Adam Sandler - A Winner at Making Money...But a Loser at Making Good Films

Comic, performing artist and previous Saturday Night Live cast member Adam Sandler turned into one of the biggest film stars ever because of a run of film industry hits running from the mid-'90s through today. Sadly, his vocation is an illustration of the theory of unavoidable losses - his movies have kept on deteriorating.  Notwithstanding their prosperity, Sandler is answerable for a percentage of the most exceedingly awful comedies of the most recent 20 years. Here's the almost worthless.

For a few years straight, every film Adam Sandler has made was his new most exceedingly awful motion picture. The streak continued with 2011's Jack & Jill, still the nadir of Sandler's filmography and one of the most noticeably bad comedies of the decade. Sandler plays a couple of twins in a comedy so moronically "high idea" groups of onlookers thought it was a meta-joke - that Sandler had really made one of the moronic motion pictures he mocked decently in Judd Apatow's Funny People. Nope. We were intended to take Jack & Jill at face esteem. Furthermore for those of us that sat through it, the scars have yet to mend.

Sandler's slow decay into sluggish jadedness is best represented in his 2010 comedy Grown Ups, a recorded get-away for him and his companions paid for by the American motion picture opening up to the world. With a rock n' roller lineup of Sandler's companions (and Happy Madison stars) including Chris Rock, Kevin James, David Spade and Rob Schneider, Grown Ups ought to have been pleasant only for the time used in this organization. Rather, it was apathetic and idiotic at each conceivable turn. The stature of the film’s jokes includes an elderly lady farting. Commonly, it was a huge enough hit to generate a continuation in 2013.

This film is shallow, lifeless, has truly no substance whatsoever, and to finish everything off, at the end it tries to play everything off as though it’s some fabulous satire toward oneself. I'd like to think that Adam Sandler drinks himself to rest consistently in view of this motion picture. It's the main thing that greatly improves the whole viewing experience.

Grown Ups is unwatchable. With the amount of cash this motion picture made.  Along with completely humorless jokes and a brain dead plot you presumably could have made a two hour film that is simply Adam Sandler waving his penis at you and chuckling. In any event that’s what most Adam Sandler movies are equivalent to.  

The Golden Compass

Well even after seeing the film, I am still left to wonder what the big controversy is all about.

I had never read the book series that New Line Cinema is hoping to be the next Harry Potter and if the film is an indication of what is to come. I am not even sure that i want to see part 2 nor 3, if they ever get made.

I could somewhat see why the Catholic League is protesting this film, but in the end its a lot to do about not a really good film.

For those who have no ideal about the film or anything about it please click on to this link for a better understanding, but please be wary this is a heavy spoiler preview also.

Now what I liked about the film, The casting of Sam Elliott as Lee Scoresby was exactly what the role required. When you see him in the film, you soon realize that he is a lot more that what he seems at first.

The casting of Ian McKellen as the voice of Iorek Byrnison, as an armored bear. Now I had no idea what a bear would do with some serious armor protection, but with the voice of Sir Ian, you believe that he will protect the hero of the film.

Now I realize that this film is part 1 of a 3 part film, but the first one should have been so much better that what we were given. I had said earlier that I had not read any of the books yet but even I could tell that something just was not right nor was it making sense in the way that it was told in the movie, it just seemed like way too many holes were in this film. It looks about 40-60 minutes too short.

From what I could tell if you are a huge fan of the book then do not see the film at all, you will leave the movie palace, very angry. If you have young children (10 years old and up) then this looks like it would be a good film for them to see.

For the parents, it will leave you frustrated. I can see a good film in this film, but all we get in another mess by the end of the day.

Woody Allen's "Match Point" (2005)

The very first line I ever heard Woody Allen speak was a joke on the Tonight show concerning theological issues, about how, during a divinity test, he cheated by “looking into the soul of the girl sitting next to me.” I believe that he used a clip from such a stand up routine in one of his films, perhaps Annie Hall. I honestly don’t remember. For decades, Woody has intertwined several basic themes: love and its yearnings. Faith. Talent and success. Human evil and the absence of God in the universe. And he does that thing that humor does: takes pain and fear, turns them inside out and makes us laugh. But behind the laughter has always been an extraordinarily keen mind and a troubled spirit.

