the zealot The Inquisitor. In the present, Tommy Creo struggles to use a strange substance derived from a South American tree to cure his dying wife's cancer. In the future, a bald Tommy travels in a bubble through space in order to take a gigantic tree holding the fading soul of his dead wife to Xibalba, the Mayan underworld which exists as a dying star surrounded by a nebula. As the film cuts between each period, it's important to realize the present is the heart of this film. As Tommy faces his wife's deteriorating condition, he begins hiding his own fear of death in his fear of losing her. The other time periods mirror Tommy's dilemma of becoming so fearful of death that he neglects his dying wife emotionally as he tries to conquer mortality. Aronofsky delivers some extraordinary visuals and directing here; there's not a single scene in the movie that's aesthetically uninteresting. This, while juggling multiple storylines and metaphors which organically reveal the film's main point, which is not at all as epic and mystical as it first may seem. The film is really about the arrogance of denying death and eventually accepting one's own death while mourning the death of loved ones. With a visually explosive climax scored to near perfection by Clint Mansell, "The Fountain" is a soft love story teasing big philosophical concepts with a lot of understated emotion.

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.

The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008) -vs- The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951)

Tough-Love, Alien Style

The Smackdown.  Klaatu and Gort are back in the 'hood thanks to the mega-budget re-make of "The Day The Earth Stood Still."  The duo arrives once again with every intention of forcing some extra-terrestrial "tough love" on us.  Keanu Reeves steps into the lead role made famous 57 years ago by Michael Rennie in the original, joined in this go-round by Jennifer Connelly, Kathy Bates and, surprisingly, John Cleese.  Certainly the overall production and effects budget makes possible images never even imagined back in 1951. But can all this money and contemporary talent add up to make this new "The Day The Earth Stood Still" as enduringly memorable as the old "The Day The Earth Stood Still" that graced the world's screens during the height of Cold War paranoia?   There's nothing to be gained by standing still -- so let's get to it.  Here's the intergalactic Smack...

The Challenger.  The talent behind this new 2008 "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is certainly respectful of the original.  Director Scott Derrickson, producer Erwin Stoff and screenwriter David Scarpa have all publicly commented on how they understand that the earlier version is an acknowledged classic.  And they fully realize that, generally speaking, remakes are about as successful as a Libertarian running for office in the Lone Star State.  (An aside:  We hope Kinky will run for Governor again -- "Why the hell not?")  They also understand that, on rare occasions, a remake actually fares pretty well against the original.  "Sorcerer" compares favorably with "Wages of Fear," for example, as does "The Magnificent Seven" with "The Seven Samurai" and "The Birdcage" vis-a-vis "La Cage aux Folles."  Accordingly, the number of deviations from the earlier edition have been held to a minimum.  Gort is now a biological form and not a mechanical robot.  Likewise, Klaatu is now an alien in a human body, not an alien with a human body.  And, of course, the balance between story and special effects, between character-driven moments and action sequences, has been skewed as well, reflecting the advances in filmmaking technology and, presumably, present-day audience preferences.  Being the challenger against a movie that most sci-fi affecinadoes consider to be sacrosanct, the equavlaent in its genre to what "The Godfather" is to gangster movies, is a tough undertaking.  But then again, a beagle did win at Westminster...

Cold Warriors from Outer Space

Alien-Human Smackdown, 50s Edition

To help us celebrate the holidays this year, on December 12th, 20th Century Fox releases its remake of the classic 1951 sci-fi film, "The Day the Earth Stood Still," starring Keanu Reeves in the role of "Klaatu," first played by Michael Rennie 57 years ago.  Movie Smackdown will, of course, be putting the two films in the ring against each other and maybe even several times in different combinations.  To us, well, this is like an event of historical proportions.

Today we've asked SmackRef Bob Nowotny to get the laser beams flying by introducing us to the joys of 1950s sci-fi invasion films.  We knew he was the right man for the job since he actually believes, and I'm quoting:

"What one cannot argue (at least convincingly) is that any science fiction/alien invasion movie produced after 1959 is the equal of these well respected classics.  Yes, there have been subsequent science fiction films brought to the screen, but they are all pretenders to the crown."

After Bob's Blurb (note to Bob: we gift you this as the name of your next blog), you'll find a brand-new fresh-off-the-bus SmackPoll where you can express your own opinion(s).  Our goal is to find an "Alien Invasion" film winner from the Classic era, and put it up against a similar winner from the Modern era.  This is, admittedly, a pretty ambitious goal for a site run only on blood, sweat and tears but, given the subject matter, maybe the fate of the Earth rests on it.  In the meantime, here's Bob and his alien-infested trip down memory lane.

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.