Happy Presidents’ Day Sale Day! In commemoration of all the wonderful presidents we’ve had (Lincoln, Washington, FDR, JFK, ummmm… I guess that’s it, right?), we here at Indecision wanted to bring you a little something special. Read More

Crank 2: High Voltage is the upcoming sequel to the action film, Crank. It picks up exactly where the first film left off, retaining its “real-time” feel. The film is rated R for “Frenetic strong bloody violence throughout, crude and graphic sexual content, nudity, and pervasive language”. Crank 2 is written and directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, who both wrote and directed the previous film, Crank.

Set three months after his destructive run through Los Angeles, Hitman Chev Chelios (Statham) launches himself on a literally electrifying chase through Los Angeles in pursuit of the Chinese mobster who has stolen his nearly indestructible heart and replaced it with a battery-powered heart that requires regular jolts of electricity to keep working

Crank 2: High Voltage origina posters

New Crank 2: High Voltage movie poster

After years of slasher/horror flicks gracing the big screen (most of which were sequels), these 10 serial killers stand out above the rest.

10. Chucky. Okay, the Child’s Play franchise has gone from all-out horror to comedy-horror over the course of five films, but any way you look at it, the Lakeshore Strangler is one mean SOB. Let’s also not forget Tiffany, Chucky’s wife, in Bride of Chucky and Seed of Chucky. Be prepared for Charles Lee Ray to return in a remake of the 1988 original.

9. Ghostface. With a mask inspired by Edvard Munch’s painting The Scream, Ghostface is actually five people over the course of three films. Scream, brought to us by Wes Craven, revitalized slasher flicks in the mid-90s. After two successful sequels, and the Scary Movie spoofs, Ghostface deserves to be on this list.

8. Michael Myers. John Carpenter brings us Mr. Myers, who killed his sister when he was a kid, went to a mental institution, escaped 15 years later and now kills people on Halloween. Originally in theaters in 1978, Halloween spawned seven sequels, not including a remake of the original by Rob Zombie. Another one is slated to be released by Zombie.

7. Jigsaw Killer. Unlike others, Jigsaw does not intend to murder. He wants to see if the victim has the will to survive, thus inflicting enough psychological trauma for them to appreciate their life and save themselves from their own demons. If anything, he’s doing them a favor. Saw VI will be out on the fall, but only the first one is must-see.

6. Freddy Kruger. Robert Englund plays the dream killer in the Nightmare on Elm Street series, also brought to us by Wes Craven. Kruger’s motives are to kill teenagers as revenge on their parents, who had burned him alive years before. Expect more Nightmares to come, but this time reportedly without Englund.

5. Jason Voorhees. Slashing up teens at Camp Crystal Lake through 12 Friday the 13th flicks (most recently a remake of the original), Jason did wonders for the old school hockey goalie mask. Met another legend, Freddy Kruger, in 2003’s Freddy vs. Jason (That was the most fun I ever had at the movies, as audience members were loudly cheering for their favorite of the two.) Unlike Kruger, Jason has a sad backstory, having been deformed and humiliated as a child. Eight of the Friday films came out in the 80s, 1 in the 90s, and 3 in the 00s.

4. Leatherface. Loosely based on real life killer Ed Gein, Leatherface is severely mentally retarded and disturbed, often using a chainsaw and sledgehammer to slaughter his victims. His family of fellow cannibals abuse him and tell him what to do. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre came out in 1974, the first in line of more slasher flicks to come. Six films have been made over the years, including a remake of the original in 2003.

3. John Doe. After killing five people who are, in fact, sinners, John Doe, played by Kevin Spacey, delivers a this-all-makes-sense monologue to Brad Pitt, justifying the murders and making the Seven audience nod along in agreement. But then he turns out to be a sinner himself, “envy,” to be exact, and completes his masterpiece with his own death by the hand of “wrath.” This is the only killer on this list in a stand-alone film.

2. Norman Bates. Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 film Psycho, most notably the shower scene, set the tone for just about every serial killer made after that. The cross-dressing, momma-loving motel peeper was based on real life killer Ed Gein (Gein was only convicted of killing two, but his grave robbery and hobby of making trophies out of bones and skin made him arguably the top killer that influenced other very famous fictional serial killers.) Five movies have been released in this series, including an unnecessary remake of the original in 1998.