Most of us agree that his marriage to his own step-daughter was a sign of a damaged psyche. Of course, he’d been warning us for decades that he was damaged goods, hadn't he? It wasn't until “Bullets Over Broadway” in which a murderous hit-man is revealed as a theatrical genius, did it finally hit me that he was obsessed with the question of why evil is not punished in the universe. Why, in fact, success seems to have no connection to the purity of the soul.

In “Crimes and Misdemeanors  he went further, encouraging us to empathize with a man capable of a terrible act…but that film sat on the fence, allowing us to argue about the right and wrong of things, rather than focusing us on the core question which has obviously chewed at his heart and mind since childhood.

No such mistake in “Match Point.” In this film, which I consider one of his very best ever, he tells the story of a social-climbing tennis pro (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) who marries the boss’s daughter (Chloe Hewett Wilton) while harboring a passion for his future sister-in-law (Scarlett Johanssen). The bedroom farce takes a rather dark turn (to say the least), leading to an action which very few people could find other than utterly reprehensible on every conceivable level. And to a diabolically clever ending. The theme, announced from the very beginning is that few of us want to face the fact that so much of life is based on luck. Specifically, luck as opposed to merit.

But to skip over all further plot details to address this theme, I think it’s something of an Easter Egg. Look deeper, and the question is not merely one of luck, but one that asks: “Is there a God in the Universe? If so, what is His nature, and why is he silent?”

I can’t help but think that Woody is asking the wrong question. If, as I suspect, on one level he believes human beings are shallow and evil, and that he himself has achieved massive wealth and fame while deeply flawed and (he suspects) evil in his personal life, then where is the justice in the universe.

First of all, with this film, I found myself believing that Allen is a good man. Flawed, but good. The nature of the questions he has been asking his entire life, as opposed to what we know of his personal life, leads me to think him damaged but not damned. Just a personal opinion.

Secondly, I think that the key is not in “why are the wicked not punished” but the question “what is the nature of a good, successful life”? He has taken a perfectly reasonable approach: a beautiful spouse, wealth, health, public acclaim are a good life. That evil men and women can achieve this must be deeply troubling to him.

And troubles me not at all. It is possible of course that it is MY philosophy that is shallow, and his that cuts deep. I won’t be self-congratulatory, or dogmatic enough to pat myself on the back, but I must stake out a position.

So here it is. I think that external measurements of success are wonderful, but ultimately satisfying only if they match our internal values. And from the cradle, we crave connection to love, to warmth, to that total acceptance we felt from our mothers, in the womb if nowhere else. And that this craving is totally unconscious, and that we spend the rest of our lives attempting to regain it.

When we sense that our own values and actions could be replicated by the entire world, to its benefit, I think that there is a sense of peace that simply cannot be put into words, a state of grace, of joy that those who have not experienced simply cannot believe in—as sociopaths cannot believe that human beings genuinely experience love and caring for one another. Such poor souls circle in the outer darkness. Say “I love you” to them, and they think “if only you knew what I really was, you wouldn't say that.” Or worse, they think “poor, deluded fool, to feel such trivial, false emotions.”

Of COURSE it is possible to achieve acclaim, and fame, and health, and hot sex and be evil. Evil is a judgment about things on a spiritual level, not on the level of business (although in general, honesty pays in business) or marriage contracts (you can lie and cheat, and your mate may never discover it) or fitness/health (I've known tremendously fit and long-lived people who were monsters).

Yet and still, Life writing asks us to embrace these three qualities as markers of inner worth. Why? Because they are the best, simplest external markers I know of. They are not infallible.

On a personal level, I believe that when our inner values and our outer actions are in alignment, and when those actions and values are transparent, so that we would stand before all mankind and say: “this is who I am. And I would want my children, and your children to be the same, and I am prepared to stand before the universe and say that I would be willing and happy to be treated as I have treated others” that there is a simple peace that comes from this that cannot be replaced by money, or sex, or even life itself.

Those who have been abused, neglected, and not cherished often do not develop the spiritual sensory equipment to find their way to this place. The armies of lethal children found in inner cities around the third world (and sometimes the first world) attest to this: they have not experienced love, and therefore have no ability to empathize, or care about much beyond survival and simple pleasures.

