REVIEW: 'The Amazing Spiderman' is Just Amazing After All!

I took time in watching this movie yesterday in both 3D and 2D. I let every single detail of it be absorbed by my mind so this review is concise and relevant to the full extent of my interpretation. In the recent post that I have written, I mentioned that TASM is a film that is likely an infectious one and I was almost exactly right. 'The Amazing Spiderman' is attractively visual and infectiously sentimental. However, the film doesn't stand close to the action that the Sam Raimi trilogy have offered. The Amazing Spiderman may lack a couple of muscles; it at least overflows with heart. 

Practically recycling all the major elements of the trilogy, 'The Amazing Spiderman' ironically delivers a too-familiar movie with subtly fresh flavor.

'The Amazing Spiderman' tells the story of Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield, 'The Social Network'); son to a genetic specialist Richard Parker. One eventful night leads the father to a conclusion that its best to leave his son behind; thus Richard left Peter with the aunt and uncle. The son grows as a teenager with his aunt May  (Sally Field) and uncle Ben (Martin Sheen). As a student, Peter is "the second of his class" says his crush Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) and as a student still, he is the weaker man. In their basement, Peter finds his fathers briefcase, perhaps the only thing left to remind him of his father. Finding a bunch of things leads Peter to an old colleague Dr. Connors (Rhys Ifans).

Desperate to find answers about his father's disappearance, Peter goes to OSCORP, a sci-tech company wherein Dr. Connors work. Peter curiously sneaks in to a secret facility wherein a highly confidential experiment on spiders is contained. Peter gets bit soon after his undercover quasi-mission, leaving him sharing the physical doings of a spider. Unknown to the Peter incident, Dr. Connors accepts the help of the young Parker in a project that centers in tissue regeneration resembling the trait that a lizard has. The hopeful experiment goes wrong eventually and Dr. Connors as the first human subject develops reptile-like skin and superhuman strength; and the regeneration skills too. Chaos ensues as 'The Lizard' tries to develop even more his self-asserted "successful" experiment.

The first three Spiderman movies were not awful. In fact it's highly likable with it's groundbreaking stunts and enormously proportioned production, let alone the veteran actor's contribution. While we are all affected by the infamous movie line: With great power, comes with great responsibility, I remain clinging to the notion that the movie lacked "remarkable" performances from the leads (unlike the other actors) and plain profundity. Sony's reboot may appear unwanted to many but I personally think that a reboot is what my favorite superhero needs. What ought to be a more action-packed version, turned out to be a quest of a young lad in discovering his past and facing the challenges of his present.

I am not disappointed however with the outcome of the film. It turned out to be hearty which is a good thing; in fact to hearty that it appeared less comic book-ish than I expect it to be. The leads were sparking the movie to a voltage that is electrifying to the aorta. Andrew Garfield, I first knew him on 'The Social Network' is a better pick, in my opinion, for the Spiderman role. He is lean and tall that better "fits" as a bullied student as compared to the former Spidey, Toby McGuire. Both him and Emma Stone are very good in their roles and their chemistry is a glorious compound. Admittedly, I smirk each romantic scene involving the two plays.

Rhys Ifans plays 'The Lizard' played the role gloriously. His role is expected to answer the quandaries behind Peter's mind however did only half the job. What happened to Peter Parker's parents are answered although the reason to their killing are left otherwise. But hey, this is called "cliffhanger" and this cues for an upcoming sequel.

TASM also offer excellent execution and that's thanks to director Marc Webb, who did '(500) Days of Summer', an indie film that I've heard good things on. The direction of the film indeed spurs out indie aura and I prefer this version. Despite all the doubts, the film proved one important thing: 'The Amazing Spiderman' is just amazing after all!

FEATURE: Five of Our Favorite Actors and Why We Love Them.

Like a leap year in a decade, only a couple of actors were good from the pool of thousands; and like a needle in a haystack, very few will strike you like no more else can. These will eventually named as your "favorite actors". There are different reasons submerged in this monstrosity of theoretical affinity, let alone reasons why you have halted in a conclusion to add them in your list. Like you, I also have a number of mine that I thought will be worthwhile to share.

1. CLIVE OWEN

In my own experience, Owen started of as a regular face in the crowd. He is sometimes shadowed in the background because of the negativity of the critiques of different movie critics. The first time I saw him was on 'Croupier' and he wasn't really bad then (Our family used to have this accustom to watch movies each night available = family time; and they always choose the 80's and 90's films on video). He was in the Robert Rodriguez's 'Sin City' and this was my most favorite of him.

Why we love Clive Owen. Clive Owen has the dullest eyes, and perhaps, in my opinion, masks the emotions of him a little bit. But this transcends and in my understanding, his eyes are intensely dull that it translates to a passion that many actors mostly don't possess. Clive Owen, the underrated actor.

2. ANTHONY HOPKINS

'The Silence of the Lambs' is the entry of the horror genre dedicated to its outsiders. It is almost impossible to dismiss the idea that 'Lambs' entertains everyone because of the iconic antagonist, Hannibal Lecter. Hannibal is too much essential to the film that I believe the series will not stand alone without him (proven fact, proof: 'Hannibal Rising' tripe.)

Why we love Anthony Hopkins. Hopkins is one of the best actors I have ever seen. That's it. I liked watching him in 'The Mask of Zorro'; 'The Remains of the Day'; 'Thor' and of course the 'Hannibal Lecter' films.

3. JOSEPH GORGON-LEVITT

The 50/50 star has always amazed the Film Police with his work in the acting department. As if to support that stated information, he has a bunch of new projects coming out continuously: 'Premium Rush'; 'The Dark Knight Rises'; and 'Looper'

Why we love Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He has the physical attributes of a Shia LaBeouf: that boyish look most of the women swoon over, and sometimes even the guys think he's badass too. But Gordon doesn't mean he's all looks; he have been consistently satisfying our parameters in the acting scrutinizing, recent proof is: 'Inception' in which he was excellent may we add.