1. Hannibal Lector. Lector, played by Anthony Hopkins in three films (Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal and Red Dragon), was voted by The American Film Institute as the most memorable villain in film history. Why? Because the audience rooted for him, unlike his former patient, transvestite wanna-be woman killer Jame Gumb (also inspired by Gein). Lector was popular even before his tragic backstory was told in 2007’s Hannibal Rising.

Yes, there are some I purposely left off, such as the guy in American Psycho, the Driftwoods in House of 1,000 Corpses, the Leprechaun, and many, many others. Argue amongst yourselves.

VIA

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.

Stomping all over the city that never sleeps is nothing new. The Big Apple has taken quite a few cinematic hits over the years.

Nicolas Cage’s new movie Knowing is once again putting a fictional New York in the path of destruction.  Being one of the most iconic cities in the world means that Manhattan is ripe for filmmakers looking to make a visceral impact. After all, what could be more gasp-inducing than torching the Empire State Building? Or flooding Grand Central Station? Or stomping all over the Brooklyn Bridge? New York has always been a prime target for disaster, and even after real disasters have toppled some of its towers, filmmakers still can’t stay away.

20. Independence Day (1996)

Despite some geographical inaccuracy (the Empire State Building does not straddle an North-South street), serial New York–abuser Roland Emmerich certainly makes his point anyway. When the hovering alien spacecraft get the “go” sign, Gregory Johnson’s iconic design gets lit up like a Roman candle, and Manhattan learns the hard way that not all tourists want to pose for pictures in Times Square and catch a matinee of Legally Blonde.

19. The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

Emmerich again. This time, severe changes in the Earth’s climate cause New York to get flooded like a cheap Chevy, and then frozen solid. Why this also causes giant werewolves to appear is cause for debate (we choose the “bad CGI” argument), but this was one circumstance where New Yorkers actually would have preferred the snow turn to a slushy gray muck like it usually does ten seconds after a blizzard.

18. Godzilla (1998)

OK, Emmerich, we get it. You like to see New York decimated. Fine. This time, the German director unleashes a giant lizard in the city so nice they named it twice, and a great many recognizable landmarks suffer as a result. We’re not sure if that ending. Godzilla is finally stopped by the criss-crossing cables of the Brooklyn Bridge was meant to be a subtle joke for Manhattanites who equate moving to Brooklyn with death, but we like to think it is, anyway.

17. Men in Black II (2002)

To think, the MIBs spend so much time covering their tracks and erasing memories and yet, if you told the average N.Y. commuter that giant, subway-car-sized space slugs lived in the tunnels, they probably wouldn’t bat an eye. They have seen far more disturbing things inside a subway car. MIB2 is relatively gentle on the big city, though, and even its predecessor saved most of its destructiveness for Queens where, let’s be honest, no one’s really going to notice.

16. Superman II (1980)

When Tim Burton made Batman‘s Gotham City, he made it so that it didn’t resemble any other city the audience knew of (well, maybe some areas of Berlin). Richard Donner, however, wanted people to buy his location as “Metropolis” even though THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING is sticking up right in the middle of midtown. That’s like painting wings on an elephant and calling it an eagle. When Supes throws down with General Zod and his flunkies, there’s no mistaking that it’s Times Square feeling the brunt of the super-fisticuffs.

15. Q (1982)

It’s an old New York joke that you can tell who the tourists are because they are the only ones looking up. New Yorkers don’t need to gawk at their skyscrapers, making Q‘s conceit that a giant winged serpent could nest atop the Empire State Building without anyone noticing until it starts eating people utterly believable. Hindered by 1982 special effects, the movie opts for “mystery” over large-scale carnage, but thinking of monumental buildings as home to man-eating monstrosities is disturbing enough.

14. When Worlds Collide (1951)

Before Roland Emmerich got the notion to turn Manhattan’s cavernous streets into a log flume, legendary sci-fi producer George Pal busted out the miniatures and the garden hose in When Worlds Collide. The tale of a rogue planet on a collision course with Earth (see? The title isn’t a metaphor), the end is not a pleasant one for New York. It gets flooded with enough seawater to drown everything save the cockroaches.

