Hollywood must specialize in Faustian bargains. There’s simply too much evidence walking around to deduce otherwise. Consider the once-interesting Brendan Fraser, who now plays second banana to the special effects in “Mummy” movies. Or Scarlett Johansson, mousy and introspective in “Lost in Translation,” now brassy, blowsy and bleach blond. Once upon a time, Whoopi Goldberg won an Oscar. Once upon a time, Chevy Chase was funny.

And then there’s Nicolas Cage.

Let us ask ourselves something: Why is Nicolas Cage a movie star? And why do we care?

The answer, in part, is that Cage — whose latest, “Knowing,” opened Friday — won an Oscar in 1996 for playing a suicidal alcoholic in “Leaving Las Vegas,” a gritty, brutal, honest movie, wonderfully acted (by both Cage and Elisabeth Shue) and which confirmed what a lot of people had long believed: that Cage was the most interesting actor in American movies.

His performance in “Raising Arizona” remains iconic. Likewise, “Wild at Heart.” From the time he was 17 — and got passed over for the Judge Reinhold role in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” — he was cutting a righteous swath across the screen, in movies that rarely missed such as “Valley Girl” and “Birdy.” He even made an impression in some pretty dubious projects, including two directed by his uncle Francis (Coppola), namely “Cotton Club” and “Peggy Sue Got Married.” Then the Coens cast him in “Raising Arizona.” He became Cher’s one-handed romantic poet in “Moonstruck.” That was followed by “Vampire’s Kiss,” the immortal “Wild at Heart” and a mixed bag of principal roles leading up to director Mike Figgis and “Leaving Las Vegas.”

What happened then bears the infernal reek of sulfur, brimstone and gross receipts. “Con Air,” in which Cage played an unjustly convicted parolee battling a planeload of criminal misfits and psychopaths, was an action thriller — the old adrenaline-fueled thrill ride/riveting roller coaster of a big old movie. Yes, Cage had appeared in “The Rock” immediately after winning his Best Actor statuette (thus abandoning idiosyncratic leading manhood forever), but it was “Con Air” that made Cage fans sit up and say “Wha . . . ???” (Significantly, Steve Buscemi was in the movie, too, sliding into the Beloved Character Actor slot that Cage was so busily abandoning, in a flick that was about as cynically brainless as anything in the history of mall movies.)

And so it has been, with few detours from the action star/blockbuster track upon which Cage has trod with particularly graceless aplomb, and virtually no humor at all, except on top of his head, where his hair is continual source of mirth and mystery, because you never know what it’s going to do, where it’s going to go or to whom it once belonged. Some favorites: the punky cut of “Ghost Rider” (2007), with its black spikes and bangs; the inky-looking Franz Liszt arrangement of last year’s bewildering “Bangkok Dangerous.” Or the gravity-defying-do of “Lord of War” (2005), which was Cage’s best performance in years, because it returned him to a realm of moral ambiguity and outsider status, precisely where his talent thrives — rather than as a low-rent Indiana Jones (“National Treasure”), a thoroughly unconvincing Italian lover (“Captain Corelli’s Mandolin”) or anyone named Memphis Raines (“Gone in Sixty Seconds”).

Taking on preposterous roles, like the supposedly coldblooded hit man of “Bangkok Dangerous” (“My name is Joe. . . . This is what I do . . .”), it’s clear that Cage would like to assume the mantle of Clint Eastwood. His character is a man of few words, he grimaces with irony-free disgust at the moral bottom-feeders of the world and he dispenses large-caliber justice. But Cage has never taken Dirty Harry’s advice: A man’s got to know his limitations. Cage isn’t a sex symbol and — stripped of the existential complexity of his early roles — he’s not that interesting to watch. Despite the fact that there are Nicolas Cage action figures available, watching his pursuit of action stardom has been like watching a Jack Russell terrier romance a Doberman.

