My favorite is Peter Cushing, never gave a bad performance in his life. A true British Gentleman.
He too was great, but I actually prefer some of the people you mentioned; Ralph Richardson, John Gielgud and Laurence Olivier. Other Bristish actors that I love include Michael Caine (he's incapable of acting badly), Christopher Lee, Peter O'Toole, Ben Kingsley and Daniel Day-Lewis.
but I would hardly rate De Niro the greatest actor ever, the most over-rated maybe.
Blasphemy! Sico, show this man the door! X-(
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Whilst I couldn't decide between Mitchum and DeNiro regarding Cape Fear, I'd have to say that Mitchum is absolutely terrifying in Night of the Hunter. Few scenes, even today, match Robert Mitchum chasing those kids into the water. I don't think either he or DeNiro is the better of the two; Mitchum was part of an older, superior generation of actors, but DeNiro has had the roles to show how articulate he can be.
My personal favourite actor is Robert Preston; a less famed but equally respected actor who, in my opinion, had such a way on screen and stage that made him greater than any other. For a fantastic career he received just one Oscar nomination. That's why the Academy Awards don't mean much to me.
I appreciate the great generation of British actors, including some of those you mentioned, Alex. But I also have a respect for actors who were larger than life off-screen aswell. Lawrence Tierney (1919 - 2002) is one example; an actor I have enormous respect for, but who wasted what was a fantastic career through alcohol and bar-room brawls. A fascinating character nonetheless.
She was quite friendly, we talked about that new film about her starring Helen Mirren.
Anyway, I thought it was very good. It's about how the royalty dealt with the aftermath of Princess Di's death (badly) and seeing Di on the big screen and the events reenacted did take you back to that week and how traumatic and weird it all was. On the big screen the events are on top of you, whereas on the telly it's all contained and you become jaded to it seeing clips now.
Mirren very good but a bit too regal in a Mirren sort of way, almost like Princess Margaret, a bit too sexy. I felt the Queen was being stubborn and a bit slow-witted in her private mourning whereas Mirren is portrayed as more haughty and intractible.
I suppose it all owes a bit to Mrs Brown with Judi Dench, a similar theme.
Stephen Frears direction was superb and he really should be getting a call from Mickey and Babs (wasn't he in line for that awful Jinx film?). He has just the right touch, there's nothing snide or gimmicky about him. A few scenes you can imagine in a Bond film, and the casting is very good, too. The whole film has a sure touch, why isn't Frears up for Bond 22?
The last movie I saw turned out to be a pleasant surprise--Brick. It's essentially a Chandleresque/Hammett-like gumshoe detective story, complete with hard-boiled dialogue, double-crosses, and femmes fatale--only set in and around a modern high school, with the major characters being high schoolers! It sounds like a comedy and there's some humor in it, but it's played straight and it works wonderfully. I got a real kick out of it.
Vox clamantis in deserto
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,406Chief of Staff
Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy.
Boy, what a let down Some nice bits but it does pale when placed beside the TV series.
I'll get my main gripe over with first, it was too long. At 2hr 40m it could have been cut down here and there, and kept at a decent pace. It did drag a little now and then, but overall didn't detract from what was otherwise a powerful film.
Some great performances in there, Eric Bana being superb in the role of Avner Kaufman, a young man about to start a family suddenly thrust into a dangerous black operation for his country. Daniel Craig was a particular highlight too, and I'll be honest that he melted into the part so well that I did forget I was watching our new Bond. And despite only having a few minutes of screen time, Gila Almagor's portrayal of Golda Meir was brilliant. Nice to see Michael Lonsdale too
The direction was also top rate, and the assassination scenes managed to be hard-hitting without being remotely gratitious. The attention to detail and travelogue feel (if I can use the word travelogue in connection with hunting down terror suspects and killing them...) made the film visually impressive.
Obviously the plot is based on real events, but I'll find it difficult to comment on the portrayal without dropping on one side of the fence or the other. I felt the film was very even handed - it highlighted the futility of gunning down one terrorist, only for another to replace him. And another. And another. And eventually the hunter becomes the hunted, and it destroys his life. But the sheer horror of the Munich atrocity, and the casual mentions of the aircraft hijackings and Athens airport attacks, for me anyway, just re-affirms my belief that talking peace with people who do not want peace - who want you all dead, wiped off the map, is just as futile.
