Movies We've Just Watched discussion
LISTS, LISTS, AND MORE LISTS
>
Name a better actor for that role
message 1:
by
Geoffrey
(new)
Nov 05, 2010 10:36AM
From time to time, I watch a movie and envison another actor doing the part much better, so much better in fact, that I am disgusted at the end with the poor casting. So begins the discussion. Take it away.
reply
|
flag
first few that come to mind:buster keaton replaces keanu reeves in the matrix enterprise.
rosie o'donnell replaces the leatherface actors in all the sequels/remakes of texas chainsaw massacre.
chris tucker replaces clint eastwood in the dirty harry franchise.
Never saw the movie, but couldn´t possibly imagine Tom Hanks as the MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE in Tom Wolfe´s BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES. There was a minor actor in LA LAW, if you recall, Nordic looks, very macho, a sexual predator and general hard ass who I thought would be ideal for the part when I read the book back in 1989. Anyone recall the actor´s name? Not a biggee by any stretch.
Geoffrey wrote: "Never saw the movie, but couldn´t possibly imagine Tom Hanks as the MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE in Tom Wolfe´s BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES. There was a minor actor in LA LAW, if you recall, Nordic looks, ve..."Are you maybe thinking of Corbin Bernsen?
A thousand years ago, when I first read THE VAMPIRE, LESTAT (I read this before I knew of INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE) I pictured Rutger Hauer in the role (Anne Rice said she imagined Jeremy Irons when she wrote it). Then, much later when Hauer was too old, I thought of Sean Bean. The part called for someone blonde, leonine and sexy. How in the HELL Tom Cruise got that role I will never know.
Because he was hot with the ladies. I agree, a much overrated actor.
![St[♥]r Pr!nc:$$ N[♥]wsheen pictures, pictures, pictures ||| ♥ Zin Uru ♥ |||| | 482 comments](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1378104145p1/1253494.jpg)
i don't know about that but he seemed to have done a good job, someone else...hmmmm...edward norton!
I would add two major actresses who have brought famous artists to the screen who have both failed misearably. Both Streep and Hayek have brought sanitized versions to the roles of Isak Dinesen and Frida Kahlo(OUT OF AFRICA and FRIDA). I never particularly objected to either because both were beguiling in their portrayals of their subjects-however, what was amiss was a true to life depiction. Streep didn`t have it in her at the time to act the imperious, elitist part of Dinesen`s character. It took her until THE DEVIL LOVES PRADA to bring those qualities to the screen.
As for Hayek, her totally 180 degree of Frida was quite a crowd pleaser but barely indicative of the sullen, overly introspective Kahlo.
In both flics, Hollywood was at its worst in its depiction of troubled or unlikeable characters. (Something akin to Thelma and Louise in which the director lends a note of bravado to their desperate attempt to cross the Rio Grande. In true life, the two were depressives). Dinesen was incredibly self-centered and attention getting, a quality Selmak never captured. Would I have liked it any other way? Perhaps. Did Hollywood know what would sell? Certainly, otherwise the box office would have suffered.
But really,why not Penelope Cruz as Frida and either Sigourney Weaver or Faye Dunaway as Dinesen. Especially Dunaway.
Geoffrey wrote: "Because he was hot with the ladies. I agree, a much overrated actor."Not to this lady.
Tom Cruise is the least of the problems with INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE. Cruise at least gets one great laughline: "Claudia, you've been a very naughty girl!" Poor old Brad Pitt in that Tina Turner fright wig, man oh man...And Kristen Dunst wipes up the screen with both of them.
To be fair, Cruise can be quite good on occasion, as in WAR OF THE WORLDS, RISKY BUSINESS and even EYES WIDE SHUT. He's no Johnny Depp or Daniel Day-Lewis, but he's no Brad Pitt or Keanu Reeves, either.
A better actor for the role: In A SCANNER DARKLY, Keanu tries to portray the role(s) of Bob Arctor, an undercover cop who finds his personality fragmenting, as he has to inform on his own activities. The role is simply beyond poor little Keanu's barely minimal capabilities. The right actor was on set the whole time: Robert Downey Jr. would have been brilliant.
yeah, downey junior would have tore that up. i might have put edward norton over in the downey junior role. he could have done the paranoid finkster thing well.
Or Norton in the Arctor role would have been great, too. Even better, then we'd still have Downey Jr's great performance.
And Woody Harrelson, too. They're a great comedy team, which only throws poor Keanu's ineptitude into sharper relief.
agreed on all points. i'm cracking up just thinking of woody harrelson's face ...
