Movie Battle: (500) Days of Summer Vs. Ruby Sparks

I’m not a very big fan of romantic comedies, unless they are a bit unconventional. The two I can think of are going to battle it out in today’s movie battle: “(500) Days of Summer” Vs. “Ruby Sparks”

ACTORS

(500) Days of Summer: This was one of the films that brought us back Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who is now one of the more successful actors in Hollywood. Together with Zooey Deschanel he forms an amazing couple. Their performances are amazing.

Ruby Sparks: Paul Dano is an extraordinary actor, I really like him. He does a great job in “Ruby Sparks”. And Zoe Kazan, as Ruby Sparks, is amazing! Fun supporting roles by Annette Bening, Antonio Banderas, Chris Messina and Steve Coogan.

STORY

(500) Days of Summer: When Tom meets Summer, he falls far her immediately. Summer doesn’t believe true love exists, Tom does. We see the 500 days Summer is in Tom’s life. It sounds like your average rom com, but it’s anything but that.

Ruby Sparks: The story doesn’t sound straight forward and isn’t. It’s about a struggling writer, who writes about a woman who can love him and actually coming to life. It’s an original story (written by Zoe Kazan) and executed very well.

EFFECTS

(500) Days of Summer: The cinematography of “(500) Days of Summer” is magnificent. First off, the story isn’t told chronologically, but there are also some great effects used. Like the split screen, where we see Tom’s expectations and reality of a moment.

Ruby Sparks: The film looks beautiful, but more straight forward then “(500) Days of Summer”.

WINNER

Although I really loved “Ruby Sparks”, “(500) Days of Summer” has been one of my all-time favorites ever since I first saw it

Movie Battle: Catch Me If You Can Vs. The Departed

This might seem like a random battle, but it has some thought behind it. I looked up Leonardo DiCaprio on Rotten Tomatoes and check which were his two highest rated films. These are the two. I will do this more often, so you can see if I agree with the ranking. But first, let’s fight: “Catch Me If You Can" Vs. "The Departed”

 

 

ACTORS

Catch Me If You Can: Leonardo DiCaprio is the lead, as real life conman Frank Abagnale Jr. His father is played by Christopher Walken and Abagnale Jr. is hunted down by frustrated cop Carl Hanraty, portrayed by Tom Hanks. There are also smaller roles for Jennifer Garner, Amy Adams and Martin Sheen.

The Departed: “The Departed” is a film that has an amazing ensemble cast. Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprion, Jack Nicholson, Vera Farmiga, Alec Baldwin, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, Ray Winstone. And they are all fantastic in it.

STORY

Catch Me If You Can: It’s a true story and one of those stories that seem unbelievable. It’s such an interesting story that Frank Abagnale Jr. managed to pretend to be a doctor, pilot and lawyer, without any degree, earn money and then get away with it.

The Departed: A story about two cops, one is a mole and one has to find the mole. It’s such a great and interesting story that stays interesting from beginning ‘till end. I only hoped the bad guy would win, that would separate the film from other crime dramas.

EFFECTS

Catch Me If You Can: No effects needed. It’s an acting film.

The Departed: The movie did a great job portraying Boston. No real effects needed here either, also an acting film.

WINNER

Close call, I love both movies. But I will go for “Catch Me If You Can”. More because it’s a more rewatchable film and the ending is better.

Movie Battle: Interstellar Vs. The Martian

They are very different movies, but both science fiction and also both happen to have Matt Damon and Jessica Chastain in it. I would like to let those two movies go head to head in this battle. Let’s see who wins the battle: “Interstellar” Vs. “The Martian”.

 

 

ACTORS

Interstellar: Matthew McConaughey is the lead and his has proven over the years that he can easily carry a movie. I haven’t been a fan since the beginning, but I’ve come to love McConaughey. Anne Hatahway not so much though, I just never really liked her acting. Jessics Chastain on the other hand is one of my favorites and she is really good in “Interstellar”. And Michael Caine as well.

The Martian: Matt Damon is fantastic in his role as Mark Whatney. Most of the scenes he is in, he is alone. He gives away a great performance, it might even be his best. Jessica Chastain is good as well, very strong and solid.

