Bryce Zabel's MOVIE SMACKDOWN!

War Of The Worlds (2005) -vs- Independence Day (1996)

From the Editor:  Humans must either have a self-esteem problem or just a paranoid mind-set but, in either case, there’s a constant stream of Hollywood films where aliens have to come and kick our butts.  As you’ll see from the polls at the bottom of this post, our global Smackdown staff managed to come up with twenty of them for you to vote on without even breaking a sweat.  As the world braces for the re-make of “The Day the Earth Stood Still,” we asked SmackRef Rodney Twelftree to put the two with the biggest box office so far in the ring together.  Thanks, Bryce...

The End of the World as We Know It... Again

The Smackdown.  If you had to choose death from above, would you pick the green lasers, or the blue beams of destruction?  It's "Alien versus Alien" today, technology against technology, human victory against germ warfare, as the horrific events of Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise's "War of The Worlds" come up against the Roland Emmerich and Will Smith juggernaut of "Independence Day."  Both alien attackers are silent and oblivious to the pitiful cries of humanity as they systematically annihilate us.  If only they'd lived in the same cosmic neighborhood, maybe we'd have been spared their plans for global extermination.  But they both got off a clean shot at us and now it's pay-back time: into the SmackRing they go!

The Challenger from Mars. Starring a wounded Tom Cruise (who had, at the time this film was released, only recently jumped upon Oprah’s couch and made an utter knob of himself...) as the “everyman” Ray, who thinks only of himself, "War Of The Worlds" was a remake of the 50’s sci-fi classic, complete with lumbering tripod machines causing untold devastation on our planet. Alien's come to Earth and proceed to rise up from beneath the ground, obliterating everything and everyone with their deadly blue rays of destruction. Ray and his kids must make a harrowing journey from his home in New Jersey to Ray's ex-wife's home to escape the marauding invaders, however, this proves exceptionally difficult as humanity breaks down around them when the aliens pursue humans into the far flung corners of the planet. Spielberg took the premise of the original cult classic, amped it up to 11 and unleashed it upon a fear-ridden, anxiety-prone human world, tapping into the palpable tension around the globe in this current political and social climate. Proving to be a commercial juggernaut, "War Of The Worlds" rewrote the book on just how terrifying an full on attack from the stars could be.

Australia (2008) -vs- Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Baz at Work

Posted from South Australia

The Smackdown.  Australia is a continent, my country, a state of mind and now, finally, a movie.  To get the silver-screen version made, they gave one of the most visually stylish directors working today more money than he'd ever had for a film before and let him make an epic film about love, war and imperial indifference.  A few years ago, that same director was given license to pilfer some of the worlds' great songwriting talent and shoehorn it into a Aussie-made Bollywood musical.  The view from Australia (the country) is that the duo of "Moulin Rouge!" and "Australia" represents the finest of our country's local talent, both in front of, and behind, the cameras.  Our Smackdown pits director Baz Luhrmann against himself to see which of his passion projects is superior.  The mythical, intimate-while-still-epic "Moulin Rouge!", or the historical, epic-while-still-intimate widescreen adventure of the Outback, "Australia"?

The Challenger.  Dogged by production problems (From Russell Crowe bowing out of the lead role several months into planning, to a major set flooding in a once-in-50-years flood!) "Australia" as a film is the newest contender for a nations pride. It tells of a young British woman's discovery of our great country, of a passion she never thought she'd feel again, and a sense of belonging that, while certainly expected, is still revelatory in the execution. Baz Luhrmann's epic, widescreen drama/adventure film, which, with an estimated budget of around $AU130m, is among our more expensive cinematic efforts, and tells of a burgeoning country beset by impending war, imperialist ethics and a raw, pulsating heartbeat that tantalizes the soul: this, dear reader, is "Australia" the movie. In a move destined to be critiqued until the cows come home, Luhrmann has taken our national brand name and somehow injected it into a film that's as broad and sweeping as the country it's named after. With Nicole Kidman (Kiss Of Death Kidman she's often referred to around these parts...) and a buffed (and bronzed) Hugh Jackman, as well as a veritable smorgasbord of Australian local talent, "Australia" is, apparently, "Baz Luhrmann's Aussie version of Gone With The Wind". I paraphrase the man himself in saying that.

Hancock (2008) -vs- Superman: The Movie (1978)

Editor’s Note:  With this review, we welcome our first “international” SmackRef, Rodney Twelftree from Australia.  He’s got his own movie blog there, Fernby Films.  Anyway, we welcome his new voice to our mix and hope this is the first of many.  To all our new Australian readers who come aboard as a result, welcome to the Smack!

The Smackdown.  You'd be forgiven for thinking that Hollywood has forgotten how to make anything but superhero movies.  They come out as regularly as the comic books that spawned them once did for adolescent boys with ten cents burning a hole in their pockets.   The one that got it all started, of course, was "Superman: The Movie" -- starring Christopher Reeve.  Based on staying power, Superman is probably the greatest comic hero of all time and 1978's film version "Superman: The Movie" has become the gold standard in comic-to-film translations.  In the Richard Donner-directed film, the title character soared to new heights with state of the art effects (for the day), enormous budget, and a cavalcade of talent both in front of, and behind, the camera.  Its successful formula inspired so much competition that even the franchise re-boot, "Superman Returns," had trouble standing out from the pack when it came out.  So, it was inevitable that an anti-hero version would be made, as a way to cut through the superhero signal-to-noise ratio.  Enter a movie star super man to take on the challenge -- Will Smith.  He flies high (and low!) in the Peter Berg-directed flick, "Hancock."  Apparently, it's not easy being super, and Will suffers through his enormous power beset by alcoholism and depression.  Is "Superman: The Movie" dated and old and open to being kicked around by "Hancock" or is the man in tights still The Man?  Let's see if Will Smith can overcome the giant legacy of Christopher Reeve. 

The Challenger. Imagine if you took a hero like Superman, gave him a drinking problem, and the attitude of a Tarantino film. Essentially, that's "Hancock". Boozy, lazy, self indulgent and often, just plain rude, Hancock is the kind of superhero you definitely do not want coming to save you from a burning skyscraper. Problematic rescues involving massive property damage have tarnished his reputation as a decent hero, and instead, the city of Los Angeles is seeking reparations for the damage he has caused in apprehending criminals or saving people. Yep, Hancock's all about angst, an angry god-like man beset with the emotional growth of a pineapple. Throw in a young, not-quite-successful public relations guru in Ray (Jason Bateman), and the sparks will surely fly. Especially when Hancock gets his eyes around Ray's wife, played with toothy relish by Charlize Theron: you just know it's gonna get messy.