Overall though, great film, thoroughly recommended.
I just finished Inside Man and while good, boy did it ever leave me confused! I suppose you have to mull over the plot the day later to understand it or to fully grasp it again, you'd have to watch it a second time through.
It was entertaining, albeit a bit confusing. Though, I was hoping Denzel Washington got his money back from Jodie Foster's character because she was horrible at her negotiating!
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,703MI6 Agent
I just finished Inside Man[\b] and while good, boy did it ever leave me confused! I suppose you have to mull over the plot the day later to understand it or to fully grasp it again, you'd have to watch it a second time through.
It was entertaining, albeit a bit confusing. Though, I was hoping Denzel Washington got his money back from Jodie Foster's character because she was horrible at her negotiating!
Just curious JFF, what did you find confusing about Inside Man ? Maybe I can try to explain what you missed.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
Well it was very confusing on first viewing but now that I've added up all the pieces of the puzzle, it comes together quite nicely but thanks anyway Martini.
The Black Dahlia
Brian DePalma latest filmnoir type pastiche
absolutley incomprehensible
3/4 of it was irrelevent to the main plot, made no sense, and was poorly acted
the musclebound squinting prettyboy lead doesnt even attempt to do a period film noir type voice
it looks like it should be awesome:
slick camera work, period decor and lighting,
hep tributes to Chandler, Hitchcock, Chinatown and even David Lynch
its gotta be DePalmas third time at least remaking/remodeling Vertigo (the old sleeping with a dead girls lookalike kink)
the scenes with Hillary Swank and her family are the 1/4 of the film thats good, thats the bit thats Lynchian, as if David Lynch were filming one of Raymond Chandlers corrupt millionaire families up on the hill
picture a monstermix of Doghouse Reilly visiting the Generals house in the Big Sleep spliced with Henry visiting his girlfriends house in Eraserhead
how could you go wrong with a concept like that? somehow dePalma found a way...
You beat me to the punch... I wish I'd read your review before going. I wouldn't have.
I too couldn't follow most of it, it just lost me. Didn't help that the dialogue wasn't loud enough; I don't know if this was the cinema or the fault of the film itself.
Starts off with a boxing match between two policemen set up for publicity purposes... okay it's fixed, but I couldn't tell if Josh Hartnett's cop was trying to win anyway, like Butch in Pulp Fiction, to win upset the odds or something.
Nothing is explained very well, it's all served up in a deadpan take it or leave it kind of way.
Yeah it looks good, but very stylised. It's not like it's set in the 1940s, rather it's about 1940s movies. It's like a spoof film noir, with Scarlett Johansson as Jessica Rabbit. Good for a one-minute advert, but not two hours.
Totally uninvolving, it goes on and on, you never really know when it's gonna end. I was hoping for The Untouchables, but that film had some heart (and coherence). This is more like Snake Eyes, but not as good. It's that last cocktail you have that you start to wish you hadn't ordered, as you feel a bit woozy and ill.
I really don't recommend it, but maybe if you must, on DVD where you can rewind and try to make sense of some of it, and wander off and make a coffee....
A very good documentary. I'm a Democrat so I was interested in the film just as much for its political consequences as for its actual content. I think it's a very good film however as someone who knows next to nothing about science, I think it has far too much information and is a little too convuluted. I would still recommend it though.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I have seen this film many times and really like it. Tom Hanks gives what I consider to be his greatest performance by a mile, and Denzel Washington plays effectively against type in a non-charismatic role.
I rarely get emotional during films, but the last 30 minutes of this one always leave me sobbing. It's just very beautifully done.
