Bryce Zabel's MOVIE SMACKDOWN!

Body of Lies (2008) -vs- Blood Diamond (2006)

Leo as a Man of Action

The Smackdown.  Given his humble beginnings as a kid doing TV sitcoms like "Growing Pains," it's extraordinary to be writing about two huge-budget films where Leonardo DiCaprio is an action hero, but that's where we are.  Nobody thought the economy would be in the shape it is, either, so life is full of surprises.  In any case, both the Middle-East flavored "Body of Lies" and the Sierra Leone-based drama "Blood Diamond" are different kinds of thrillers, uniquely suited to DiCaprio's screen presence.  They're both thoughtful, smart films where the main character is a conflicted guy who finds himself in the middle of a situation that requires all his skills just to stay alive, let alone to figure out how to be a good guy or if he even wants to.  DiCaprio against DiCaprio in a rumble where bullets fly and f-bombs drop.

The Challenger.  "Body of Lies" is the latest film from super-director Ridley Scott who lately seems to be fascinated by the Middle East and our role in it.  In this film, DiCaprio plays Roger Ferris, a CIA operative with a bullet (as in, rising star) who's trying to track down a bin Laden-type named al-Saleem.  He's out there in the field nearly getting killed on a daily basis while Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe) lives a suburban life back in America where he, literally, phones it in to Ferris out in the field. The theme of the film seems to be deception: how you can let the deception that is part of your job bleed into your life, and that, ultimately, nobody is innocent.  The screenplay was written by William Monahan ("The Departed") working from a book written by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.

Brideshead Revisited (2008) -vs- Atonement (2007)

Boys from the Wrong Side of the Tracks

The Smackdown. There's no doubt that superheroes and stoners are king at this summer's box office, but if you're craving a little romanticism - oh hell, a LOT of romanticism - and stories that don't rely on car chases, Swedish pop music or the wit of forty year old adolescents, then Julian Jarrold's "Brideshead Revisited" may be exactly what you're looking for.  The film is already drawing comparisons to last year's epic period piece "Atonement."  On the surface these two films appear to be very similar - both are adapted from remarkable works of fiction, set in similar time periods and locations, and each film features a young man of humble birth who falls for a woman of a much higher social standing.  While both films touch on the struggle between the classes, "Atonement" explores the power of words, perception and forgiveness, while "Brideshead Revisited" focuses more on religion and the often incomprehensible meanderings of the human heart.  Today these films forget their good breeding, set aside their high society manners and battle it out to prove that they are not your parents' period dramas.

The Challenger.  Julian Jarrold directs the latest version of Evelyn Waugh's famous "Brideshead Revisited."  Set in England during the years before WWII, the film centers around Charles Ryder, a young middle class painter.  During his first year at Oxford Charles meets Sebastian Flyte, a beguiling and flamboyant aristocrat.  Sebastian and Charles begin an intense, though platonic, friendship. Their relationship is further complicated when Charles spends the summer at Sebastian’s sprawling estate at Brideshead and is introduced to Sebastian’s glamorous sister, Julia, and their devoutly Catholic mother, Lady Marchmain. Both brother and sister claim to be “heathens” and “sinners,” but both are so tied to their mother’s dogma that it will haunt them the rest of their lives. Julia and Sebastian are drawn to Charles because he is completely untouched by the world they live in.  Charles, however, is dazzled by their opulent lifestyle, by the palatial Brideshead, and by the siblings and all that they represent. He’s so taken by it all, in fact, that he soon finds himself swept up in the family’s convoluted affairs.

Death At a Funeral (2007) -vs- Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)

The Smackdown. British comedies are a class unto their own.  They simply have a way of demonstrating the quirkiness of ordinary human interaction in the face of outrageous circumstances that include the inevitable events of life.  What's more inevitable than death and taxes?  Family events!  Funerals, weddings, wakes, baptisms, a briss... what they have in common is that you're required to be there and even if you don't want to be present, British propriety demands you learn to fake it well.  These two Brit comedies, the recent DVD release Death at a Funeral and the 1994 Hugh Grant vehicle Four Weddings and a Funeral combine daft humor, classic Shakespearean story points and characterization which rings both true and outlandish at the same time.  Let's say you've got the popcorn popping and a significant somebody on the couch:  which of these films that want to tickle your funny bone and pull at your heart strings is the one to rent for the night?

