When you talk about animated movies, the first studio that comes to mind has to be Pixar. They have, for the most part, consistently created better animation with better characters and better stories than the other animation studios, with only a few exceptions (How To Train Your Dragon and Despicable Me are phenomenal animated films). 21 year old Brazilian film buff (as in a film buff from Brazil, not a buff of Brazilian film) Leandro Copperfield agrees; after 11 days of re-watching Pixar’s feature films, he has selected over 500 scenes he felt were most beautiful and edited them together to create “The Beauty of Pixar.” Read More

Have you ever wondered to your self, “How can a night at the movies be so costly?” Feel about it…a family of four, 2 adults 2 kids, pay $26 for tickets, $8.00 for a significant popcorn, $4.00 for a soda, $3.50 for that candy bar, oh wait, your other kid wants a candy bar too, so that’s $7 for candy, and $4 in quarters for the vending machines whilst your waiting for the movie. I feel you get the point. Well going to the movies doesn’t have to be an expensive proposition. Now I’m not a cheapo, but I know how and where to invest my money wisely. That being said, here are a couple of ideas on the best way to save at the box office: Read More

I recently caught up with Channing Tatum while he was in London to talk about his new film, the romantic tear jerker Dear John. Channing Tatum plays John, who while on summer vacation from the military meets Savannah (Amanda Seyfried). But their romance is threatened as the holiday ends, Savannah has to go back to college and John must return to life in the army and all that his duty entails. They decide to exchange letters to each other after he is deployed to the war. Brought together by love, but will fate tear them apart? Read More

I’ve been a fan of David Slade since I watched his debut film Hard Candy, and even though his second film 30 Days of Night didn’t quite floor me as much as his debut, I still loved his visual style. With his third film Slade has directed the best Twilight film to date, it still wasn’t my cup of tea, but it was about 122354905 times more exciting than New Moon. Read More

Article Source http://www.articlesbase.com/movies-articles/michael-winterbottom-interview-director-of-the-killer-inside-me-3773182.html

If any film is going to split opinions this year it will most certainly be Michael Winterbottom’s The Killer Inside Me, some people (like myself) will think it’s one of 2010′s best films, while others will be disgusted by it’s violence. The film is based on the 1952 Jim Thompson novel of the same name and remains brutally faithful to the material, even I was taken back by some of the violence, yet I really do feel it helped make the film one of the most intriguing and unsettling insights into the mind of a serial killer we have seen on screen for years. Check out my Interview with the film’s director Michael Winterbottom below.

First of all how did you come across the book?

Michael Winterbottom: Well I was planning to make a movie about gangs set in Manchester in the 1950s, with elements borrowed from a noir fiction by pulp author David Goodis but we were caught out by copyright issues. Then I read The Killer Inside Me and I thought, this is great, I loved the book and I thought that instead of trying to adapt it, we would just film the book almost like a text. I think when I read it, I thought it was such a claustrophobic world, I thought it would be better to stay very close to the book.

Why did you want to stay so close to the book?

Michael Winterbottom: In the original screenplay the narrative was made a little bit more complicated and was broken up more, what I liked about the book was that it was very direct, almost straight away Lou meets Joyce and is hitting her. It’s very linear and not complicated. Because we see the whole film from Lou’s point of view, bits get left out, for example we realise the cash had been marked after the event, it’s very straight forward and because Lou is actually not aware of a lot of things in the film you’re not aware of them either, your kept in the quiet, I found that more dynamic.

How hard was it to find the right actors for the film? Casey Affleck’s role is such a key to the success of the film for me.

Michael Winterbottom: It was actually quite easy because the first person we wanted to cast was Lou Ford, it’s obviously Lou Ford’s film, he’s in every scene, everyone else is only in the film briefly, so Casey Affleck was the only person I actually met for Lou, from previous things I had seen him in and then meeting him I knew he’d be perfect for it, he was really up for it as well, from the first meeting with him we knew he was the one. After that we thought whoever plays Amy or Joyce could play either part, with the descriptions of them in the book even though they are both different, they are quite synchronised,. Jessica Alba wanted to play Joyce and she was great, it was easy on that level. The people who came to me all knew the book or either knew what the book was all about, they knew what they were getting themselves into. It wasn’t the case of having a big discussion to persuade anyone to do it. Jessica was really clear she wanted to play Joyce and had some strong ideas about how to play her, she was incredible to work with.