But in an industry, and a town, where a movie is judged entirely by its profits, Cage is secure. “National Treasure: Book of Secrets” made more than $450 million worldwide, its predecessor, $348 million. “Gone in Sixty Seconds” made more internationally ($135 million) than domestically ($102 million). These are not the kind of figures that prompt a man to resume playing suicidal alcoholics. “Ghost Rider” probably made less money than people might have expected — $116 million here, $113 million there, according to boxofficemojo.com.

Does the average moviegoer care how much money Nicolas Cage makes? Probably more than he or she should; given the celebrity-besotted culture we live in, it’s inevitable. But it seems the unavoidable conclusion that Cage, once held up as an example of the intrepid artistic impulse, has become something of the poster boy for blind ambition, cynical role selection, questionable judgment and, worst of all, humorlessness: He glowers, he hunches, he looks meaningfully into the distance without it meaning anything at all.

If Cage were replaced tomorrow by Ben Stiller, we’d get all of the above plus a couple of laughs. Instead, we have an actor who used to be able to do something remarkable — overcome a lack of native charm by embracing his inner outsider, creating affectionate portraits of unlikely heroes, and soldiering on despite a seemingly unmerciful universe. It may not pay as well. But that’s a Nic Cage we could use.

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

Bankers and investors are probably among the most hated people around right now. So why not make yourself feel a bit better and watch those financial suits go bankrupt, get robbed or reveal their homicidal tendencies hollywood style!

Credit crunch. Global recession. Whatever you call it, there’s a lot less expendable cash around right now and lots of people are very nervous about the future. More and more people are opting not to go out and spend money on theatre tickets and expensive dinners. Instead, they’re staying in with a movie and a bottle of wine.

But what movies to watch during this time of financial crisis? Given much of the blame is placed on the banks for getting us into this mess, perhaps it’s the perfect time to take stock of some of the greatest banking movies of all time. In many of these films reviewed below the people who are for the banks end up becoming figures of fun, so sit back, open your popcorn, and have a good laugh at some unlucky bankers losing loads of money.

1. Other People’s Money (1991)

Danny DeVito plays Larry the Liquidator, a super-rich, arrogant, greedy, self-centred and ruthless business man. He’s the perfect character for a comedy banking movie. As he threatens a hostile take-over of a family-run company, the patriarch of the company enlists the help of his wife’s daughter, who is a lawyer, to try and protect their interests.

Larry enjoys sparring with her legal prowess, but does also fall for her. Of course he does – this is a comedy, right? In the end he has to decide whether he’s driven most by love or money. Director: Norman Jewison Stars: Danny DeVito, Gregory Peck, Penelope Ann Miller

2. Wall Street (1987)

Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) is an ambitious Wall Street stockbroker in the 1980s. Any spare time he has is spent working an on angle with which to approach the high-powered, extremely successful broker Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas). Fox finally meets with the greedy Gekko, who takes the youth under his wing and explains his philosophy: Greed is Good.

Taking this advice and working closely with Gekko, Fox soon finds himself swept into a world of yuppies, shady business deals, fast money, and fast women – something at odds with his family values. Director: Oliver Stone Stars: Charlie Sheen, Martin Sheen, Michael Douglas

3. Rogue Trader (1999)

This movie charts the true story of Barings Bank clerk and ambitious wide-boy Nick Leeson. Through a series of peculiar coincidences, he finds himself in Singapore setting up the bank’s future options trading operation. To save money Barings allows Nick to operate both the floor trading and the back office facilities and forces him to employ cheap, unskilled staff. Of course, Nick breaks trading rules and secretly covers up some losses, but his initial reports back to the bank are of success.

Given more freedom, even more money and continuing unchecked, Nick makes bigger losses and again attempts to trade out of them. But after a series of huge losses and irresponsible gambling of other people’s money he manages to bankrupt the entire institution. A lesson in how not to trade. Director: James Dearden Stars: Ewan McGregor, Anna Friel

4. Boiler Room (2000)

Seth Davis (Giovanni Ribisi) is an enterprising college dropout, running his own small illegal casino. The disapproval of his domineering father leads Seth to a career change into the investment business with a bunch of cocky, young Turks who seem to be making a lot more money than they should on mysterious investments pushed through aggressive cold calling.

