Originality can be a rarity within the sparkly streets of Tinseltown, its cinematic offerings tending to consist of remakes, reboots, copycats and sequels which consistently dominate the worldwide box office. Just this week, Hollywood is presenting the US with Will Gluck’s “Friends with Benefits,” a rom-com about two long-time pals who decide to have casual sex with each other, no strings attached. Sound familiar? Well, just six months ago came Ivan Reitman’s “No Strings Attached,” the storyline of which is exactly the same as “Friends with Benefits,” the only difference being that that one starred Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher, and this new one stars Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake. Their similarities can be seen in the video below.
To mark this baffling coincidence (or is it?!?!), I’ve compiled a list of the top ten times this happened before in Hollywood, i.e. two movies that were released close together and carry striking resemblances to each other. Happenstance or a result of studio eavesdropping? Rip-off or pure coincidence? Let’s compare these movie clones.
(Note: The films are presented in chronological order, and the worldwide box office takings provided include figures from the US.)
(1993-1994) “Tombstone” and “Wyatt Earp”
What’s the Resemblance?
Aside from the fact that they are both very much gunslinging westerns, “Wyatt Earp” and “Tombstone” are on this list because they share the same well-known, real-life protagonist: Wyatt Earp, historical lawman of the wild West.
Which Came First?
“Tombstone” rode into town on Christmas Day, 1993, with “Wyatt Earp” hot on its trail, released 24 June, 1994.
Which Made the Most Cash?
“Tombstone” lassoed in $56 million domestically, while “Wyatt Earp” was less successful, earning only $25 million domestically on its $63 million budget.
What Sets Them Apart?
“Wyatt Earp” is a serious biopic of the eponymous lawman (played by Kevin Costner), taking us from his adolescence to his later years, showing us the good times and the bad times of the historical figure’s life in the West. “Tombstone,” on the other hand, (with Kurt Russell in the lead role) is slightly less stern and focuses only on the events leading up to the infamous shootout at the O.K. Corral.
What’s the Better Movie?
Audiences seemed to take much more of a shine to “Tombstone,” what with its action-packed plot and spaghetti western stylisation, as opposed to the realism of the biographical “Wyatt Earp;” I’m sure the latter’s three hour runtime did little to resolve this.
(1995) “Gordy” and “Babe”
What’s the Resemblance?
Live-action family films of the “animals can talk” fare, “Babe” and “Gordy” both star a lively piglet who can converse with the other animals of his homely farm, though us humans of course only hear nonsensical oinking.
Which Came First?
“Gordy” trotted about on 12 May, while “Babe” played in the mud on 4 August.
Which Made the Most Cash?
“Gordy” was a bit of a flop, making only $4 million domestically, while “Babe” squealed all the way to the bank with over $66 million in the US alone and $240 million worldwide.
What Sets Them Apart?
While “Babe” stuck to its humble setting of a farm in the country, “Gordy” saw its curly-tailed protagonist travelling across America to find his family, resulting in all sorts of silly, stupid and insufferable shenanigans.
What’s the Better Movie?
“Babe” by a long shot; it was met with critical acclaim, proved much more popular with audiences than “Gordy,” was nominated for Best Picture by the Academy Awards and is something of a Disney classic. Meanwhile, the obnoxious “Gordy” thankfully faded into long-forgotten obscurity.
(1997) “Dante’s Peak” and “Volcano”
What’s the Resemblance?
“Dante’s Peak” and “Volcano” are both mindless ’90s disaster movies revolving around volcanoes that have violently erupted without much warning, putting their protagonists in quite a bit of peril.
Which Came First?
“Dante’s Peak” erupted first, released on 7 February, and “Volcano” spilled its lava on 25 April.
Which Made the Most Cash?
Both movies made very middling amounts of cash given their sizable budgets, with “Dante’s Peak” earning over $67 million domestically and $178 million worldwide, and “Volcano” grossing $49 million domestically and $122 million worldwide.
What Sets Them Apart?
“Dante’s Peak” takes place in a fictional town by the countryside, as compared to “Volcano,” which showcases a (surprise, surprise) volcano that unexpectedly rises up from the streets of Los Angeles.
What’s the Better Movie?