13. Deep Impact (1998)

Before Roland Emmerich got the notion to turn Manhattan’s cavernous streets into a log flume, but after George Pal did the exact same thing, director Mimi Leder…aw, forget it. Meteor. Hits earth. New York floods. Let’s move on.

12. The Warriors (1979)

Not all destruction has to be an extinction-level event. In The Warriors, the Big Apple is rotting from the inside — the generally good, hard-working, no-nonsense New Yorkers who are the city’s heart and soul have been chased to the periphery and replaced by elaborately-dressed and ultra-violent gangs. These clown-faced crooks have the run of the entire island (and the surrounding boroughs), and civilians are hardly seen at all, which leads to the chilling conclusion that unless you pick a clan, you’re pretty much a walking ghost.

11. Planet of the Apes (1968)

After all the hunting, capturing, escaping, and laying on of stinking paws, Charlton Heston wanders down a desolate stretch of beach to discover…the Statue of Liberty! All this time, he’s been among ape-men who have built a civilization on the ruins of what was once New York. Well, OK, it could have been New Jersey. But still — we blew it up! Damn us all to hell!

10. Escape from New York (1981)

In John Carpenter’s dystopian thriller, New York’s crime rate gets so uncontrollably bad the U.S. government decides to simply wall it up and let it exist as a giant prison. While this scenario doesn’t look too kindly on New York, the film’s production doesn’t look too kindly on another city: East St. Louis. Unable to find a N.Y. location suitably burned-out, run-down, and pathetic enough to convince as a city-prison, Carpenter had to film nearly all of Escape’s exteriors in the sad sack Illinois city.

9. The Siege (1998)

Taking a much more grounded tact that some of the other films listed here, The Siege preyed on our worst real life fears — rampant terror attacks in major cities — several years before 9/11, and showed us a devastated Manhattan under martial law. It kind of makes giant lizards and supervillains seem kind of cozy and safe, doesn’t it?

8. 2019: After the Fall of New York (1983)

An Italian cheapie knock-off of Escape from New York, 2019 envisions a nuclear-decimated New York inhabited by radioactive freaks and monsters. Luckily for the filmmakers, the “post-apocalypse” setting allowed for much of the action to take place in nondescript parking lots and empty patched of desert, rather than, say, having to hire the manpower to shut down large portions of Fifth Avenue. All the saved money is on the screen, folks.

7. Ghostbusters (1984)/Ghostbusters 2 (1989)

Look, having the world’s only paranormal janitors based in Tribeca is bound to bring some undesirables into your neighborhood. First, large sections of the Upper West Side get stomped on (and ultimately covered in charred marshmallow), then a river of slime underneath the city streets conjure up a vengeful spirit from the past. The Ghostbusters‘ means of disposal may not be tidy — they wreck as much of Manhattan as the ghoulies — but at least they do something. Nobody steps on a church in their town.

6. Armageddon (1998)

Michael Bay might have gone the hackneyed “New York landmark destruction” route, but give him some credit for at least picking two slightly lesser-used landmarks. In illustrating a meteor showers’ path of destruction, Bay shows the Chrysler Building and Grand Central Station getting torn apart by hunks of space rock in addition to several taxi cabs near a “53rd Street Station,” which is in that trendy N.Y. neighborhood known as “Obvious Studio Backlot.”

5. King Kong (2005)

Forget Mel Brooks, a thousand chorus dancers, or a Stephen Sondheim song — remember the simple days when all you needed to open on Broadway was a big ape in chains? Once Kong got out, however, things go very bad for 1930s Times Square. Cars are thrown, buildings crushed, and Central Park’s frozen ponds subject to inhuman levels of sentimentality. The Empire State Building, despite being the location for the final showdown, gets by with a few dings and scratches. The streets below, however…

4. A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Like Emmerich’s The Day After Tomorrow, the Earth’s fragile ecosystem is to blame for New York’s eventual flooding and destruction — but unlike Emmerich, Steven Spielberg only shows us the aftermath, not the disaster. And like Planet of the Apes, the Statue of Liberty is used as the chilling reminder of what once was (her torch barely peaking out above sea level is eerie in much the same way her beach-logged torso was in Apes).

