it pays to have character. you know about my undying appreciation for steve buscemi right? i mean, the guy is practically my hero. a scrawny weird looking guy who has more subversive cool than samuel jackson ever had real cool. when steve buscemi is in a scene, there's no doubt that all eyes are on him -- and not just because of his jacked up teeth. nobody plays super loser like steve buscemi. although paul giamatti is really giving him a run for his money recently. then again, the fact that giamatti played the main villain in "big fat liar," co-starring frankie muniz, really hurts him. but everyone needs to pay the bills.

so, what's the main difference between a character actor and an A-actor? looks, right? the difference between steve buscemi and keanu reeves is what? looks, and talent.

i feel like character actors tend to be better actors. sure, they may be typecast and end up in five iterations of the same role, but at least they've got that one role played to perfection. stars have to try out new roles. and few stars can hack it. nobody likes to see julia roberts sad; we want to see her playing a happy hooker or a jealous home wrecker. part of the problem is that we can't really separate a julia roberts, or a leonardo dicaprio, apart from the role that they're playing. quick, name one of julia robert's characters -- aside from erin brockovich, or mary reilly. can't do it right?

but with B-actors, who cares? all you might think when you see a character actor is "hey, it's that guy from that movie, i think." so it's easier to come to terms with a not-so-familiar face playing a character.

my newest character actor name to know is brendan gleeson. you've seen him. he's hamish in braveheart, best friend to mel gibson's william wallace. in troy, he's the king who got his beautiful helen stolen away. he's renee zellweger's fiddle playing father in cold mountain. he's a professor at hogwarts, mad-eye moody. brendan gleeson's been in classics such as lake placid, the tailor of panama, mission impossible 2, turbulence, michael collins, artificial intellience, 28 days later, and gangs of new york. he's the big guy behind the stars. and he's irish, as many of his roles can attest to.

while we're on the topic of irish character actors, pre-brendan gleeson, i kept my eyes peeled for brian cox sightings. troy was a great movie for me as both brian cox and brendan gleeson were in it, playing the mycenaean warrior kings, agamemnon and menelaus, respectively.

and while i'm on the movie topic, let me talk about the casting for the highly anticipated davinci code. tom hanks as the lead? totally wrong. he's gotten a bit too pudgy and he's not really handsome by any stretch of the imagination. and does he strike you as the professor type? not really. but whatever, they need a name to sell, hanks needs a big movie. now, the casting of audrey tatou as female lead? horrible. absolutely terrible. i love audrey tatou but she's miscast. her eyes are too big for one. she's too short for two. she's not really the sophie that i envisioned, or the one that was described in the book. the perfect french actress to cast in davinci code? a younger sophie marceau (the queen in braveheart). her name is already sophie and her look and frame is perfect for the role. if we're just gonna pick the most famous french actress in the states, why bother? cast someone who can be right for the role, even if it's an unknown. this is like the mid-nineties when gerard depardieu got every male french role, simply for being the only french guy americans knew. it's a tragedy.