Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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. Hanks got the Oscar because Hollywood thought it was brave to pretend to be gay on film.

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.

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.

Okay, but this conversation evolved in light of the person saying it was “surprisingly good.” It wasn’t; it was lucky for Hanks, because one thousand other actors could have done a better job with that role.

Eh, the Tom Hanks hate here is mind boggling. Hanks, until the last decade or so, used to thoroughly inhabit his roles. He and Daniel Day-Lewis are in a different league than the other actors of their day (and I include Anthony Hopkins in that assessment). Day-Lewis is better, IMO, but as far as I know he can’t do comedy, so Hanks is more versatile.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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. Hanks got the Oscar because Hollywood thought it was brave to pretend to be gay on film.

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.

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.

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.

The point is to bring in a bigger ROI. Hanks is far superior if that is the measuring stick then all of the other named actors. I love me some DD Lewis but his movies pale in comparison from a box office take perspective. I also like the “1,000 of other actors are better than Hanks” comment above. That poster lost all credibility with that statement.

Anonymous wrote:Robin Willams in Good Will Hunting. Known mostly as a comedian...I think he nailed this role.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tim Robbins in Shawshank Redemption. Before that, I figured he was just the goofy guy in Bull Durham and Top Gun.

Morgan Freeman too! He’s called Red because the character was a red headed Irish guy. They really went off script so to speak and the movie would not be the same without the two of them.

This is so I retesting given the other thread’s discussion of casting actors of a different race than the character in a book. I, personally, am not bothered by changing the race or ethnicity of a person between the book and the movie. The movie is a new artifact and doesn’t need to stay true to the book.

It’s different when they actually change the character vs having an actor of one race play a character of a different race. In this case, they actually changed the character - that’s fine. They didn’t pretend Morgan Freeman was really Irish (although I loved that they did keep the line - ‘why do they call you Red?’ ‘Maybe it’s because I’m Irish’ - but said with such a dry wit that he turned it from a serious line into a really funny one. Great nod to the book’s character while showing the new character’s dry sense of humor).. If they’d given him a red wig and had him fake an Irish accent, it would have been horrible.

It was surprising casting because they did have to change the character for him, but he was absolutely perfect in it. Not at all what I had in my head when I read the book, but I loved it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot express how strongly I disagree with that statement. Tom Hanks’ career is based on his likability, not ability. He’s got more charm than talent.

I tend to agree with this, although I thought Hanks did have a lot of comedic talent, in films like Big and Splash. Even Bosom Buddies. I don't know why he stopped making comedies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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. Hanks got the Oscar because Hollywood thought it was brave to pretend to be gay on film.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I cannot express how strongly I disagree with that statement. Tom Hanks’ career is based on his likability, not ability. He’s got more charm than talent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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. Hanks got the Oscar because Hollywood thought it was brave to pretend to be gay on film.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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. Hanks got the Oscar because Hollywood thought it was brave to pretend to be gay on film.

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.

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.

Okay, but this conversation evolved in light of the person saying it was “surprisingly good.” It wasn’t; it was lucky for Hanks, because one thousand other actors could have done a better job with that role.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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. Hanks got the Oscar because Hollywood thought it was brave to pretend to be gay on film.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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. Hanks got the Oscar because Hollywood thought it was brave to pretend to be gay on film.

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.