Geoffrey wrote: "I would add two major actresses who have brought famous artists to the screen who have both failed misearably. Both Streep and Hayek have brought sanitized versions to the roles of Isak Dinesen and..."i suppose i am rather confused as to why your descriptions of the real-life characters would actually trump the characterizations provided by either of those actresses. were you personally familiar with dinesen and kahol and can therefore personally attest that the portrayals by streep & hayek were off-base? from what source are your basing your assessments?
i also was unaware that the characters Thelma & Louise were based on real-life individuals. that's intriguing. do you recall their actual names?
Tom wrote: "Tom Cruise is the least of the problems with INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE. Cruise at least gets one great laughline: "Claudia, you've been a very naughty girl!" Poor old Brad Pitt in that Tina Turn..."The last film I was able to tolerate Tom Cruise in was RAIN MAN.
Keanu Reeves is so bad in everything that he's in, he doesn't even bother me anymore. He was so ungodly awful in DRACULA, but how bad he truly is was made painfully obvious in MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. With the likes of Emma Thompson in the cast, Reeves should have apologized and backed slowly away from the role. Even Michael Keaton made him look bad!
Cindy wrote: "With the likes of Emma Thompson in the cast, Reeves should have apologized and backed slowly away from the role. Even Michael Keaton made him look bad!"Actually, in MUCH ADO I think that Keaton makes Keanu look good. At least poor little Keanu's attempt at a performance bears some resemblance to what a reasonable person might expect to see in the role, where Keaton's take on Dogberry is a disgrace -- turning Shakespeare's mere officious boob into a narcoleptic psychopath with all the charm of a leprous pedophile.
mark wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "I would add two major actresses who have brought famous artists to the screen who have both failed misearably. Both Streep and Hayek have brought sanitized versions to the roles of..."I don`t recall their names, but I have seen pixes of the two. Don`t recall exactly if there names were thelma and louise but i believe so.
I am going not only from what I have read of dinesen`s literature, 3 books in all, but Carson McCuller`s description of her meeting Dinesen when the latter visited the US. Also other`s take on her, and photographic portraits of her (by Avedon or Penn) which show her as an extremely vibrant, almost manic personality, very regal and aristocratic.
As for Frida, there is a fictional biography about her and her relationship with Trotsky. As a five year resident of Mexico, I have on a number of occasions read articles about Frida, seen hundreds of photos, and the take is that she had a very dour, self pitying, and angry personality, but very strong-willed woman nevertheless. I can`t be more specific than that as my sources are multiple and I have come across them in Mexico City`s museums, where I am no longer located as I have moved to the Yucatan. Sorry to puncture your impression of her, but Selma Hayek is no Fridah Kahlo.
as i said, the paul leduc film on frida gives a much more accurate portrait - i've also read numerous books on her, there are a few short film clips of her that i've looked at, read her letters, like a lot of julie taymor's films, but her frida felt like it served taymor's muscular style a lot more faithfully than it served frida's introspective and humble character.
Geoffrey wrote: "I can`t be more specific than that as my sources are multiple and I have come across them in Mexico City`s museums, where I am no longer located as I have moved to the Yucatan. Sorry to puncture your impression of her, but Selma Hayek is no Fridah Kahlo. ..."not to worry, you are not puncturing anything. my post came from the authority in which you spoke about the various roles and i was curious to whether it came from personal opinion or more established sources.
re hayek & kahlo, personally i felt the performance was opaque when it should have been something richer, deeper, more challenging. i suppose "opaque" in the way that some actors project opaqueness to cover up for any shortcomings they may have in their craft. or opaque in the way that hitchcock directed many of his actors.
re streep, i suppose i have a bias in that i've found each of her performances to be moving or delightful.
re keaunu reeves, well, critiquing his performances is similar to shooting fish in the barrel. just too easy.
for me, the most frustrating miscasting may be martine carol in Lola Montes. obviously this is a famous bit of miscasting, but in watching the film recently, i couldn't help but fantasize about the many, many actresses who could have lended the role some sort of genuine depth and so allow the tragedy to truly resonate.
another bit of miscasting that continues to annoy me, although it is a tv program that i stopped watching ages ago: jonathan rhys meyers in The Tudors. jonathan rhys meyers as henry vii? really? the idea that henry vii was a poisonous, effeminate, bitchy little twit is not just laughable, it's almost mind-boggling.
that's not to say that i have anything against characters that are poisonous, effeminate, bitchy little twits....rhys meyers is a natural at those kinds of portraits, and has used them to striking effect in many films (my favorite, Ride with the Devil).
mark wrote: "another bit of miscasting that continues to annoy me, although it is a tv program that i stopped watching ages ago: jonathan rhys meyers in The Tudors. jonathan rhys meyers as henry vii? really? the idea that henry vii was a poisonous, effeminate, bitchy little twit is not just laughable, it's almost mind-boggling...
