He's pretty good and a pretty underated actor, he's playing his role very well. And why do I watch the US version of TGYH and I always see in the comment section, 'Aussie's better'? Both are pretty good and funny.
It's not that the "aussie version is better"; it's more that the US version was terrible. They were getting terrible guests for the show, and their "humor" really didn't work well in these improvisational situations.
@andrew32393I agree they would have been good at it and that would have defeated the point. The idea was to use people was to put actors on the spot. I never saw any versions that used improv artists.
@JohnForester15 to translate your comment, First off: other people have accents and when they talk fast, I don't understand what they're saying. Therefore, their version of this show is inferior. Second off: My opinion about humour (a subjective thing) is "truth". That attitude is the reason most other countries don't think most Americans can be very funny; most of what we see of you is you taking yourselves way too seriously, talking yourselves up and stating your opinions as if fact.
Imrpov, yes, but the jokes might not translate well. Monty Python, from the UK, as well as much British humor, seems to fail in the U.S. I can see the similarities. Foreign humor I do find the humor funny myself.
With the exception of a few gems (Brian Cranston, Wayne Knight, Harland Williams) the Us version was really poorly done. Dave foley was great as the judge but Tim meadows thinks he's way funnier than he is and needs to shut up. They should have had some aussie/uk personalities mixed in.