3. War of the Worlds (2005)

Perhaps realizing he missed an opportunity with A.I., Spielberg made up for it by piling on the N.Y. decimation in his remake of War of the Worlds. From the vantage point of Bayonne, New Jersey, we see bridges twisting like licorice and entire swaths of the city getting ripped apart. The entire Eastern seaboard feels the brunt of the alien attack, so for once New York isn’t unfairly singled out for termination.

2. I Am Legend (2007)

There is nothing more chilling than the sight of a New York City completely devoid of people. It’s somehow more unnatural and more disturbing than an alien invasion, giant meteor, or epic tsunami. People surrender their desire for piece and quiet the minute they sign the rental agreement on a N.Y. apartment, so the idea that there could be more vegetation than people on Fifth Avenue is tough to swallow. New Yorkers being wholesale turned into vampires isn’t any easier.

1. Sex and the City: The Movie (2008)

Without a doubt, the combined forces of Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte, and Miranda have been more devastating to life in New York than anything dreamed up by Roland Emmerich or Michael Bay. As a cable series, Sex turned New York’s way of life upside down — convincing millions of Midwest dreamers that they could afford a one-bedroom Manhattan apartment by writing a single newspaper column every four months, that they could subsist entirely on Cosmos and pastries, and that they would magically have enough free time and disposable income to lunch with the girls in between Manolo Blahnik shopping sprees. Utterly devastating.

from: premiere.com

1. Fade to black: On February 17 2009, television stations will broadcast only digital signals, ending the run of the TV system used in the United States for the past 55 years. Read More

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

Last night I was watching Teen Wolf and with all due respect, it really pis*ed me off watching the basketball scenes… at least without the stunt guy who played the wolf.  No offense to Michael J. Fox or his teammates but come on.  When you have scenes where they flip out and cheer because they make a foul shot in the league championship, it’s kind of sad.

The only actor in that movie who knew how to shoot a basketball was the guy with red hair on the Beavers.  I mean even Mick, the bad guy, had zero clue how to shoot a layup.  I don’t know about you guys but I just can’t stand that stuff.   Nothing is more annoying than sports scenes with guys who clearly can’t play sports.

That’s why I always appreciate an actor who has coordination.  I mean is it so hard to cast a person who actually looks like they know how to play a sport?  I guess it is.

In any event, here are 10 actors who are athletically coordinated

Charlie Sheen

Sheen was actually a pitcher in high school so it’s nice to watch him in movies.  In the movies Major League, Cadence, and Lucas you can see that Sheen was clearly an athlete as he’s got good form on his jump shot, solid command of his pitches, and he knows how to run routes as a wide receiver.

Robert Redford

Redford had a sweeter swing than most major leaguers in the movie The Natural.  Also at the very end when he’s playing catch with his son, Redford clearly knows how to throw as well.

Kevin Costner

Costner also has a great baseball swing as demonstrated in Bull Durham.  He also knows how to throw as evidenced in For Love of the Game.  Hell he doesn’t even have a bad golf swing as shown in Tin Cup.  P.S. Don Johnson had a terrible golf swing in that movie.

Dennis Quaid

Quaid is a solid football type guy.  In Everybody’s All American he did more running than anything, but he definitely looked the part as an aging quarterback in Any Given Sunday.  Also, he definitely looked like he knew how to pitch in The Rookie.

Woody Harrelson

Don’t get me wrong, Harrelson had an ugly looking jump shot in White Men Can’t Jump.  However, he’s got great dribbling skills and certainly has a ton of coordination when playing hoops.  Wesley Snipes wasn’t nearly as good.  Although I have to say Snipes was the man in Major League and he’s phenomenal with martial arts.

Dennis Haysbert

You all know him as president Palmer from 24 but Haysbert is the man that played Pedro Cerrano in Major League.  P.S. Haysbert was also in the movie Mr. Baseball as a…baseball player.  Haysbert’s got a great throwing style and his swing is certainly Major League worthy.

