It's always fun for cinephiles when two similarly plotted films are released within months of each other.
In 2006, for instance,
Infamous, a film depicting Truman Capote's writing of
In Cold Blood, took a beating (perhaps undeserved) because it came out AFTER the very successful
Capote (2005).
Even delaying the its release to allow
Capote fever to die down didn't help very much.
Infamous virtually became a straight to DVD project.
While each movie puts a different spin on the plot (
Infamous seems to cut Capote less slack), they're both worthy efforts, I favorted
Capote.
It's not a bad movie, but my problem with
Infamous is that Daniel Craig, a talented actor, is just wrong for the part of the diminutive murderer Perry Smith. Because Smith's physicality is integral to understanding what he's all about, Craig's more imposing stature is too much of a distraction.
This prompted me to list and compare other such parallel feature film releases.
In many cases, trying to decide which version is better, is a lot like answering the eternal question: who's hotter -- Mary Ann or Ginger?
Sometimes, I just can't make up my mind.
Dr. Strangelove/Failsafe (1964)
This is the mother of twin releases.
Henry Fonda said he would never have made
Failsafe, if he had seen
Dr. Strangelove beforehand.
Like
Infamous,
Failsafe is a good movie, but clearly suffered by being released second. It suffered BIG TIME by being released second to a masterpiece.
Failsafe has enjoyed a bit of a revival in recent years and has emerged from of
Dr. Stranglove's shadow to be appreciated on it's own. George Clooney even championed 2000's live television remake (in black and white, no less).
While I like
Failsafe,
Dr. Strangelove wins hands down. The characters in
Failsafe seem to waste a lot of time pontificating about the perils of the nuclear age rather then simply working the problem.
The ultimate irony is that even though
Dr. Strangelove is a comedy, it feels more realistic than
Failsafe. Okay, maybe the war room in
Dr. Strangelove is surreal. But for the most part,
Dr. Strangelove seems more accurate and less dated when viewed today.
For example, both movies contain scenes in which the pilots break open and read their respective mission orders. In
Dr. Strangelove, the "attact profile" contains a mix of written plans, target coordinates and detailed procedures. The attack plan scene in
Failsafe focuses on an unintentially funny index card that simply has the word "MOSCOW" printed on it in thick black ink.
And the last line in
Dr. Strangelove, "Mein Furher, I can valk" totally destroys
Failsafe's last line, "I'm the matador."
Verdict:
Dr. Strangelove
Never Say Never Again/Octopussy (1983)
Sean Connery agreed to appear one more time in an "rogue" Bond flick which was essentially (and legally) a remake of
Thunderball. This set the stage that year for a head to head competition with the 007's franchise "official" entry to the series.
Critically, if not financially,
Never Say Never Again, got the better of it. Those who had been lambasting Roger Moore's less serious interpretation of Bond since Connery left the part in 1971 seemed vindicated by the real-time comparison.
While it's initially exciting to see Connery strapping on the Walther PPK again,
Never Say Never Again is a bit of a disappointment. The original plan was to have Connery play an older Bond. But, they chickened out. Connery's brown hair piece seems more unbelievable than his flying motorcycle. And like
Thunderball did seventeen years earlier,
Never Say Never Again proves that there's no way to make an underwater scuba fight seem interesting.
On the other hand,
Octopussy has a scene where Roger Moore's Bond is dressed in clown make-up and big floppy shoes. 'Nuff said.
Verdict:
Never Say Never Again by a hair(piece)
Armageddon/Deep Impact (1998)
Deep Impact's original script was altered from the president saying "Life will go on, we will prevail...THIS IS NOT ARMAGEDDON!" to "Life will go on, we will prevail" because the producers knew that they were indeed facing
Armageddon (at the box-office anyway).
Both movies are standard disaster vehicles that are chock full of special effects catastrophies. And both movies end with a major character sacrificing themself. To it's detrement,
Armageddon seems a little too happy about it.
Verdict: Tie
Valmont (1989)/ Dangerous Liasions (1988)
An interesting piece of trivia from
IMDB has it that Michelle Pfieffer was offered the role of the older Marquise de Merteuil in
Valmont at the same time she was offered the role as the younger Madame de Tourvel in
Dangerous Liaisons.
While Pfieffer may be a bit too old for her character in
Dangerous Liasions, I can certainly see how losing her could drive one to suicide.
In
Valmont, the characters talk and act in a more contemporary (late 1980's) manner than
Dangerous Liasions which plays out more like a time capsule for the period in which the story occurs.
I enjoyed both movies equally. In fact, comparing their respective approaches is an interesting, if not geeky, exercise.
Verdict: Tie
Tombstone (1993) /Wyatt Earp (1994)
Both
Tombstone and
Wyatt Earp present historically accurate reenactments of the famous gunfight at the "OK" corral (in real life, it lasted less than a minute). Both Kurt Russell (Tombstone) and Kevin Cosner (Wyatt Earp) portray Earp as a flawed lawman.
It's close, but
Wyatt Earp is a more fully realized effort. And Dennis Quaid (who lost thirty pounds for the part) as Doc Holiday is more credible as the gentleman killer than Val Kilmer's more dandified version.
Verdict:
Wyatt Earp
Actually, the answer to the Mary Ann vs. Ginger question is easy: it's Batgirl, of course!
Read more!
Round 1 results for Maul Madness 2008:
