The Difference Between Acting and Adam Sandler

[Squeaksx]

See, I would use De Niro as a good actor who works WITHIN his own particular character mold. Unlike a Jude Law or Tom Cruise, you don't see a wide range of characters from De Niro. Instead, they're all pretty much a variation on Sam Rothstien and Jimmy the Gent. Sometimes the character are a little different from one another, but in almost all cases he plays a world-weary gentleman with a vicious true nature and remarkable ability to lie to the faces of everyone else.

Jude Law has been a roguish pilot, psycho assassin, confused security officer, detective's assistant... I'm just saying that all De Niro's roles seem to involve him being on the wrong side of the law in some sort of money-appropriating capacity.

I provided an example of a very well-known role in which Robert Di Niro played a character completely opposite of the one you just provided. Leonard Love is a feeble minded, innocent, and naive boy inside a man who eventually gets overwhelmed with the stress and pain that overcomes him as he slowly falls back into his catatonic state.

But aside from that role and taxi driver (I would contend he didn't settle into his rut until after he became famous) are there any others? More recent films, maybe?

I find a lot of famous actors did their best work before everyone knew their names. And not just because I like to seem edgy, some actors have a tendency to "go with what works" and play it safe.

That saddens me, because famous actors are generally well off financially. Once they reach an area of financial security, I would think they should be -more- willing to risk attempting new characters. Unless of course your Nicholas Cage, who apparently is in massive debt despite being one of the most prominent modern actors. Nicholas Cage needs to hire a new accountant I think.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Here's a key point, there's a difference between a laugh that emits from the mouth and a laugh that emits from the heart and mind, one is feeble and does nothing more than put us in a good mood temporarily; the other adds a new perspective to our lives and possibly changes our own, if only to a small degree.

Well then, the simple thing you're trying to say is "Adam Sandler is the Michael Bay of the comedy world".

No shame in saying it, they both go for what they know is going to work, they don't look like they're going to change any time soon and they're not trying to reinvent a genre or challenge your views.

 

[Squeaksx]

Here's a key point, there's a difference between a laugh that emits from the mouth and a laugh that emits from the heart and mind, one is feeble and does nothing more than put us in a good mood temporarily; the other adds a new perspective to our lives and possibly changes our own, if only to a small degree.

Well then, the simple thing you're trying to say is "Adam Sandler is the Michael Bay of the comedy world".

No shame in saying it, they both go for what they know is going to work and they don't look like they're going to change any time soon.

More or less, and I'll come out and say it, I despised the first Transformer; and, I haven't liked Shia Labeouf since Holes. I might have not even liked it because of his acting. Megan Fox belongs on the cover of a modeling magazine or as a model for a painter of nude models, not in films.

 

[mechanixis]

This is, I am prepared to say, the dumbest thread I've ever seen top the Hot Thread list.

 

[Kortney]

Reign Over Me makes this thread loose its credibility. Sandler was fantastic in that, and made me cry in a scene. It's his only credible movie. Oh, and he was ok in punch drunk love.

 

[Squeaksx]

This is, I am prepared to say, the dumbest thread I've ever seen top the Hot Thread list.

I'm glad you've provided your powerful and important insight to this post, I am forever grateful.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

That saddens me, because famous actors are generally well off financially. Once they reach an area of financial security, I would think they should be -more- willing to risk attempting new characters. Unless of course your Nicholas Cage, who apparently is in massive debt despite being one of the most prominent modern actors. Nicholas Cage needs to hire a new accountant I think.

Also, do you remember a film with Lawrence Fishburne made SINCE The Matrix where he wasn't just Morpheus in a different coat? I sure don't. But go back to Boys n the Hood and he's a completely different character and does an outstanding job as the heart and mind of the entire film.

 

[Squeaksx]

Reign Over Me makes this thread loose it's credibility. Sandler was fantastic in that, and made me cry in a scene. It's his only credible movie. Oh, and he was ok in punch drunk love.

No it doesn't, I stated in a later reply that an actor should be judged on the sum of his work, not one or two exceptions.

 

[Squeaksx]

That saddens me, because famous actors are generally well off financially. Once they reach an area of financial security, I would think they should be -more- willing to risk attempting new characters. Unless of course your Nicholas Cage, who apparently is in massive debt despite being one of the most prominent modern actors. Nicholas Cage needs to hire a new accountant I think.

Also, do you remember a film with Lawrence Fishburne made SINCE The Matrix where he wasn't just Morpheus in a different coat? I sure don't. But go back to Boys n the Hood and he's a completely different character and does an outstanding job as the heart and mind of the entire film.

To be frank, I can't even remember a role he's been in since those two films, maybe there's a reason for that. Well wait, I remember him in 21, but that's about it. To be fair, in 21 his character at least had differences in morality from Morpheus.

