Tags for this video have been changed from 'Izzy Marie Hill, Jim Carrey' to 'Izzy Marie Hill, Jim Carrey, emma stone' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Izzy, Jim Carrey' to 'Izzy Marie Hill, Jim Carrey' - edited by xxovercastxx

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by mintbbb.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Sorry, but this is a *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Jim-Carrey-s-message-of-love-for-Emma-Stone.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

No argument there, though Carrey has been in a couple of decent Sci-fi-ish flicks. I'm thinking of course of The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Yes, I left out The Mask on purpose.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Jim Carrey plus penguins = apocalypse

Jim Carrey plus penguins = apocalypse

Thanks. It was sort of hard to hear since it was recorded live, but mostly heard it. You should submit it!

In reply to this comment by chilaxe:
I love what Sean Stephenson says about his own disabilities and women http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlyciEt3q3s&feature=player_embedded

In reply to this comment by ant:
Hmm, physical oddies as distractions? I have plenty of those with my disabilities, but still no women.

*cinema *videogames

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

No Shia's nononononononononono? What about Jim Carrey's in Yes Man movie?

Like how he opens it up there towards the end--"High as you want to!"

Jim Carrey was born to star in this dude's biopic.

My personal take: the problem with CGI and 3D anmiation (and it's only been exacerbated by the new trend in 3D moviemaking) is it gives the director too much control. Regarding camera placement, instead of employing traditional camera movement, now that in can be placed anywhere, it has been. We get these rollercoaster spins, pans, trucks and zooms that completely disorient the viewer. In "Tron Legacy", do I really need to see the light cycles in profile, hovering only 2 inches off the ground going 100mph to the right, only to vault over the bike and sweep around to the back of it to showcase another light cycle entering the fray? No. Just because you can place the camera inside someone's butt crack doesn't mean you should.

And with CGI, it gives the director too much leeway in exaggerating scale, movement and proportions. Perfect example: In Stephen Sommers remake of "The Mummy" Imhotep screams and his mouth artificially elongates. If you watch earlier in the film, it does so but only slightly, imparting a sense of the supernatural. But by the end of the film, his screams become so overly done, it comes across as comic and bufoonish, as if I was watching a Tex Avery cartoon. That's OK to do in Jim Carrey's "The Mask" because it calls for it. But not in "The Mummy", nor in "I Am Legend". The vampires in "I Am Legend" aren't threatening, they're evil monster meets Stretch Armstrong.

I like Aronofsky's approach to CGI: Use it as sparingly as you can, and only as a last resort.

The only thing that comes to mind is the Jim Carrey female weightlifter skit...

Jim Carrey?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.
Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.
But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.

Forrest Gump may be a cliche now, but his performance in it was great. He was great in Philadelphia and The Green Mile as well. For pure strength of acting, I think you've got to go with Cast Away. Not many actors can carry a movie all by themselves with only a volleyball to interact with. If you want a role that really steps out of the norm, try The Ladykillers.

Hanks may not be one of those guys who completely transforms himself for a role, but I still think he's solid. Tim Allen has never acted, to my knowledge. He plays himself in all his roles.