4. ADRIEN BODY


Adrien is one of the most reflective actors that we come across. Each emotion that he drops off the sequences just deliver subtle but striking emotions. He's obviously superior in the drama section of the movie industry but he has proven he can do other things as well, evidenced by the recent action 'Predators'.

Why we love Adrien Body. Why we love Adrien Body is simply his acting; he has drawn us verily in the movies that he's been on. Our top Brody movies are 'The Pianist' and 'Splice'.

5. RYAN GOSLING

The 'Drive' movie star is my personal favorite actor. I think he's the best for me, although I know that this will start numerous debate. He acts very very well and I envy his looks. Fucking Gosling. That's the only thing I hate: I didn't get his looks, but oh well.

Why we love Ryan Gosling. He can do almost everything. He can do comedy, action and thriller. He's got this film that really tugged our interest towards him: 'Fracture' in which he and Anthony Hopkins exchange acting prowess. He's going to be in a movie 'Gangster Squad' which I'm freakin' excited about.

P.S. These five actors doesn't mean they are THE BEST actors; they are just our favorites. There should be our Top 5 Actors up soon so always check us out.

Has Hollywood Found Religion? - Part 3

Do movies today reflect more of a Christian or Biblical worldview? Has Hollywood found religion?

There is no question that the overall content from the six major studios, Disney, Fox, Universal, Warner Brothers, Sony and Paramount, has substantially improved since the early 1990s. There are more movies being produced that reflect positive values and redemptive messages. I’m not sure a film like The Blind Side would have been made 15 years ago.

I believe there are four reasons that explain this turnaround in positive content as well as three issues that we should be concerned about. In other words, it’s not time to throw a party and celebrate yet.

Issues of Concern or I’m about ready to rain on your parade.

Issue 1

Only one in six movies is produced and distributed by the six major studios. That leaves about 500-600 other movies receiving some form of distribution in North America. Where do these films come from? They originate from mid-level studios such as Lions Gate, First Look Studios, Magnolia and others, direct-to-video production companies and independent distributors. If you are looking for plenty of graphic violence, sex, nudity, bad language and other forms of debauchery, you have found it in this lot.

I wish I could tell you I have seen some improvement from films released from non-major studios, but that’s not the case. We need to see improvement in this area. That’s not to say there are not a few movies being produced and distributed from mid-level and independents that offer some redemptive value or Christian content, but it’s very slim.

The emphasis here is on action and especially horror films specializing in torture with plenty of blood and guts. It’s not a pretty picture. This is an area where we need to get more Christians involved in creating independent features that reflect God’s glory and truth.

Some may argue that most people will not see these films in this category. I disagree. Obviously, most receive little or no theatrical distribution, but they do find a substantial life in home video and especially pay cable networks such as HBO, Cinemax and Showtime. The bottom line is they make up the bulk of movies produced annually. And that means they have a big impact.

Issue 2

Feature films from the major studios are only part of the huge media picture. It’s true that Hollywood’s big studios are producing more morally-based content. But that’s only part of a big picture. We have a long ways to go. Video games offer an abundance of violent images which seem to be out of control. Internet-based content offers plenty of problems as well. And, frankly, television hasn’t improved that much over the past ten years. The fact is most people think about spending $10 before they go to the movies. They want something worth their money. So they are less likely to waste their hard earned cash on trash. But often we don’t feel the same way watching a television program because we are paying for it indirectly.

Issue 3

The overall narrative of the media culture hasn’t significantly changed in the past 20 years. We are going to need a lot more from Hollywood’s major studios in order to have any significant impact on the media culture. The message is basically the same. You are the center of your own universe, and you deserve to have everything now. It’s a very self-centered concept, but it is the very heart of today’s media culture. And, in some form, most electronic entertainment and images supports this concept. Frankly, we should celebrate any film that is in direct opposition to this core message. For example, I mentioned earlier two R-rated films from last year, Crazy Heart and Up in the Air. In each film, the main character or protagonist came to an Ah-hah moment in which they realized that there was more to life than their own pursuits, that other people mattered and life did not revolve around what they wanted.

When you embrace this idea, it offers the opportunity for God to enter your life. That’s an important concept to consider. But most media does not embrace this philosophy but rather encourages you to do whatever makes you happy and fulfills your desires.

The Bottom Line

I guess the question is are you a person who sees the glass half empty or half full. What I like to think is that I’m both. I believe in order to have a full glass, you need to understand why the glass is half full. It’s only then that you can move on and achieve the results I think we are all looking for. I want to change the media, specifically the media culture. In order to do that, we need a realistic and honest approach in how we view the media.

The Christian Film and Television Commission’s report to the entertainment industry offers hope for the future. There’s much to be optimistic about. But we have substantial work to do. I just think we should thank God for what he is doing. But, perhaps, this is not the time to celebrate or throw a party. Let’s continue to focus on the issue at hand and change the face of media as we know it.

Has Hollywood Found Religion? - Part 2

Do movies today reflect more of a Christian or Biblical worldview? Has Hollywood found religion?

The overall content from the six major studios, Disney, Fox, Universal, Warner Brothers, Sony and Paramount, has substantially improved since the early 1990s. There are more movies being produced that reflect positive values and redemptive messages. I’m not sure a film like The Blind Side would have been made 15 years ago.

I believe there are four reasons that explain this turnaround in positive content as well as three issues that we should be concerned about. In other words, it’s not time to throw a party and celebrate yet.

Reason 2

A new economic model has emerged. Today the average movie released from major studios costs $103 million to produce and market to the public. That’s a lot of money. With costs dramatically increasing, Hollywood cannot afford any controversy or problems. They are looking to build a big tent. That means they are interested in everybody being potential movie-goers. That includes mainstream teenagers, young adults, families, and the Christian market. When you spend $100 million to make a film, you can’t afford to offend anyone. That’s the economic reality that Hollywood faces today.

Hollywood has abandoned medium-size and low-budget films. They are concentrating on what they call “tent pole” films. Today that is where the profits are. But it also means they must convince everyone to see their films. Otherwise they are looking at a financial disaster.

Reason 3

The new standard is PG-13. Hollywood has found an ally in the PG-13 rating and has turned it into a marketing tool. The PG-13 rating offers the best of two worlds. It’s appealing to teenagers and young adults because there’s just enough edgy material. But, at the same time, Hollywood has convinced you that it’s also family-friendly. It’s quite a balancing act. And with the right marketing approach, it can work. For this rating to be effective, Hollywood has traded in nudity and sensuality and replaced it with suggestive language and innuendos. Violence is still present, but it tends to be less graphic and more stylistic. The PG-13 rating also allows for a few choice words here and there.

Some have suggested that the PG-13 films of today resemble R-rated movies from the early 1990s. There’s no question that standards have changed over the past 15 or 20 years. Hollywood has decided to make less R-rated movies. Why make films that will restrict your audience. It’s bad business. The PG-13 rating allows Hollywood to appeal to a broader audience.

Reason 4

Family friendly is cool. Pixar has single-handedly recreated and redefined family-friendly movies since its conception of feature films in 1995 with the release of Toy Story. Since then, they have released one mega hit after another, including Finding Nemo, Cars, Walle, Monsters Inc., Up and most recently Toy Story 3.

What’s truly amazing about Pixar’s accomplishments is somehow they have made G-rated movies cool. Before they came on the scene, no self-respecting teenager would be caught dead watching a G-rated movie. But today Pixar appeals to everyone. How have they done it? They put the art of storytelling first and foremost. It’s always about the story. Through the use of CGI (computer generated images), they have created characters that are more fully human than humans appearing in live-action films. Because of Pixar, other studios have gotten on the family-friendly, G-rated band wagon. This helps to explain why there has been a 200% increase in family films since the early 1990s.

NEWS: 'The Amazing Spiderman', Why You Need to Rush to Theaters RIGHT NOW!

We all deserve some of them good superhero movies. After the rejoice of many superhero fans including [insert my name here] with the release of 'Marvel's The Avengers', the mother-ship of all them good ol'superhero movies, comes another fave hero. Oh, and there's still 'The Dark Knight Rises' right after TASM, don't forget that.

'The Amazing Spiderman', for the sake of the noobstown residents, is Sony's reboot to the Spiderman franchise which ended in the trilogy. I personally think that they should have rebooted it after the first or first two films. I believe in Sam Raimi's direction which may be a "hit or miss" sometimes, but I admittedly dislike his take on the Spiderman series. Good thing, that this reboot is directed by Marc Webb who did '(500) Days of Summer' that is a pretty darn good movie.

With the release of a reboot like this [it shows today! I'll be literally running to the theaters later], one question may ponder the mind: Why should I need to run to the theaters to watch this? Well, you've got the question..I'll try to answer. Here are 3 reasons why you should run to the theaters and see it.

1. THE PLOT

The main thing is, we're still going to see some spidey web-swinging and Peter Parker getting bit by that spider that gave him his powers. The Spidey reboot mainly anchors up its storyline from the 'Ultimate Spiderman' which makes things even more exciting. In this movie's reality, unlike in the Sam Raimi trilogy, Gwen Stacy is the love interest. Peter Parker also struggle as a teenage boy who has still many quandaries about his life--most especially about his past. His parents. This will be taken cover by the movie as well.

What's even more interesting about the movie is that we get to witness the Spidey that we used to know. The more sarcastic bastard-ic one. I'm excited. :D

2. THE CAST

Andrew Garfield has the body type of that six-footer skeleton that basically goes to school to be bullied. Garfield for that matter, fits perfectly as Peter Parker, so his body is lean and skinny. Upon watching 'Never Let Me Go' and the rather entertaining 'The Social Network', I have proven to myself that Garfield has the ability to act. Emma Stone, on the other hand, I don't approve acting-wise, but I loved her since 'Superbad'. She doesn't look close to Gwen Stacy [credit: my die-hard comic fan friend] and blonde is not really her type of "hair color".

3. THE LIZARD


TASM's villain is Lizard. I won't tell too much about the godzilla-in-proportions villain so that I won't spoil the movie to you very much. The pick for Lizard is perfect, because it tells the backstory of the Parker family, drawing in more depth to Peter's past.

I say that I'll be rushing to the theaters a couple of hours later, so I'm recommending you do the same. Afterwards, we share thoughts, okay??

"The Star Wars that i used to know" - Gotye Parody

Ich glaube zu dieser genialen Parodie von Gotye's "Somebody that i used to know" muss man keine erklärenden Worte mehr fallen lassen. Nach Jahren der "Verbesserungen" an der original Star Wars Trilogie und den bakackten Prequels, wird es zwar langsam redundant über George Lucas und die Sternenkriege zu meckern, doch wahr ist nun mal wahr. 

Ach ja, alles Gute nachträglich zum 35. Geburtstag, Star Wars.

via GiantFreakin'Robot

NEWS: First Angelina Jolie 'Malificent' Still Released!

After her successful directorial debut with 'In the Land of Blood and Honey', a movie that was a quasi-critical success (I haven't seen it yet but I heard very mixed thoughts about it), Angelina Jolie lands back in the acting arena as 'Maleficent' in the movie of the same name.

For the sake of the noobs about the film, 'Maleficent' is basically a different take on the 'Sleeping Beauty' fairy tale. It's becoming more of a mainstream trend now: resurfacing once submerged fairy tales and  then revamping them as dark-themed live actions ('Snow White and the Huntsman', does it ring a bell?). 'Maleficent' is the same narrative only different because told in the villain's perspective.

Recently, actually not too recent, days even. A movie still from the Maleficent movie was released to the triple w. Here's the one-frame look-ahead.

This particular still we think is intensely interesting giving us a hunch that Jolie won't be the Disney type of villain; but then again, we can only have our fingers crossed because this movie is actually from Walt Disney pictures. Nonetheless, we hope that she isn't the satiric villain type like the attack that Julia Roberts used in the hit-or-miss fantasy/comedy 'Mirror Mirror'. I personally think that following the tracks of Charlize Theron  as Ravenna in the 'Snow White and the Huntsman' film will be good for both her and this anticipated Disney flick.