At the same time, he finds a relationship forming with firm secretary, Abbie (Nia Long), who as luck would have it, was also formerly pursued by his new boss, which adds to the tensions of the high pressure job and mysterious profits. Director: Ben Younger Stars: Ben Affleck, Vin Diesel, Giovani Ribisi, Nia Long

5. The Italian Job (1969)

Everyone loves a good bank robbery movie, of which the The Italian Job is quite possibly the finest and most famous.

This infamous comedy movie tells the story of an ex-con who tries to steal $4 million in gold by causing a major traffic jam in the centre of Turin.

With its mini coopers, jaguars, bus and famous one-liners, this is a true British film classic. Director: Peter Collinson Stars: Michael Caine, Noel Coward

6. Pursuit of Happyness (2006)

This true story is set in San Francisco in 1981. Christopher Gardner has big dreams for his family, but it just never seems to work out. He invests the family savings in new bone-density scanning technology – apparatus twice as expensive as x-ray with practically the same resolution.

The white elephant financially breaks the family, bringing troubles to Gardner’s relationship with his wife. Without money and wife, but totally committed with his son, Christopher sees the chance to fight for a stockbroker internship position at Dean Witter, disputing for one career in the end of six months training period without any salary with other twenty candidates. Meanwhile, homeless, he has all sorts of difficulties with his son. Does he find happiness? Director: Gabriele Muccino Stars: Will Smith, Thandie Newton, Dan Castellaneta

7. American Psycho (2000)

This isn’t necessarily a banking movie, more a movie about a banking character. Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale) is a wealthy 26-year-old, succesful investment banker in New York. He’s well-educated, intelligent and has more money than he knows what to do with: this is a guy who couldn’t care any less about cash back credit cards.

But there’s a terrible dark side to his personality as by night he turns into a homicidal monster whose hatred for the world leads him into murderous chaos. The movie is based on a novel by Brett Easton Ellis. The graphic scenes of sex and violence in the movie are much more tame than in the original book. Director: Mary Harron Stars: Christian Bale, Reese Witherspoon, Jared Leto

8. Barbarians at the Gate (1993)

This comedy television movie tells the story of an eager tobacco business CEO who plans to buy out the rest of the shareholders in his firm. After a series of confusing deals and potential takeovers, the tenders get messier (and funnier) as the zeros keep getting added. The film follows the actual takeover of the RJR Nabisco empire in a tongue in cheek way. The film’s tagline was, aptly: after a power breakfast they’ll still eat you for lunch. Director: Glenn Jordan Stars: James Garner, Jonathan Pryce

9. Bonnie and Clyde (1967)

Bonnie (small town girl) and Clyde (drifting bank robber) dream of lives that will free them from the Depression of the 1920s. The two fall in love and begin a banking crime spree from Oklahoma to Texas. They rob small banks with skill and panache, soon becoming minor celebrities known across the country.

People are proud to have been held up by Bonnie and Clyde: to their victims, the duo is doing what nobody else has the guts to do, but to the law, the two are evil bank robbers who deserve to be gunned down where they stand. An American classic. Director: Arthur Penn Stars: Warren Featty, Faye Dunnaway, Gene Hackman

10. The Bank Job (2008)

In September 1971, thieves tunneled into the vault of a bank in London’s Baker Street and looted safe deposit boxes of cash and jewelry worth over three million pounds. None of it was recovered. Nobody was ever arrested. The robbery made headlines for a few days and then disappeared – the result of a ‘D’ Notice, gagging the press. This film reveals what was hidden for the first time. The story involves murder, corruption and a sex scandal with links to the Royal Family – a story in which the thieves were the most innocent people involved.