What IS a good life? In my mind, the correct answer to this needs no God in the universe to punish the wicked, although a life lived in this fashion often opens an awareness (or to be fair, a belief) in the existence of the divine. To be separated from this sense is to be lost in an intellectual fog, trying to reason out the nature of things far larger than our minds. The intellect cannot go there, is the wrong tool. For decades Allen has tried to reason out his relationship with God, to understand the Holocaust in the framework of his childhood beliefs. I feel terribly sorry for him, and hope that he can forgive the world, and himself, in time to find peace in his life.

But meanwhile, I’m going to enjoy his ruminations. They are brilliant, and heartfelt, and heart breaking  honesty at this point in his life. “Match Point” is another of the best films of 2005, one which, unfortunately, I didn't see until 2006.

In retrospect, 2005 was one heck of a year for movies.

Vertigo - a masterpiece?

Vertigo, a 1958 suspense film, was directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Many people believe that this film is Hitchcock's masterpiece.

The movie tells the story of a detective in San Francisco. The detectives name is Scottie who is played by James Stewart. Scottie leaves the police force after a fellow policeman falls and dies while the two were chasing a criminal across rooftops in downtown San Francisco. Unemployed at the time an old friend hires Scottie for his services to his wife Madeleine who is played by Kim Novak. His friend, Gavin Elster, claims that Madeleine often is found staring off into space and will even occasionally drive to an unknown point and than later have no memory of it. Scottie is skeptical, but Gavin believes Madeleine has a mental illness in which is possessed by a spirit of someone long dead.

Scottie follows Madeleine for several days. As he watches her, she visits the grave of a woman named Carlotta Valdes who killed herself years ago, makes frequent visits to an art museum where she spends long periods of time gazing at a large portrait of Carlotta, and rents a room at a hotel which was once Carlotta's home. Madeleine dresses like Carlotta, with identical hairstyle and jewelry. This behavior is very peculiar to Scottie. Madeleine faints one day and falls into a lake. Scottie gets her out from the water and brings her to his apartment. He sets her to lie in front of the fire to dry off. Here the two fall in love.

The above is just a quick play by play of events in the first part of vertigo. I don't want to ruin the movie but more just give you an idea of what the movie is about without watching it. Most notably the film is known for Hitchcock's famous Cinematic qualities like the "Hitchcock zoom,". I hope this outline has been helpful and that if you choose to watch the film, you will enjoy it as I have!

Walk The Line Movie Review

A real legend is...well, the stuff of legends. But much harder to reproduce on film, because of the depths of human expression that tend to get lost in the business of making it on time, on budget, and on a subject the public will "buy". Which means 2005's "Walk The Line" is that rarest of movies, one that dug deep into the story, put it up as it really unfolded, and managed to bag actors that could carry it off.

"Walk The Line" is the hard fighting/drinking/loving story of country icon, Johnny Cash and his love affair with wife June Carter. It lays the foundation for the movie's focus, and Cash's real life, by detailing his boyhood in Arkansas, the early death of a brother, and impulsive first marriage that ended in disaster. All of that contributes to the way Cash's life was already drifting when he sang for Sam Phillips of Sun Records, where he brushed shoulders with another newcomer, Elvis Presley. Chastised for offering a hymn, Joaquin Phoenix rips off a version of Folsom Prison Blues that snags him the prized contract, and sets his foot on a path that will lead him to depths he never dreamed of, and the woman who would pull him out of then, June Carter.

Both Phoenix, and Reese Witherspoon who plays June Carter, did their own vocals, which added immeasurably to the reality of their performances. Witherspoon at times was perhaps a tad too ebullient, but also managed to reach inside herself to pull out both the feminine side of Carter, and her fury at Cash's moral and physical deterioration as their relationship progressed from an initial backstage meeting to the final, enduring chapter written at the Folsom Prison concert.

Not strictly a love story, "Walk the Line" is nonetheless a sometimes moving, infuriating, and emotionally charged tale of two people both struggling towards the same goal- to be with each other.

