Sign In Now ►
or Create A New Account ►
Rank This Matchup or Comment/Reply Below
I don't know what's worse; the fact that I've seen both these piles of shit, or the fact that I now have to choose one. And who the hell has either of these movies in their top 20?
I don't even remember anything about these movies, but I think Armageddon had some cooler people in it.
Thats just evil. Two mindless action flicks from the 90's but i t go with Con Air just beacuse of Cage.
Are they great movies? Nah. But are they fun movies? Yeah. "Con Air" was a bit more fun, though I always enjoyed the Cosmonaut repairman in "Armageddon."
Two mindless action movies of the 90s. But i´ll take Bruce Willis any time over Nicolas Cage.
Con Air never struck a chord with me, really. Steve Buscemi's quite creepy in it, to be sure, but that's about it. In fact, I even like Steve Buscemi better in Armageddon. More movies could benefit from having Steve Buscemi in them.
Both of these films should be used as evidence at Michael Bay's war crimes trial.
Except, Michael Bay didn't direct Con Air...
holy crap you're right. I guess I just assumed a movie that terrible that did that well at the box office was Bay-directed.
Both brainless flicks. But Con-Air seems to be aware that it's just brainless, fun action. Whereas the second half of Armageddon actually wants you to care about it. If I was rating Con-Air against the first half of Armageddon (the fun half), it would be a tie.
Hmm, which movie's plot is more implausible? Eh, they're both harmless fun, so I say it doesn't matter. Con Air is one of my ultimate "guilty pleasure" movies, so that's my pick here. Kudos to Armageddon for having a growling asteroid, though. Asteroids DO growl, you know. It's science.
I like 'em both, but Con Air just a little more than Armageddon.
Con Air rules. Armageddon wasn't half as good as Deep Impact.
now here is a match up! con air is more fun.