STORY

Interstellar: It’s a Christopher Nolan directed film, so it’s anything but standard. A group of explorer’s have to travel through a wormhole in order to save humanity. Time is different there, so what’s in space is seven years on earth (or something like that). I didn’t really like the ending.

The Martian: During a mission to Mars, astronaut Mark Whatney is presumed dead and his crew returns. Not knowing that Whatney was actually still alive. Now he is alone on a planet where nothing grows. He has to ‘science the hell out of it’. It’s a great story and so well executed. It was also a lot funnier than I expected it to be.

EFFECTS

Interstellar: If you know Nolan’s work, you know that he is great with effects. Although he doesn’t overuse CGI, it always looks stunning.

The Martian: The movie looks very good, also not overusing any CGI. Just clean and solid.

WINNER

I think “Interstellar” is a bit overrated, so I’m going with “The Martian” which I absolutely loved and it was one of my favorites of 2015.

Movie Battle: Django Unchained Vs. The Hateful Eight

Quentin Tarantino is, as frequent readers might know, my favorite director. He has made eight films now (counting both “Kill Bill” movies as one) and there is not one terrible film (“Deathproof” is not that good, but I’ve seen worse). In that line of great films, there are two westerns. And what if I let them go head to head. Let’s see who wins the battle: “Django Unchained” Vs. “The Hateful Eight”

 

 

ACTORS

Django Unchained: Jamie Foxx stars and does a good job in portraying the lead character Django. He is very well supported by Christoph Waltz, who played Dr. King Schultz and won an Academy Award for his performance. Samuel L. Jackson plays the very unlikeable Stephen, who is probably the most racist bastard in the entire film. And Leonardo DiCaprio as villain Calvin Candy, who shows us he can play a bad guy like no one else.

The Hateful Eight: Samuel L. Jackson is the star of the film as Marquis Warren, he carries “The Hateful Eight”. Kurt Russell is good as John Ruth, but it’s Jennifer Jason Leigh who really surprised me as Daisy Domergue. She probably had the best part. We also see Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Walton Goggins and Channing Tatum.

STORY

Django Unchained: It’s a revenge movie, which is not new in the Tarantino repertoire. Look at “Kill Bill” and “Inglourious Basterds”. But it’s not a crime when it’s done right. The story gets more depth because of the interesting characters and the sharp dialogues.

The Hateful Eight: The story is fairly simple: eight strangers end up in a cabin during a snow storm and nothing is as it seems. But it’s the way it was executed. Almost the entire film is set in one location, just like “Reservoir Dogs” and the film is interesting from beginning to end. Again due to great dialogues and fascinating characters.

EFFECTS

Django Unchained: It looks very good, Tarantino did a great job and it looks like we are in the wild west. It has some great spectacle here and there.

The Hateful Eight: Hardly any effects needed. The greatest part is its simplicity and also the wide screen Tarantino used. You’re sometimes so close to the characters, that you can experience how small the room is they are in. This wide screen really does make a different.

WINNER

Both are not my Tarantino favorites, but they are very close to each other. I prefer “Django Unchained though.

Movie Battle : Enemy Vs. Nightcrawler

This time I decided to go for two movies with Jake Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal is an actor who keeps making better movies. This guy is on a roll and has made so many great films recently. I decided to let two of his more recent ones fight it out in the movie battle. Let’s so who wins: “Enemy” Vs. “Nightcrawler”.

 

 

ACTORS

Enemy: Besides Jake Gyllenhaal we can see Mélanie Laurent, Sara Gadon and Isabella Rossellini. While Gyllenhaal is the star, all the ladies do a very solid job.

Nightcrawler: Rene Russo and Bill Paxton are performing opposite Jake Gyllenhaal. Again, Gyllenhaal is the star and he is at his most maniacal in “Nightcrawler”. What an amazingly overlooked performance by him.

STORY

Enemy: When you read the synopsis it all seems standard. A man seeks out his exact look-alike after spotting him in a movie. But what’s beneath is much more complicated. I didn’t understand the movie when I first saw it, it’s a movie with a lot of symbolism and layers. “Enemy” really makes you think and you want to find out the psychology behind it. And that ending freaked me out.

Nightcrawler: The story is a bit more straight forward than “Enemy”, but also more than meets the eye. Louis Bloom discovers working as a crime journalist and becomes obsessed with the job.

EFFECTS

Enemy: A very grim movie, well filmed. It all looks very creepy and there are some special effects here and there. But not more than needed.

Nightcrawler: Night time Los Angeles is the background of the film and the city of angels is filmed beautifully. The film has a gripping atmosphere and this décor adds something extra to that.

WINNER

Tough choice, I loved both movies. But I think “Nightcrawler” surprised and overwhelmed me more.

Movie Battle: Captain America: The First Avenger Vs. Captain America: The Winter Soldier

This time I decided to go for two movies in a franchise. I love Marvel movies, they are really successful and this guy is my favorite superhero and Avenger. I’m talking about Captain America. Already two standalone movies, so Cap is fighting himself in this battle: “Captain America: The First Avenger” Vs. “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”

 

 

ACTORS

Captain America: The First Avenger: Chris Evans is a good choice for Captain America aka Steve Rogers. A strong performer, but also a great action star. His chemistry with Hayley Atwell, as Agent Peggy Carter, was fantastic and her performance is also memorable. Tommy Lee Jones and Stanley Tucci have great supporting roles. Hugo Weaving is a believable villain, but Red Skull is a little bit underused.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier: Chris Evans is getting more comfortable in his role as Captain America. A bigger role for Nick Fury, played by Samuel L. Jackson. The best addition is Scarlett Johansson, as Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow. The chemistry Evans had with Hayley Atwell in the first movie, he now has with Johansson. In a different way, but the two work well together. Robert Redford is also a good addition to the cast.

STORY

Captain America: The First Avenger: It’s the origin story of Steve Rogers becoming Captain America. I like the setting of the story and how it was executed.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier: The movie is this time set in modern times. The story has some surprising twists. This is a strongly written script.

EFFECTS

Captain America: The First Avenger: The movie looks stunning, with the 1940s as the movie’s background. The action scenes are fast paced and look good.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier: Again a fantastic looking movie. The action scenes look even better and are even faster, because of the modern look. And there was only a minimal use of CGI in this film, which makes it even more amazing that the film looks so good.

WINNER

Although I love “Captain America: The First Avenger”, probably more than most people, I choose the second movie in this franchise. “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” was just slightly better.

Movie Battle: The Theory of Everything Vs. The Imitation Game

The two movies I choose this time, both depict well known British scientists. I saw both movies this year and they were nominated for Academy Awards. Let’s get them face to face: “The Theory of Everything” Vs. “The Imitation Game”.

 

 

ACTORS

The Theory of Everything: Eddie Redmayne plays Stephen Hawking and does that with great conviction. Especially the minimal facial expression are done very well. Felicity Jones, as Jane, shows us the path from optimistic girl to depressed woman. Very well acted by her.

The Imitation Game: Benedict Cumberbatch plays mathematician Alan Turing. He shows us why he is so hard to ignore these days. He is excellent as the British pioneer and almost just as brilliant in his role as the man himself. Keira Knightley, as Joan Clarke, shows us again that she can overshadow her co-stars. Not Cumberbatch, but all the other male performers don’t stand a chance.

STORY

The Theory of Everything: We follow the life of Stephen Hawking and the woman behind him, Jane Wilde. It’s more for the romance fans then for the scientists. It focusses more on Hawking’s personal life then his work.

The Imitation Game: During World War II, mathematician Alan Turing tries to crack the enigma code with help from fellow mathematicians. A story that I didn’t know about before seeing this movie, this made is interesting for me.

EFFECTS

The Theory of Everything: It feels like the movie is set in that period of time. The home video’s also make it feel like you are personally involved.

The Imitation Game: The color palet is perfect, it feels like the movie is set during World War II.

WINNER

For some reason “The Theory of Everything” didn’t give me what I hoped for and “The Imitation Game” did, so I’ll give it to Benedict Cumberbatch and company.

Movie Battle: American History X Vs. This is England

The two movie I choose this time, both center a pretty strong theme. It’s about a sub culture, the skinheads. There are similar because of the central theme, but they are both very different movies on their own. “American History X” Vs. “This is England”.

 

 

ACTORS

American History X: Edward Norton plays his best role so far, in my opinion. And Edward Furlong plays his little brother, also very solid. Beverly D’Angelo, Elliott Gould and Stacy Keach also portray very solid roles.

This is England: Thomas Turgoose is good as the boy the story centers around. But most impressive is Stephen Graham as Combo. His best role so far.

STORY

American History X: Norton plays former neo-nazi skinhead Derek, trying to prevend his younger brother from going down the same wrong path he did. I can remember that one scene on that curb…. Crinch!

This is England: Shaun is a troubled boy growing up in England, set in 1983. He comes across a few skinheads on his way home from school. They become his best friends, even like family. One of Britain’s best movies.

EFFECTS

American History X: What I think is most amazing is the contrast. Present day is filmed in full color and the flashbacks from Derek’s past are in black and white.

This is England: The movie got this typical British 80’s feel to it.

WINNER

Close call, because they are both memorable movies. But it’s “American History X” that will always be on my favourites list.

Movie Battle: Adventureland Vs. The Way Way Back

Both movies I really loved the first time I watched them. They are both coming of age movies, centering around a guy who just tries to feel normal and start a job at a park. “Adventureland” Vs. “The Way Way Back”

 

 

CAST

Adventureland: The leading part is for the easy likeable Jesse Eisenberg. His love interest is played by Kristen Stewart and the really funny roles are for Kristen Wiig and Bill Hader. Ryan Reynolds also has a role.

The Way Way Back: Relatively unknown Liam Jones plays the leading role. His mother is portrayed by Toni Collette and his douche of a stepdad is played by Steve Carell. A great role by the way. Sam Rockwell plays my favourite character in the movie, it’s impossible to not like this guy. Also a fun roles for Allison Janney and Maya Rudolph, and AnnaSophie Robb plays the love interest.

STORY

Adventureland: It’s set in 1987. Eisenberg plays college graduate James Brennan who takes a ‘nowhere’ job at his local amusement park. He thinks it’s the perfect course to get him prepared for the real world.

The Way Way Back: Duncan is a shy guy, who goes on vacation with his mom, mom’s new boyfriend and the boyfriend’s daughter. Having a rough time fitting in, Duncan finds just the place. He starts working at the local Water Park, where he finds an unexpected friend in manager Owen.

EFFECTS

Adventureland: The movie has a cool 80’s vibe, due to the clothes, music and surroundings.

The Way Way Back: It’s mostly about the characters and the story here. You do get a summer feeling while watching the movie.

WINNER

“The Way Way Back”. It’s such a good film, I can’t fault it. It’s a guarantee to make you feel better and gives you an instant smile.

Movie Battle: The Avengers Vs. Guardians of the Galaxy

I already know this is going to be one tough battle. Both movies are incredibly kick ass. They are both based on Marvel comics and it’s about superheroes. I’m a huge fan of both movies, so it’s going to be hard to pick a favourite in the end. To battle it out, here is “The Avengers” Vs. “Guardians of the Galaxy”.

 

 

 

CAST

The Avengers: It’s filled with big stars, and most of them already had their own movie as this superhero. We have Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, Chris Evans as Captain America, Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Mark Ruffalo as Hulk, Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow and Jeremy Renner as Hawke Eye. And not to mention Samuel L. Jackson and Tom Hiddleston.

Guardians of the Galaxy: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana and Dave Bautista aren’t as known as the guys from “The Avengers”, but stand their ground. The biggest names, Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel, only provided voices. I really loved all five of these characters.

STORY

The Avengers: Nick Shield wants to assemble a team, to take a fierce demigod. He wants to take over New York and the world.

Guardians of the Galaxy: Peter Quill finds himself the prime target of a manhunt after discovering an orb wanted by Ronan the Accuser. He gets help from assassin Gamora, bounty hunters Rocket and Groot and muscular Drax.

EFFECTS

The Avengers: This movie look stunning, great visuals and special effects. The biggest part of the movie is set in a big city, so for that they didn't need any CGI.

Guardians of the Galaxy: Same here, “Guardians of the Galaxy” looks amazing. Everything looks great, so detailed. The set is amazing! And how they made Rocket and Groot so live like. They easily could have been the Jar Jar Binks of this film.

WINNER

After thinking it over and over and over I’ve come to the conclusion that I prefer “Guardians of the Galaxy”. But only a little bit. I love both movies, but I fell in love with “Guardians of the Galaxy”.

Movie Battle: The Truman Show Vs. Edtv

Two movies where the lead characters are being watched by… well everyone, 24/7. When the movies were released, reality television just started and became extremely popular. Today, they make shows about everything. To battle it out, here is “The Truman Show” Vs. “Edtv”.

 

CAST

The Truman Show: Mostly known for his comedic roles, rubber face Jim Carrey takes the lead. And very well indeed. I think this is Carrey’s best performance so far. Laura Linney, Ed Harris and Natascha McElhone also take part.

Edtv: The relatively unknown Matthew McConaughey plays Ed and is accompanied by Woody Harrelson, Jenna Elfman, Ellen Degeneres and Elizabeth Hurley. The cast looks less impressive, but do a solid job.

STORY

The Truman Show: Truman is unaware that his life has been followed ever since his birth. His whole life has been planned out, but he starts to be suspicious. Trying to follow his own path, the TV people try to stop him. It’s a drama, mixed with subtle comedy.

Edtv: Unlike Truman, Ed volunteers to be followed. He is supposed to make the rates go up, but at first his life doesn’t look all that interesting. That soon changes and Ed is loved by many. It’s more of a comedy.

EFFECTS

The Truman Show: Truman lives in a picture perfect town, with picture perfect citizens. It all looks stunning.

Edtv: Nothing special here.

WINNER

It’s kind of a no brainer, “The Truman Show” is without a doubt the better movie of the two.

Movie Battle: V for Vendetta Vs. Children of Men

The Movies I choose this time are both sci-fi films set in the future, where most countries in the world are near destroyed by natural disasters, riots and war. England has established a totalitarian regime that shields the country from outsiders. In both movies the society is portrayed as extremely racist and xenophobic and the main characters are part of an underground movement. To battle it out, here is “V for Vendetta” Vs. “Children of Men”.

 

CAST

V for Vendetta: Hugo Weaving plays lead character V, a freedom fighter wearing a Guy Fawkes mask. His performance, even without ever seeing his real face, is breath-taking and phenomenal. Natalie Portman also does a great job, especially the rooftop scene.

Children of Men: Clive Owen, who a lot of people say can’t act, does a fantastic job. He plays main character Theo Faron. Julianne Moore and Michael Caine also have solid roles, but they don’t have very big roles.

STORY

V for Vendetta: Great Britain is now a fascist state. A man named V uses terrorist tactics to oppress society. He rescues the young Eve from the secret police, and she becomes his ally. It’s based on a graphic novel, that I have read. It’s very close to its source. The story is great, the character of V even more.

Children of Men: Dystopian London, surrounded by violence and warring nationalistic sects. People are no longer aloud to have children. The youngest citizen, just 18 years of age, has just died. Then a young pregnant woman is discovered and the desperate journey to deliver her to safety starts. Great idea for a story.

EFFECTS

V for Vendetta: There are some amazing fight scenes in it. Especially the one in the dark tunnel (I believe it’s a tunnel). The while movie has a dark, greyish tone.

Children of Men: This also has a certain tone, more the grey, bluish tones. They makers made London look like a worn down plays, filled with violence and war.

WINNER

Although both movies are amazing, with great acting and fantastic stories, I will have to go with “V for Vendetta”. That’s a movie I’m more willingly to re-watch.

Movie Battle: The Time Traveler's Wife Vs. About Time

Again I have chosen two movies with a similar theme. Both movies are about time travel. I love both movies, so it would be hard to pick a winner. Just let them go head to head and I will decided who’s the match winner in “The Time Traveler’s Wife” Vs. “About Time”.

 

CAST

The Time Traveler’s Wife: Eric Bana is Henry, the guy who can travel through time but doesn’t have any control over it. The titular wife Clare is portrayed by Rachel McAdams. They both do a great job, but I think McAdams is the big star in the film. She really shines.

About Time: Tim is played by Domhnall Gleeson. He can time travel and he can control it. He has to get into a small, dark place, clutch his fists and think of a moment he wants to travel back to. He can relive his own past, but he cannot make any major changes, because it will have effect on the present. His wife is played by, again, Rachel McAdams. And again she shines. Bill Nighy is the guy stealing all the scenes, as Tim’s dad.

STORY

The Time Traveler’s Wife: I just love the book, so the story is one of my favourites of all time. I was very excited when they turned it into a movie and I think they did a fantastic job. It was criticized, but I really liked the film.

About Time: I thought it was going to be another standard story about a guy who time travelled. I was really surprised with this film and it is actually on my favourites list now. It just feels so honest and real.

EFFECTS

The Time Traveler’s Wife: The moments that Henry disappears were made very well, it’s like pieces of a puzzle falling apart.

About Time: I just love the way this movie was filmed and I liked the colors and tones of the film.

WINNER

Like I said, “About Time” has become one of my favourites. It’s amazing, I love it. It’s is actually Rachel McAdams best film so far.

Movie Battle: The Road Vs. The Book of Eli

I’ve choosen two movies with similar themes and plot points this time. And I think it’s going to be a close call, because while starting this I’m not sure who I will pick as winner yet. Here are the two movies going head to head in this movie battle: “The Road” Vs. “The Book of Eli”.

 

CAST

The Road: Viggo Mortensen has the lead and he does a great job. Very solid an believable. Kodi Smith-McPhee is an upcoming star, very well done as well. Charlize Theron also has a role in “The Road”, she is one of my favourites, I always love her. Robert Duvall and Guy Pearce have small roles in it as well.

The Book of Eli: You can always rely on Denzel Washington, this man never made a really bad movie. Washington is great, as always. Gary Oldman plays the villain, a task you can trust him with. Mila Kunis, Ray Stevenson and Michael Gambon also have roles in the film.

STORY

The Road: A man and his son a trying to survive in a post-apocalyptic world by any means possible. Somehow these kinds of stories always get me interested. I remember the ending to be very open, you don’t really know what will happen next.

The Book of Eli: Eli is trying to cross his way through post-apocalyptic America, while protecting a sacred book that holds the secrets to saving mankind. Off course his trip doesn’t go without some problems. The film had a surprise twist in the end.

EFFECTS The Road: They made it look like a post-apocalyptic world, very dark, grim and sad. Not much colour, a perfect look for a world that’s on the edge of dying.

The Book of Eli: This post-apocalytic world looked a little lighter. It’s not as dark, it has a lot of earthy tones, more dessert like.

WINNER

It’s a tough one, but I’ll go for “The Road”. It’s not as spectacular as “The Book of Eli”, but the whole setting, storyline and performances impressed me a bit more.

Movie Battle: Sleepless in Seattle Vs. You've Got Mail

Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan where the romantic couple in the 90’s, they did three movies together and is there someone who wants to see them pair up again (me, me, me!) ? I’ve chosen two of the movies to go head to head in this movie battle: “Sleepless in Seattle” Vs. “You’ve Got Mail”.

CAST

Sleepless in Seattle: Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan are a magical duo, they have perfect chemistry. Even if they are not in the same scene. It also has Bill Pullman and Rosie O’Donnell in it, but who cares.

You’ve Got Mail: Also Tom and Meg, but the other characters are also easy to forget about. For some reason I do remember Steve Zahn in it. And Jean Stapleton and Greg Kinnear.

STORY

Sleepless in Seattle: Annie is about to get married, but is missing something in her life. When she hears young Jonah on the radio, talking about his widowed father Sam, she falls in love. This is perfect material for the hopeless romantic who believe in true love.

You’ve Got Mail: This story isn’t timeless, although it’s about the internet. Technology grows so fast and when you watch this movie now, you think it’s really outdated. Kathleen and Joe both own a bookstore, she a little children’s bookstore, he a giant megastore. They can’t stand each other, but what they don’t know is that online they are e-mail friends. “Sleepless in Seattle” had letters and here it’s e-mail. Again great for the ones who think love will always find a way.

EFFECTS

Sleepless in Seattle: This movie isn’t about the effects. The movie is well filmed and told and it’s just one of the most romantic movies ever made.

You’ve Got Mail: Very similar to “Sleepless in Seattle”. It does show New York at its best, especially when it’s autumn. Like Meg Ryan’s character says: “Don’t you just love New York in the fall”?

WINNER

Surprise! Most people would go for the classic, but my heart goes out to “You’ve Got Mail”. For some reason I’ve always liked it more and I can watch it over and over again. And now I feel like rewatching it.