 

[Matt-Allan-ca]

all I have to say is who gives a shit? alot of actors nowadays are type cast and the familiarity is...well...it doesn't matter. one of the best actors is Johnny Depp, he usually plays the freak, but can play it in many different ways and has even played seemingly normal roles like in "public enemies".

 

[Booze Zombie]

More or less, and I'll come out and say it, I despised the first Transformers and I haven't liked Shia Labeouf since Holes, and even that might have not been because of his acting.

Thing is though, there's plenty of people who don't care about that sort of thing.
It's why Bay and Sandler can keep doing the same things over and over and enjoy vast amounts of "ka-ching" as a result.
Though, there is a distinct different between Bay and Sander which is quite evident, Bay thinks his audience is dumb, Sandler does his stuff because he personally finds it funny.

Not that I'm some sort of elite movie goer or something, though; I watch action movies like anyone else.
I loved Commando, I think Prototype (the game) would make an amazing movie and it's story is basically "you're super-angry... go eat people".

 

[Bat Vader]

I would argue Adam Sandler was acting as a character... it's just the same character over and over again, which he "perfected" by actually being the character (aka playing himself).

Not that I approve of that style of "acting", but it's what he does, when I think about it.
He obviously can act, but he chooses to stick with his well-established comedic-self and take no risks.
A lot of people will pay to see Adam Sandler being Adam Sandler and I might be guilty of this, as Happy Gilmore is one of my favorite movies.

That said, Adam being himself is starting to wear thing nowadays, with the exception of movies practically written for "him".
The annoying comes when he keeps playing the character despite the situation, I do suppose.

Again, I'm not saying they aren't a good way to pass the time, but a film has the capability of being so much more. Films are the new medium of choice for much of society, and many people will have their lives at least partially shaped by the films they watch. I think that the least a film could do is present new ideas, evoke a wide range of emotions, call a person to action, or even bring old ideas up in a new light. Here's a key point, there's a difference between a laugh that emits from the mouth and a laugh that emits from the heart and mind, one is feeble and does nothing more than put us in a temporary good mood, the other changes our perspective on life, if only in tiny amounts.

Films have the capability of being so much more but not a lot of them are going to be. Not every studio, director, or actor want to make movies that can evoke wide ranges of emotion or call a person to action.

Example: Happy Gilmore was made to be a comedy, it wasn't made to make people think or call them to action. It was made to make people laugh. Synecdoche, New York however was made to make people think and evoke a wide range of emotions. Carlie Kaufman is an excellent writer and director, in my opinion he is anyway.

As I said before that not every film is going to be profound and intelligent. Some are made to be and some are not made to be.

 

[Kortney]

Reign Over Me makes this thread loose it's credibility. Sandler was fantastic in that, and made me cry in a scene. It's his only credible movie. Oh, and he was ok in punch drunk love.

No it doesn't, I stated in a later reply that an actor should be judged on the sum of his work, not one or two exceptions.

Yes, it does.

You are trying to be elitist and are 'avin a go at Adam Sandler. I agree with you, the majority of his movies are rubbish - but he does them well, for what it's worth. If we are talking modern, slap stick, mainstream comedy - Sandler is one of the best in the business. His movies are loved by many people, and some have cult followings. I think his movies suck, but I do recognise that within the genre and with what those movies are trying to achieve, Sandler is great.

Movies like Reign Over Me and Punch Drunk Love show he has talent, and some pretty good talent at that. I would bet my bottom dollar that you would not be able to perform broad comedy as well as him, and I bet you would not be able to provide such a touching performance as he provided in the aforementioned movies. He's talented, he just focuses on crappy throwaway movies. So what's your point? Are you angry at him because he is in films that entertain people? Put things into perspective.

 

[Squeaksx]

all I have to say is who gives a shit? alot of actors nowadays are type cast and the familiarity is...well...it doesn't matter. one of the best actors is Johnny Depp, he usually plays the freak, but can play it in many different ways and has even played seemingly normal roles like in "public enemies".

Obviously I give a shit or I wouldn't have posted this article, for one. For two Johnny Depp has the problem of Tim Burton. Don't get me wrong, I love him as a director, but he relies on Johnny Depp way too much as an actor and I think that hinders Johnny Depp more than anyone else. I personally think that some of the actor's best roles were in films NOT directed by Burton (Duke from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean). Now don't get me wrong, Johnny was also great in Burton's films: Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood, but I think Burton really needs to take the risk of hiring new talent.

 

[brunothepig]

Every actor should do roles they feel comfortable in. I enjoy Adam Sandler's work, and yes the guy is primarily just a comedian. Which is why he sticks to comedic roles. I don't believe it means he can't act. Hell, look at Jim Carrey. They guy is hilarious, but has anyone seen The Number 23? Jim Carrey stars, in a thriller. And he does really well. Also, one thing you forgot. This is all my opinion, mmmkay? I know it may seem petty to some, but I disliike seeing people stating their opinions as if they're fact.

 

[mechanixis]

This is, I am prepared to say, the dumbest thread I've ever seen top the Hot Thread list.