The FilmPolice team is however remaining faithful that this is going to be an excellent movie let alone Angelina Jolie is perfect for the role (that again brings us back on which take that she does with the character). But ultimately, Jolie is a very good actor so we believe that handling this kind of film will be chicken soup for her.

We want to hear your opinions. What do you think of the still? Thoughts. Rants. Any blabbering that you might find stuck between your tongue and gums. Give us it. Pay the comments section a visit.

Has Hollywood found religion? - Part 1

According to the Christian Film and Television Commission, who publishes an annual report to the entertainment industry, positive content and family-friendly movies substantially perform better at the box office than R-rated movies. The Commission reports that since its conception in 1993 there has been a 200% increase in family movies and a 425% increase in positive Christian content. Today they report that 59% of all movies released by the major studios have some positive, specific Christian content or values. The Christian Film and Television Commission’s report is based on actual box-office figures.


Is this true? Do movies today reflect more of a Christian or Biblical worldview? Has Hollywood found religion? First of all, statistics can be used and shaped to present whatever narrative you wish to communicate. I’m not saying that’s what the Commission has done. But have they looked at the complete picture? These are complicated questions with no easy answers.

I’m not convinced Hollywood has found religion. Contrary to what many may believe, Hollywood and the entertainment industry has no political, religious or social agenda. They are not interested in corrupting the minds of our youth. I know you might find this hard to believe. In fact, at one time I believed it. But after talking to many industry insiders, Hollywood is interested in one thing and one thing only, and that’s making money. If they believe that family-friendly movies will make more money than explicit films with sex, language and violence, what do you think they will do?

There is no question that the overall content from the six major studios, Disney, Fox, Universal, Warner Brothers, Sony and Paramount, has substantially improved since the early 1990s. There are more movies being produced that reflect positive values and redemptive messages. I’m not sure a film like The Blind Side would have been made 15 years ago. It obviously had a positive message with a clear-cut Christian worldview. It was a financial success because the studio got behind the film. It made $255 million at the box office and was nominated for Best Picture.

What was also interesting from last year was the number of R-rated movies with redemptive stories. That included Up in the Air and Crazy Heart. But not everything is good news. The Hangover was the sixth biggest grossing movie at $277 million. It contained a heavy dose of sex and debauchery.

I believe there are four reasons that help to explain this turnaround in positive content as well as three issues that we should be concerned about. In other words, it’s not time to throw a party and celebrate yet.

Reason 1

God is at work in Hollywood and the entertainment industry. Even during the darkest hours of Hollywood, God has never left the scene. His Spirit has been moving and influencing filmmakers. Case in point: During the early 1980s, Chariots of Fire and Places in the Heart are two films that clearly presented a Christian worldview. This occurred when many Christians were boycotting and demonizing Hollywood. So, at some level, Hollywood has always been presenting some form of Christian content whether they realized it or not. Perhaps we have not been able to see or define it. And since the early 1990s, God’s Spirit has been moving in this industry.

Today there is a beachhead established in Hollywood with over 5,000 Christians working in the entertainment industry. There is no question they have made an impact on this turnaround concerning positive content in the film industry. On a recent trip, I had an opportunity to interview Christian leaders who work inside Hollywood. Dr. Larry Poland, founder of MasterMedia, has quietly been ministering to entertainment leaders for over 25 years. No one will ever know just how much influence or the impact he has had on the entertainment industry.

I also talked to the executive director of Act One. For over ten years, Act One has been training Christians to write commercially from a Christian perspective for Hollywood. Today, some of their students have reached a point in their careers where they are now working on major television and film projects.

I also interviewed Karen Cavell, Founder of Hollywood Prayer Network, who has been encouraging Christians for the past 15 years to pray for Hollywood and embrace the entertainment industry as a mission field. The fact is there are many Christians in Hollywood who are part of this incredible turnaround. It’s only a beginning. But something substantial is taking place

Variety Mag Hosts Family Entertainment & Faith-Based Summit

From Wired 4 Film

Variety Magazine hosted a high-powered summit this past Thursday in LA which, surprisingly, was all about Family Entertainment and Faith-based films and programming.  Of course, we at W4F have our fingers pressed firmly against the industry pulse (not usually in a strangulation way) so we knew about this event, I dunno, two to three months…is that the right word?  ’Months’?  Hold on.  No, the word I’m looking for is ‘days’…yes we knew about this event days before it took place.  Possibly hours.

But it was a big one.  Lots of big wigs in attendance and presenting:

Dick Rolfe, Co-Founder & CEO, The Dove Foundation
Ben Howard, Co-Founder, Provident Films
Simon Swart, EVP & GM, Fox Home Entertainment
Darren Melameth, VP, Crown Media Family Networks(Hallmark Channel, Hallmark Movie Channel)
Brad Siegel, Vice Chairman, GMC TV
Dale Ardizzone, COO, The Inspiration Networks
Richard Ingber, President, Worldwide Marketing, Alcon Entertainment
Greg Liberman, President & CEO, Spark Networks
Rio Cyrus, SVP, Marketing, Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment
Arleen Lopez, Project Manager, Faith Marketing (Gril in Progress), Pantelion Films
Brian Bird, Partner, Believe Pictures
John Shepherd, President, Mpower Pictures
Ted Baehr, Founder and Publisher, Movieguide
Michael Van Dyck, Agent, Paradigm Talent Agency
Rich Peluso, VP, Affirm Films, Sony Pictures Entertainment
Jon Erwin, Director, October Baby
Kenn Viselmann, Founder, Itsy Bitsy Entertainment Company & Producer/Creator, The Oogieloves
Charlie Ebersol, Co-Founder, The Hochberg Ebersol Company (THE Company)/Executive Producer, The Moment on USA Network
James Ackerman, President & CEO, The Documentary Channel
Brian Wells, Co-Founder, Flashlight Entertainment
Ralph Winter, Producer, X-Men:Wolverine, X-Men: The Last Stand
Corbin Bernsen, Actor/Producer (Psych, The Big Year)
Dean Batali, Producer & Writer, That 70′s Show, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Chonda Pierce’s This Ain’t Prettyville)Lori McCreary, Producer (Invictus, The Magic of Belle Island)
Jason Carbone, Executive Producer (Tia and Tamera, Beverly’s Full House)

