Bryce Zabel's MOVIE SMACKDOWN!

Revolutionary Road (2008) -vs- American Beauty (1999)

Lives of Not-So-Quiet Desperation

The Smackdown.  The hype around "Revolutionary Road," of course, centers around the fact that it re-unites Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Rose (Kate Winslet) for the first time since the mega-super blockbuster "Titanic."  But smacking "Revolutionary Road" against "Titanic" would be like comparing apples and sailboats.  The real competition is between the family dysfunction of the 1999 Oscar winning "American Beauty" and the latest "Revolutionary Road" portrayal, both filmed by British director Sam Mendes.  If Jack had survived and he and Rose had gone on to settle into the suburbs, they might have ended up like Frank and April Wheeler.  Whether that couple would be as compelling to view as Lester and Carolyn Burnam, there's the battle ahead.

The Challenger.  "Revolutionary Road" tells the story of Frank and April Wheeler, a couple of once-free spirits who have moved into the suburbs of 1950s America and are slowly dying inside.  The problem appears to be that neither one of them are the people they once were and neither one of them likes who they've become or who their partner has become.  This is a tough spot for any couple with two children but in the America of that time where sexism is rampant, everybody smokes and drinks, and nobody says what they mean, it can be deadly.  The film is not full of event, it's full of small details of daily life and decaying marriage, realized with a spot-on intensity.  It feels so true to human nature than whenever you see anything that even remotely reminds you of yourself or your own marriage, all you can do is cringe.

Slumdog Millionaire (2008) -vs- The Kite Runner (2007)

Rising Above Expectations

The Smackdown.  Childhood friendships can last a lifetime and have profound consequences. Both "Slumdog Millionaire" and "The Kite Runner" tell sweeping stories in the lives of two boys -- a set of brothers in the former and a set of friends who act like brothers in the latter. They use narratives that cut back-and-forth across time, forcing them to use multiple sets of actors to portray their characters as boys turn to men. The contemporary storylines are deepened by the children's experiences we see in flashback.  Both films started as novels, force viewers (English-speaking ones anyway) to read a few sub-titles and share settings -- India and Afghanistan -- that have been scarred by terrorism as deeply as the United States. And even though "Slumdog Millionaire" is probably going to get an Oscar nomination this year, it's still going to have to hold off "The Kite Runner" to win this Smackdown...

The Challenger.  "Slumdog Millionaire" feels like it's giving you an authentic slice of life in the real India.  As directed by Danny Boyle from a screenplay by Simon Bradley based on a novel by Vikas Swarup, it tells the story of Jamel, an impoverished orphan from the slums of Mumbai who, as the film begins, is amazingly winning on the Indian version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" against all the odds.  He's being accused of cheating because nobody can believe a petty thief with his background could possibly know what he knows.  And there's the cheat which isn't a cheat at all.  Flashbacks reveal exactly how hard-won the knowledge is that is allowing him to become a sensation.  His story is embellished by his on-going relationship with his equally adept survivor brother Salim and the improbable romance with a girl named Latika.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) -vs- Forrest Gump (1994)

Separated at Birth?

The Smackdown.  Walking out of "Forrest Gump" in 1994, I remember thinking to myself that they ought to make more films like it.  A decade and a half later they've done just that and it's called "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button."  Both touching films are huge accomplishments in story, direction, effects and general envelope-pushing that owe a common source for their originality to screenwriter Eric Roth.  This time he's gone back further in time from Gump's baby-boomer adventures to Button's that span the years from World War I to present day.  Both leading men are blank-slates who seem to end up (Zelig-like) in the middle of big events where their voice-over is used to lead us through the narrative.  The movies also take place in the South, share a female free-spirit love interest, a strong single mom, and folk wisdom "catch phrases."  Does "Button" build on "Gump" or is it just a pale imitation?  That's the Smack attack here.

The Challenger.  "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" owes its concept to the famous remark by Mark Twain that the best part of life comes at the beginning and the worst at the end, and a short story that F. Scott Fitzgerald made out of it in 1921.  The film takes just the essence, though, and tells a new story entirely.  Basically, it's about a baby born on the day World War I ends who is biologically a very old man and who grows younger day by day.  It's a wonderful "what-if" to contemplate, down to the possibility that Button (Brad Pitt) could meet the love of his life when he's an old man and she's a kid, have a love affair when they're about the same age, and then end up with her as an old woman taking care of him when he's just a child.  The scope director David Fincher brings to the screen is large: from its WWI beginning, the film takes us all the way to modern times and Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

Revolutionary Road (2008) -vs- American Beauty (1999)

Lives of Not-So-Quiet Desperation

The Smackdown.  The hype around "Revolutionary Road," of course, will center around the fact that it re-unites Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Rose (Kate Winslet) for the first time since the mega-super blockbuster "Titanic."  But smacking "Revolutionary Road" against "Titanic" would be like comparing apples and sailboats.  The real competition is between the family dysfunction of the 1999 Oscar winning "American Beauty" and the latest "Revolutionary Road" portrayal, both filmed by British director Sam Mendes.  If Jack had survived and he and Rose had gone on to settle into the suburbs, they might have ended up like Frank and April Wheeler.  Whether that couple would be as compelling to view as Lester and Carolyn Burnam, there's the battle ahead.

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.