It would be difficult to find someone who is more in awe of Jim Carrey's talents than I am. If you want to criticize by saying he mugs and overacts, go ahead you're right! but he has elevated mugging to such an art form, and within that over-the-top area he applies such a precision and a finely-honed control that he makes it a thing of beauty. Anyone is free not to like him or his movies (and I understand you), but you must MUST! acknowledge his prodigious talent. (A good analogy might run thus: I don't particularly care for musicals, or for Gene Kelley in general, yet it simply wouldn't do to deny what an incredible and inventive performer he is.)
As such, I've enjoyed all of Carrey's comedies on some level; even when the story or premise is lame, he is never less than riveting and hilarious to watch. So it surprised me somewhat when, very early in Bruce Almighty, I caught myself thinking to myself two distinct thoughts: 1) `Someone else should be playing this role' and 2) `Jim seems really *desperate* up there.'
To tackle the second thing first: Carrey desperate. `How can you tell?' a Jim detractor might scoff. `After all, he always runs roughshod over everything in sight, and works desperately to be the life of the party.' True, but up until now he has always tended to play (in his comedies, anyhow) characters that were so over the top, and in movies that were pitched at such a heightened level anyway , that his wildness was not only at home in the material, but completely appropriate. In Bruce, he finally takes on what is essentially an `ordinary guy.' And you know what? Jim just can't do ordinary.
He wants to flail, he wants to scream, he wants to bounce off the walls! And as Ace Ventura, or the Mask, or even his so-slimy-he's-sublime lawyer in Liar Liar, we want him to as well. But in this movie, his rubber-faced antics were not endemic to the character, but rather seemed grafted on, in order to give the audience their `silly Jim Carrey' fix. Hence, the seeming desperation: every opportunity was taken to insert familiar schtick, whether appropriate or not (and it usually wasn't), causing it to look for the first time like the performer was actually doing his best *impersonation* of Jim Carrey, rather than having it all flow naturally from the situations and the character.
And herein we come up against the (current) limitations of Jim Carrey as a performer. He does not play well with others. In no movie I have ever seen of his does he do an even adequate job of being an ensemble player. The other actors exist for him simply as props, not as people to play off of or draw inspiration from (yes, even in his so-called `dramatic' films which is why none of them were any good, save for The Truman Show, which had masterful directing and an indestructible premise going for it). That being the case, he cannot simply settle back into a character and take part in the ebb and flow of a scene he perpetually feels a need to `make something happen' and so strains, even against the grain, to be big, brassy and memorable. And as I've said this is no crime when applied to the type of human cartoons he has heretofore played. But when it's done in the service of someone who's supposed to come across (at least nominally) as a real person, it feels fraudulent in the worst kind of way.
I would have enjoyed this movie more (for, it does have a good premise and some clever bits) had the lead character been played by someone like Ben Stiller or Matthew Perry (on the young side) or, say, Tim Allen or Bill Murray (on the older side) - someone who can balance humorous riffs against a capacity for both subtlety and self-deprecation. (Actually, it would have been most perfect for the 80s version of Tom Hanks, who was capable of infusing yuppie smarm into a character, yet mixing in just enough of an essential sweetness to keep him sympathetic. And, of course, hilarious. Will we ever see that Tom again?)
Morgan Freeman as God, though, is a hoot. Yeah, I could really get *BEHIND* a Heaven that had him in charge! In the scenes with him and Carrey, he just wipes the floor with ol' Jim; it's like he's giving an object lesson to the young whippersnapper in how you get laughs while remaining composed, and not relinquishing your essential humanity (or, in this case, divinity).
I don't know, man. If I were giving career advice to Jim Carrey, I'd tell him to either play to his strengths by sticking with the loony, larger-than-life roles or, if he really wants to stretch and be serious (even if it be `serious comedy' such as this), then he needs to settle down and learn how to truly interact with other people. Far be it from me to clip his wings I love him in the stratosphere! but if he's determined to expand his repertoire, then he needs to develop a new set of skills. Enough awkward hybrids like Bruce Almighty, and he'll be yesterday's news.
As such, I've enjoyed all of Carrey's comedies on some level; even when the story or premise is lame, he is never less than riveting and hilarious to watch. So it surprised me somewhat when, very early in Bruce Almighty, I caught myself thinking to myself two distinct thoughts: 1) `Someone else should be playing this role' and 2) `Jim seems really *desperate* up there.'
To tackle the second thing first: Carrey desperate. `How can you tell?' a Jim detractor might scoff. `After all, he always runs roughshod over everything in sight, and works desperately to be the life of the party.' True, but up until now he has always tended to play (in his comedies, anyhow) characters that were so over the top, and in movies that were pitched at such a heightened level anyway , that his wildness was not only at home in the material, but completely appropriate. In Bruce, he finally takes on what is essentially an `ordinary guy.' And you know what? Jim just can't do ordinary.
He wants to flail, he wants to scream, he wants to bounce off the walls! And as Ace Ventura, or the Mask, or even his so-slimy-he's-sublime lawyer in Liar Liar, we want him to as well. But in this movie, his rubber-faced antics were not endemic to the character, but rather seemed grafted on, in order to give the audience their `silly Jim Carrey' fix. Hence, the seeming desperation: every opportunity was taken to insert familiar schtick, whether appropriate or not (and it usually wasn't), causing it to look for the first time like the performer was actually doing his best *impersonation* of Jim Carrey, rather than having it all flow naturally from the situations and the character.
And herein we come up against the (current) limitations of Jim Carrey as a performer. He does not play well with others. In no movie I have ever seen of his does he do an even adequate job of being an ensemble player. The other actors exist for him simply as props, not as people to play off of or draw inspiration from (yes, even in his so-called `dramatic' films which is why none of them were any good, save for The Truman Show, which had masterful directing and an indestructible premise going for it). That being the case, he cannot simply settle back into a character and take part in the ebb and flow of a scene he perpetually feels a need to `make something happen' and so strains, even against the grain, to be big, brassy and memorable. And as I've said this is no crime when applied to the type of human cartoons he has heretofore played. But when it's done in the service of someone who's supposed to come across (at least nominally) as a real person, it feels fraudulent in the worst kind of way.
I would have enjoyed this movie more (for, it does have a good premise and some clever bits) had the lead character been played by someone like Ben Stiller or Matthew Perry (on the young side) or, say, Tim Allen or Bill Murray (on the older side) - someone who can balance humorous riffs against a capacity for both subtlety and self-deprecation. (Actually, it would have been most perfect for the 80s version of Tom Hanks, who was capable of infusing yuppie smarm into a character, yet mixing in just enough of an essential sweetness to keep him sympathetic. And, of course, hilarious. Will we ever see that Tom again?)
Morgan Freeman as God, though, is a hoot. Yeah, I could really get *BEHIND* a Heaven that had him in charge! In the scenes with him and Carrey, he just wipes the floor with ol' Jim; it's like he's giving an object lesson to the young whippersnapper in how you get laughs while remaining composed, and not relinquishing your essential humanity (or, in this case, divinity).
I don't know, man. If I were giving career advice to Jim Carrey, I'd tell him to either play to his strengths by sticking with the loony, larger-than-life roles or, if he really wants to stretch and be serious (even if it be `serious comedy' such as this), then he needs to settle down and learn how to truly interact with other people. Far be it from me to clip his wings I love him in the stratosphere! but if he's determined to expand his repertoire, then he needs to develop a new set of skills. Enough awkward hybrids like Bruce Almighty, and he'll be yesterday's news.