There are two common methods for taking on your very first dive: tandem jumping or accelerated free fall. In a tandem jump, you share a harness with an experienced skydiving instructor who has total control of the fall and landing. In an accelerated free fall, instructors help to guide you during your time in the air, but you are in your own harness, open your own parachute, and control your own landing. Each of these methods has some advantages and some disadvantages, and deciding which one is right for you depends largely on what you think your future as a skydiver will be.

Tandem jumping can be less frightening than an accelerated free fall, and many people opt to start out with a tandem jump in order to get a taste of what skydiving is like without having the responsibility of controlling any portion of their fall. Often, people who only plan to skydive once choose to take a tandem jump because it allows them to relax and enjoy the ride while their jumping partner worries about the altitude, the parachute, and the landing. This gives you the opportunity to experience the thrill of skydiving while knowing that your safety is in very capable hands.

In an accelerated free fall, you exit the plane with two instructors, one on either side of you, who maintain a grip on your harness for the duration of the fall, controlling your speed, helping you improve your position, and assisting you with stability. When you reach four thousand feet above the ground, you open your own parachute and pilot yourself down to the landing target. An accelerated free fall costs more than a tandem jump because it requires two guides instead of one, but unlike the tandem jump it can count as the first leg of your training course towards eventual certification. This makes it a good option as a first jump for people who are serious about continuing with their skydiving training.

streak broke after that. Even ’95’s Nick Cage role in Leaving Las Vegas was a suicidal alchoholic, but not exactly handicapped I guess, also Jeremy Irons in 90’s “Reversal of Fortune” is probably playing a mentally disturbed person, but that’s stretching.

Just generally, I’d say from hearing actors discuss it and from the evidence above, its easier to tun in a really notable performance by doing a character that is very different from a normal, day to day existence, like say the roles in Glen Garry Glen Ross. Those are probably much harder to portray. Also, in fairness to Hopkins in “Hannibal”, its hard to keep a character, especially one as extreme and caricatured over the years as Lecter, from falling into self-parody. Some say he did exactly that. So really, you can’t judge him on that role too harshly. I’d have to give Hopkins the benefit of the doubt and think he would have druthered not to repeat the role, but they probably threw a bank full of money at him, hell, let him cash in, everyone else does and most not near as deserving.

As I said, I find Hannibal a stunt role, not true acting in the classic sense, more creating a very extreme and affected character, which actually is said to be easier than a “normal” role. That’s why the big Oscar Best Actor winners of the late 80’s-90’s were all handicapped or otherwise “differently abled”.

Hopkins shines as a “normal” man, which is a very tough acting part, by all accounts. Elephant Man, for example, a very complex role he played to perfection, in my opinion. There are many more, Hopkins has made a career of such parts, the Merchant-Ivory stuff, Shadowlands etc.

Re actors in general though: Most, probably more casual, movie fans are drawn by actors, I’m more a fan of directors (a great actor can suck if the guy helming the movie sabotages them)

I’m a Gilliam fan from way back. Coen Bros, Burton, Scorsese, Coppola, G. R. Hill, Mike Leigh, Tarantino etc.

Big Ian Holm fan too. Big Night. Brazil.

And so the great wheel turns.

Although I think its sort of unfortunate people probably most associate him with Hannibal Lector, Anthony Hopkins is probably the best actor of the last 40+ years, in my humble judgment. I first saw him in a hokey slasher with Ann-Margaret called Magic and even then I thought there was quality in him. Everyone knows his great roles, but buy “Titus” if you get a chance, the closest thing Shakespeare wrote to a slasher flick. Its hilarious, actually, its so over the top.

I also really like Ian Holm, who is also unfortunately more associated with Bilbo Baggins than Napoleon, Ash, or my favorite, Fluellen.