Neither are particularly good, but I’d say “Volcano” is superior, if only for the stupefying corniness of it all (a volcano in Los Angeles? Really?). “Dante’s Peak,” on the other hand, isn’t very exciting and doesn’t contain Tommy Lee Jones outrunning a collapsing skyscraper.
(1998) “Deep Impact” and “Armageddon”
What’s the Resemblance?
A gigantic asteroid is hurtling through the vastness of space in the direction of our lovely planet, and is set to destroy every living thing on Earth; it’s up to us to stop it before the population of the globe is reduced to zero.
Which Came First?
“Deep Impact” crashed into cinemas on 8 May, while “Armageddon” made its impact on 1 July.
Which Made the Most Cash?
Both surprisingly managed to make a boatload at the box office, with “Armageddon” receiving over $200 million domestically and $550 million worldwide, and “Deep Impact” raking in $140 million domestically and $350 million worldwide.
What Sets Them Apart?
One stars Bruce Willis and the other stars Morgan Freeman. One is more of an actioner and the other is more of a drama. While “Armageddon” goes down the Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer big-explosion route, “Deep Impact” takes a more dramatic approach, looking at how us human beings would react given the news that a big space rock’s about to kill us all.
What’s the Better Movie?
As thrilling as the last 90 minutes of “Armageddon” are, I’d have to say “Deep Impact” is the better film. The former suffers from director Michael Bay’s complete and utter incompetence with scenes that aren’t action-oriented, while the latter is a much more solid and noble watch, albeit lacking in adrenaline-fuelled thrills.
(1998) “Antz” and “A Bug’s Life”
What’s the Resemblance?
In a highly populated ant colony, one misfit ant attempts to free his fellow insects from an unflinching higher power, discovering throughout the course of the film that he is much braver than he ever thought before.
Which Came First?
“Antz” crawled onto the big screen on 2 October, and “A Bug’s Life” followed on 25 November.
Which Made the Most Cash?
“Antz” did fairly well, receiving $90 million domestically and $171 million worldwide, while “A Bug’s Life” was just a little bit gigantic, earning $162 million in the US and $363 million globally.
What Sets Them Apart?
“Antz” is notably grittier than “A Bug’s Life,” it even including a scene where a newly decapitated head talks to our neurotic main character. “A Bug’s Life,” on the other hand, is a more family-friendly animation, most of the insect characters animated to appear cute and cuddly.
What’s the Better Movie?
One is Pixar and the other is DreamWorks, two movie studios seemingly always in battle with each other. Pixar’s “A Bug’s Life” is a bit of a childhood favourite of mine, so I of course personally prefer it to Dreamworks’ “Antz,” though I know many prefer the boldness of the latter (I do love the casting of Woody Allen).
(2000) “Mission to Mars” and “Red Planet”
What’s the Resemblance?
A couple of sci-fi tales which see a group of astronauts venturing out of our atmosphere in a big rocket and landing on the fourth planet from our sun, Mars, where things unfortunately take a turn for the worst.
Which Came First?
First to land was “Mission to Mars” on 10 March, while “Red Planet” blasted off on 10 November.
Which Made the Most Cash?
While “Mission to Mars” earned a fair amount at the box office with $60 million in the US and $110 million worldwide, “Red Planet” couldn’t even make back half of its production budget of $80 million, taking in only $33 million from international audiences.
What Sets Them Apart?
Where the differences lie are in the intentions of the space-travelling characters. In “Mission to Mars,” they’re a rescue team sent to the red planet to find out what happened to the previous team who ventured there, and in “Red Planet,” they’ve come to Mars to find resources to bring back to a dying Earth.
What’s the Better Movie?
That’s a bit like asking someone to tell you which serving of excrement tastes less shitty. Neither are what you’d call the next “2001: A Space Odyssey,” both as bland as a pod person, though I’d say “Mission to Mars” stinks slightly less, what with Brian De Palma in the director’s chair.
(2003-2004) “Finding Nemo” and “Shark Tale”
What’s the Resemblance?
Two movies set in the watery depths of the seven seas, “Finding Nemo” and “Shark Tale” saw Pixar and DreamWorks in fierce competition yet again, both making computer-animated family flicks starring a plethora of fishy characters.
Which Came First?
“Finding Nemo” was a 2003 release, floating to the surface on 30 May, while “Shark Tale” surfaced on 1 October, 2004.
Which Made the Most Cash?
Both movies were kings of the box office ocean, with “Shark Tale” making a splash with $160 million domestically and $367 million worldwide, and “Finding Nemo” swimming in a pile of dough, making $339 million domestically and $867 million worldwide.
What Sets Them Apart?
The biggest difference would be the storylines, one of which is more emotional, the other having entertainment solely in mind. “Finding Nemo” tells the story of a clown fish who swims all the way across the ocean to find his missing son, while “Shark Tale” is about a bluestreak cleaner wrasse who receives local fame when he pretends to be a professional killer of sharks.
Which is the Better Movie?
There is no competition here; “Finding Nemo” received mass acclaim from both critics and audiences alike, left filmgoers everywhere teary eyed in the cinema and is still heralded as one of Pixar’s very best. And “Shark Tale,” while maybe not too bad, was much less ambitious, feeling more like a quick paycheck for the cluster of A-list actors providing their vocal talents.
(2005) “Red Eye” and “Flightplan”
What’s the Resemblance?
Both “Red Eye” and “Flightplan” are very tense thrillers with female heroes and male villains, involve terrorism and kidnapping, and take place primarily within the aisles of flying aeroplanes.
Which Came First?
Landing first was “Red Eye” on 19 August, while “Flightplan” landed on 23 September.
Which Made the Most Cash?
“Red Eye” was a modest success, receiving $57 million domestically and $95 million worldwide, while “Flightplan” was quite the hit, taking in $89 million domestically and $223 million worldwide.
What Sets Them Apart?
“Red Eye” has a woman being seated beside a charming man on a plane who turns out to be a rather nasty individual, ordering her to phone the hotel she works for and change the room in which the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security resides so that he may be assassinated. “Flightplan” has a woman boarding a plane with her daughter, falling asleep and waking up to find her daughter gone, with no record of her ever having boarded the plane.
What’s the Better Movie?
In my opinion, these are both great slices of entertainment, but my personal preference lies with “Red Eye,” mainly due to Cillian Murphy’s incredibly intimidating performance as the menacing villain. “Flightplan,” while definitely a fun and mysterious ride, is a little too far-fetched for its own good.
(2005-2006) “Capote” and “Infamous”
What’s the Resemblance?
“Capote” and “Infamous” together tell the exact same story. What is this story? It is of Truman Capote, the famed author of “Breakfast at Tiffany’s,” both fact-based films revolving around the man as he researches his new book, “In Cold Blood,” and becomes obsessively involved with the the imprisoned murderer who is the subject of his upcoming novel.
Which Came First?
Initially hitting the silver screen in 2005 was “Capote,” given a limited release in the US on 30 September, then a wider release on 3 February, 2006. “Infamous” followed with a limited release on 13 October, 2006.
Which Made the Most Cash?
“Capote” made the most money by a long shot, it earning $28 million domestically and $49 million worldwide. “Infamous,” due to its limited release, made only $1.5 million domestically and $2.6 million worldwide.
What Sets Them Apart?
The only notable difference between the two is in terms of tone. “Capote” has a very cold and almost unsettling ambience about itself, while “Infamous” is much warmer; indeed, you can see this even in the two posters above.
What’s the Better Movie?
It’s unfortunate that “Infamous” was so overshadowed by the success of “Capote,” as it is a very good movie in its own right, but I do believe that “Capote” is superior; how could you not just love Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Oscar-winning performance as the effeminately-voiced eccentric? You could hardly even recognise the man.
(2006) “The Illusionist” and “The Prestige”
What’s the resemblance?
Both “The Illusionist” and “The Prestige” are set at the turn of the 20th Century, with stage performers in the leading roles. What do they perform? Magic and illusions, shows of trickery and deception, which it turns out they use off-stage as well.
Which Came First?
“The Illusionist” waved its wand first on 18 August with a limited released then a wider release on 1 September, followed by the wizardry of “The Prestige” on 20 October.
Which Made the Most Cash?
“The Illusionist” pulled $39 million out of its hat domestically and $87 million worldwide, while “The Prestige” conjured up $53 million domestically and $109 million worldwide.
What Sets Them Apart?
“The Illusionist” is a love story, while “The Prestige” is a mystery thriller. “The Illusionist” sees its magician protagonist falling for a woman who is out of his reach, while “The Prestige” tells the story of two co-performers who end up in an intense, violent rivalry. Also, “The Prestige” contains actual magic, while “The Illusionist” does not.
