Reply to S/O Surprisingly good Hollywood casting decisions

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "S/O Surprisingly good Hollywood casting decisions"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I guess if we’re going with surprising, then Tom Hanks in Philadelphia. This was the movie that turned him from the comedic leading man into the serious one. [/quote]

I thought Hanks was terrible. He was incapable of seeming actually in love with Antonio Banderas.

A friend of mine is married to a movie producer, and told me at the time that Philadelphia was “an important movie for Hollywood to make.” I told her it was almost a decade too late to claim that mantle. [b]Hanks got the Oscar because Hollywood thought it was brave to pretend to be gay on film[/b].[/quote]

Yup. Just look who else he was nominated with:
Anthony Hopkins, The Remains of the Day
Daniel Day-Lewis, In the Name of the Father
Laurence Fishburne, What's Love Got to Do with It
Liam Nelson, Schindler's List

It's quite a stretch to claim that Hanks' acting was superior to those four performances.
[/quote]

Yet he won none the less, and this thread is about surprisingly good casting decisions, not about who was the best actor in a given movie/role. [/quote]

I guess that depends on if you think the point of casting decisions is to hire someone who succeeds in bringing their character to life or to hire someone who wins trophies.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics