Flickchart’s Greatest Battles

 In which we pit two movies together using flickchart.com, debating their merits or lack thereof.






The year was 2001. Someone was probably president, some hit song was probably number one on the radio, and we as a nation were still giving Monster’s Ball a standing ovation weeks after we had seen it. Why? Because it made us sad. That’s what great movies are supposed to do, right? Over the last decade or so, (it’s always a decade. I feel like if your movie makes it past a decade and people still like it, you’re probably good) Monster’s Ball has gone from powerful award winner to a steaming pile of relentlessly sad poop. It’s fucking tortuous, and not in that Tarkovsky “You think about what you’ve done, humans” kind of way, but instead in that “I don’t know what to do next, so let’s make another sad thing happen to the character” way. I think you know where I’m going with this whole thing. Ladies and gentlemen: COMMANDO! Need I say more? Monster’s Ball is sad, Commando is perfect.

WINNER: Commando





Titanic, a movie that redefined the genre of sappy love story, launched the careers of Leonardo DiCaprio, and made it possible for James Cameron to buy a house made of diamonds and to replace all of his internal organs with those of a teenage Namibian boy. Why would he do this? Well who the hell is going to stop him? Or disagree with him when he claims it makes him run faster? Signs was the first indication it may have been a bit premature for Hollywood to declare M. Night Shyamalan the next Steven Spielberg. Come on, aliens that develop the technology to travel billions of light-years but haven’t devised a way to get through a wooden door? Or the fact that these evil aliens melt like the witch at the end of The Wizard of Oz when they come in contact with water, yet can stand our atmosphere (which is anywhere from 4-10% water) without the use of a protective space suit? Shut up.  Both movies are not completely without artistic merit; Titanic took the vision of an egomaniacal madman to create a to-scale set, and let’s not forget that he actually took a film crew to the bottom of the Arctic to get real footage of the watery grave of the actual R.M.S Titanic; Signs does have some pretty outstanding visuals as well as some great performances. So the question is, which movie is slightly less mediocre than the other?