An Inconvenient Truth
A very good documentary. I'm a Democrat so I was interested in the film just as much for its political consequences as for its actual content. I think it's a very good film however as someone who knows next to nothing about science, I think it has far too much information and is a little too convuluted. I would still recommend it though.
this was in the cineplex in my small town for about a week, it was gone before I could see it
this part of Ontario is economically dominated by carparts manufacturing, so maybe this film was a bit too "inconvenient" to keep in the theater
me I am a scientist, a physical geographer who studied a fair bit of ecology and climatology back in university
Im interested in your "too much science" critique, cuz environmentalists often seem to get accused of appealing to emotions, yet the track record has proven that Joe Public thinks math is hard and will only give support to an environmental cause if the argument is emotional (eg those cute baby seals)
still makes me wish I could be living in that parallel universe where the votes were counted properly in Florida back in 2001: Al has a lot of credibility as an environmental activist, at least for a politician of his rank, and Ive always suspected the real reason the Repugs went to such lengths to keep him out of office was precisely the impact the Kyoto Accord would have on the value of their oil investments
Im interested in your "too much science" critique, cuz environmentalists often seem to get accused of appealing to emotions, yet the track record has proven that Joe Public thinks math is hard and will only give support to an environmental cause if the argument is emotional (eg those cute baby seals)
My problem with it (and I'll probably see it again actually) was that I'm not a scientist and although the information was fascinating (and quite scary at times ) I think that the film might have been a little better served if Gore had stated some more examples of the negative and real effects of Global Warming and why we should care. I'm not suggesting that he should have gone for emotion instead of science, rather I would have liked it if he had utilised more real-life examples. The film featured alot of science and I wonder, given that most viewers are non-scientists, wether it could have been equally as effective if less theory and more examples had been utilised. Nonetheless, it's still a very good film.
still makes me wish I could be living in that parallel universe where the votes were counted properly in Florida back in 2001: Al has a lot of credibility as an environmental activist, at least for a politician of his rank, and Ive always suspected the real reason the Repugs went to such lengths to keep him out of office was precisely the impact the Kyoto Accord would have on the value of their oil investments
I wish I was in the same parallel universe as you.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
This was on AMC the other night; it's hard to believe this movie is 30 years old. It's still just as funny and fresh and relevant today as when it debuted. There's a great cast here and Woody Allen's writing and humor are in top form. I look at all the "relationship" movies making the rounds these days and have to chuckle; Woody mined so much of the same territory, and did a way better job of it IMHO, so many years ago.
I saw Hollywoodland this afternoon. This movie has all but vanished from the theaters--I was one of only FIVE people in attendance today--and it's a shame, because this is a good show. It works on several levels: as a film noir gumshoe saga that's drenched in wonderful atmosphere (was anything seedier than Los Angeles in the 1950s?); as an examination of the lies we tell each other and to ourselves to satisfy a craving for fame and importance; and as an acting piece. Adrien Brody is the perfect antihero, Diane Lane is excellent as the fading beauty, and Ben Affleck. . .well, whadda ya know, he can actually ACT! Catch this one on DVD; I doubt it will be in the cineplexes much longer.
Vox clamantis in deserto
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,703MI6 Agent
I saw Hollywoodland this afternoon. This movie has all but vanished from the theaters--I was one of only FIVE people in attendance today--and it's a shame, because this is a good show. It works on several levels: as a film noir gumshoe saga that's drenched in wonderful atmosphere (was anything seedier than Los Angeles in the 1950s?); as an examination of the lies we tell each other and to ourselves to satisfy a craving for fame and importance; and as an acting piece. Adrien Brody is the perfect antihero, Diane Lane is excellent as the fading beauty, and Ben Affleck. . .well, whadda ya know, he can actually ACT! Catch this one on DVD; I doubt it will be in the cineplexes much longer.
So HB, how would you compare it to L.A. Confidential ?
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
Wow. Amazing. The all round cast was superb, and there were great performances from every actor involved. It has a really gripping storyline, and some twists and unexpected events that keep the movie going.
Not as tense as it could have been in my opinion; there's a few scenes which could have been more suspensful, but are directed and written in a way which emphasises the black comedy rather than the thrill of the situation.
Maybe this is just the idea. A lot less serious than Goodfellas, if I compare them both as cop/gangster dramas. And to be fair, Departed is no where near as good as Goodfellas in terms of brilliant movie-making.