The Challenger.  Death at a Funeral, directed by Frank Oz, (Yes! Miss Piggy directs real people!) and starring Matthew MacFadyen of Pride & Prejudice takes place at (you guessed it) a funeral.  Daniel's (MacFadyen) father has died and now the loyal and faithful son who lives with his wife in the family home must somehow organize the event, give the eulogy that no one wants to hear (his successful brother is a New York novelist), placate his grumpy Great Uncle Alfie, who he shoves off onto a bumbling friend with hilarious results, payoff a blackmailing midget harboring a family secret, and dodge his wife who asks every time she sees him if he's put the deposit on their new flat, where she hopes to move the moment the coffin is in the ground.  Add the classic Shakespearean story point (the mislaid letter, or in this case, the mislaid and consumed bottle of psychotropic pills disguised as Valium), an unwelcome sexual advance and viola... hilarity ensues. All the while you're wondering, who will be the death at the funeral? 

The performances are detailed and fun, particularly that of Broadway's Spamalot Sir Lancelot, Adam Tudyk, and a notable performance by Peter Dinklage.  That, coupled with MacFadyen's straight man sincerity, and you've got a wacky family that you can't help but root for. What Death at a Funeral lacks is a depth of character, and witty banter, but successfully substitutes slap stick and lovable caricatures. Instead of hoping to see who dies, you end up dreading it, even if it turns out to be grumpy Great Uncle Alfie.  Thus, we have a movie that not only demonstrates family dysfunction, but revels in it, celebrates it, and makes the viewer homesick indeed.

Get Smart (2008) -vs- Johnny English (2003)

Spying's Easy; Comedy's Hard

The Smackdown. Summer is here with new versions of familiar entertainments: A new Batman, a new Hell Boy, and now another spy spoof.

Every spy sendup owes something in spirit to Maxwell Smart. As the main character on TV's "Get Smart", Agent 86 set the gold standard for goofy storylines, ridiculous gadgets and non-stop laughs. 138 episodes enshrined the standing of creators Mel Brooks and Buck Henry. This success inspired a  second television series and a pair of Maxwell Smart movies. Audiences forever link Don Adams with the character he played. People may not know where they first heard phrases like "Would you believe," and "Missed it by THAT much." In recent years major studios churned out variations like burgers at a drive-thru: "Austin Powers," "Charlie's Angels," "The Pink Panther" and "Undercover Brother," among others. A solid, lower key effort came in 2003: "Johnny English" with Rowan Atkinson. It failed to find a mass audience, but its human scale recalls the material that inspired it.

Now, a new "Get Smart" hits the screen with Steve Carell playing a different Maxwell Smart. In fact, this material is very different from the original  --  and that's our Smackdown!: Does "Get Smart" climb atop the short pile of spy sendups... or get pushed back by "Johnny English?"

The Challenger. Forty years after our first exposure to "Get Smart," Max is now an intelligence analyst in Washington, DC with CONTROL but dying to be an agent. His chance comes after an attack on CONTROL headquarters compromises a number of agents. Max goes on the trail of renegade nuclear weapons, but this bumbler's not going alone. He's been assigned to work with Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway) and their chemistry is strained; she has field experience, he has insecurity and attitude. Those traits are on full display as their hunt for Siegfried (Terence Stamp) and the evil guys from KAOS moves the action to Chechnya, Russia and Los Angeles. More than once Max and 99 escape death by a whisker (a standoff with a large thug becomes a group hug) and they draw closer with each misadventure. Along the way we see the requisite gadgets that fizzle (the Cone of Silence, a miniature crossbow in a pocket knife) and quirky coworkers (Alan Arkin, Dwayne Johnson, Bill Murray). In a sputtering mix of comedy and action Max and Agent 99 wind up in L.A. where nuclear annihilation / a happy ending hang in the balance. You can guess how writers Tom Astle and Matt Ember resolve matters.

The Defending Champ. Writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and William Davies ramp up a smaller crisis in "Johnny English." Their hero is smug and clueless like TV's Maxwell Smart, and clearly out of his depths when trouble strikes. Johnny English (Rowan Atkinson) is elevated to secret agent from paper shuffler when his screwup eliminates the cream of Britain's MI5 agents. A disgruntled French tycoon  --  Pascal Sauvage  --  steals England's crown jewels in a plot to leverage an ancient but rejected family claim to the British throne. The chase takes English to France and back to England. More than once Johnny is snatched from oblivion by his assistant, Bough, and by fellow spy Lorna Campbell (Natalie Imbruglia). Will Johnny ever learn to handle his gadgets? Things don't look good as Sauvage (John Malkovich) blackmails his way to the British throne (any wonder why this movie didn't catch fire here?). Will Sauvage be crowned king? Will a poodle replace the English bulldog? Vous devez regarder le film!