I loved how the film looked, other than the book what other sources did you use for that?

Michael Winterbottom: To be honest not that many, by chance I had a lot of documentary’s and footage from the 50′s in middle America where this story was based, so we looked at that and checked out cars from the time period. There’s a difference from what you get in the magazines of the time period and what actually people where wearing or driving at the time, we shifted the time of the film to 1957 because we thought it would look bolder, 1952 visually wouldn’t be quite as obvious, we also looked from the perspective that it wasn’t the case of what was the latest car or clothing of that year, people would have been driving cars they had for maybe twenty years, so we tried to make it look bold but realistic.

What we found so important was finding the location, so we spent a lot of time driving around West Texas then also Oklahoma and New Mexico, then finally because of tax breaks we couldn’t shoot in Texas so we shot the landscape in New Mexico and we used the town in Oklahoma, that basically meant it ended up looking pretty much like West Texas, the story and the world the book created can happen pretty much anywhere, but it wouldn’t have the same feel if the story was based in 1950′s Bradford (laughs). I think giving it that landscape made it so much more cinematic, the towns over there have such broad streets to this day, it looks so harsh and hot, it has a particular feel to it, what was amazing that I hadn’t exactly understood from reading the book was that the central building in these towns wasn’t the town hall like over here (in the UK), it was the courthouse, with the court room, sheriffs office and the jail all in one building, right in the middle of the town, so many town’s in those states followed that pattern, with the police and punishment element at the centre of society.

I loved the music as well, with the more operatic side of it and also the country and western stuff. Did you ever have a piece of music in mind when you were shooting a scene?

Michael Winterbottom: I never have a particular piece of music in mind, I would often think of what music I might put into a scene. I love the idea of filming a scene with a certain piece of music in mind but to be honest the one or two times I’ve tried to do that it didn’t work, I love to play around with different pieces of music, music is so important in film, it can change the whole tone of the scene. Before hand we listened to a lot of Texas Swing, we thought it had a nice quality to it, it often talks about themes covered in the film as well, with death and broken hearts and that sort of stuff, with that sort of bright surface. I think the music kind of helped Lou’s image as well as this sort of easy going sheriff. The book made a big point of Lou reading his Dad’s medical book’s and figuring out algebra problems, but I thought you can’t really film someone reading a book and make it have much of an impact, him listening to music was the equivalent of that in the film. What’s great about the story is that, that side of him is a lot like his Dad, but he hates and wants to destroy his memory’s of his Dad, but at the same time he wants to emulate him, music in the film references his Dad a lot.

Has the reaction to the violence in the film surprised you?

Michael Winterbottom: I don’t know really, at the beginning when we were thinking should the violence be shot in the film I always thought it should, it’s important for the shape of the story. When Lou is violent to Joyce and Amy, two people who love him in an absolute way, it shows he’s destroying anyone who’s close to him. The violence is a way of showing the whole point of the story and the pointlessness and wastefulness of Lou’s actions. Yet at the same time once you’ve made a film, you’d rather people would be shocked but liked it, than shocked and disgusted by it (laughs). Literally the first screening of the film at Sundance the first person to speak after the film finished was a woman who stood up and shouted, ‘It’s disgusting! It’s disgusting! The festival should be ashamed of itself showing the film here, it’s immoral’ I wasn’t quite expecting that to be honest.

Article Source http://www.articlesbase.com/movies-articles/michael-winterbottom-interview-director-of-the-killer-inside-me-3773182.html

Article Source http://www.articlesbase.com/movies-articles/watching-welcome-to-the-rileys-movies-online-3775466.html

Welcome to the Rileys movies open with Doug Riley and his wife Lois had been living a half life since their daughter Emily was killed eight years ago. Doug was having an affair with a waitress Vivian. On the other hand, Lois had struggled for harboring a secret and devastating sense of guilt for her daughter’s death. She had withdrawn herself and hid away from the outside world, relying on hairdressers who made house calls, her sister Harriet and a local pastor.

After Vivian died, Doug was lost. On a business trip to Baton, Rouge he found himself standing at crossroads. Later in a strip club, a 16 years old lap-dancer Mallory provided Doug the extra services in a private room. He turned her down but went home with her to a run down apartment. Doug made his own proposition to offer her $100 a day for staying at her place in order to get his head together. No sex. No strings. Mallory agreed.