What’s the Better Movie?
“The Prestige” is a slightly more intriguing movie than “The Illusionist,” which is nonetheless wonderfully directed and beautifully acted. Under the direction of Christopher “The Dark Knight” Nolan, “The Prestige” is dark and absorbing, crammed full of twists, turns and sleights of hand that the audience never sees coming; it also contains David Bowie, which is always a plus.
Honourable Mentions: (1996) “Independence Day” and “Mars Attacks”; (1998) “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Thin Red Line”; (2005-2006) “Æon Flux” and “Ultraviolet”; (2009) “Paul Blart: Mall Cop” and “Observe and Report”
(for more content from Stephen Watson, visit I Love Movies, But I Hate Yours)
I’m rewarding “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” with a passing grade for this single simple fact: I had fun. You see, “Transformers 3″ presented me with what I shall hesitantly label “a good time,” which I shall attribute to the fact that I was sitting in a cinema watching two-and-a-half-hours of giant robots repeatedly hurling their mits at the glimmering metallic bodies of one another. Now, you may ask me, “But Stephen, you sexy beast, you were presented with the exact same thing in the second movie, “Revenge of the Fallen,” and you very much disliked that movie, so why does this one get a passing grade?” Well, I’ll tell you why (and thanks for the compliment); I’ve given this a passing grade because there’s something about “Dark of the Moon” that renders it not quite as tedious or frustrating as the chaotic clutter that was 2009′s “Revenge of the Fallen.” And if that’s not high praise, I don’t know what is. (
Jackass has always been a guilty pleasure of mine. Viewing people hurting themselves over and over again may not seem like quality entertainment to some, but 
Just like its two preceding movies, 
What should be monotonous at a length of over an hour and a half is surprisingly not so; the film is edited in such a way that the repetitiveness of segment after segment never becomes tedious. Short, briefer stunts are mixed in with much longer and more elaborate pranks, each as hilariously preposterous as the last and next.
Director Jeff Tremaine returns from the previous outings to film the gang’s third adventure into extreme vulgarity, his filming techniques only adding to the comical aspect of the 3D flick. He has a knack for brilliantly capturing the uproarious clowning around of the hyperactive thrill-seekers, this time using slow-motion to show every tiny movement of their crude frivolities. A personal favourite of mine is a moment when a dildo is fired through the air, through two miniature landscapes to smash through a glass of milk and smack Rick Kosick in the cheek. As the icing on the cake of this fabulously random segment, Rick has an apple placed upon his head. Genius.
The amount of main characters has expanded as well. We have Kristi (Sprague Grayden), the sister of Katie (Katie Featherston), the star of the first film; Kristi’s sceptical husband, Daniel (Brian Boland); Ali (Molly Ephraim), Daniel’s brooding teenage daughter from another marriage; and the religious Hispanic nanny, Martine (Vivis). Oh, and there’s also a newborn baby boy, Hunter, and the family dog, a loyal German Shepherd.
Like the original, shots of night-time while everyone is asleep are intertwined with footage from the daytime as our protagonists go about their daily lives. Everything seems fine at first on the late-night front; that is, until eerie things begin happening. Doors moving on their own, pans falling off their hooks, and the familiar sound of dull thumping tormenting sweet little Hunter and the family dog.
I know what you’re thinking. “This sounds an awful lot like the first one, doesn’t it?” And, to put the film to basics, yes, it is very similar to the fright-fest original. However, 
The added danger of an infant living within the house heightens one’s tense demeanour; one wonders what in the holy Christ is going to happen to the defenceless littlun. Same with the dog, who seems to be more aware of the demonic goings-on than the humans are.
The cast is all stellar, giving performances that feel more real than read from a script. They may not be as strong characters as Katie and Micah (Micah Sloat), but they are very sympathetic protagonists who we can’t help but care for. Kristi is a kind, loving mother who is all too familiar with these diabolical occurrences; Daniel is a stubborn but not very annoying husband who laughs in the face of supernaturalism; and Ali is a typical, spunky teenage girl who finds the haunting “cool”.
So, I guess the ultimate question is whether or not the prequel matches the previous feature in terms of quality. Well, I would say that 