I'm glad you've provided your powerful and important insight to this post, I am forever grateful.

Alright, alright, you got me, it was a dick move. I'll expand my response.

Yes, there are lots of one-note actors in Hollywood today. The excessive consistency of Adam Sandler characters makes me cringe too.

But you're attacking the nebulous concept of "acting" as being to blame, as if it's this metaphysical entity that's in decline. My guess would be two reasons, 1) film is a larger industry today than it used to be, and 2) innovation is financially risky.

The one-note actors are so numerous because for one thing the pool of actors is simply larger, and for another because once an actor is established as being good at something, the filmmaking industry's first goal is making that lightning strike twice. Especially with something as intangible and delicate as comedy. So if an actor has one thing going for them and one thing only? It's going to get run into the fucking ground.

 

[Squeaksx]

Reign Over Me makes this thread loose it's credibility. Sandler was fantastic in that, and made me cry in a scene. It's his only credible movie. Oh, and he was ok in punch drunk love.

No it doesn't, I stated in a later reply that an actor should be judged on the sum of his work, not one or two exceptions.

Yes, it does.

You are trying to be elitist and are 'avin a go at Adam Sandler. I agree with you, the majority of his movies are rubbish - but he does them well, for what it's worth. If we are talking modern, slap stick, mainstream comedy - Sandler is one of the best in the business. His movies are loved by many people, and some have cult followings. I think his movies suck, but I do recognise that within the genre and with what those movies are trying to achieve, Sandler is great.

Movies like Reign Over Me and Punch Drunk Love show he has talent, and some pretty good talent at that. I would bet my bottom dollar that you would not be able to perform broad comedy as well as him, and I bet you would not be able to provide such a touching performance as he provided in the aforementioned movies. He's talented, he just focuses on crappy throwaway movies. So what's your point? Are you angry at him because he is in films that entertain people? Put things into perspective.

No, I'm angry with him now because he's shown that he has the capabilities of being a truly great actor, but instead he decides to stay within the realm of "good" actor. Again, to be perfectly honest, the only films of his that got a chuckle out of me (that had him relying on his typecast), were Happy Gilmore, Big Daddy, and Mr. Deeds. The only reason I found those films funny was because at least those films stuck him in situations that differed enough for me to ignore the fact that I was seeing the same character over and over. Yes Sandler is funny, true, but a film role should rely more on that.

 

[Squeaksx]

This is, I am prepared to say, the dumbest thread I've ever seen top the Hot Thread list.

I'm glad you've provided your powerful and important insight to this post, I am forever grateful.

Alright, alright, you got me, it was a dick move. I'll expand my response.

Yes, there are lots of one-note actors in Hollywood today. The excessive consistency of Adam Sandler characters makes me cringe too.

But you're attacking the nebulous concept of "acting" as being to blame, as if it's this metaphysical entity that's in decline. My guess would be two reasons, 1) film is a larger industry today than it used to be, and 2) innovation is financially risky.

The one-note actors are so numerous because for one thing the pool of actors is simply larger, and for another because once an actor is established as being good at something, the filmmaking industry's first goal is making that lightning strike twice. Especially with something as intangible and delicate as comedy.

Again, I will state that it's the actor who ultimately decides what role he takes. Famous actors are provided with enough financial security to search out smaller productions for the sake of creative flexibility. Now I can forgive a smaller, less famous actor for sticking to a typecast while trying to make a living, but once an actor has a net worth of over two or so million he has no excuse for sticking to that typecast and not trying to express his creative range (if he has it), by portraying other roles. This is why I am eternally grateful of Robin Williams. While his comedic roles are generally bombastic and near schizophrenic, he does have numerous examples of him portraying greatly different roles. Lets just place a list of his characters in a line and you tell me if he's a one-note actor: John Keating (Dead Poets Society), Adrian Cronauer (Good Morning Vietnam), Osric (Hamlet), Vladimir Ivanov (Moscow on the Hudson). Here's a great example of an actor who tries to express his true acting talent, fame or flop, and is willing to risk a bad film as long as it allows him to do the art of acting justice.

 

[heyheysg]

Gary Oldman vs Michael Cera.

No idea why that kid is even famous, the one note character from Arrested Development should have stayed there.

His similar counterpart Jesse Eisenberg has at least more scope (still playing virgins though), Roger Dodger, Adventure Land and Zombieland. But at least he has some range

 

[omega 616]

My big reaction to this is, so what?

I want to watch a comedy, all I am looking for is jokes, jokes are best told my comedians. To employ the like top movie stars and the best actors for a comedy is overkill and would just diminish profits.

I don't want to watch a film with a massive deep complex story, back story on every character, played by only the best actors in the world .. if I did I wouldn't watch a comedy.

Anyway it keeps more people in work and gives us something to watch, if all the best actors were the only ones getting work there would be less films and we would be sick of the same faces in every film.