Bryce Zabel's MOVIE SMACKDOWN!

Encounters at the End of the World (2008) -vs- March of the Penguins (2005)

"Encounters at the End of the World" DVD Release - November 18

The Smackdown.  In the last few years, the documentary world has given us a couple of projects about living in Antarctica that play out against a backdrop of global warming.  "Encounters at the End of the World" and "March of the Penguins" want to be seen as important because they're being offered to us at a time when the ice caps are shrinking into less-and-less of their former selves.   At the same time, though, the filmmakers want to distract us from the education by making us feel entertained with either quirky characters or Morgan Freeman voice-over.  Americans have the biggest base down there at the South Pole -- McMurdo -- but, apparently, that's where the commitment stops:  both of these films were done, originally, by Europeans.  So, here we go:  penguins versus humans, in a frozen world that's so damn cold your spit can freeze before it even hits the ground.

The Challenger.  Director and writer Warner Herzog also narrates his film about life in Antarctica and, I have to say, listening to his accented voice-over reminds me that it was the Germans who called Antaractica "Neuschwabenland" before World War II and were reputed (in UFO circles anyway) to have repaired there after the end to build flying saucers at secret bases tunneled under the ice.  Okay, you've been warned.  If Herzog has another agenda, you heard it here first...

The film he's made is great example of the idea that you can go to the literal ends of the Earth to get away from it all, and still be where you started.  People are still people, and they need to connect as much as ever.  I probably know as much about life in the US Antarctica base at McMurdo as any living human can without actually having lived there.  A few years ago, I wrote a TV series pilot for DreamWorks TV called, yes, "McMurdo" and read books, websites and talked to all manner of iceheads.

Encounters at the End of the World (2008) -vs- March of the Penguins (2005)

Life on the Ice

The Smackdown.  In the last few years, the documentary world has given us a couple of projects about living in Antarctica that play out against a backdrop of global warming.  "Encounters at the End of the World" and "March of the Penguins" want to be seen as important because they're being offered to us at a time when the ice caps are shrinking into less-and-less of their former selves.  At the same time, though, the filmmakers want to distract us from the education by making us feel entertained with either quirky characters or Morgan Freeman voice-over.  Americans have the biggest base down there at the South Pole -- McMurdo -- but, apparently, that's where the commitment stops:  both of these films were done, originally, by Europeans.  So, here we go:  penguins versus humans, in a frozen world that's so damn cold your spit can freeze before it even hits the ground.

The Challenger.  Director and writer Warner Herzog also narrates his film about life in Antarctica and, I have to say, listening to his accented voice-over reminds me that it was the Germans who called Antaractica "Neuschwabenland" before World War II and were reputed (in UFO circles anyway) to have repaired there after the end to build flying saucers at secret bases tunneled under the ice.  Okay, you've been warned.  If Herzog has another agenda, you heard it here first...

The film he's made is great example of the idea that you can go to the literal ends of the Earth to get away from it all, and still be where you started.  People are still people, and they need to connect as much as ever.  I probably know as much about life in the US Antarctica base at McMurdo as any living human can without actually having lived there.  A few years ago, I wrote a TV series pilot for DreamWorks TV called, yes, "McMurdo" and read books, websites and talked to all manner of iceheads.

Herzog's poetic film doesn't really tell a story.  Rather it chronicles his visit to McMurdo and the access he was granted once he got there.  There's a meandering quality to his "encounters," giving it a very experiental feeling, but if you're looking for dramatic arc or point-of-view going in, stick with Michael Moore or Al Gore.  For me, it vindicated almost every single choice I'd made in that DreamWorks pilot:  the characters I wrote that seemed too weird or strange, seemed like they'd fit in perfectly.  The danger felt real.  And the stakes remain enormous for the people... and the planet.

Recount (2008) -vs- The Late Shift (1995)

Winners and Losers

The Smackdown. Only HBO had the courage to give us the behind-the-scenes truth about the two greatest contests affecting our civilization in recent memory: the battle to decide the election between George Bush and Al Gore and, perhaps more importantly, the NBC decision about whether Jay Leno or David Letterman would get to host the Tonight Show and, thus, change life as we know it. The question is: if you're just watching these films as films and not metaphors or cautionary tales, which one's the best investment of a couple of hours?

The Challenger. The PR buzz for "Recount" is only just now building on the sides of buses, premiere parties, ET mentions and in interstitial spots on HBO itself. "Recount" came into my life last month, as a TV academy member, in the form of a "For Your Consideration" DVD. I've already written about this millenial political period on the "Instant History" site and remember, vividly, how transfixed we all were for that month of misery in 2000. Now, of course, we have the Clinton/Obama tie to bring us together on cable news channels and we may start to forget how many twists and turns there were in the Florida recount. HBO turned director Jay Roach ("Meet the Parents") loose on the project after Sidney Pollack turned them down, and Roach has done a fine job here making us re-live the headlines. I remember most vividly that the entire campaign was a debate about what to do with a budget surplus that disappeared after 9/11 never to be seen again and that both Gore and Bush were universally loathed by the electorate, accounting for their dead heat as much as the blue state-red state divide.