I know, right?  How did we not hear about this?  And with all those big brains in the same room, what did they do?  Discuss a moratorium on End-times movies?  Plan an intervention on Mel Gibson? Watch Sherwood Pictures and Tyler Perry print their own money? Did they even settle whether the wafer or the bread loaf was the proper sacremental depiction on film?
Nope.  None of that.
Here’s some things they did discuss, from Variety…

[Mark] Burnett enthusiastically spoke of his passion for ["The Bible"] project, a 10-hour epic to air on cabler History next spring. He echoed the sentiment of many panelists at the daylong gathering at the Sofitel Hotel in emphasizing the huge, often untapped potential of faith-based productions.
However, Burnett also emphasized that bringing “Bible” to the screen has transcended business concerns for his company. His wife, thesp Roma Downey, has been on location in Morocco for weeks working as a producer and thesp on the project.
“I couldn’t give a shit about the business model,” Burnett said. “This was about love and faith.”

Ahem, Mr. Burnett.  Puh-LEASE!  We do not use such vulgar words in Christian circles such as “Business Model”.  In fact, most Christian filmmakers don’t give a shipoopi about the business side of production.  Profits?  Pssht?  Marketing costs?  Ha!  Investors?  Please!  More like Donors!  Awesome Academy award winning actors?  Naw, we got my Aunt Sally who teaches 2nd Grade Sunday school.  And her co-star is this dude who was awesome in, like, this 1970 sitcom. And we’re shooting on MiniDV with a script my Dentist wrote.  Why isn’t anyone buying my DVD?

Read more at http://www.wired4film.com/inside/2012/06/variety-mag-hosts-family-entertainment-faith-based-summit/

Five points to consider if you are planning on tackling a low-budget feature

1. Find the right story. The story is always the driving force in low-budget filmmaking. You need a screenplay that can follow the right format. For low-budget filmmaking to work, you need to shoot your feature within a 3-week time span. Essentially, your story needs to be a “dressed-up” stage play. Trust me, everybody is using this format from Tyler Perry movies to movies like Death at a Funeral.

The key to low-budget filmmaking is the ability to move fast. You have to shoot 5 pages a day with the ability to handle 25 – 35 setups per day-- no more than a 6 to 1 shooting ratio. Locations have to be limited to no more than three, with 80% of your film shot in one location. To keep the budget down, have no more than a handful of characters. If you can find a story that meets that criteria, you are in the game. But remember the story has to be solid and have entertainment value.

2. Low-budget is low-budget. Low budget for you is not $1 million. If you want to make a second film, your first film must break even or make money. In order to do that it needs to be “low-budget”. Your rock bottom number has to be less than $150,000.

Recently, someone sent me a script with an $800,000 budget. They have got to be insane. There is no way they are going to raise $800,000. That’s why a lot of film students are not working. They want to start at the top. You have to start at the bottom and prove that you can make a $10,000 feature, then a $50,000 feature. That’s the way the system works.

3. Become an entrepreneur. You’re going to be waiting a long time if you think somebody is going to call you to make your movie. You’re going to have to go out and raise the money. Plus, you will probably have to direct and produce it as well. Most people who make their first movie are able to get the money from their family and friends. However, that won’t work for the second movie. That’s why you have to make Rule Number 2 work for you. If you can build a financial model, you can find investors for your next film as long as you keep the costs low.

4. Make the movie first, then the deal. No one is going to give you a distribution deal without a finished product. Sorry, a script is not enough. For years I read and believed that you get the distribution deal first. It doesn’t work that way. The distributors want you to take all the risks first.

5. Get help. There are plenty of resources available. On our website mediamissionaryschool.com for free you can check out our guerilla code, guerilla principles and our guerilla guide. There are also lots of resources on line. Just be careful that they are not rip-offs. Buyer beware.

Why You Need To Self-Distribute

By Jason Brubaker

Most indie filmmakers make their own movie in the hopes of becoming Hollywood’s next success story.

(Come on, admit it! Hollywood success would be awesome.)

And while I would never discourage indie filmmakers from seeking not-so-indie fame and fortune – with nearly 50,000 feature films flooding the market each year, simply getting your movie made is no longer enough to guarantee success.

For many filmmakers, the process goes like this:

1. I am going to make a movie, get into Sundance and sell it for a million dollars.
2. Mom and dad and family and girlfriend and random crowdfunding people, give me money!
3. Holly crap. I didn’t raise enough money – so I will need to cut my budget.
4. Who knew practical special effects and pick-up shots were so time consuming?
5. Dear friends and family and angry girlfriend, we spent your money and the movie is finished!
6. Oh man – we really can’t fix it in post!
7. Film festival submissions are expensive!
8. We just got rejected from Sundance – now what?
9. We just WON the Best Picture award at some regional film festival nobody ever heard of!
10. Wait, we have been on the festival circuit for a year and Hollywood has not called.
11. Holly crap – we just got a call from a sales agent! They want to put our movie on iTunes!
12. Wait, I just read the agreement and the distribution deal doesn’t pay.
13. Wait… I can get my own movie into iTunes. Without the middle-man?
14. Dear friends and family and ex-girlfriend and crowdfunders, we are in iTunes!
15. I really wish I would have budgeted to self-distribute and market my movie.

Obviously I am using humor to express a point. But if you have made a movie, you have probably experienced the roller-coaster ride of emotions that comes from being a filmmaker.

If you have not yet made your movie, I suggest that you plan a strategy to market and sell your movie from day one. Having this plan will allow you to first explore all traditional distribution options. And this way, if your distribution offer is not a deal, you can move forward.

Think about it. If the best offer is: “We will get you into iTunes” your response should be “so what! I can get myself into iTunes!”

NEWS: Mick Garris Preps Up an 'Invasion'.