Director: James Mangold
Producers: Alan C. Blomquist, James Keach, Cathy Konrad
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Reese Witherspoon, Ginnifer Goodwin, Robert Patrick, Ginnifer Goodwina

Film Editing School

Many of those who are considering going to film editing school are overwhelmed by the commitment involved. (Two to four years? Thousands of dollars?) While others choose to ignore or never bother to acknowledge to themselves what is involved only to realize later exactly what it is they have gotten themselves into.

Indeed, going to film editing school is not a simple matter that you can just go through with one eye closed and your left hand tied behind your back. It is a big decision on your part and one that deserves a lot of consideration.

The Obstacle

The biggest obstacle that film editing school students have is the fact that too often, film students would enter film school with only a basic idea of what they want. For instance, they know that they love films but whether or not they have the aptitude to make films is something seldom ventured. And so they think that going to film editing school will help them find out.

Most of the time, they are correct. But the thing is it can take you about a year of attending a film editing school before you can actually get to that part where you’re holding the camera and you are making a film. By that time, you would have been so attuned to the routine in film editing school that you have very little chance to step back and honestly assess whether what talent and skill you have right now justifies the total commitment involved.

In short, you need to have a clear goal in mind before taking on the challenge of attending a film editing school.

Be Realistic and Goal-Oriented

By keeping a clear goal in mind when making the decision of whether to go to film editing school or not, you can simplify matters. Because then, you can just strike out anything that is not important and focus on those that would have a bearing on your future career in the film industry.

If you are still uncertain of what your abilities are or whether you will even enjoy the whole process of making a movie, consider getting some hands-on experience first. Try volunteering to work on a student film. Not only will this give you the opportunity to watch the filmmaking process but it will also give you a good gauge to measure your own abilities when it is time for you to make your own film.

Another option for you is to make your own independent film. After all, you do not have to go to a film editing school to start making your own home-made movies. The purpose of a film editing school is so you will know what’s the proper way of doing things – to learn all the rules so you can find your way around them without necessarily breaking them.

Film Making School

So you have decided that you want to be an actor. Problem is it seems everyone these days wants to be an actor or get into the movies. While working with movies can be a very rewarding career, it is also probably the most difficult areas of profession to break into.

Competition is cutthroat and often you need more than just talent to make it through your first year of trying to break into the business. What you need is discipline, a good amount of luck, and skills that you have honed to sheen in a film making school.

That’s right. A film making school.

Sure, not many people subscribe to the idea of going to a film making school in order to build a career in the movies. After all, Hollywood big names like Martin Scorcese and Quentin Tarantino made awesome movies without having any formal training. So why would you want to spend that much money on something that may never work?

True. But, let’s not forget Steven Speilberg and George Lucas. These two went to prestigious film schools and look at where they are now. Can you say that the money they spent and the effort they made paid out? Absolutely!

So it’s not about whether you ought or ought not to go to a film making school. It’s about giving yourself an edge over the competition. If you have raw talent, that’s all you have. But if you hone that talent and find some way to focus it into something productive, then you’re set.

Going to a film making school won’t guarantee you success in the movie industry. Heck, it won’t even guarantee you a decent job in the filmmaking industry. At best, it will probably give you credentials to teach other filmmaking hopefuls like you how to make movies. However, if you do have a degree in film school and you have the talent to go with it, then you have given yourself an advantage over the rest. Consider it your stepping stone to your dream career in the movies, whether you want to act, direct, or film your own movie.

Know Your Career Goals

When considering a film making school, the first thing you need to consider is what choice of career you want to get into. What do you want to do? Do you want to be in front of the camera or behind it? Do you want to direct actors? Or do you find fulfillment as a cinematographer?

Those are the things you need to answer first. And once you have the answer, then it is time for you to tackle the next problem: Choose the right film making school.

Acting film schools

Although the history of acting is relatively modern, this form of art is believed to previously have religious elements, the contemporary times have brought it to the face of entertainment.  In 4000 B.C. in Egypt, priests were thought to perform a ritual in remembering the dead.  Acting also flourished during the Classical Age in Greece through the Greek drama.

As they say, a true innate talent deserves nurturing to blossom into something that is beneficial to the individual and society.  Crude talent inarguably is one of your best cards for a career in film, but developing this talent through acting film schools doubles your opportunities.  There are theories, elements and techniques in acting, which students would discover in acting film schools.