 

The Defending Champion. Back in the day, Johnny Carson ruled late night until he decided to quit in 1992, and then all hell broke loose as NBC managed to publicly court and humiliate the two princes who would be king: David Letterman and Jay Leno. The smoke eventually cleared in Leno's favor but the story behind the story became a book by Bill Carter that skewered all the characters involved for being true-to-life Hollywood sharks. As directed by Betty Thomas ("The Brady Bunch Movie"), this film stirred up all kinds of "inside baseball" controversy for HBO -- from its portrayals of Leno (Daniel Roebuck) and Letterman (John Michael Higgins) themselves to Leno's insane manager Helen Kushnick (Kathy Bates) and Letterman's insane agent (Michael Ovitz). This movie amused me a lot because I actually knew some of the players -- I'd been at Ovitz's agency CAA for a few years earlier in my career, I did a TV series with NBC's Warren Littlefield (Bob Balaban), and my son, Jonathan, had actually been a child actor portraying young Jay Leno on the Tonight Show for eight or nine appearances.

The Scorecard. Political junkies will love "Recount" in the same way that TV junkies loved "The Late Shift." They are insider pieces with real people being portrayed by some familiar actors. Tom Wilkinson, for example, does a killer James Baker and Laura Dern turns in a loopy Katerine Harris in "Recount."  Bob Balaban's in both films, but he was best in "The Late Shift."

The thing is, we already know how both films turn out. We know that Bush wins in the Supreme Court and goes on to invade Iraq while Gore grows a beard and re-discovers global warming. We also know that Leno gets the NBC gig while Letterman goes to CBS but gets the last laugh because he gets to watch from the sidelines as NBC does it again and publicly elbows Leno out for Conan O'Brien. In any case, though, since we know the endings, our enjoyment has to be all about the ride.

The ride feels less bumpy in "Recount" because the material is more important and is not 100% dependent on that HBO ironic tone in order to succeed. Sometimes it can just settle for telling its story. But the subject matter in "The Late Shift" seems smaller and therefore less compelling. This means it better be funny. It is, but only in fits and starts.

Funny, of course, is in the Eye of the Beholder and if you think you'd like to see Roeback in a latext chin playing Leno or Higgins with a gap-toothed denture playing Letterman, then you're in for a treat. If not, you will spend the film eyeing them the same way you look at formerly hot women with too much plastic surgery. They look mostly right, but something is at least a frame off. To the best of my knowledge, none of the actors in "Recount" are prosthetically enhanced.

"The Late Shift" actually has a few scenes with Dave and Jay together which should have been great, but fall flat. "Recount," on the other hand, has Denis Leary and I'm one of those viewers who can't get enough of this guy's peformances. He and Kevin Spacey share a lot of scenes together, but this is not Spacey's strongest performance. It feels like he method-actored his way into a study of the real guy he's portraying who must be very low-energy but the performance is a mistake.

Another oddball comparison here is that most viewers will watch these films thinking that the wrong guy won. By now, Gore's star has long-eclipsed Bush's with all but the most partisan crowds. At the same time, Johnny Carson always said he'd have picked Letterman if given the chance and it was Letterman's boyhood dream to host "The Tonight Show."

Imagine an America where President Gore fought global warming instead of Iraqi insurgents and "The Tonight Show with David Letterman" ruled the late shift. Dream on...

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008) - vs- The Passion of the Christ (2004)

The Passion of the Critic or the Critic of the Passion?

The Smackdown. A few years ago, as the story has been passed down to believers, a great prophet named Gibson  proved that religion was not poison at the box office.  Gibson begat Stein who walked in the sandals of Moore into the desert determined to prove that Gibson's Law would apply to Documentaries.  Half-baked metaphors aside, clearly the King of all (movie) Kings is Mel Gibson's "The Passion Of The Christ."  While this enormously successful film was as much a cultural and theological phenomena as a cinematic one, there's no question it struck a responsive chord with millions of Christians worldwide.  Now, four years later, there is another movie that has deep religious undertones and a swirl of controversy surrounding it -- Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."  Can prophet Stein match prophet Gibson when it comes to turning the Meek loose on the Earth?  Will "Intelligence" trump "Passion?" 

The Challenger. This movie follows Ben Stein as he seeks to determine whether religious-based Intelligent Design is a pseudo-science trying to undermine evolutionary biology or whether it is legitimate science being suppressed by a scientific establishment that is hostile to any deviation from the status quo.  Good question, but as they say in Hollywood, it's all about the execution.  Stein is a former White House speechwriter under the Nixon Administration, probably better known for his droll wit on "Win Ben Stein's Money."  First-time director, Nathan Frankowski, works with two neophyte screenwriters with only one previous credit between them, Kevin Miller and Walt Rulof, and, of course, Stein as the religious right Michael Moore.  Maybe the film should have been called, "No Experience Allowed."  Anyway, there are a few head-scratchers in this film, probably topped out by the time Stein and his camera crew visit Hitler's concentration camps and ill-advisedly correlate Darwinism to Fascism and Nazi Germany.  As long as I'm giving advice on film marketing, maybe they could try "Stein Kampf" for the DVD release.  Give him credit, he certainly doesn't pull any punches when it comes to being vitriolic -- even the most stalwart Bible-belt Baptist may find this analogy harder to swallow than Jonah.

