Anonymous
08/09/2021 16:26
Subject: Re:Worst hollywood casting decision ever?
Anonymous wrote:Nicole Kidman as Lucille Ball. That should have gone to Debra Messing. I'm interested in watching a movie about Lucy, but not if it means listening to Nicole's whispered American accent and spending the whole movie thinking "that's Nicole Kidman pretending to be Lucy."
Wait. Nicole Kidman played Lucillie Ball? F*ck me, that's ridik.
Anonymous
08/09/2021 16:25
Subject: Re:Worst hollywood casting decision ever?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Bob Odenkirk as the father in the most recent Little Women. Good god, that was painful to watch. And I love him.
I admit he made almost no impression on me in that film, but I will see you a Bob Odenkirk and raise you Florence Pugh as Amy March. Even worse when her fake tan dyed hair self was paired with Timothee Chalamet as Laurie.
I loved Florence Pugh's Amy March, a fresh take I thought.
I liked the Greta Gerwig version more than a lot of people did. I agree with you on Odenkirk. I thought Florence Pugh was fine. I had not yet seen her in anything else, so I didn't have any biases.
And while I like Timothee, I don't think he was right for Laurie.
Nope...Christian Bale was the best Laurie of all.
Anonymous
08/09/2021 16:24
Subject: Re:Worst hollywood casting decision ever?
Iman in Out of Africa. She had a very small role. But given that she's a super model, she was very noticeable and didn't fit into the story. She was so gorgeous, she obliterated all the other actors for a few minutes in a minor role.
In this case, it wasn't her acting that was the problem, they should have chosen someone who was more attractive then the lead actress.
I never thought this. I thought she was well-cast in the role, and wish she had received more screen time.
I came here to talk about Robert Redford being miscast in this same film as a British aristocrat. Seriously? He is so all-American....it made the whole story unbelievable for me. There was also NO chemistry between him and Meryl Streep. Surely, they could have found a British actor for this part.
Anonymous
08/09/2021 16:23
Subject: Worst hollywood casting decision ever?
Anonymous wrote:I dont get PP saying benedict cumberbatch in Star Trek is an example of white washing: Khan is a genetically engineered super human, so hard to say he should be played by any particular human race. He was played by Ricardo Montalban originally but RM was a European-Mexican (both parents from Spain) so as European as BC. Plus, since Khan is a genetically engineered being, again, you can’t really say that BC was taking a Latino role. He was great in the movie and really did seem to have the vibe of a young Khan as played by RM.
BC looks like a rabbit fetus. I think he is miscast in everything. I'm a TOS fan who saw her first episode in 1968 and I screamed NOOOOOOOO when his face was slowly revealed in WOK. F*ck JJ Abrams.
Anonymous
08/09/2021 16:19
Subject: Re:Worst hollywood casting decision ever?
Anonymous wrote:
I’m surprised no one has said Leo in Titanic. He was too young and it always slightly ruined the movie for me. Not believable.
I know. By the time the water started pouring in I was hoping his character would die sooner rather than later.
Funny...I always thought Kate Winslet, though lovely, looked too old for this part. His character was meant to be young and boyish.
Anonymous
08/09/2021 16:11
Subject: Worst hollywood casting decision ever?
Anonymous wrote:Tom Cruise in Interview with a Vampire
Wrong--it was his sexiest role since Top Gun. In fact he hasn't been sexier in any role since. He already had the teeth for it!
Anonymous
08/09/2021 15:57
Subject: Re:Worst hollywood casting decision ever?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ben Affleck paying Tony Mendez in Argo.
This is the first one I disagree with. I thought Ben was fine in Argo.
I'll add Jack Black in The Holiday, even though the part was apparently written for him. [/quot
Agree with Jack Black!
Anonymous
08/09/2021 15:57
Subject: Worst hollywood casting decision ever?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We were just talking about this last night. Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen as Padme and Anakin Skywalker.
Yes!!! Terrible chemistry, terrible writing, terrible acting.
They were very bad.
Anonymous
08/09/2021 15:55
Subject: Worst hollywood casting decision ever?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Bob Odenkirk as the father in the most recent Little Women. Good god, that was painful to watch. And I love him.
I admit he made almost no impression on me in that film, but I will see you a Bob Odenkirk and raise you Florence Pugh as Amy March. Even worse when her fake tan dyed hair self was paired with Timothee Chalamet as Laurie.
