I never thought I’d see the day where I’d consider giving up film criticism…

Forever.

Today may be the day.

One of my all time heroes, Roger Ebert, once said, “Your intellect may be confused, but your emotions will never lie to you.” I have lived by this quote ever since I discovered it back in high school (I even used it as my senior yearbook quote). I have been reviewing movies since I was 13 years old. I am now 21. I was planning on reviewing movies forever.

But things change.

Because it is in this quote by Roger Ebert that has for the first time, failed me. This is directly linked to the outlandish and irresponsible bashing towards M. Night Shyamalan’s newest film, The Last Airbender.

First and foremost, let’s get the obvious stuff out of the way. The movie is being viewed as a disappointment. And it certainly is. The editing is choppy, the acting and writing are stiff, and it feels very rushed. While I still found it entertaining enough to give it a positive review, I understand why this film has been negatively received.

That is not the issue here. The issue is HOW it’s being negatively received. In all my years of reviewing and loving movies, I have never seen such clear and blatant hatred towards one filmmaker (you’ve been impeached Michael Bay). The saddest part? It doesn’t even seem to be about his movies anymore. It’s becoming personal.

This is not a film critic’s job. A critic’s job requires him or her to look at a film, ANY FILM, from a clear and objective viewpoint. Everyone knows my hatred towards Michael Bay, (and yes I enter his films cautiously), but I’m always optimistic that he may surprise me. As for M. Night, I have and always will be a big fan. While I’m sad to see him underperform again, he does not deserve the hatred that has now been injected into his bloodstream.

“Your intellect may be confused, but your emotions will never lie to you” is a quote about trusting your own judgment. Who cares what anyone else thinks? If you have an emotional connection to a movie, then it’s your responsibility to honor that when your intellect is having trouble keeping up. For example, when I first saw Darren Aronofsky’s The Fountain, I couldn’t figure it all out, but I knew it was one of the most emotional experiences I’ve ever had watching a film.

In regards to The Last Airbender, (EVEN BEFORE THE MOVIE WAS EVEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC!) there has already been a universal agreement that this is “the death knell to Shyamalan’s career” (James Berardinelli from ReelViews). That “he is an idiot” (Matt Pais from Metromix.com). That “M. Night can ruin the world” (Jordan Hoffman from UGO). Even Roger Ebert, one of the fathers of film criticism, collapses under his own words. Ebert hates 3-D. And yes, he’s right, the 3-D is awful here. But he also took away a whole star from Toy Story 3 because of the 3-D, so he seemed ready to jump on Airbender before even viewing it. Why didn’t you see it in 2-D? Or were you too excited to jump all over the 3-D because you knew it would be a more interesting piece of journalism?

In fact, I could even use a quote from his review from The Happening, which he liked and gave three stars, to describe how I feel about The Last Airbender. “I suspect I’ll be in the minority in praising this film. It will be described as empty, uneventful, meandering. But for some, it will weave a spell.” You forgot about us some this time around, Mr. Ebert.

He’s not alone. Everyone’s jumping on the bandwagon. It happened in 2008 with The Happening, in 2006 with Lady in the Water, and in 2004 with The Village. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen someone change their mind about Shyamalan just because everyone seems to shit on him.

Therefore, I conclude with what I started with: Has the emotions of critics confused their intellect? Are they automatically built to search for the negative and block out the positive in a Shyamalan film? Am I the only who found the third act of the film to be a rousing, visually stimulating action spectacle?

It’s completely acceptable to hate the movie. Go ahead. It’s your right as a moviegoer. But it’s not cool to do it for coolness sake. It’s cool to remember that Shyamalan has made some great movies. And that hopefully one-day, when everyone gets over being a critic, they’ll remember what it was like to be a moviegoer. If this onslaught continues, I will be forced to depart from the critic inside me and join the ladder. I fell in love with this profession because I love the movies. I would hate to become the person that would make someone feel the way I feel today. After all, your emotions will never lie to you.

With the rampant rise in independent film production, it is becoming quite clear that not much is needed in order to construct a prodigious film, at least not in terms of finances or accessible talent.  One may even begin to notice that the farther a film strays from the major studio system that the better it is.  (Even this year’s Academy Awards acknowledged the quality of the independently minded: Precious and The Hurt Locker).

While children and adults alike scamper off to theatres for Pixar and Disney efforts like Up or DreamWorks’ Shrek Forever After, those who crave stories that are actually compelling are finding their appetites satiated by the likes of video rentals and film festivals.  Independent films, unlike Sex and the City 2, Grown Ups, The Karate Kid, or Toy Story 3, are willing to take risks and explore the unpredictable.