Doug rang Lois and told her that he would not come home. Then he and Mallory settled into a certain kind of domesticity even though Mallory always wandering around naked and offered sex.

Helpless on her own, Lois, whom was previously unable to make it 20 yards to the mailbox, realized that she had to take action for saving her marriage. For the first time in 8 years, she managed to reach her car and started heading to south, after a couple times of failure.

Back in Louisiana, Doug tidied Mallory’s apartment and then started trying to clean up her life.

Lois, with a paper bag ready in hand in case for hyperventilating, finally arrived Mallory’s place and was shocked to find her husband living with a foul-mouthed under-aged hooker. After notifying the similarity between her daughter and Mallory, Lois moved in the apartment as well. And three of them formed an unusual family relationship.

In a matter of client abused case, Mallory was hospitalized. When Doug and Lois rushed to the hospital, they faked their identities as Mallory’s parents to visit her.

Finally Doug and Lois were re-united. Then Lois confessed to Dough the guilty she felt for the death of their daught and had the burden of the secret hided for these years lifted away. Life seemes coming back to both of them.

However, Mallory was just a teenager after all and was not ready to complete “family” picture yet.

Article Source http://www.articlesbase.com/movies-articles/watching-welcome-to-the-rileys-movies-online-3775466.html

Article Source http://www.articlesbase.com/movies-articles/6-reasons-to-trade-dvds-vs-renting-movies-3778317.html

Six of the most reasons to trade dvds are as follows:No dvd rentalsHow many times have you walked into a movie store and the movie you needed was out! You return a few days later and it is still out! Out of complete frustration you choose a movie and regret it later. This leaves a bitter style in your mouth, but nonetheless you discover yourself going back, hoping to search out that one movie.

You’ll create your own dvd listNormally for you to create a dvd list it might be expensive, but with trading dvds you’ll be able to build a cheap list fast. In no time in the slightest degree, you may be a master connoisseur of movies.Receive dvds with no limits/no hasslesImagine being able to trade as many movies as you would like, and not being restricted by a small movie rental selection. Most movie stores do not invariably have exactly what you desire.

Trading dvds can give you what you want, when you wish it.Offer dvds for cheap giftsInstead of shopping for movies and going broke, you’ll trade movies for pocket change. Whether or not it’s a birthday or you just wish to place a huge smile on a fan’s face, there’s nothing better than a smart movie. What is your friend’s favorite movie? How will that person look when you offer them the movie of a lifetime?Forget regarding painful late feesThere’s nothing worse than trying out during a movie rental store and also the cashier looks you within the eyes and says, you have got a late fee.

Of course your trapped and need to pay it! How many late fees have you been charged? You’ll place a stop to those late fees by trading your dvds!Arduous to find movies now will be yoursYou walk into the movie store and circle around the aisles looking for that one movie. Your wanting for the movie that is visiting excite your night. Sadly you never find the movie and, to make matters worse, you raise an employee. The employee tells you they do not see it in the computer, however they can order it for you. What choices do you have now?Imagine shocking your friends with movies, that they may never realize at Blockbuster.

Image giving a arduous to seek out movie as a present to a lover or loved one. Simply assume, all your friends will be amazed at your new movie collection.Imagine how it can feel to form your own dvd collection. You might wish to start out a comedy assortment or even a horror movie collection. Let your imagination go and build the movie assortment of your dreams! Take control of your movie selections today through dvd trading.You can see the probabilities with this and you can keep the movie or you’ll be able to trade the movie again. Break your movie monotony! Imagine being able to trade your dvds whenever you want.

Article Source http://www.articlesbase.com/movies-articles/6-reasons-to-trade-dvds-vs-renting-movies-3778317.html

Article source http://www.articlesbase.com/movies-articles/disney-movie-club-bear-in-mind-your-favorites-3778325.html

Movies On VHS And DVDWith movies on the market on VHS and DVD, you’ll fancy your favorite Disney movies any time you would like, in the comfort of your home through the convenience of the Disney Movie Club.The Movies You Love – The Best Movies On The PlanetGet pleasure from classics like Mary Poppins, Swiss Family Robinson and Alice in Wonderland or more recent movies like Pirates of the Caribbean, The Chronicles of Narnia and Chicken Little. The Disney library of films and videos is one in all the terribly best libraries of family entertainment on the planet.Walt Disney Had A DreamYears ago with pen in hand, Walt Disney drew a character he called Mortimer Mouse. Mortimer was a cute and happy little fellow with an endearing voice (Walt’s).Then Mortimer’s name was changed to Mickey — and Walt Disney and the planet would never be the same.Walt Disney movies and also the Disney Studios have given us splendidly animated entertainment, exciting True Life nature films, movies that transport us through unimaginable adventures, enchanting tales and lovely worlds of fantasy.