IMO, when Scorsese brings out a new movie, I always want to say, 'this is his best work since Goodfellas.' or 'this is better than Goodfellas.' -- but it never is. This is his best film since Gangs of New York, and pessimistic as it might be, I think Scorsese peaked with Goodfellas and he'll forever be known for the master of gangster.
And I hope he wins an Oscar for Departed, but again, probably for Editing or Music. I can see a better directed film coming out before the Awards.
Best film I've seen at the cinema for a very long time I have to say. Worth seeing again.
So HB, how would you compare it to L.A. Confidential ?
Apples and oranges, Mr. M. They may have had the same setting and the same noir-ish approach, but Hollywoodland is fundamentally a biopic concerning George Reeves's struggles to make it in films and in finding himself saddled with a role he hated. The fictional Adrien Brody Private Investigator storyline serves as a framing device for the Reeves story (and neatly parallels Brody's publicity-hogging with Reeves's own) and as a way of exploring the various conspiracy theories that surround Reeves's death.
Vox clamantis in deserto
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Just saw Breakfast at Tiffany's, I've seen it before but never really paid any attention as I was much younger.
I really enjoyed it. The story was compelling and the characters were great. Audrey Hepburn is of course gorgeous.
Without Annie Hall...Walken might not have been discovered (this was the part which lead to Deer Hunter)
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,703MI6 Agent
The Truman Show
Just watched this, again, this afternoon. Everytime I watch this movie it just gets better. Jim Carrey proves he can act. To bad he wasn't given an Oscar nomination for his performance in this movie. I also like how the movie shows peoples obsession with the media. If you have a couple of hours one day, watch this movie. If you've already seen it, watch it again.
5 stars out of 5 stars.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
did you see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind?
Carreys very good in that one, and Mary Jane Watson, Frodo Baggins and the chick from Titanic all act up a storm as well
I like seeing these big stars from mainstream blockbusters do something more experimental and prove they actually can immerse themselves into different sorts of characters
Carrey also stretched out in that Andy Kaufman biopic
did you see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind?
Carreys very good in that one, and Mary Jane Watson, Frodo Baggins and the chick from Titanic all act up a storm as well
I like seeing these big stars from mainstream blockbusters do something more experimental and prove they actually can immerse themselves into different sorts of characters
Carrey also stretched out in that Andy Kaufman biopic
I actually missed both the movies you mentioned. Might have to rent them though. More so the Man On The Moon .
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
Comments
Blasphemy! Sico, show this man the door! X-(
My personal favourite actor is Robert Preston; a less famed but equally respected actor who, in my opinion, had such a way on screen and stage that made him greater than any other. For a fantastic career he received just one Oscar nomination. That's why the Academy Awards don't mean much to me.
I appreciate the great generation of British actors, including some of those you mentioned, Alex. But I also have a respect for actors who were larger than life off-screen aswell. Lawrence Tierney (1919 - 2002) is one example; an actor I have enormous respect for, but who wasted what was a fantastic career through alcohol and bar-room brawls. A fascinating character nonetheless.
She was quite friendly, we talked about that new film about her starring Helen Mirren.
Anyway, I thought it was very good. It's about how the royalty dealt with the aftermath of Princess Di's death (badly) and seeing Di on the big screen and the events reenacted did take you back to that week and how traumatic and weird it all was. On the big screen the events are on top of you, whereas on the telly it's all contained and you become jaded to it seeing clips now.
Mirren very good but a bit too regal in a Mirren sort of way, almost like Princess Margaret, a bit too sexy. I felt the Queen was being stubborn and a bit slow-witted in her private mourning whereas Mirren is portrayed as more haughty and intractible.
I suppose it all owes a bit to Mrs Brown with Judi Dench, a similar theme.
Stephen Frears direction was superb and he really should be getting a call from Mickey and Babs (wasn't he in line for that awful Jinx film?). He has just the right touch, there's nothing snide or gimmicky about him. A few scenes you can imagine in a Bond film, and the casting is very good, too. The whole film has a sure touch, why isn't Frears up for Bond 22?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Boy, what a let down
A fantastic film.
