Bryce Zabel's MOVIE SMACKDOWN!

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.

Casino Royale (2006) -vs- On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

The Smackdown.  Nobody ever forgets their first time.  And get your mind out of the gutter, I'm talking about James Bond and what it takes for an actor to play him on an initial outing.

James Bond has a long franchise of adaptations, interpretations, and revitalizations spanning nearly fifty years.  With such a lineage, it's only natural that there'll be some intra-family rivalry.  Today we put up two highly-touted revampings designed to help Bond fans overcome two of the most popular actors to depict James Bond: Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan. 

On Her Majesty's Secret Service attempted to co-opt the loyalty of Bond fans by paying respect to Ian Fleming's original stories beyond just their titles, and of course sliding in newcomer George Lazenby as Bond... James Bond.  Casino Royale did much the same, using an orthodox choice in Daniel Craig to return to source material while retooling Bond for Jason Bourne-style audiences.  While Daniel Craig's Bond is certainly meaner and tougher, can this blond-haired Bond match up against the man better known as the post-Connery Bond?  Which one makes good on their promise to decrypt Double-O Seven and break territory ignored by previous Bond formulas?

The Challenger.  Fans felt there'd be no dying another day for the Bond franchise after Pierce Brosnan's last Bond outing in the overwrought and cheesy Die Another Day.  Faced with serious spy thrillers like Alias and The Bourne Identity, producers scrambled back to Ian Fleming and his first Bond novel, "Casino Royale." Daniel Craig, "the new guy," sparked hell among fans for his demeanor, blond-hair, and overall scruffy appearance.  Introducing the legendary spy at the beginning of his career, Casino Royale pits a cocky and inexperienced Bond against the poker-playing banker of the world's terrorists, Le Chiffre.  Although adding entire sequences and ideas absent in Fleming's novel, the film stays loyal to the novel in that Bond learns a harsh lesson from too easily trusting, and loving, a beautiful colleague in this high-stakes thriller.

The Women (2008) -vs- Sex And The City (2008)

Women with Shoes

The Smackdown. After fifteen years in development, TV comedy queen Diane English ("Murphy Brown") has finally completed her Magnum Opus: a star-spangled remake of 1939’s "The Women."  Sixty-nine years after that classic film’s original release, the remake of "The Women" follows in the high-heeled footsteps and huge box office wake of this summer’s earlier "Sex And The City."  The two movies are remarkably similar, sharing an unapologetic chickflick sensibility and Ladies Only appeal. 

Both films claim to reflect a kind of reality and instead mirror an uppercrust New York City where money is never an issue, a New York City where walking a mile even in your own shoes is unthinkable.  Shoes aren’t for walking; they’re for collecting, and they render their owners hobbled Geisha girls suited only to taking tiny baby steps on pristine boulevards, linking arms for balance, in search of more shoes and more men.  Freud suggests that shoes are a symbol for female genitalia.  Movies suggest they are no longer symbolic at all, but replacements.

So it’s a catfight to the finish.  Or wait.  Could "The Women" be just a pale imitation of an imitation arriving a little too late to cash in to the zeitgeist?  Timing (and those shoes) are everything.

The Challenger.  Everyone in "The Women" goes to Saks! Everyone in the movie is a woman! Society woman Mary Haines discovers her husband is having an illicit affair. Her group of friends stick their noses in her business. Somebody has a baby. Nobody worries about money. They live in New York City and Connecticut, but most of the people are white and rich. We learn early on that several characters are very witty, but we never actually hear anything that convinces us of this. They change clothes a lot.

Mamma Mia! (2008) -vs- Hairspray (2007)

Dancing Queens

The Smackdown.  If you want to face a little music besides the superhero and comic-based releases that dominate the summer hoopla like "The Dark Knight," "Iron Man," "Hancock" and "Hell Boy II," we've got a couple that just might sing to you. Hitting some high notes of its own among these summer blockbusters has been the musical "Mamma Mia!" still showing surprising strength. This homage to the music of the pop group ABBA earned $175 million in its first two weeks. No musical has ever opened this strongly.

"Chicago," "Dreamgirls," "Sweeney Todd," and even "The Producers" gave new vitality to the form. "Mamma Mia!" offers the most recent evidence of resurgent strength. Perhaps most amazing, I heard the audience singing along with several of the tunes. It sets up a melodic Smackdown!: How does the sight of Meryl Streep singing and dancing stack up against last year's bona fide musical hit, "Hairspray?" 

The Challenger. "Mamma Mia!" has Sophie Sheridan getting married in the rundown hotel operated by her mother Donna (Streep) on a small Greek island. Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) wants to find the mysterious father she never met and Donna's old diary gives Sophie a chance to play detective. She finds references to three special men, and Sophie invites all three to the wedding with the idea she'll learn which one (Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth and Stellan Skarsgard) is dear old dad. Mom knows nothing about this, and neither do the men. Adding to the confusion is a frisky pair of Donna's girlfriends (Christine Baranski, Julie Walters) who raise the general anxiety level. Characters advance the dramatic conflict by breaking into song. All Abba, all movie long. Eventually, the parental identities are sorted out at the alter, although the wedding ceremony plays out differently than originally planned. Phyllida Lloyd directed Catherine Johnson's script adapted from her stage play.