Movie Battle: Armageddon Vs. Deep Impact

The movies I’m going to compare today have a similar plot: a meteor heading to planet earth. It’s “Armageddon” Vs. “Deep Impact”.

CAST
Armageddon: Bruce Willis is one of our favourite action stars, so that was good. It was the breakthrough movie for both Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler and it also had Steve Buscemi, Owen Wilson, Billy Bob Thornton and Michael Clarke Duncan in it.

Deep Impact: The biggest star in this film was Morgan Freeman, who played the President of the United States. Other actors were Téa Leoni, Robert DuVall, Elijah Wood and Vanessa Redgrave.

STORY

Armageddon: A group of deep core drillers is recruited to save the world from an asteroid the size of Texas. The story focusses on this group, but you especially sympathize Bruce Willis’ character. His death makes me cry every single time.

Deep Impact: This movie focused on multiple storylines. We saw how all the characters tried to deal with the fact of a meteor coming towards earth. Because there are so many characters and storylines, you don’t really relate to any of them. But “Deep Impact” is probably the more scientifically accurate of the two.

EFFECTS

Armageddon: The effects are great, it especially looks amazing on the big screen and with a good surround sound system.

Deep Impact: Although they were both released in 1998, “Deep Impact” didn’t have such great effects. They weren’t awefull, but compared to “Armageddon” it was obvious they didn’t have the same budget.

WINNER

I’m not a fan of either one of the movies, but they are both great popcorn films. I have a slight preference for “Armageddon”, mostly because of Bruce!

Movie Battle: Love Actually Vs. New Year's Eve

It’s that time of the year! I’m not going to compare two Christmas movies though. It’s “Love Actually” Vs. “New Year’s Eve”, one is set during Christmas and the other during, well the title says it, New Year’s Eve, and they are both multiple storyline movies.

CAST

Love Actually: It’s filled with amazing British movie stars: Hugh Grant, Colin Firth, Emma Thompason, Alan Rickman, Bill Nighy, Keira Knightley, Martin Freeman, Rowan Atkinson and Liam Neeson! It’s just a wonderful group of performers. Need I say more?

New Year’s Eve: Also filled with great stars, but this time American: Michelle Pfeifer, Zac Efron, Halle Berry, Robert De Niro, Jessica Biel, Jamie Foxx, Hilary Swank, Ashton Kutcher, Katherine Heigl and for some reason Jon Bon Jovi. Besides Pfeifer and De Niro, they all don’t do it for me like the cast of “Love Actually”. And practically any movie with Sarah Jessica Parker in it is just simply ugh…

STORY

Love Actually: As I said in the beginning, it’s more storylines in one movie. This one is filled with wonderful stories, like Hugh Grant as the new Prime Minister falling for his assistan, Liam Neeson trying to help his stepson to win over the love of his life and Martin Freeman working as a stand-in during a sex scene while talking about everyday things. And that’s just three of them!

New Year’s Eve: I especially liked the storyline with Jessica Biel and Seth Meyers, a couple who’s having a baby. I just adored them together. The story of Michelle Pfeifer and Zac Efron was also fun, but that’s it. I can’t remember any special things about the other stories, only that some of them where just very predictable.

EFFECTS

Love Actually: The flow between the different storyline goes very smoothly, it’s never abrupt. And I love how they sometimes overlap. I think the opening scene at Heathrow Airport was shot beautifully.

New Year’s Eve: The crowd scenes at Madison Square Garden are shot very well, I liked those and it made me want to celebrate New Year’s Eve too.

WINNER

This is not going to be a surprise, because I think I gave it away already. “Love Actually” is one of the sweetest, loveliest and greatest love stories ever. And when I saw “New Year’s Eve" in the theatre it felt like a waste of money. Why did I even compare these two? It wasn't a fair fight.

Movie Battle: District 9 Vs. Elysium

Today I’m comparing two movie by director Neill Blomkamp. He hasn’t directed many movies, but these are his two most well-known and successful ones: District 9 Vs. Elysium.

CAST

District 9: There is only one actor in this movie worth mentioning, Sharlto Copley. Untill then an unknown South African actor. Copley’s performance is solid and believable.