I'll get my main gripe over with first, it was too long. At 2hr 40m it could have been cut down here and there, and kept at a decent pace. It did drag a little now and then, but overall didn't detract from what was otherwise a powerful film.
Some great performances in there, Eric Bana being superb in the role of Avner Kaufman, a young man about to start a family suddenly thrust into a dangerous black operation for his country. Daniel Craig was a particular highlight too, and I'll be honest that he melted into the part so well that I did forget I was watching our new Bond. And despite only having a few minutes of screen time, Gila Almagor's portrayal of Golda Meir was brilliant. Nice to see Michael Lonsdale too
The direction was also top rate, and the assassination scenes managed to be hard-hitting without being remotely gratitious. The attention to detail and travelogue feel (if I can use the word travelogue in connection with hunting down terror suspects and killing them...) made the film visually impressive.
Obviously the plot is based on real events, but I'll find it difficult to comment on the portrayal without dropping on one side of the fence or the other. I felt the film was very even handed - it highlighted the futility of gunning down one terrorist, only for another to replace him. And another. And another. And eventually the hunter becomes the hunted, and it destroys his life. But the sheer horror of the Munich atrocity, and the casual mentions of the aircraft hijackings and Athens airport attacks, for me anyway, just re-affirms my belief that talking peace with people who do not want peace - who want you all dead, wiped off the map, is just as futile.
Overall though, great film, thoroughly recommended.
It was entertaining, albeit a bit confusing. Though, I was hoping Denzel Washington got his money back from Jodie Foster's character because she was horrible at her negotiating!
Just curious JFF, what did you find confusing about Inside Man ? Maybe I can try to explain what you missed.
Legendary. Funniest film I've seen in a loooong time.
'Ooooh cake.'
An enjoyable romp into Sherlockiana. Billy Wilder squeezes some fun humor out of the Holmes/Watson relationship and some great gems of dialogue
Watson: "What is that noise? Perhaps Mrs. Hudson is entertaining."
Holmes: "I never found her so."
Brian DePalma latest filmnoir type pastiche
absolutley incomprehensible
3/4 of it was irrelevent to the main plot, made no sense, and was poorly acted
the musclebound squinting prettyboy lead doesnt even attempt to do a period film noir type voice
it looks like it should be awesome:
slick camera work, period decor and lighting,
hep tributes to Chandler, Hitchcock, Chinatown and even David Lynch
its gotta be DePalmas third time at least remaking/remodeling Vertigo (the old sleeping with a dead girls lookalike kink)
the scenes with Hillary Swank and her family are the 1/4 of the film thats good, thats the bit thats Lynchian, as if David Lynch were filming one of Raymond Chandlers corrupt millionaire families up on the hill
picture a monstermix of Doghouse Reilly visiting the Generals house in the Big Sleep spliced with Henry visiting his girlfriends house in Eraserhead
how could you go wrong with a concept like that? somehow dePalma found a way...
I too couldn't follow most of it, it just lost me. Didn't help that the dialogue wasn't loud enough; I don't know if this was the cinema or the fault of the film itself.
Starts off with a boxing match between two policemen set up for publicity purposes... okay it's fixed, but I couldn't tell if Josh Hartnett's cop was trying to win anyway, like Butch in Pulp Fiction, to win upset the odds or something.
Nothing is explained very well, it's all served up in a deadpan take it or leave it kind of way.
Yeah it looks good, but very stylised. It's not like it's set in the 1940s, rather it's about 1940s movies. It's like a spoof film noir, with Scarlett Johansson as Jessica Rabbit. Good for a one-minute advert, but not two hours.
Totally uninvolving, it goes on and on, you never really know when it's gonna end. I was hoping for The Untouchables, but that film had some heart (and coherence). This is more like Snake Eyes, but not as good. It's that last cocktail you have that you start to wish you hadn't ordered, as you feel a bit woozy and ill.
I really don't recommend it, but maybe if you must, on DVD where you can rewind and try to make sense of some of it, and wander off and make a coffee....