When you hear the name Stephen King, many other names are associated as if echoed. There was a Stanley Cubrick who reinvented a page-turner to a magnificent flick, ‘The Shining’. There was also a Frank Darabont (Academy Award-winning director of ‘The Shawshank Redemption’), a consistent King collaborator who five years ago made a stunning depiction of as same weight gut-wrenching novel, ‘The Mist’. The latter King collaboration had a twisted end that has blown people’s minds.

There was finally a Mick Garris, who may not seem to level with the previously mentioned directors, who himself is a loyal King collaborator too. Garris have done ‘Sleepwalkers’, Stephen King’s first screenplay. After that, the relationship went strong, albeit projects were never over passable movies. Oh and recently, he  turned another King paperback into a TV series...it consists two episodes, my friend. Just two.

All “good” things come to an end, though. Realized by Mick Garris, probably, the relationship between a Mick and a Stephen is as firm as concrete, but the career doesn’t profit enough. He had to head towards a different direction.

As if on cue, Invasion comes knocking on his door. Invasion is a science-fiction film from Little Studio Films which will center on a female reporter who tries to break in a testosterone dominant 1960’s news casting. With her ambitious attempt, she uncovers a truth about a government’s secret shocking to an intolerable degree. And it involves otherworldly forms. Script is by A.J. Ferrara.

“It’s a bit of different direction for me,” Mick Garris had to confess, “but it’s great because I get to make a period movie but with a modern sensibility.”

He describes Invasion as a cross-breed of ‘The Outer Limits’ and ‘Mad Men’ and since we’re on the 60’s why don’t we add ‘Men in Black’ and ‘Anchorman’ too? Maybe a pinch of ‘Hairspray’ will also do, just make sure to subtract all the extravagant singing and all the big hair dresses.

Ferne Castell is negotiated to be the production’s casting director as the movie’s to-do-list is topped with finding the perfect lead.

The film, Invasion, which title may be described, with humor stirred, “cleverly thought of”, Garris said, is well-researched despite of fantasy and imagination involved in the narrative.

Apparently, after this hit-or-miss production, Garris will resume in embracing the horror genre once more as he create another anthology movie. Mick Garris had been exceptional, at least with these kinds of film; prominent examples are: ‘Nightmares in Red, White and Blue’ and ‘Tales from the Script’.

Source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/mick-garris-invasion-327954

'Rock of Ages' is "Nothing But a Good Time"!

Even though I belong to the 21^st century generation, I could not mask my “satisfied and had a good time” face as I walk out of the theater. The movie is set in the 80’s and what it did was covered some of the classic rock tracks in a glee-esque fashion—just that. If you are lured by movies like ‘Hairspray’ and ‘Footloose’, ‘Rock of Ages’ is no doubt a very good pick. However, if you don’t like musicals that seemed destined to be surgically attached to filmsy elements, I would like to warn you, now. The movie is not for you. But still, I walked out of the theater with my “satisfied and had a good time” face.

‘Rock of Ages’, almost carried throughout by a self-centered rock star played by Tom Cruise, is as contagious as a pandemic. It’s not the few “very good” films out there, but it’s a major dose of energy and good time.

Stepping her foot (right or left, the heck, should I remember?) for the first time on the premises of the city of angels, Sherrie (Jennifer Hough) takes his mind focused on reaching for her dreams and nothing else. In the midst of her daydreaming, her bag gets stolen and she realizes that Los Angeles isn’t filled with many angels after all. Soon enough, a man in the figure of her kind of knight chases the hooligan who stole her bag. Alas, the two both failed in retrieving Sherrie’s bag. But what the two found was the two of them. Sherrie and Drew (Diego Boneta) exchange sparkly eyes and fell in love almost instantly. (PBB teens?) Drew convinces a bar owner to give Sherrie a job as a waitress.

In the Bourbon Room, the popular nightclub where Drew is the barback, the owner, Dennis Dupree (Alex Baldwin) faces himself a financial struggle. He and his right-hand Lonny Barnett (Russel Brand) stress out to figure what solution it may take to resolve their mounting debts. Here’s a good idea: why not invite Stacee Jaxx?? (Tom Cruise, who played magnificently and unexpectedly, sang fantastic) They seemed to have heard my suggestion, so, they hired Jaxx for some entertainment to go on. This is where the story has led to nowhere. However, this is the point where you become infected of the charismatic air sent out by Tom Cruise, too.

I might sound redundant with this, but even though I belong to the 21^st century generation, I still enjoyed ‘Rock of Ages’. It is undoubtedly contagious and your feet tapping on the floor is inevitable to stop. It has very likeable performers such as Mary J. Bilge who plays as a “mother” bitch to a strip club who gets connected with our heroine, Sherrie. Baldwin and Brand were amazing satiric duo and effectively drops some of the many stingy punch lines in the film. Catherine Zeta-Jones, who plays religious in this film, tries determinedly to bring down the Bourbon Room. I love her take in this. The two younger leads Diego Boneta and Jennifer Hough were very good actors although Hough seemed to be less than a singer. I’m not disrespecting her singing but her voice is a little out of the place. However in the case of Stacee Jaxx appearing in front of me, in a bammy-inch theater screen, is the trophy to my temperance towards the film’s filmsiness. “Tom Cruise is the living emblem of a true 80’s rock star”, my father would describe his performance to me.

It has obviously many technical stuff candidates for potentially complacent things and negativities many critics would have uttered such as confusing narrative and decreasingly striking plotline. But perhaps what the movie ticket was for was to learn that Tom Cruise has an infectious tone and a fantastic voice. Not to see some cinematic affinity-earner shizz stuff.

Energetic and motley, this 80’s set musical-turned-movie is a follow up to the successful ‘Hairspray’ which makers were also involved in this film, in terms of everything else…but when it comes to some powerful and rocky energy, ‘Rock of Ages’ is far more superior.

Faith-based films made more money in 2011 than their left-leaning counterparts, reports say

Annual study conducted by Movieguide reveals faith-based films took in more revenue in 2011

What’s a good recipe for box office and DVD sales success? It seems in 2011, pro-America sentiment mixed with conservative values and faith-centered themes equaled a hit.