Atonement (2007) -vs- The Kite Runner (2007)

Review by Bryce Zabel 

The Smackdown. We can probably all agree that children should be protected from seeing and hearing and thinking about sexual contacts in the world around them and yet, sometimes they aren't, sometimes they get a dose of reality before they're ready to handle it. In both "Atonement" and "The Kite Runner," young kids end up seeing sexual encounters -- in one case consenting and in the other definitely not -- and they make choices they end up regretting for the rest of their lives. They end up dragging other innocents into their confusion and creating even more victims. Each of these two films lives in a couple of different time periods, too, making just keeping track of some things a challenge. They both explore tough and demanding material where the rooting values and the unfolding of the aftermath is tricky stuff. You want them to succeed but it's a high-wire act. Let's see how these two highly regarded films -- both adapted from respected novels -- stack up against each other.

The Challenger. The first of the two films embedded inside "Atonement" deals with idyllic lives being lived in an English country house between the World War I and World War II. There's a full helping of "Upstairs, Downstairs" served up here because our two leads -- Cecilia Tallis (Keira Knightley) and Robbie Turner (James McAvoy) -- are on the two sides of the divide. She's the headstrong older daughter in a wealthy family and he's the housekeeper's son. But love and sex don't always care about those distinctions and Cecilia and Robbie are destined to end up in each other's arms. This would be reasonably okay except that Cecilia's younger sister, Briony (Saoirse Ronan), is 13 and even more confused sexually than they are, and she reads a letter and then sees some things that causes her to strike out at the very man she, herself, has an infatuation with. After that happens, suddenly it's five years later, Britain is at war with Germany, Robbie has returned to the scene, and we see the evacuation of Dunkirk in a way it's never been seen in film before. And then, come to think of it, there's even a third time period in this film, but that's all I'm prepared to say about it.

The Defending Champion. The truth is that you could actually call "The Kite Runner" by the title of the other film in this Smackdown, "Atonement," and get away with it. This film concerns life in Afghanistan before and after the rise of the Taliban, moves to the United States and back again. It's all seen through the eyes of another child of privilege, in this case a 12-year-old boy named Amir (back in 1978) who turns out to be a writer in San Francisco (in 2001). The thing is Amir also was involved in an upstairs-downstairs situation with Hassan, the son of the family servant. I've seen what happens between them laid out so explicitly in film reviews that I'm glad I saw this without reading them and I'm not going to repeat the insult. Suffice it to say that something happens to Hassan and Amir is a witness and how he deals with it changes the relationship not only in Afghanistan but follows the adult Amir to America and then back to his homeland.

The Scorecard. Both films ask you to pay attention. In that regard, "The Kite Runner" seems to ask a little more and deliver a little less. On the other hand, it takes most of its audience (in the United States anyway) on a ride that they've never been on before while the journey of "Atonement" feels more familiar, like a very, very expensive "Masterpiece Theater."

Director Marc Forster and screenwriter David Benioff have had to take a lot out of Khaled Hosseini's novel of "The Kite Runner," but they seem to have stayed reasonably true to it. As for "Atonement," director Joe Wright, working from a screenplay by Christopher Hampton, seem to have made Ian McEwan's novel breathe more deeply by their intervention.

There are some spectacular performances in both. "Atonement" has Keira Knightly and James McAvoy making us believe they are not only of the period but are completely believable creating the doomed lovers. For an added bonus, Vanessa Redgrave is on screen for only a few moments, but she ties the entire film together in a surprisingly powerful piece of acting. In "The Kite Runner," the son of the servant is played  by Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada in one of those rare pieces of acting that is so wonderful because you know he never set foot in a Hollywood acting class and wouldn't know a method actor from a Mullah. But the peformance that worked for me beyond all others in this film comes from Iranian actor Homayoun Ershadi playing the militant man-about-town Baba who is brought down to a sad reality in his later years in the United States. However, both young and old Amir in this film barely get by.

There's another point of comparison that bears mentioning -- the use of CGI. In "Atonement," it's used to give us the single longest shot in film history (I'm guessing) through the beach at Dunkirk and it happens in a way that feels organic and real. The CGI in "The Kite Runner" gives us kites doing impossible things in the sky, kite POV, and a sense that we have been taken out of the film story entirely. Point, "Atonement."