Though there may be nothing wrong with indulging in shoddy entertainment, we need to remember that we have a small world of gritty, intense, and fantastical truth at our fingertips. This world allows us to delve into the taboo and experience stories that are so efficacious we feel them long after viewing.

I’ve selected five independent horror films that not only encourage the mind to wander and entertain the obscene but demand attention from even the skeptics who’d rather be watching Avatar.

Ginger Snaps (2000)

Ginger (Katharine Isabelle) and Brigitte (Emily Perkins) are symbiotic sisters with a morbid obsession with death.  While battling the expected perils of suburbia and puberty, the unexpected hits when Ginger is attacked by a werewolf.  As Ginger’s newly acquired animal instincts gradually take over, tail and all, she and Brigitte grow farther apart and havoc ensues.  Screenwriter Karen Walton and director John Fawcett may not have crafted a highly original story with Ginger Snaps, but they do manage to portray women outside the conventional negative light of the horror genre.  Clichés and blatantly obvious stereotypes are not embraced here.  John Fawcett even insisted on using prosthetics and makeup instead of CGI effects, enhancing the creature’s terrifying appearance and overall significance.

May (2002)

May (Angela Bettis) is an unusual and shy woman who endlessly struggles to connect with others.  She struggles so much in fact that she is compelled to make her own friend…out of human body parts.  Angela Bettis is at her best as May, eerily convincing as a socially awkward woman with a need for friends or just their blood.  Lucky McKee’s darkly hilarious script has the viewer wondering if he should be laughing as May gouges out her own eyeball, kills her cat with an ashtray, or manages to torture a classroom of blind children.  What sets this horror gem apart from most is that McKee permits the viewer to get to know May and peer in at her most curious and disturbing moments.  Perhaps what is most disturbing is how close we grow to accepting her, oddities and all.

A Tale of Two Sisters (2003)

This Korean film (directed by Ji-woon Kim) has left a lot of people baffled but even more intrigued.  It’s intrigued American audiences so much that it was remade by Charles and Thomas Guard and titled The Uninvited (2009).  Sadly, the Guards failed to even remotely reach the level of excellence that the original possesses.  Soo-mi (Su-jeong Lim) leaves a mental institution and ventures back home to live with her sister Soo-yeon (Geun-Young Moon), father, and stepmother.  Their stepmother makes things beyond difficult and uncomfortable for the girls, and, to make matters worse, a ghost seems to be plaguing their home and Soo-mi’s ability to recuperate from past psychological troubles.  Eventually it is made known that these difficulties don’t even begin to cover the actual issues at the heart of this film.  A Tale of Two Sisters is brimming with mystery and puzzlement, constantly taking the viewer on an unexpected turn that only augments the haunting beauty of the experience.  Once you figure out what has happened, it will never leave you.

The Children (2008)

Normally I am opposed to horror films in which children are the main antagonists, but director/writer Tom Shankland manages to create a highly believable atmosphere.  A family plans to spend an enjoyable Christmas holiday together, but plans quickly change when the children strangely become infected by a type of virus that causes them to lash out violently.  No one is safe as the children viciously attempt to eliminate their parents and other family members.  What stands out most in this film is the cast.  While most of the cast was comprised of actual children taking on the role of malevolent murderer surprisingly well, the not too recognizable adult actors also pulled their weight.  Eva Birthistle, Stephen Campbell Moore, Hannah Tointon, Rachel Shelley, and Jeremy Sheffield are beyond convincing as parents riddled with doubt, desperation, paranoia, and fear.  Shankland successfully and convincingly constructed a horror film that asks the most difficult question of all: Can you kill those you love most?

Eden Lake (2008)

Jenny (Kelly Reilly) and her boyfriend Steve (Michael Fassbender) leave their world of deadlines and instruction and escape to Eden Lake, a beautiful, remote, and romantic getaway spot.  Of course, in true horror fashion, their romantic holiday is disrupted by a clan of tumultuous youths.  The group endlessly tortures the couple, vandalizing their car and leaving them stranded, stealing their possessions, even going as far as attacking the couple and capturing Steve.  Jenny is left to her own devices, endlessly trying to evade the malicious gang and escape Eden Lake with her life.  This film may seem like it follows your typical horror path (The Last House on the Left, Funny Games, and Frontieres), but it is so much more than that.  The performances from everyone in the film are so exceptional that the actions feel real, and because of this the viewer can connect with the characters.  You believe in the struggles and the violence, the disturbing and frustrating games that seem never ending.  I guarantee you that the high tension and authentic feel of the film will captivate you and pull you in.  The ending is viciously shocking and won’t be one you easily forget.

Feel free to add your own in the comments!

6. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull

I never walk out of a movie. Buying a ticket, to me, is a contract. I have given money, I will sit through this movie, no matter what. I nearly broke that contract watching this movie. In fact, I would have, had I not been on a date.  After we left the theater, the conversation went like this:

Him: “Man, I wanted to walk out of that so bad, but I looked at you, and you seemed to be into it, so I powered through.”

Me: “I wasn’t into it, I was planning escape routes. We have really got to work on our communication here.”

But, in all seriousness, if you saw that movie, and you probably did, you know our pain. The excruciatingly dumb plot, the horrible goofs, the monkeys…. I could go on and on, but enough has been said about this movie and frankly, I hope it withers in our memories into nonexistence.

5. The Breakup

I love(d) Vince Vaughn. I guess I kinda like Jennifer Aniston. She’s okay. Her arms are in really great shape and Friends was funny… unlike this movie.  It’s not that the movie was poorly made. In fact, it’s kind of the opposite. They managed to hit the nail on the head, but what they might not have realized is nobody likes breakups. They suck. They’re painful and uncomfortable and sad and you just want them to be over with as quickly as possible. Quite like this movie.

4. Blindness

Everything about this movie sounded great.  I love Julianne Moore. I love apocalypse movies. I went into this expecting Children of Men, and that’s a mistake. This movie is made by incredibly talented people, and they do a great job…of making a horribly depressing movie that will make you lose your faith in mankind. This movie is what feels like hours and hours of watching people roll around in their own filth, both literally and figuratively, and after about 20 minutes I kinda wished I could be struck blind as well.  Sure, it’s ‘thought-provoking’ and all, but most of the thoughts I had consisted of ‘ugh.’

3. Fear dot com

Oh, Stephen Dorff. Once, I loved you. I did. I had a huge crush on you.  And this movie destroyed it with its completely incomprehensible plot, its terrible, terrible dialogue, and its immense sucking. This movie is sort of like The Ring, but instead of a tape, it’s a killer website….although, I’m pretty sure a tape of this movie might actually kill you. They manage to use every cheesy horror movie cliche (they practically lifted an entire scene from The Changeling, if memory serves) and ram them down our throats in a way that doesn’t even make sense.  I was actually angry that I saw this movie.  A lot of times, a movie is so bad it becomes good in it’s own way. And, sometimes, a movie is so bad it races right past that point and becomes a black hole of awful that you can never come back from. This movie is that bad.

2. The Happening

I’m gonna save 2 hours of your life right now. It’s the trees. The trees are killing everyone.  There you go. I had heard that M.Night Shamalamadingdong was actually trying to make a modern B-Movie here (that whole so bad it’s good thing we were just talking about). He actually failed at failing. And what’s up with Marky Mark’s dumb face the whole time. Always got that stupid half smile and positive attitude.  The only thing I liked about this movie was Zooey Deschanal’s pants. They were pretty cute.

1. The Notorious Betty Page

They managed to make naked S&M shenanigans boring. You tell  me how they did that. I still can’t figure it out.

So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Can you top this awfulness?

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

One of our faithful followers last night got to see the final cut of the highly anticipated film “Watchmen,” in Los Angeles.

Watchmen movie poster

I am hoping this movie is going to be huge. When I first heard about it; I have to admit I had not read the graphic novel. So like the true student of the film that I am, I went out and did my research by purchasing a copy my hard earned dinero!

The book was awesome, and he first thing I thought was “How are they going to pull this off?” its no wonder why this film could not be done 20 years ago. There just was not enough technology around that could do this story justice.

Since the studio announced that Watchmen was going to be made, the Internet has been flooded with fan boy discussion about who would direct it, and who would play The Watchmen, and would the film be faithful to the novel? Well according to our loyal follower, Bentley Mustafa, yes, yes, and YES!

Now before we dive into this, I want to warn you that there will be huge spoilers, so if you do not want to know what’s in the film, stop reading now…. otherwise, sit your ass down and get ready for some Watchmen 411!

Here’s what Bentley Mustafa has to say about the screening.

There were approximately 200 people at the screening.

1.  No Black Freighter, although we do catch glimpses of the newsstand and the kid who reads the comic, but only briefly.

2. The ending is different, no squid.  I was one of the people who never really cared about squid/no squid, but I feel the ending will work better for mainstream audiences that have never read the book.

3. They do not imply a sequel anymore than the book does…

4.  The montage covering the heroes of the past is done exceptionally well, and was longer than I expected.  Allows the audience to understand that this is an alternate version of the past and everything they know should be thrown out the window.

5. It is dark, but not the stark realism that fills the Dark Knight.  The Watchmen reality is a little more surreal in its feel, like a dream.  It really has the feel of the comic in it.