Disney’s top quality, state-of-the-art production values have given us movies that have come to mean therefore abundant to generations round the world.Keep in mind The MagicAs a child, I still bear in mind how excited I was when the newest Walt Disney Movie came to town. The stories were wonderful, the characters were forever fun and memorable and also the music continually fit the movie perfectly. And I might hardly wait to work out them.And as I sat in the darkened theatre magically transported into the story that was flickering up there on that massive silver screen, I had no idea that so many of Disney’s movies would become cherished classics that I would never forget.Movies NowadaysYou have heard it… You will have even said it…Its getting tougher and harder to seek out a extremely smart movie playing at a native theatre.There are exceptions, except for the most part, the art of excellent story telling in movies looks to possess been replaced by movies that are loud, violent and laced with profanity. And as a parent you actually need to use caution regarding what your child sees at the movie theatre.

The Disney Movie ClubImagine having the ability to decide on an exquisite classic family movie you would like to work out once more, or a more recent movie release you want to add to your library.Get pleasure from your favorites once again AND introduce your youngsters to these glorious movies for the first time. Oh, and also the Club delivers the flicks right to your mail box.What a great method to make your home movie and video library with an incredible assortment of movies and videos your entire family can enjoy.

The Disney Movie Club features all the nice Disney classics (aside from titles that are “in the vault”), and simply trying over the list of their movies is exciting.Another nice feature is their videos for all ages. From the incredibly well-liked Baby Einstein series (a favorite of my youngest granddaughter), to preschool sing-a-longs and Disney originals.Family Movies Are BestNice Disney movies still thrill audiences world-wide and is not it attention-grabbing that a lot of of the simplest and most common movies are family films? And once more, its the stories and characters we tend to remember.Your FavoritesWalt Disney had a dream. Which dream has given us so several wonderful reminiscences, reminiscences we tend to can easily share with our children.Do you remember your favorite Disney movie?Relive the magic… You deserve it… And hey, share a number of the magic together with your child. They’ll love you for it.

Article source http://www.articlesbase.com/movies-articles/disney-movie-club-bear-in-mind-your-favorites-3778325.html

Article source http://www.articlesbase.com/movies-articles/the-future-of-horror-movies-the-saw-series-3778575.html

In order to fully comprehend the Saw franchise, all we have to do is look at the logo of the company that made all seven movies. On each film you will notice the words “Twisted Pictures” that are ensnared by coils of nasty-looking barbed wire. In addition, they are impaled by a metal spike and after that the metal spike is rotated, tightening the wire and provoking deep scars in the letters. The people who only heard about the Saw movies in commercials and advertisements assume that their appeal is the twisted traps. For fans however, it is the twisted plotlines that make them count the days left until the next Halloween (all the seven movies were launched on this holiday for the past seven years).

To fully understand the complexity of the Saw franchise and at the same time realize that these movies revitalized the entire horror genre, here are a few jaw-dropping examples:

-          In the third part of the movie (Saw 3), you will notice a character that is reading a letter and then bursts into tears, shortly before flying into a homicidal rage. You will not be able to find out who wrote the letter until you see Saw 4. More than that, in order to find out what was actually written in the letter, you will have to see Saw 6;

-          Saw 3 shows you the first five minutes right after the end of Saw 2 while Saw 4 shows you what is going on immediately after that;

-          Saw 4 takes place actually during the events that happen in Saw 3, which is only revealed when a character from the 4th film walks into the final scene of Saw 3, approximately 2 seconds after the previous film cut to black;

-          Saw 5 continues the events that occur thirty seconds after the third part.

This are only a few interesting examples of how complex the plot of the Saw franchise really is and who it is considered by many the resurrection of the horror genre, which will most likely lead to new interesting films in the near future. Without any doubt, there is not another horror movie series that can be compared to this type of unified narrative. Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th movies were not building off previous movies. The Final Destination franchise that was released concurrently with the Saw movies, were in fact a series of remakes and the Scream franchise had some continuity, but the plot was not that hard.