I loved Florence Pugh's Amy March, a fresh take I thought.
I liked the Greta Gerwig version more than a lot of people did. I agree with you on Odenkirk. I thought Florence Pugh was fine. I had not yet seen her in anything else, so I didn't have any biases.
And while I like Timothee, I don't think he was right for Laurie.
Anonymous
08/09/2021 15:51
Subject: Re:Worst hollywood casting decision ever?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Kevin Costner in anything
Wrong. Loved "Dances with Wolves".
Good God. I can't decide which was worse--his terrible acting or terrible directing.
Yeah, it only won seven Oscars, with another five nominations. What garbage.
But please, do tell us more. You're really putting that B- you got in the Intro to Film Studies class you took 25 years ago to good use.
Oh please. Goodfellas losing the Oscar to Dances with Wolves is one of the most embarrassing awards in Oscar history.
No, that's Shakespeare in Love winning over Elizabeth.
Or Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan!
The point is, there are many, many examples of Oscars going to lesser films.
Anonymous
08/09/2021 15:49
Subject: Worst hollywood casting decision ever?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Bob Odenkirk as the father in the most recent Little Women. Good god, that was painful to watch. And I love him.
I admit he made almost no impression on me in that film, but I will see you a Bob Odenkirk and raise you Florence Pugh as Amy March. Even worse when her fake tan dyed hair self was paired with Timothee Chalamet as Laurie.
I loved Florence Pugh's Amy March, a fresh take I thought.
I admit I am the outlier here - I didn't like Gerwig's Little Women in general. But I don't see any "fresh take" on Amy. Amy's story was essentially exactly the same as her story in the book. Jo's story was the exception and if there was anything I liked in the Gerwig version it was Jo's story (even if Saoirse Ronan should have dyed her hair dark.)
Anonymous
08/09/2021 15:41
Subject: Re:Worst hollywood casting decision ever?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Kevin Costner in anything
Wrong. Loved "Dances with Wolves".
Yeah, it only won seven Oscars, with another five nominations. What garbage.
But please, do tell us more. You're really putting that B- you got in the Intro to Film Studies class you took 25 years ago to good use.
Oh please. Goodfellas losing the Oscar to Dances with Wolves is one of the most embarrassing awards in Oscar history.
No, that's Shakespeare in Love winning over Elizabeth.
Anonymous
08/09/2021 15:36
Subject: Worst hollywood casting decision ever?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So glad I'm not the only one who hated Four Weddings and a Funeral.
No one watched that movie for anything other than hot Hugh Grant, and the hot guy who played the deaf brother. Everyone realized at the time that Andie MacDowell was awful and it was amazing she ever got another acting role. She seems like a nice person, though, from interviews.
I saw that movie when I was in college - really didn't know anything about it going in. My friend and I were howling laughing through so many scenes, starting with Scarlett walking down the aisle with her blue underwear showing.
Anonymous
08/09/2021 15:34
Subject: Re:Worst hollywood casting decision ever?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Kevin Costner in anything
Wrong. Loved "Dances with Wolves".
Yeah, it only won seven Oscars, with another five nominations. What garbage.
But please, do tell us more. You're really putting that B- you got in the Intro to Film Studies class you took 25 years ago to good use.
Oh please. Goodfellas losing the Oscar to Dances with Wolves is one of the most embarrassing awards in Oscar history.
OK, so it won 6 Oscars and was nominated for another 6. Does that materially change the point?
No, because how many Oscars a film has received has nothing to do with whether or not it's a good film. There are whole lists of bad Oscar-winning and -nominated films, actors, etc.
There's that Intro to Film Studies class showing up again!
I don't know what you're referring to, but if you think winning an Oscar is so meaningful, then I suppose Mel Gibson is a better director than Alfred Hitchcock, and Reese Witherspoon is a better actor than Glenn Close?
Anonymous
08/09/2021 15:33
Subject: Re:Worst hollywood casting decision ever?
Anonymous wrote:Iman in Out of Africa. She had a very small role. But given that she's a super model, she was very noticeable and didn't fit into the story. She was so gorgeous, she obliterated all the other actors for a few minutes in a minor role.
In this case, it wasn't her acting that was the problem, they should have chosen someone who was more attractive then the lead actress.
I'm going to disagree with you there. I loved that the character was Somali and played by a Somali-born actress.