This according to an annual study conducted by the Christian-focused entertainment advocacy group Movieguide, which found that in 2011, American audiences preferred movies with strong conservative content and values over movies with liberal or left-leaning values by an almost six-to-one margin.

The 760-page report claims that films with a conservative or pro-American edge, such as “Captain America,” “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol,” “Soul Surfer,” “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” and “Battle: Los Angeles” raked in significantly more box office green than more liberal films like “Red State,” “Super 8,” “J. Edgar,” “Glee” and “Ides of March.”

“People want good to overcome evil, justice to prevail over injustice and liberty to conquer tyranny. They respond to strong heroes and even strong heroines, but they are turned off by radical social engineering and big government programs,” Movieguide publisher Dr. Ted Baehr said of the report, which rates movies using several criteria such as “anti-communist content,” “strong biblical morality,” and “strong pro-capitalist content.”

The study also claimed that the stronger the Christian worldview in the film, the more money it made.

Films considered to have a significant redemptive or religious focus such as “Pirates of the Caribbean: Stranger Tides,” “The Help” and “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” made more money in theaters last year than those with a non or anti-Christian core, or a mixed/humanist perspective, including “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,” The Hangover II” and “The Rum Diary.” In fact, Movieguide’s report asserts that the Christian-motivated movies, on average, earned four times as much in box office returns – $64.3 million as opposed to $15.9 million.

“Most people dedicated to a particular faith are likely to find the violence, substance abuse, sexual immorality, and mocking of traditional values in most modern movies offensive," said Megan Basham, entertainment editor at Christian news site, World Magazine. "The rare well-made film that offers the opposite is going to appeal to church-goers of every stripe."

In addition, Movieguide reports that among the Top 25 DVD sales last year for theatrical movies, 52 percent had at least a small amount of patriotic or pro-Christian content, while only 8 percent were considered to be on the left side of the spectrum.

Baehr also pointed out that more than three quarters of Americans (238 million people) and 2.3 billion people globally, identify themselves as Christians, and Hollywood is finally starting to realize that this niche is an important one.

“When we started Movieguide in 1985, there were only one or two movies being made with a strong, explicit Christian content or values, but now there are well over 50 each year,” Baehr continued. “Every studio now has a Christian film division, and several studios are doing major movies with strong Christian content. And now all of the major studios, not just Disney, are making movies for young children and families.”

Box Office Report: 'Brave' Hits Bullseye With $66.7 Mil; 'Abraham Lincoln' Soft $16.5 Mil

Brave, continuing Pixar's unblemished record of opening its movies at No. 1, also scored the second-highest June opening for an animated pic after Pixar's Toy Story 3 ($110.3 million). Overseas, the Disney/Pixar title debuted to $13.5 million in 10 markets.

The 3D event pic -- receiving an A CinemaScore in North America -- is Pixar's 13th film and its first to feature a female lead. Brave did skew female (57 percent) but got plenty of male attention.

"You have to draw men and boys as well to see this number," Disney executive president of worldwide distribution Dave Hollis said. "The themes in the movie -- bravery, fighting for your fate -- transcend gender."

Hollis credited Pixar/Disney animation chief John Lasseter, producer Katherine Sarafian and directors Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman for delivering an "enveloping experience" that drew both families (66 percent) and adults.

One troubling statistic: 3D revenue only made up 34 percent of the Brave's opening gross, furthering worries that families find the upcharge for a 3D ticket too expensive.

Still, family product ruled the box office all the way around. DreamWorks Animation and Paramount holdover Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted fell to No. 2 in its third weekend with an estimated $20.2 million for a domestic cume of roughly $157.6 million. The threequel opened to $60.1 million.

Animation also ruled overseas, where Madagascar 3 stayed at No. 1 for the third weekend in a row, grossing $30.1 million from 44 markets to race past the $200 million mark. The pic has now earned $208.4 million internationally for an impressive worldwide total of $366 million.

Managing only a third-place domestic finish was Fox's 3D genre epic Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. The R-rated film, playing like a horror title, grossed a soft $16.5 million in its opening. Fox had predicted a debut in the $15 million range, considering there are no big stars in the film, but box-office observers believed it could get to $20 million.

Directed by Timur Bekmambetov and featuring Tim Burton in the producer's seat, Abraham Lincoln received a C+ CinemaScore. The pic's cast is led by Benjamin Walker.

Abraham Lincoln, costing $68 million to produce, features the storied U.S. president as a vampire hunter and is based on the novel by Seth Grahame-Smith, who also co-wrote the adapted screenplay. The film is an important test for the "mashup" genre, with Lionsgate queued up to make the film adaptation of Grahame-Smith's book Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

Fox believes Abraham Lincoln, which skewed male, will have good legs.

"Audiences will continue to seek out Timur's daring and brilliant vision of Abraham Lincoln," Fox's incoming president of domestic distribution Chris Aronson said.

The news wasn't good for the Steve Carell-Keira Knightley indie pic Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, which debuted to $3.8 million from 1,625 locations. The Focus Features title, directed and written by Lorene Scafaria, came in at No. 10, just ahead of fellow Focus pic Moonrise Kingdom, which grossed a pleasing $3.4 million from only 395 theaters for a pleasing cume of $11.6 million.

"It's disappointing," Focus president of distribution Jack Foley said. "The right people turned up to see Seeking a Friend, but they didn't come in volume."

At the specialty box office, Woody Allen's new entry To Rome With Love got off to a strong start, grossing $379,371 from five theaters for a sizable location average of $75,874 -- easily the best of the weekend. Sony Pictures Classics, which distributed Allen's 2011 box-office hit Midnight in Paris, again is handling domestic distribution duties for the filmmaker.

Elsewhere, New Line and Warner Bros.' troubled musical Rock of Ages fell to No. 6 in its second weekend, grossing $8 million for a 10-day domestic cume of $28.8 million. Adam Sandler's likewise troubled comedy That's My Boy fell to No. 7 in its second outing, grossing $7.9 million for a 10-day total of $28.2 million.