To understand how successful the series is, you only have to think about the fact there are already 7th movies and rumors say that next year on Halloween we will have another one, the eight part and we doubt that it will be the last one if it will be just as good as the first seven. It goes without showing that an interesting plot can turn a single movie (Saw 1) into a mini-series some might think.

Article Source http://www.articlesbase.com/movies-articles/the-future-of-horror-movies-the-saw-series-3778575.html

I just read an article that there’s another mall cop movie coming out. It’s called “Observe and Report” and it’s the “edgier” take on the mall cop genre, with Seth Rogan handling the lead role that Kevin James just rode to absolutely shocking commercial success in “Paul Blart: Mall Cop”.

Well… this got my friends and me thinking about other basically identical movies that came at basically identical times. And, without too much trouble, I was able to find 11 cases of shockingly similar movies that were released within months of each other.

Here are comparisons of each of those sets of movies. In each breakdown, I reference the Rotten Tomatoes score — if you’re unfamiliar, Rotten Tomatoes is a site that aggregates all the reviews for a movie and gives the movie a score based on what percentage of the reviews are positive.

• “Deep Impact” (May 8, 1998) and “Armageddon” (July 1, 1998)

Two movies about large space objects (a comet and asteroid, respectively) hurtling toward Earth and a small group of heroic astronauts, seemingly average people and government officials uniting to save mankind before it’s too late.

Critical success. “Deep Impact” got a 46 percent on Rotten Tomatoes (which was a pretty good score for a ’90s blockbuster). “Armageddon” got a 40 percent on Rotten Tomatoes; James Sanford of James Sanford on Film said, “Breathless and utterly brainless… makes the similarly-themed and much more sentimental ‘Deep Impact’ look like ‘Schindler’s List’ by comparison.”

Commercial success. “Deep Impact” had less hype and made less money, $140.5 million to “Armageddon’s” $201.6 million.

Biggest difference. In “Deep Impact” part of the comet actually hits Earth. In “Armageddon” Bruce Willis’s martyr-ific sacrifice atop the asteroid totally saves the day.

Winner? “Deep Impact” was a better movie (ask a lot of people — they’ll tell you that “Deep Impact” made them cry), but “Armageddon” did better in the moment and has seemingly held the mantle for shit-hitting-Earth films ever since.

I blame that damn Aerosmith song… the version where in between Steven Tyler wailing about not wanting to close his eyes or go to sleep there’s voiceover of Ben Affleck talking about animal crackers.

• “Chasing Liberty” (January 9, 2004) and “First Daughter” (September 24, 2004)

Two movies about the 18-year-old daughter of the President of the United States (Mandy Moore and Katie Holmes, respectively) becoming so frustrated with her constant protection and her presidential father’s over-protectiveness that she can’t take it any more and decides to rebel… right into the arms of a tall, handsome gentleman. But that gentleman has a secret (in BOTH EFFING CASES, he’s an undercover secret service agent), and the first daughter is about to get more than she bargained for.

Critical success. “Chasing Liberty” pulled in only 19 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. But “First Daughter” was way cheesier and did even worse, at a remarkable NINE percent.

Commercial success. “Chasing Liberty” made $12.2 million (and cost $23 million to make). “First Daughter” made even less, at $9.1 million (and cost $30 million to make).

Biggest difference. As my friend Adam put it, “‘Chasing Liberty’ is like taking the plot of ‘First Daughter’ and the plot of ‘Eurotrip’ and mashing them together.” Also, for some reason, in “Chasing Liberty”, they threw in a huge subplot about Jeremy Piven (as a secret service agent) falling in love with another secret service agent.

Winner? I guess it’s “Chasing Liberty” by every measure — although it’s more like “Chasing Liberty” sucked slightly less than “First Daughter”… not “Chasing Liberty” was a better film than “First Daughter”.

• “The Illusionist” (September 1, 2006) and “The Prestige” (October 20, 2006)

Two critically-acclaimed period pieces, set in Europe, that explore the world of seemingly-supernatural magic and it’s role in life-or-death rivalries.

Critical success. “The Illusionist” got a 74 percent on Rotten Tomatoes and an Oscar nomination for best cinematography. “The Prestige” got a 75 percent on Rotten Tomatoes and two Oscar nominations — one for art direction, one for cinematography. (Both lost the cinematography category to “Pan’s Labyrinth” by the way.)