VIA

Publisher Quirk Books and author Seth Grahame-Smith have come up with the best way to make a literary work more accessible since the creation of Classics Illustrated comic books: they’ve added “all-new scenes of bone crunching zombie action” to Jane Austen’s 19th century novel Pride and Prejudice. This new version, out in stores this May, is titled Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: The Classic Regency Romance – Now With Ultraviolent Mayhem! And if you didn’t think it was a masterpiece before, chances are you will now.

Could we do the same thing to classic films? Well, the technology to add extraneous enhancements to movies exists. Just check out The Curious Case of Benjamin Button for proof. But like Pride and Prejudice, we’d need to “enhance” films in the public domain if we wanted to get away with it. Fortunately, there are hundreds of such titles (see a list at Wikipedia), some of which actually already have zombies (Night of the Living Dead, White Zombie, Revolt of the Zombies, and in a way the “scientific” film Experiments in the Revival of Organisms).

Avoiding the majority of public domain movies already consisting of horror and science fiction elements, we’ve come up with ten great classic films that would be even greater with the addition of zombies.

Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstin, 1925)

New title: Mutinous Zombies of the Battleship Potemkin

Synopsis: A Soviet cinema masterpiece, Eisenstein’s film depicts the 1905 uprising of zombies on the titular vessel against the oppressive officers of the Tsarist regime. It begins when soldiers aboard the Potemkin are forced to eat rotten, maggot-infested meat, which turns the men into mutinous zombies. Later, the city of Odessa becomes overwhelmed with undead citizens and the Tsarist military is sent in to massacre them. In the end, though, even the soldiers are converted. Other Eisenstein films, particularly October, may also appropriately receive similar special zombie editions.

The General (Clyde Bruckman and Buster Keaton, 1927)

New title: The General and the Zombies

Synopsis: Buster Keaton’s greatest silent blockbuster is kind of like the Shaun of the Dead of its time. The film begins with Keaton’s character losing his girlfriend due to his inability to prove he’s not a coward and a bum, but then by happenstance he ends up a hero and, most importantly, salvages his relationship in the process. In this special edition, Johnnie Gray still has to rescue his train (and his girlfriend) from the Union army, but now those Northern spies are zombies. Like the title character in Shaun of the Dead, Johnnie must in one new scene impersonate a zombie in order to fool them. The stone-faced Keaton is a natural for this masquerade, but of course then soldiers on his side mistake him for being a Union zombie, with hilarious consequences.

Abraham Lincoln (D.W. Griffith, 1930)

New title: Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies

Synopsis: Griffith’s biopic about the 16th President of the United States was filled with historical inaccuracies when first released almost 80 years ago. The main complaint? Griffith left out Lincoln’s triumphant one-man battle against a Confederate brigade made up completely of zombie soldiers (yep, the South had them, too). Now, in a special edition release timed to coincide with Honest Abe’s 200th birthday, scenes depicting that battle, as well as a new ending, in which Lincoln recommends the enslavement of zombies, because they are not technically men and therefore are not guaranteed Constitutional freedom, are included. Also, on the DVD: a bonus behind-the-scenes supplement featuring a still-undead Lincoln zombie overseeing the restoration; an exclusive look at Lincoln’s famous stovepipe hat, which he wore to keep zombies from getting at his brains. (The above image of Abe Lincoln, Zombie Hunter is from this t-shirt.)

At the Circus (Edward Buzzell, 1939)

New title: At the Zombie Circus

Synopsis: The Marx Brothers’ films were crazy enough without the addition of zombies, but this late episode from Groucho, Harpo and Chico just wasn’t anarchic enough for their fans. So, now the plot involving the stolen money has been eliminated and the film consists of the three Marx boys trying to stay alive inside a circus tent filled with zombies. There’s a strong man zombie, a dwarf zombie, and then there’s Margaret Dumont, who is so dull Groucho thinks she’s a zombie. Or maybe he just stabs her in the brain for fun?

