Post a response to this discussion thread
I said: "it didn't give most people who didn't care for Kaufman's humor any reason to like the movie or even him, for that matter."
I didn't say anything about not having heard about him before the movie. Apparently your girlfriend likes his brand of humor, despite not having seen him perform before. That's something else entirely.
Also, my original review is not in this forum, but in "The Hurricane," where I agreed with you (and many others) that Jim Carrey's portrayal of Andy Kaufman was absolutely outstanding and one of the best of the year (though I've got my money on Russell Crowe for "The Insider" right now). However, a great acting performance does not alone make a movie great. God knows how many great acting performances have been wasted on mediocre movies, and even a few in bad movies. And perfectly imitating someone that most people don't like doesn't make the person being portrayed any more likeable.
I'm not sure who said # 2, but it obviously wasn't me -- I can't even find that post. I said the last 30 minutes was the best part of the movie by far. I wouldn't say it was oversentimental at all. Carrey's performance was so good that I was actually legitimately sad. What was this "growth" you and the other person speak of? Actually, *I* said "He wasn't becoming a better person when he got cancer -- he just suddenly got cancer and he tried to continue his previous legacy." That was somewhat bobbled, but what I meant was his character really didn't change a lot after he got cancer, and I don't assume the real Kaufman changed a lot either. I certainly didn't say anything about growth.
My biggest complaints (besides the fact that I didn't find the movie or Andy's "humor" the least bit funny) were the nobility issue (as usual) and the absolutely unimportant casting of Danny Devito as someone beside himself! The latter part didn't exactly hurt the film or anything, but it was a little distracting.
Post a response to this discussion thread