The Defending Champion.  Remember the old Spaghetti Westerns of the 1960s?  Mel Gibson certainly does, based on this religious opus which could have been titled "A Fistful of Floggings."  (Note to Distributors: My re-titling services are available at a reasonable fee.)  As the lead, James Caviezel certainly has the right physical look and the emotional intensity to take on a seemingly never-ending series of horrific flailings and beatings.  This is a hard film to watch, seeing anybody (but especially Jesus) endure this kind of on-screen cruelty.  Still, there is no dispute that it made "The Passion Of The Christ" a powerful movie-going experience for millions and millions worldwide.  This, despite a screenplay by Benedict Fitzgerald and Mel Gibson himself that arguably has no plot, no plot points and no character arcs.  As a result, there's not all that much you can hang your shroud on.  Still, there's no denying that "Passion" succeeded despite a bevy of filmmaking flaws -- sometimes such details as cheesy sets, a cartoon-like moon in the opening scene (think a Basil Rathbone film) and Jesus sporting a silver filling on his right molar simply don't matter.  Talk about a "miracle."

The Scorecard.  When it comes to commercial success and box office results, the scorecard is not yet determined, although betting on Mr. Ed to win the Kentucky Derby would have better odds than to believe "Expelled" will come anywhere close to approaching the numbers run up by "Passion."  Both films, at least in this reviewer's opinion, are flawed due to a wide variety of production issues that, quite frankly, are more than appalling.

Having said this, Herr Stein has certainly been beyond bold in presenting his case on behalf of Intelligent Design.  In addition, his film has a far more complex subject matter so he deserves extra consideration.

The climax of "Expelled," for example, features Stein going head-to-head with Richard Dawkins, a renowned atheist and author. It really doesn't matter which side you're on, both of these guys are undeniably intelligent, and it raises issues.  By the way, this film doesn't spend that much time focused on the details of the debate between evolutionists and creationists.  Instead it really focuses on it key thesis that the debate itself and its proponents have been ignored or pushed out of classrooms and academia.  In a country that still believes in the First Amendment, this is at least something worth thinking about, even if you think the other side has their head in an anatomically incorrect place.

An Inconvenient Truth (2006) -vs- Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Review by Bryce Zabel 

The Smackdown! Moore versus Gore. These two are documentaries from icons of the left on two of the biggest issues of our time: terrorism and global warming. Which one can be called the most effective?

The Challenger. Global warming is the subject of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" which is fresh off a warm welcome (sorry!) from Cannes and a hot reception (sorry, again!) from film critics now that it's in public release. It's the former Vice-President's slide-show come to life on film, and there's no doubt that it is effective in making the case that the time to act was yesterday. The only part that's odd is to see Gore as an outsider, given the fact that he's been an insider all his political life. 

"Mr. Gore, you and President Clinton ran the country for eight years, right?"

The Defending Champion. The War on Terrorism and George Bush's deceit is the topic of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" which was a critical darling of 2004. In fact, many Democrats secretly (and not so secretly) felt it would tip the election in favor of John Kerry. It did "fire up the base" as pundits like to say but it never reached critical mass with anybody who didn't already agree with Moore. I'm not defending Bush across-the-board but Moore's attack seemed over-reaching and over-wrought.

"Congressman, I am absolutely convinced that George Bush lied America into World War II."

The Scorecard. Michael Moore is an acquired taste, I guess, but I have just never acquired it. I think he's the biggest impediment to his own message because he's so obnoxious, so condescending to anyone who thinks differently than he does, and mostly because he twists the facts to his case even more than most documentarians. Al Gore benefits in his documentary from low expectations. We've been told that he's a charisma-challenged left-wing eco-terrorist. So when he, instead, turns out to be pleasant, charming, convincing and factual, it's such a twist that it makes the whole experience surprising. His facts do actually speak for themselves, and Gore is more than willing to just put them out there and let people think about them.

The Decision. This one is totally simple for me, it's "An Inconvenient Truth" in a first-round knock-out. Michael Moore failed in his mission to savage George Bush so much that voters would force the president from office in a humiliating electoral defeat. Al Gore, in contrast, seems to have hit his stride, as a person, as a politician and as an environmentalist. I wonder where this Gore disappeared to during the Clinton years and in the 2000 election, but that doesn't prevent me from welcoming him. His documentary is important and thoughtful and well-worth watching. If you have kids, take them, too.