Elysium: Matt Damon is the star and as always he does a great job. Since the Bourne-trilogy he’s a respectable action hero as well as the solid actor he already was. Jodie Foster is a convincing bitch, but her accent is a bit weird. I don’t know what it is, but it sound like something she made up herself. But again, like in “District 9”, Sharlto Copley steals the show. What a badass he is in this movie.

STORY

District 9: It’s a very original story, also written by Neill Blomkamp. I think it’s one of the better realistically looking sci-fi movies of the decade.

Elysium: Again a pretty original plot. Off course there are other versions of this, the poor world versus the rich world, but they way it was executed was very well done.

EFFECTS

District 9: The prawns look very realistic, though the effects are very subtle. I think that’s what’s so great about “District 9”, it’s never over the top.
Elysium: Bigger material used here, a lot of special effects, but it still has that gritty look. Blomkamp used the ‘shaky cam’ which is always a nice thing in action movies. It feels more real, like you’re really there. Again, it never looks like too much.

WINNER

They are both great, but I choose “District 9”. I think it’s the more original one of the two and this is a movie I could watch more than once.

Movie Battle: No Stings Attached Vs. Friends with Benefits

Both movies came out around the same time and have similar themes. Two friends decide to have casual sex, without any feelings or complications.

CAST

No Strings Attached: I adore Natalie Portman, but I’m not so much an Ashton Kutcher fan. I have to say that this isn’t Portman’s finest hour though. Kutcher does what he knows best, look pretty and shallow. I don’t recall any other actors in this film. At least the didn't leave an impression on me.

Friends with Benefits: Again I love the female lead, I think Mila Kunis is amazing. She lights up a room, or in this case the screen. I like Justin Timberlake just as much as I like sauerkraut, which means not at all. He’s just not a very good actor. He should just stick to making music. Kunis and Timberlake do have awesome chemistry. Besides, some nice supporting roles by Patricia Richardson, Richard Jenkins, Woody Harrelson and Jenna Elfman and small appearances by Andy Samberg and Emma Stone.

STORY

No Strings Attached: Not very special, but because this was the one that came out first it’s the more original one I guess. I never laughed out loud though.

Friends with Benefits: This is a bit more explicit, visually and verbally. I also believe I laughed ones or twice. Especially because of Patricia Richardson, she’s hilarious.

EFFECTS

No Strings Attached: Again, not very special. I shows both Portman and Kutcher’s best features.

Friends with Benefits: The scene with the flashmob was shot very well, I actually liked that scene. But overall, everybody could have made this movie.

WINNER

They’re both not on my favorites list, but “No Strings Attached” bored me and “Friends with Benefits”didn’t.

Movie Battle: Hotel Rwanda Vs. Shooting Dogs

The movies who will go head to head are both set in Rwanda and deal with the genocide. They’re both favorites of mine, but who will I choose as the winner.

CAST

Hotel Rwanda: Don Cheadle plays the leading character and he is the only memorable actor in this movie. His performance is so realistic and heartbreaking. Nick Nolte and Joaquin Phoenix are also part of the cast, they’re just solid.

Shooting Dogs: John Hurt plays the role of Christopher, a man of faith who’s life is dedicated to the school and church he has set up in Rwanda. Hugh Dancy is the likeable Joe, a teacher who tries to make a difference. Both actor are very realistic and strong.

STORY

Hotel Rwanda: Paul Rusesabagina is a hotel manager who housed a thousand tutsi refugees and it’s an amazing true story. It got a lot of attention at the Academy Awards.

Shooting Dogs: This movie has been based on actual events, the characters are fictional, but it's a bit more confronting then “Hotel Rwanda”. It’s really heart wrenching to see that the United Nations left all those people there and only the ‘white people’ could be evacuated. I think this movie was a bit overlooked.

EFFECTS

Hotel Rwanda: Nicely filmed, don’t really have any negative points here.

Shooting Dogs: It all looks very realistic. I’ve been to Uganda, the neighbour country and parts of it look similar to Rwanda. The color scheme that was used to film “Shooting Dogs” is perfect.

WINNER

A close call, but I will go with “Shooting Dogs”. Most people would choose the other one, but I think “Shooting Dogs” is just a little bit more confronting and touched me slightly more then “Hotel Rwanda”.