6. Look for the cameo by Snyder’s son. He also played young Leonidas in 300.

7. It was fantastically close to the book; even the framings of shots were lifted directly from the book.

8. Jackie Earl Halley is the shit in this.  He IS Rorschach.

9. This movie is gory.  I’m a gore hound and I was surprised at how graphic some scenes were.  Really had people squirming.

10. NAKED Sally Jupiter. (CORRECTION NAKED Silk Spectre)

11. Only character I didn’t like was Veidt/Ozymandias.  I thought the actor was weak.

I have to say Snyder knocked this one out of the park.  There is some gruesome, brutal stuff here that is hard to watch.  The fight scenes are awesome, and, like in 300, Snyder continues the use of ramping the frame rate to accentuate the movements of the characters. I knew there was going to be some slo-mo, but I didn’t think he overdid it. All in all, fans of the book are going to more than pleased with the film.  For a book that was for years considered un-filmable, he certainly managed to hit almost every beat and did not compromise any of the material (except for the squid).

So there you have it folks, breaking news once again brought to you by yours truly. I cannot wait for the films release; it will definitely up the ante for comic book adaptations in the future.

more Watchmen movie posters

For trailer click here

Editor’s Note: In this review film critic Joe Strike gives us a sneak preview into the upcoming film Coraline which comes out on February 6th.

The moment we left Disneyland in 2003 my son regretted not buying the hoodie that was on sale in the Nightmare Before Christmas gift shop in the park – so much so that once we were back home I phoned the park and mail-ordered it for him. He wore the damn thing to death, then cut Jack Skellington out and sewed him onto a new hoodie, which he also proceeded to wear to death.

I’ve just seen Coraline – and I want the hoodie. The movie’s the third feature from stop-motion director Henry Selick, who first blew peoples’ minds with his early short Slow Bob in the Lower Dimensions:

Chockfull of dream imagery and dream logic, it follows Robert Potemkin (portrayed by a live actor), in ‘real life’ tormented by evil, stop-motion conjoined twin girls. But when summoned to a ‘lower dimension’ (and transported there by a quintet of telekinetic lizards) he becomes ‘Slow Bob,’ an animated cut-out who saves a community of snapshot people from an invasion of flying scissors.

In his first feature, Nightmare Before Christmas, skeletal Jack Skellington of Halloween Town invades Christmas Town and makes a royal mess of Santa’s holiday before setting things straight. In his second James and the Giant Peach, a young boy crawls into the heart of said fruit, turning into a stop motion replica of himself to travel across the ocean with a band of sentient insects.

In Coraline a plucky young girl (is there any other kind in these sort of stories?) discovers a tiny doorway in the creepy old house she and her parents have moved into. She crawls through the strange, almost organic tunnel behind the door and emerges into a magical mirror world, far more wonderful than the one she left behind – except for those creepy button eyes everyone has…

Travelling to lower dimensions… visiting secret towns… crawling into the heart of a magical fruit, or through what might be a birth canal into an alternate world…

Are you seeing a pattern here? A series of Alices in not-quite Wonderlands?

Sure, Nightmare, Peach and Coraline are based on the works of others (Burton, Dahl and Gaiman), but when the same person is drawn to, and works and reworks similar material – you’re dealing with an artist. He might be spending tens of millions of dollars of other peoples’ money to work through his obsessions, but he’s an artist nonetheless.

Burton co-directed The Corpse Bride with one of Selick’s animators; that film too took a trip to an underworld, the land of the dead – but it just didn’t have the same swing, the same zing as Selick’s work.

Selick’s grabbed the latest technology to return to one of the earliest stop motion variations: ‘replacement animation,’ a technique made famous by animator/director George Pal (who deserves to be ten times better known than he is today). Pal carved a variety of heads for his wooden puppets, a different one for each expression and replaced them frame by frame, giving his early ‘puppetoons’ an uncanny 3D reality that went unmatched until Pixar arrived some 50 years later:

Warning: Be prepared for some embarrassingly racist stereotypes from back in the day.

Selick has the advantage of digital technology that does the sculpting for him and compositing tools that hide whatever seams might otherwise be showing – but all that’s stuff for the DVD commentary track and bonus features. Just see the damn film: the magical stuff is breath-taking, the scary stuff is super-creepy (it’s PG, but leave the youngest young’uns home). Coraline is 2009’s first animated feature, but for my money (if I’d paid to see it, which I will the next time) it already has a lock on one of next year’s animated feature Oscar noms.

Joe is an occasional animation scripter and freelance NYC writer covering animation and sci-fi/fantasy entertainment. His work has appeared in the NY Daily News, Newsday, the New York Press and, as they used to say on Rocky and Bullwinkle, ‘a host of others.’ He is a regular contributor to the animation industry website awn.com, but it’s much easier to visit joestrike.com to see what he’s been up to lately.