Because it has Guns.

Personally I think that these are silly. This is partly because I have only seen two of the four movies that have been pitted against each other, but are not in competition with each other. How would I judge two movies where I have only seen one of the two? The other part of the reason I find this silly is because I personally feel that I have better things to do than compare movies to each other. Why not settle for the fact that both are enjoyable, when time and place agree? Is it not enought that I liked both Star Trek and moderately enjoyed Harry Potter? While I would argue that Star Trek was much better than Harry Potter, I am a biased audience because I didn't particularly enjoy Harry Potter even when it was a book. Not only that, but I feel that each movie has its own redeeming quality and a certain intended audience, and so the plot is tailored to that particular audience. If you are not that audience, you will not enjoy the movie. For example, I favor violent movies with lots of combat (but not guns. Guns are stupid), and so I will watch a movie aimed at someone who enjoys that type of thing like Wrath of the Titans or Troy, and I would not enjoy something like a war movie. Because it has Guns.