Who Thinks Tobey Maguire Was the Best Actor for this Character?

[Fenixbird]

Michael Caine has the most sympathetic eyes of any actor I can think of. Tobey Maguire has the sweetest smile--which of course includes his eyes!! Did you see the movie??

[Holly]

I cannot think of anyone better suited to play Homer Wells. I've read this book many times and thought Tobey Maguire was perfectly cast.

[Sheila]

I think that it would have been a completly different movie with someone else playing the part of Homer. Tobey was a perfect fit.

[Jessica]

I thought the movie was okay. Maguire was a good fit. Luckily, I had already read the book when I saw the movie.

[Mackenzie]

the casting was terrific (except for Paul Rudd) but they butchered the plot

[Vicki]

I thought the movie was terrible, and they never even mentioned a Melony in the movie, even though she was an important person in Homer's life and influenced some of the ways he thinks.

[I_hate_your_face]

Marnie Is a Total Douche

[Gianna]

Maguire is endearing in this role. I really try to keep the original book and their counter-part movies separate in my mind, so I'm not disappointed.

[Anthony]

I had such high hopes for this movie and it was so disappointing. There just wasn't enough of the book in the film. Maybe it would have been better off as a multi-part HBO movie. Tobey was perfect. Caine was good but my vision of Wilbur Larch runs more to Ian McKellen. What totally sunk the movie was no Melony, a very strong and interesting character in the book and one of Homer's only friends. Great book, forgettable film.

[Em]

one of my favorite books...but disappointing movie (which always happens with any movie based on a book). tobey is perfect for the role though.

[Michael]

Tobey was the perfect man for this role!

[Lena]

I'm glad I saw the movie first, or I would have hated it. It's SO different from the book. I liked both, but like someone said, they butchered the plot.

[Maggie]

Lena wrote: "I'm glad I saw the movie first, or I would have hated it. It's SO different from the book. I liked both, but like someone said, they butchered the plot."
You know John Irving wrote the screen play. So, I thought it would be good. I mean, way better than the World According to Garp. But, I still disliked the movie. It doesn't hold a candle to the book.

[gaudeo]

I thought Maguire was a good fit for this role, but casting Michael Caine was superb. Caine and his character are fused in my mind.

[Mochaspresso]

I hated the movie (mainly because of the way the plot was changed) but I did think Tobey Macguire was a good fit for the role.

[Tyrone]

I saw the film first. Consequently i love both. Same with the World according to Garp...the only one i read the book first was Hotel New Hampshire and i was sadly disappointed with the film...

[Jen]

I was sorely disappointed in the movie for many reasons, but Tobey Macguire was my no. 1. Not only was his acting TERRIBLE, but he made Homer look like a simple-mind idiot. I love Homer Wells, and his character had a lot more intelligence and emotion than Tobey showed on screen.

[Stephen]

I saw the movie long before reading the book and recently went back and re-watched it after reading the first half of the book. I think Toby Maguire does a great job. He does smile a lot as the previous poster noted but behind that nonjudgemental smile, we know that there's a mind that's seen too much of the dark side of life. His simple wonder works well.

As to the absense of Melony... I can see why she was excised from the story. It makes for a much lighter film and let's face it films are entertainment. Yes, there are those that go to films to get a deeper message but most of today's movie audiences wouldn't want to see the film that a more faithful adaptation of the book would have resulted in. Given that the adaptation was done by Irving himself, and he's no novice to this process, and that he appeared in this film himself, I'm guessing that he was happy with the way it worked.

When I first saw the film, I had no sense that something was lacking and even after reading the book, I'm content with what was brought to the screen.

As to Michael Caine... his casting felt exactly right to me. He has a quality of goodness about him but there's also an undercurrent there that there's something else beneath the surface.

[Mia]

I always thought The Cider House Rules and Wonder Boys were Tobey Maquire's strongest roles.

I wished that The Cider House Rules movie included more plot from the book, but it was an okay movie. Michael Caine was also pretty good.

[Melinda]

Michael Caine was a magnificent Dr. Larch. I read the book at least two years before the movie and it is my favorite Irving book. Usually a movie disappoints but I thought Caine was perfect and Macguire good---especially at capturing Homer's sweetness. What did not work for me at all was Charleze Theron. She is just too gorgeous to be believable as a farm girl in love with Homer. The love scenes were almost laughable. In the book She was supposed to be pretty not a GODDESS. I could almost not enjoy that part of the movie because I so did not believe their love story. But I really did not miss Maloney that much. Irving did the screenplay for this and actually wrote a book about taking his "baby" the book, and having to boil it down to a two-hour movie nhe explains the differences between writing a compelling book and making a compelling movie out of the same material. Choices have to be made that serve the cinematic structure or you would have a twelve hour movie. Wihich is why the mini series was born.

[Kirby]

I saw the movie first, and I thought that michael caine and tobey maguire were excellent choices. I couldn't even remember who had played wally, so I might have to agree with the person who said paul rudd was a terrible choice.

[Amy]

I loved this movie! It's what made me want to read the book.

[Tyrone]

Me too...as a result i love both.

[Lori]

I thought he did a good job as Homer.I liked his performance. really liked the movie.

[Feliks]

You think he's an 'actor'?

o_o