Roger Moore 1927-2017
A very good documentary. I'm a Democrat so I was interested in the film just as much for its political consequences as for its actual content. I think it's a very good film however as someone who knows next to nothing about science, I think it has far too much information and is a little too convuluted. I would still recommend it though.
I have seen this film many times and really like it. Tom Hanks gives what I consider to be his greatest performance by a mile, and Denzel Washington plays effectively against type in a non-charismatic role.
I rarely get emotional during films, but the last 30 minutes of this one always leave me sobbing. It's just very beautifully done.
It was ok, at best.
this part of Ontario is economically dominated by carparts manufacturing, so maybe this film was a bit too "inconvenient" to keep in the theater
me I am a scientist, a physical geographer who studied a fair bit of ecology and climatology back in university
Im interested in your "too much science" critique, cuz environmentalists often seem to get accused of appealing to emotions, yet the track record has proven that Joe Public thinks math is hard and will only give support to an environmental cause if the argument is emotional (eg those cute baby seals)
still makes me wish I could be living in that parallel universe where the votes were counted properly in Florida back in 2001: Al has a lot of credibility as an environmental activist, at least for a politician of his rank, and Ive always suspected the real reason the Repugs went to such lengths to keep him out of office was precisely the impact the Kyoto Accord would have on the value of their oil investments
I wish I was in the same parallel universe as you.
This was on AMC the other night; it's hard to believe this movie is 30 years old. It's still just as funny and fresh and relevant today as when it debuted. There's a great cast here and Woody Allen's writing and humor are in top form. I look at all the "relationship" movies making the rounds these days and have to chuckle; Woody mined so much of the same territory, and did a way better job of it IMHO, so many years ago.
Absolutely astounding. It's a modern Shakespearean tragedy.
So HB, how would you compare it to L.A. Confidential ?
Wow. Amazing. The all round cast was superb, and there were great performances from every actor involved. It has a really gripping storyline, and some twists and unexpected events that keep the movie going.
Not as tense as it could have been in my opinion; there's a few scenes which could have been more suspensful, but are directed and written in a way which emphasises the black comedy rather than the thrill of the situation.
Maybe this is just the idea. A lot less serious than Goodfellas, if I compare them both as cop/gangster dramas. And to be fair, Departed is no where near as good as Goodfellas in terms of brilliant movie-making.
IMO, when Scorsese brings out a new movie, I always want to say, 'this is his best work since Goodfellas.' or 'this is better than Goodfellas.' -- but it never is. This is his best film since Gangs of New York, and pessimistic as it might be, I think Scorsese peaked with Goodfellas and he'll forever be known for the master of gangster.
And I hope he wins an Oscar for Departed, but again, probably for Editing or Music. I can see a better directed film coming out before the Awards.
Best film I've seen at the cinema for a very long time I have to say. Worth seeing again.
9/10.
Apples and oranges, Mr. M. They may have had the same setting and the same noir-ish approach, but Hollywoodland is fundamentally a biopic concerning George Reeves's struggles to make it in films and in finding himself saddled with a role he hated. The fictional Adrien Brody Private Investigator storyline serves as a framing device for the Reeves story (and neatly parallels Brody's publicity-hogging with Reeves's own) and as a way of exploring the various conspiracy theories that surround Reeves's death.
I really enjoyed it. The story was compelling and the characters were great. Audrey Hepburn is of course gorgeous.
Just watched this, again, this afternoon. Everytime I watch this movie it just gets better. Jim Carrey proves he can act. To bad he wasn't given an Oscar nomination for his performance in this movie. I also like how the movie shows peoples obsession with the media. If you have a couple of hours one day, watch this movie. If you've already seen it, watch it again.
5 stars out of 5 stars.
Carreys very good in that one, and Mary Jane Watson, Frodo Baggins and the chick from Titanic all act up a storm as well
I like seeing these big stars from mainstream blockbusters do something more experimental and prove they actually can immerse themselves into different sorts of characters
Carrey also stretched out in that Andy Kaufman biopic
I actually missed both the movies you mentioned. Might have to rent them though. More so the Man On The Moon .