Acting training in a real sense is actually integrated in theater programs of most of the top film schools.  However, some film schools have separate acting film schools.  The top film schools with programs designed for acting include the Tisch Institute of the Arts, the UCLA Institute for Theater, Film and Television.  There are acting film schools for children as well where basic acting lessons are taught to young, promising talents.  

The New York Film Academy is one of the acting film schools offering short intensive filmmaking programs.  The NYFA believes in practical, on-camera experience as the most effective way to learn film acting.  After all, experience is the best teacher as the adage goes.  The NYFA, whenever possible, exposes their students to film sets, in conjunction with the filmmaking program.  The short programs are a 1-year Acting for Film and 2-year Acting for Film.  The hands-on intensive workshops serve as immersion activities and teaching of fundamentals in acting, including 8-week, 4-week, 1-week and 12-week evening workshops.

The NYFA believes in professionally produced, original work.  The course requirements of the acting programs include short film projects starring the students themselves.  The dynamic faculty is combined with filmmaking resources for an outmost acting school experience.

The Academy of Art University is located in San Francisco, just a short distance from Hollywood.  In the academy, learning is comprehensively confined in the three elements of film and acting: light, camera, action.  Students eager to find an education that could possibly bring them to stardom may enroll in the acting film School of Motion Pictures and Television.  The academy offers BFA and MFA programs but students who are having a hard time attending classes could also study through online classes/degrees.

There are hundreds of acting film schools but what how to chose the best acting film schools is rather easy.  You can search for their notable alumni, find reviews from existing students, and read their programs.  Acting film schools may well just be your fairy godmother.

The Brown Bunny in the Cannes Film Festival

Summary:

The Brown Bunny in the Cannes Film Festival is a mixture of events. And for the majority of that find digesting whole impression hard, it should be best to discuss each part by detail.

Fist subject matter is about The Brown Bunny. It is a film by the actor and director Vincent Gallo that had a world premiere at the 2003 celebration of the Cannes Film Festival. The plot was about a rambling cross country by a driver in search for the love of his life who was carrying his offspring. The movie begins with a motorcycle race which Bud (Vincent Gallo) participated. Then he must head to California for the next race. Along the way, the story unravels in some gas pump where he has to refill the vehicle without any association to the movie aside from realistically running out of fuel. Mostly, it’s all about road trip, an hour’s length of seldom broken road trip.

And that’s how The Brown Bunny in the Cannes Film Festival earned its heavy ridicule. For more than an hour’s length of unbroken windshield view, refueling, sleeping at some motels, waking in underwear, taking shower and drive again for most it is even tedious to keep their eyes on the screens, let alone close their mouths from constant yawning. And to massage aching jaws, one must boo and jeer. The audience of the Brown Bunny in the Cannes Film Festival did just that. The road scenes especially receiving the most flaming as well as the sequence where Bud has to park and wash the van –in real time.

Vincent Gallo may be a recognized painter, male fashion model, alternative musician, motorcycle racer and break-dancer, but he did suffer a severe case of narcissism, as much as the movie tells anyway. And it is quite evident in The Brown Bunny in the Cannes Film Festival. All the scenes were about him, his habits and his manliness. No one needs to see Gallo in his underwear except if the script needs it. No one needs to see him drive on his motorcycle except if the script needs it. And no one especially needs to see him receiving an un-simulated fellatio from ex-lover Chloë Sevigny even if the script needs it.

The story might have aroused sympathy if the story was delivered correctly, but no, Gallo himself had to star in just everything: producer, director, writer, director of photography, camera man and of course lead actor. So the story flunked in a thousand possible ways, depending on the critic. And a war of words soon erupted between one acclaimed critic Roger Ebert and Vincent Gallo himself who staunchly defended the film. Ebert wrote that The Brown Bunny in the Cannes Film Festival was the worst ever screening in film history and Gallo responded about cancer and colon.

At the end of the day, Brown Bunny in the Cannes Film Festival was still a serious flop. A reedited edition was screened again in the Toronto Festival, with Ebert giving a positive remark and Gallo making peace.