Duane Martin

Remember the movie Above the Rim?  Well Martin did play college hoops so maybe this is a little biased.  Still though, it’s a pleasure to watch a guy who knows how to play the game.  Martin was also in White Men Can’t Jump.

Derek Luke

In Friday Night Lights he was the famed running back Boobie Miles, and in Glory Road he played Bobby Joe Hill.  Luke has solid athletic skills and definitely has coordination on the court and field.

Sylvester Stallone or Carl Weathers

I was trying to think of boxing and Stallone definitely throws punches with a ton of coordination.  Weathers was actually a football player but he’s got a ridiculous amount of coordination as well.  I’d like to see if Weathers could play all sports.  I’ll bet he could.  You could also go with Wesley Snipes in the movie Streets of Gold for boxing prowess.

Maris Valainis

Jimmy Chitwood.  This guy’s got a prettier looking jumpshot than 99% of all players in basketball history.

*I’m sure I’ve left out some actors but these ten are pretty damned coordinated.

Pandorum is an upcoming American science fiction horror film written by Travis Milloy and directed by Christian Alvart. The film stars Dennis Quaid and Ben Foster. Filming began in Berlin in August 2008. Pandorum is scheduled to be released on September 4, 2009..

Pandorum movie poster

According to Variety, “Pandorum… centers on two crewmen who awaken aboard their spacecraft unaware of their mission or identities and then make a discovery that threatens the survival of mankind

Pandorum was announced in May 2008 with Dennis Quaid and Ben Foster in lead roles. Christian Alvart was attached to direct the film, based on a script by Travis Milloy. The film was financed by Constantin Film through a joint venture deal with subsidiary Impact Pictures. The partnership helped fund the US$40 million production, as Constantin drew subsidies from Germany’s Medienboard Berlin-Brandenburg (MBB) regional film fund, the German Federal Film Board (FFA), and the German Federal Film Fund (DFFF). The German Federal Film Fund provided US$6 million to the production, the fund’s second-largest 2008 payout, after US$7.5 million for Ninja Assassin. Filming took place at Babelsberg Studios in Berlin in August 2008.

Summit Entertainment is handling foreign sales and will present Pandorum to buyers at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival. Due to Constantin’s involvement, the film will likely see a strong German release. Overture Films will distribute Pandorum in North America, Icon in the United Kingdom and Australia, Svensk in Scandinavia, and Movie Eye in Japan. The film is set up as a possible franchise, so if it performs strongly, Impact Pictures will greenlight sequels.

Terminator Salvation is an upcoming American science fiction post-apocalyptic war film set for release on May 21, 2009. Directed by McG, it is the fourth Terminator film and stars Christian Bale as John Connor and Sam Worthington as the Terminator Marcus Wright. It also introduces a young version of the first film’s hero, Kyle Reese, played by Anton Yelchin. The film, set in 2018, focuses on the war between humanity and Skynet. It abandons the formula of previous entries in the series, which involved the Terminator and various other characters traveling through time to protect or kill John Connor. It is both a sequel and prequel to the previous films.

Terminator Salvation poster

Set in post-apocalyptic 2018, John Connor (Christian Bale), the man fated to be the leader of the human resistance against Skynet and its army of Terminators, and the future he was raised to believe in is altered in part by the appearance of Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), a stranger whose last memory is of being on death row. Connor must decide whether Marcus has been sent from the future or rescued from the past. As Skynet prepares its final onslaught, Connor and Marcus both embark on an odyssey that takes them into the heart of Skynet’s operations, where they find out a terrible secret that may lead to the possible annihilation of mankind.

At the beginning, Connor does not start off as leader of the human resistance, but he will work his way up through the ranks in the film. He is also mistrusted by other soldiers due to his extensive knowledge of Skynet. McG said that it will be about the development of the Model 101 Terminator as well: scenes involve humans being captured and studied by Skynet in order to perfect their cybernetic organisms and Connor explaining “if we let these things go online, the war is over.” Skynet captures Kyle Reese because it is aware Reese is Connor’s father, and uses him as a bait in an attempt to kill Connor.