Here are the full domestic results for the weekend of June 22-24:

Title/Weeks in release/Theater count, Studio/Three-day weekend total/Cume

1. Brave, 1/4,164, Disney/Pixar, $66.7 million.
2. Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted, 3/3,920, $20.2 million, $157.6 million.
3. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, 1/3,108, $16.5 million.
4. Prometheus, 3/2,862, $10 million, $108.5 million.
5. Snow White and the Huntsman, 4/2,919, $8 million, $137.1 million.
6. Rock of Ages, 2/3,470, $8 million, $28.8 million.
7. That's My Boy, 2/3,030, Sony, $7.9 million, $28.2 million.
8. The Avengers, 8/2,230, Disney/Marvel Studios, $7 million, $598.3 million.
9. Men in Black 3, 5/2,462, Sony, $5.6 million, $163.3 million.
10. Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, 1/1,625, Focus, $3.8 million.

'ATM' is Out of Its Balance.

In my own opinion, one of the few sucker-or-effective techniques in scaring the audience is to develop fear in a tightly claustrophobic setting. It has worked in a couple of infamous movies like 'The Shining' in which a family is trapped inside a hotel during winter. There is also '[REC]', a found-footage Spanish zombie film in which many people were enveloped in a building and escape is an impossibility. There is the recent 'Buried', a personally asserted B-movie starring Ryan Reynolds which laid Reynold's best performance before my eyes. The recent film from debuting director David Brooks, 'ATM', falls into the claustrophobia sub-genre, but not in the category of a "very good" film.

When you enter an ATM booth, your savings balance might be the biggest fear to witness. Like a bank account owner, 'ATM', I'm fearful is out of its balance.

I remember Brian Geraghty. He's that unforgivably dumb potential boyfriend to Camillia Belle in 'When a Stranger Calls', a movie I won't even approve as a "good" one, really. He now stars as David in a claustrophobic and atmospheric thriller, 'ATM'. David is an accountant accompanied by an obnoxious best friend Corey (Josh Peck). David secretly crushes on a colleague (Emily played by Alice Eve) who appears to him doesn't crush on him back. Due to Corey's excessive douchery, he had convinced his "good boy" pal to attend the company Christmas party. Corey's reason: find him some of them bitches.

Turned out, David is the one who scored a ride home with his long-time crush. Just moments before leaving...what do you know? The obnoxious douchey friend tags along and decides to get some cash from his bank account. Of all the ATM kiosks he could have chosen, he chose the oddly isolated one. The brooding setting was in a remote parking lot surrounding a 24-hour ATM booth. Upon withdrawing, the three finds a man standing outside the booth. The man, in a winter coat, is a foreboding figure under the nighttime sky. He only stiffens in his position in a few moments; a stranger waves a hand at the man in the winter coat. Soon enough, the stranger appeared head fractured. It took this killing to have the three realize the terror that they are about to face.

The claustrophobia in one of the recent thrillers, 'Buried' was apparently a tool that helped the movies some tons. Perhaps, the filmmakers behind 'ATM', having one member who knew the formula, writer of 'Buried': Chris Sparling, used the "tool" in the hopes of making another good claustrophobic film. In 'ATM' however, the characters (with the exception of Corey) were too bland to be absorbed and the narrative were filled with gaping plot holes to even stay on. There was one scene in particular in which a security guard dropped by the kiosk. Our protagonists hopefully calls for him for some help, but it takes us very little knowledge to determine the fate of the security guard: face down and face smashed.

It doesn't necessarily mean that, while the execution are tormenting, and the characters were damn inconsistent, the movie is a total waste. 'ATM' in fact offered a handful of genuinely shocking sequences. I also like the fact that it clings to the assertion that "fear" is much more effective than "scare". It builds up an excellent eerie atmosphere that somehow frightens the audience for a minute or two. Furthermore, the movie had one card that was better played: the character of Corey. I have expressed my annoyance towards the douche bag, but that determined the effectiveness of the character. He annoyed me because the character worked. And in the middle of the film, he drops down one witty line: "Life's about choices man. One bad one can ruin every good one you have made."


The antagonist was mysterious enough, but not as striking like the Michael Myers type. Brian Geraghty was filled with quandaries that left quandaries in the audience mind intently or not. It builds to an ending that had people waiting for a major twist that never came. It somehow appears to me as a clever choice.

'ATM' is a very ambitious entry in a low-key fashion. It was well-atmosphere-d in a quasi-psychological level, and a weak material that left us thinking "I certainly don't want to be with these characters anymore!"

Local church backs filmmaker’s goal of making Christian movie

St. Catherine of Siena Roman Catholic Church, one of the largest parishes in the Archdiocese of Atlanta, has placed its support behind an independent filmmaker and parishioner with a mission to bring Christian films to a wider audience.

Kevis Antonio, founder of Rising Faith Productions, is the creator behind the film currently titled, “Five Blocks Away.” He wrote the initial screenplay and plans to direct and produce a five-week production schedule in the early fall using members of St. Catherine.

Antonio, 31, said he came up with the idea for his film last summer after attending a movie screening of the Christian film, “Courageous,” produced by Sherwood Pictures, a ministry of Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany. In 2008, the company produced the highest grossing independent film of the year.
“I noticed how packed it was and after seeing the film, I thought to myself, ‘Why hasn’t the Catholic Church done a project like this before?’” recalled Antonio.

“You’ve got Sherwood Baptist doing great films that have done very well out in the box office. You’ve got other churches stepping up too, with movies like ‘The Grace Card.’ So I saw the opportunity and started thinking, ‘This is a project that needed to happen.’”

“Five Blocks Away” tells the story of a young man named Anthony Seton, who has his sights set on fortune in the operation of a marketing business with three friends. His dreams begin to crumble in light of new relationships, family turmoil and illegal events, as he struggles to find what really matters in life.

Father John Matejek, pastor of St. Catherine, liked the idea behind the film when Antonio approached him about it. He said he welcomed the church’s involvement as a great way to evangelize.

“I’m never afraid of a challenge, especially in this third millennium, when Christianity is being beat up pretty badly,” said Matejek, a St. Catherine parishioner before entering the priesthood. “I always support my parishioners in whatever they do.”

READ MORE AT  http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=2077&src=rss