Commercial success. “The Illusionist” made $39.8 million, “The Prestige” made $53 million, so neither was any kind of real huge box office success.

Biggest difference. While both seem to feature supernatural magic, only “The Prestige” actually does — when Hugh Jackman’s magician character meets Nikola Tesla (played by David Bowie) and uses a machine he created to do actual teleportation. (Or, at least, matter replication. Or something. I was half-asleep when I watched both of these.)

Winner? I saw both of these movies about two years ago and the only one that really stuck with me was “The Prestige”… I remembered the twist, the magic and the whole strange Tesla angle. Also, “The Illusionist” is one of those films from the phoning-it-in period of Ed Norton’s career.

• “Antz” (October 2, 1998) and “A Bug’s Life” (November 25, 1998)

Two computer-animated films about ant colonies… specifically one seemingly-generic ant who has more heroism inside of him than anyone every could’ve imagined… and who, over the course of the movie, leaves the colony, channels his heroics into defeating other insect enemies (termites, caterpillers, evil ants), and, ultimately, is responsible for the betterment of the colony as a whole.

Critical success. “Antz” was a huge critical success — 95 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. “A Bug’s Life” did almost as well, at 91 percent… and got one Oscar nomination, for best original music.

Commercial success. “Antz” brought in $90.6 million for Dreamworks… “A Bug’s Life” rode the Disney/Pixar machine to whoop it, with $162.8 million.

Biggest difference. The plots of the movie, outside of being set against ant colony backdrops and featuring unlikely everyman heroes, are fairly different. “Antz” has a whole communism/democracy angle and a crazy love story… “A Bug’s Life” is kinda like an animated “Three Amigos”. Winner? “A Bug’s Life” had more success but, like the “Deep Impact”/”Armageddon” battle, I really think “Antz” was a smarter, better movie.

• “The Truman Show” (June 5, 1998) and “EdTV” (March 26, 1999)

Two movies that show both the upsides and downsides of having cameras broadcasting your every move to millions of captivated Americans. Can any relationship be real? Can you really fall in love? And ultimately, just how far would you go to get away from the cameras and get the sweet, sweet freedom of privacy?

Critical success. “The Truman Show” — which is probably Jim Carrey’s best dramatic role ever (with apologies to my friend Steve who, for some reason, is obsessed with “The Majestic”) — got a 95 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. It also got three Oscar nominations (including best original screenplay and best director); and both Jim Carrey and Ed Harris won Golden Globes for their acting.

“EdTV” did significantly worse, with a 63 percent on Rotten Tomatoes and its only award nod being a 1999 Teen Choice Award nomination for sexiest love scene (between Elizabeth Hurley and Matthew McConaughey). And they ended up losing to Freddie Prinze Jr. and Rachael Leigh Cook in “She’s All That”… which, best I can recall, never escalated beyond a kiss in the backyard. So… yikes.

Commercial success. “Truman Show” did better than I would’ve guessed, making $125.6 million. “EdTV” did worse than I expected, making $22.4 million.

Biggest difference. There’s a fundamental plot difference between the two movies — in “Truman Show”, Jim Carrey is born into the reality show and doesn’t know he’s part of a show; in “EdTV”, Matthew McConaughey chooses to sign up for the reality show, not realizing the potential downside.

Beyond that, the movies have seriously different gravitas — “EdTV” is an entertaining little movie that never makes you to nervous or unsettled because you know, ultimately, the character will be ok. “Truman Show” can actually send you spiraling into an existential crisis and eff up your mind.

Winner? “Truman Show” easily won every battle. Since it’s the few weeks of the year right now where people watch college basketball, I’ll put this into March Madness terms. While it’s not a one seed versus 16 squash (“EdTV” isn’t THAT bad)… it’s like a two seed versus a 15. And “Truman Show” is no Arizona.

• “Saving Private Ryan” (July 24, 1998) and “The Thin Red Line” (January 15, 1999)

Two World War Two epics featuring a man surprisingly thrust into the role of heroism in a fool’s errand… and his ultimate bravery and sacrifice to fulfill that errand, defeat America’s enemies in a smaller battle, and serve as a metaphor for the humanity it took to win the war.

Critical success. “Saving Private Ryan” got a 94 percent on Rotten Tomatoes — and, of course, got 11 Oscar nominations and won five (but lost Best Picture to “Shakespeare In Love”). The critics liked “The Thin Red Line” but not as much, at 78 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. It also got a lot of Oscar nominations — seven, believe it or not, including one for Best Picture — but it lost all seven.