His Girl Friday (Howard Hawks, 1940)

New title: His Girl Zombie

Synopsis: Despite the new title, Rosalind Russell is never turned into a zombie. Rather, the zombies are merely in the background, causing even more fast-paced hysterics (yes, they’re the quick sort of zombies that are all the “rage” these days). Actually, at one point Ralph Bellamy’s character is thought to be a zombie, but then it’s realized that as much as he appears to be the walking dead, he’s just too slow to be one of the zombies running around outside the courthouse. Again, His Girl Zombie has something in common with Shaun of the Dead (not to mention Twister), in that it’s another story in which a couple attempts to separate but is thrust back together during a chaotic event.

Angel and the Badman (James Edward Grant, 1947)

New title: Angel and the Badman and the Zombies

Synopsis: In this early precursor to the ‘80s Harrison Ford classic Witness Zombies, John Wayne plays a shootist and womanizer who is wounded near a Quaker family home. Brought in and nursed back to health, he attempts to tame himself after falling for a young Quaker woman. But his desire to become a pacifist is made difficult when brain-hungry zombies attack the house, and he must choose to either commit himself to the Quaker ways and “die” with his new religious society of friends, or go out and kick some zombie ass.

D.O.A. (Rudolph Mate, 1950)

New title: Z.O.A.

Synopsis: The film begins with Frank Bigelow, filmed from behind, entering a police station to report that he’s been murdered. The reason he is able to do this is not because he’s not yet died from the poison; it’s because he is a zombie, which we finally discover when the camera finally shows us his face. The film then goes to flashback and details the events that lead to Bigelow’s zombification. After the back-story is complete, the film returns to the scene in the police station, where cops proceed to shoot Bigelow in the head. His file is then marked “Z.O.A.,” meaning “zombie on arrival.”

Royal Wedding (Stanley Donen, 1951)

New title: Zombie Wedding

Synopsis: Fred Astaire and Jane Powell star as a brother and sister song and dance duo in this musical classic, which features two of Astaire’s most famous scenes. “Zombie Jumps” has him dancing first with a coat rack, then with a corpse, Weekend at Bernie’s-style. The latter of these objects ends up coming to life, a metaphor for Astaire’s famous ability to animate the inanimate. In “You’re All Zombies to Me,” Astaire playfully escapes from the zombie he’s created by dancing on the walls and ceiling of a room.

Beat the Devil (John Huston, 1953)

New title: Beat the Devil and the Zombies

Synopsis: It’s been called the first camp movie, but unfortunately it wasn’t the first camp zombie movie. That all changes now with newly added scenes in which Humphrey Bogart and a great ensemble of character actors, including Peter Lorre, must fight off zombies while killing time at an Italian port. It’s very likely that Huston and co-screenwriter Truman Capote would have no problem with this additional subplot. Anyone familiar with the background of the film knows its makers didn’t take it seriously in the least. Actually, let’s just go ahead and add zombies into every section of the film. Zombies on the boat, zombies in Africa, zombies everywhere. Heck, make Bogie a zombie due to a lack of money. After all, as his character sets it up with the line, “I’ve got to have money. Doctor’s orders are that I must have a lot of money, otherwise I become dull, listless and have trouble with my complexion.”

It’s a Wonderful Life (Frank Capra, 1946)

New title: It’s a Zombie Life

Synopsis: On Christmas Eve, George Bailey wishes he were a zombie. But before he can find another zombie to bite him, an angel comes down from Heaven and shows him what his life would be like if he were undead. Zombie George infects the whole town of Bedford Falls, all except the wealthy Mr. Potter, who manages to take over the town by enslaving and exploiting the zombified citizens. In the end, George realizes that he’s better off simply shooting himself in the head so that he can’t possibly become a zombie. (Note: It’s a Wonderful Life is actually no longer in the public domain, but we just couldn’t not include it).