This bugged me endlessly. I watched the entire series, but still couldn't get through an episode without being annoyed at such miscasting.
This bugged me endlessly. I watched the entire series, but still couldn't get through an episode without being annoyed at such miscasting.
I do want to say that occasionally I watch a movie that prior to, thought there to be miscasting but was pleasantly surprised. I have in mind the film with Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn in which Bogie plays a river boat captain and he plays a part far wide of his more limited smart aleck, smooth operative roles.
I never understood Michael Keaton being cast as Batman. I thought that was a role change after Jack Nicholson was selected as the Joker. I thought that Alec Baldwin for one would've been a better fit.
Now see....Nicholson got so many accolades for playing the Joker, and I found him distracting and irritating. Maybe it was just me...I couldn't get past Jack being Jack.
I think Burton's BATMAN is one of the worst films of the 1980s, Tim Burton's very worst film, and Nicholson's dull Joker one of the most overrated performances ever. Just no fun or fear there at all.
I was more upset about about Michael Keaton playing Batman, but yeah Jack Nicholson playing the Joker was a waste. I'd always thought that after Beatleguise Keaton was picked for the Joker and when Nicholson accepted that role, Burton and Company said ok, we'll make you Batman.
nicholson should have stopped reading his reviews after five easy pieces
So you think his fame went to his head? Nope, I thought him to be brilliant in CHINATOWN, although Dunaway upstaged him. But then again Jodie Foster upstaged DeNiro in the diner scene in TAXIDRIVER, didn`t she?As for Burton, MARTIAN ATTACKS was the worst. The timing was off only slightly due to poor scene editing.
You guys are rough on Nicholson. I think he had a few greats after Chinatown like One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Prizzi's Honor and As Good As It Gets. And yes, many not so great acting performances in The Crossing Guard and Anger Management.
CHINATOWN is easily forgotten, I've found, except for John Huston.
I disagree with that Tom. Dunaway was fantastic in the "SHE´S MY SISTER. SHE`S MY DAUGHTER" scene. She should have got an Oscar for that alone.
Yeah, Geoffrey, she was fine in that scene, I guess. For me, the only thing about the movie that really stands out, the most stunningly memorable single moment in the film is Huston's delivery of that awful line about most men never having to face the fact that, given the right time and place, they're capable of anything, with that hideous whisper of the word "anything" that always makes me sick to my stomach.But CHINATOWN is one of those movies that I never see the big deal about, anyway. We've all got em, those classics that leave us cold. This one leaves me particularly cold.
For me, the only memorable thing about CHINATOWN is Roman Polanski's weird little scene. You know, where he criticizes nosy people.
whatevers! - i'm a fan, it's possible that it has something to do with nostalgia - mine, not tarkovsky's. maybe it has something to do with growing up in LA and seeing part of the whole water/scheme/hustle exposed.
I agree that it's interesting to see how the water scheme thing happened. I haven't watched THE TWO JAKES yet.
I saw Elizabeth Shue in a B-thriller named PIRANHA. It was a very entertaining film for those of us who even enjoy crappy flics like the CREATURE FROM THE BLUE LAGOON, but all I could think of was how come this woman`s acting is so incredible when the rest of the cast were awesomely bad, before I realized that it was E. Shue. And I had read that she had been picking one bad flic after another after she got her Oscar,essentially torpedoeing her career.Maybe if enough fellow actors followed suit, enough B-movies would join the A parade.
Tom wrote: "We've all got em, those classics that leave us cold...."for me, that movie is Raging Bull. or Gangs of New York. or The Departed.
i love so many scorsese films, but some of them just leave me cold, just a feeling of Eh.
but King of Comedy, Mean Streets, After Hours, Age of Innocence - can watch those repeatedly.
after hours is still really funny. i just watched it again recently. need to see king of comedy again - it's been years. means streets is awesome, never saw the age of innocence, i have a hard time with wynona, sorry. i'd add a few more to the list - raging bull, taxi driver, goodfellahs, but i haven't liked some of his later work (gangs of new york - sorry!). there were things to like about the departed, but if you try placing it alongside a movie like the godfather, it's a no-win situation.
oh yeah, forgot about Goodfellas. brilliant!i preferred Infernal Affairs to The Departed.
internal affairs - is that scorcese?his bob dylan film was pretty good too.
Infernal Affairs is t the hong kong film on which The Departed was based.
ahhhh, i've never seen it. i'll look for it.
it is of the slow-burning variety, rather than wall-to-wall action.
I have INFERNAL AFFAIRS recorded on my DVR (thanks TCM!). I liked THE DEPARTED (except for the horrible fake Boston accents), but I'm betting the original is much better.