Commercial success. “Saving Private Ryan” made a freaking fortune, at $216.1 million. “The Thin Red Line” made one-SIXTH of that, at $36.4 million.

Winner? There’s no way to possible pick “Thin Red Line”… “Saving Private Ryan” was a better movie, made more money, had a better response AND inspired a better porn knockoff title. “Shaving Ryan’s Privates” is a classic title. Did “The Thin Red Line” even inspire a porn movie?

• “Mission to Mars” (March 10, 2000) and “Red Planet” (November 10, 2000)

Two futuristic movies about manned missions to Mars after some strange developments arise regarding the potential for life on the planet. The all male with one female crews crash on Mars, sustain deaths as they travel across the planet, find sources of oxygen and make shocking discoveries regarding unexpected life on Mars.

Critical success. Both movies were pretty widely panned — “Mission to Mars” got a 23 percent on Rotten Tomatoes; “Red Planet” did even worse, with 13 percent.

Commercial success. “Mission to Mars” lost about $30 million — its budget was $90 million and it took in $60.8 million. “Red Planet” lost almost twice as much — its budget was $75 million and it took in $17.5 million. Overall, that means, in the year 2000, Hollywood had $165 million invested in Mars movies and America responded by paying less than half of that to watch them.

Biggest difference. The life on Mars. (Wow, I could make my second David Bowie reference of this list here. Homeboy is everywhere today!) In “Mission to Mars” it’s an actual martian, in “Red Planet” it’s blood- and algae-hungry insects. Oh… um… spoiler alert. Sorry. I’m guessing if you haven’t seen either of these in the past nine years you’re not going to start now. Plus, since these movies are so interchangeable, when you do watch you’ll forget which film features which life form, guaranteed.

Winner? It’s a real push here. I’ll go with “Mission to Mars” as a slightly better film because “Red Planet” gets way too deep up its own ass trying to wedge a huge philosophical/religious/spiritual debate angle into what should just be a disposable blockbuster-type movie.

• “Iron Eagle” (January 17, 1986) and “Top Gun” (May 16, 1986)

Two movies about young hotshots with incredible, innate fighter pilot skills (partially thanks to their fighter pilot dads) fighting incredible odds and challenges to take down enemy planes, avenge the deaths of those close to them, and realize their own fighter pilot destinies in the name of their fathers.

Critical success. “Iron Eagle” has one of the most ridiculous plots ever — a high school student, his buddies and a retired pilot steal Air Force fighters and successfully take on the entire fleet of an unnamed EVIL Muslim country. “Top Gun” isn’t un-ridiculous… but it might — might — just be slightly more grounded in realism. Neither is available on Rotten Tomatoes (it doesn’t go back that far)… but I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that “Top Gun” got a better reception than “Iron Eagle”.

Commercial success. “Iron Eagle” made just $24 million during its brief time in theaters. “Top Gun” did exponentially better than that, making $176 million.

Biggest difference. Other than the basics I laid out at the top of this point, these movies are fairly different. To me, what stands out is how they view the military: “Top Gun” glamorized it, “Iron Eagle” made the Air Force look like bumbling, bureaucratic amateurs. “Top Gun” ended up increasing Air Force and Navy recruiting numbers; “Iron Eagle”… well… I don’t think it was influential either way.

Winner? It’s weird. By every quantitative measure it’d have to be “Top Gun”. Except that I haven’t watched either movie in at least a decade and, after writing this, all I want to do is watch “Iron Eagle” again. It’s such a great ’80s movie, such escapism, such a male fantasy. So I’m not willing to declare a winner. You can do that if you’d like.

• “Dante’s Peak” (February 7, 1997) and “Volcano” (April 25, 1997)

An experienced but troubled hero is responsible for pulling a city, a love interest and at least one child out of trouble when an impending volcanic eruption threatens to destroy that city. Both are able to at least somewhat minimize the damage of the eruption and save lives in the face of doubting and difficult bureaucrats, although many casualties are claimed along the way… and both volcanoes [is that really how it's spelled?] are deemed ongoing, active threats at the end of the movies.

Critical success. “Dante’s Peak” didn’t do particularly well on Rotten Tomatoes, at just 32 percent. “Volcano” did a bit better, at 42 percent.

Commercial success. “Dante’s Peak” ended up making $67.2 million (and cost more than $100 million to make). “Volcano” only made $47.5 million (and cost more than $90 million to make). So both pretty much flopped.

Biggest difference. Easy. “Dante’s Peak” takes place in a small town in Washington… “Volcano” takes out the freaking city of Los Angeles when a volcano springs up out of the La Brea Tar Pits.

Winner? The spectacle of “Volcano” is much greater… lava tearing up L.A. is pretty stunning. But “Dante’s Peak” always feels like a better movie. It’s also more memorable… strangely enough, because it’s title is unique. Naming a movie “Volcano” is so lame. I hate when movies have titles like that. Things like “Push” or “Go!” or “Someone Like You”. Generic-ass bullshit.

That rant sure came out of nowhere. Perhaps I’ve started going insane as I’m now going on like hour five of writing this list.

• “Tombstone” (December 25, 1993) and “Wyatt Earp” (June 24, 1994)

Two fictionalized biopics about Wyatt Earp. Both focus on his family and romantic relationships, his friendship with Doc Holliday, the battle at the O.K. Corral and his vendetta against the Cowboys.

Critical success. “Tombstone” was a pretty badass movie — I remember watching it in the theater at age 14 and recognizing that — and the critics liked it too. It got a 79 percent at Rotten Tomatoes. “Wyatt Earp” was a 191-minute “Waterworld”-era Kevin Costner movie that only got a 42 percent.

Commercial success. “Tombstone” made $56.5 million at the box office (and cost $25 million to make); “Wyatt Earp” made $25.1 million (and cost $63 million to make).

Biggest difference. “Wyatt Earp” spends a LONG time focusing on Earp’s back story and youth and all the boring shit in his life and somehow, in 191 minutes, can’t find time for more than a montage of his Vengence Ride. “Tombstone” only focuses on the highlights — the O.K. Corral and the aftermath.

Basically, “Wyatt Earp” would be like making a Michael Jordan biopic and focusing on his elementary school years, some of his time at UNC, the loss to the Pistons in the Eastern Conference Finals… then doing a montage of his six championships… and ending the movie squarely focused on his two seasons with the Wizards or the time he drafted Kwame Brown. And having the role of Michael Jordan played by Kevin Costner.

Winner? In the biggest landslide on this list, “Tombstone”.

• “DeepStar Six” (January 13, 1989); “Leviathan” (March 17, 1989); and “The Abyss” (August 9, 1989)

1. A group of people on an underwater mission encounter dangerous, unidentified creatures that put their lives in serious peril, changing their mission to “survive!” (I tried to write that one in my corniest, most Leonard Maltin-ish way yet. Couldn’t help myself. Again, I’ve been working on this list longer than I ever thought.)Critical success. “The Abyss” did really well — with the highest budget, best effects and best writing, it got 82 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. It also got four Oscar nominations. “Leviathan” didn’t do even CLOSE to that well, at just 11 percent. As for “Deepstar Six”… well, Rotten Tomatoes only has six aggregated reviews for it and they’re all negative… so that’s a big fat zero percent.Commercial success. “Deepstar Six” made $8 million. “Leviathan” made $15.7 million. “The Abyss” made $54.2 million… a lot more than the others… but still about $15 million less than its budget.Biggest difference. This one’s easy: In “The Abyss”, the creatures aren’t evil. In fact, they save Ed Harris’s life. In the other movies, they’re straight bad.

   Winner? The amazing thing about the 1989 battle of underwater creature movies is that these weren’t the only three. They’re the most high-profile but two other underwater man-versus-creature movies were released that year too: “Evil Below” and “Lords of the Deep”.

   Still, of all five, odds are, “The Abyss” is the only one you’ve heard of… and it was the only one that made any real money or had any real success. So it definitely won the battle. And also helped launch James Cameron’s future successful trips back to the water (like “Titanic”) and less successful ones (his Joaquin Phoenix-esque meltdown that led him to quite making real movies and only shoot 3-D underwater IMAX films for several years).

Honorable mention goes out to “Capote” and “Infamous”; “Alexander” and “Troy”; “Prefontaine” and “Without Limits”; “Madagascar” and “The Wild”; and “1492: Conquest of Paradise” and “Christopher Columbus: The Discovery”.

And if I’m ever masochistic enough to do this enough for TV shows, I promise I’ll lead off with “Supernanny” and “Nanny 911″.

Via: 11points.com