Jump to content

Worst Casting


Parliament

Recommended Posts

It was a boring movie (but better once he got his 'stache.) But Costner made a better Earp.


I’ll have to take your word. I saw it in the theater and the only thing I remember was a dude ripping one during the emotional scene where Earp’s father (played by Hackman) was bailing him out of prison. Snoozefest and worse than Tombstone in almost every category.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all these book snobs want a 6'5" actor to play Reacher.
Pretty much they all really want The Rock.  Sorry, you can't have The Rock.
But you can have one of these 6'5" actors to play Jack Reacher:  Tyler Perry, Sinbad, Armie Hammer, Dolph Lundgren, Vince Vaughn, Tim Robbins, or Craig Kilborn.
Suddenly Tom Cruse doesn't seem like such a bad casting decision.

I desperately want to see Jack Reacher starring each and every one of those people. Except Armie Hammer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2018 at 7:38 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

This thread begins and ends with John Wayne as Genghis Khan in The Conqueror. Did he owe somebody money? 

 

It was only bad casting if there was a better choice.  Who were the prominent Mongols/Asians in Hollywood at that time who would have been a better choice?  Looks like it should have never been made ...

 

Quote

The movie was notorious for being shot in the deserts of Utah, almost ten years after the United States Army conducted nuclear bomb testing there. Of the 220 people involved in the film, 91 would die of cancer, including Wayne, director Dick Powell, and every leading and supporting cast member: Agnes Moorehead, Susan Hayward, and John Hoyt. Another star, Pedro Armendáriz would also be diagnosed of cancer, but commit suicide after hearing the news. The number does not even include the extras and other people involved in filming. Numerous American Indians who served as Mongolian warriors contracted cancer in later years, and even John Wayne’s son Michael died in 2003 of cancer, after visiting his father on the set at age 22.

 

https://gcaggiano.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/the-conqueror-1956-the-film-that-killed-john-wayne-literally/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, PRONG HORN said:

 

It was only bad casting if there was a better choice.  Who were the prominent Mongols/Asians in Hollywood at that time who would have been a better choice?  Looks like it should have never been made ...

 

 

https://gcaggiano.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/the-conqueror-1956-the-film-that-killed-john-wayne-literally/

 

 

My goodness, to think that s*** show of a movie took The Duke from us, it's too much to comprehend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Homercles said:

Jimmy Fallon as the Jeep-driving supply guy who helps Easy on the outskirts of Bastogne. I just keep expecting him to break out in some horrible monologue and he delivers the lines in such a flat, ‘aww shucks’ way.

Good one.  Fallon in Almost Famous too.  Pulled me out of the movie when he appeared.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is gold in that role.

 

This^^^

 

I’m too late to the game to respond to the dude who referenced the “Jack Reacher comic book series”.

Bottom line is, read the book(s), Cruise doesn’t fit the part.

 

Costner needs to build a baseball field in his Iowa cornfield, pitch a baseball, or hit it well whilst playing catcher in the Carolina league.

 

Anything based pre-1900’s he either needs to bust caps in assholes who oppose free-grazing, or say “tatonka”.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2018 at 11:07 PM, 0xdeadbeef said:

So all these book snobs want a 6'5" actor to play Reacher.

Pretty much they all really want The Rock.  Sorry, you can't have The Rock.

But you can have one of these 6'5" actors to play Jack Reacher:  Tyler Perry, Sinbad, Armie Hammer, Dolph Lundgren, Vince Vaughn, Tim Robbins, or Craig Kilborn.

Suddenly Tom Cruse doesn't seem like such a bad casting decision.

As someone who was anti-Tom Cruise for this role, I am not saying actor had to be 6'5", but he probably shouldn't be 5'4".

One of the core characteristics of the character is that he is large and imposing and has a physicality to him. It's core to the story.

I get Cruise bought rights and put himself in the role, but if you'd ever read the books you'd think it was shitty casting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 8/7/2018 at 10:37 AM, Eskimohorn said:

 


Maybe the greatest villain in cinema history, earning him an oscar nom. Weak, childish-dude kills his father and wants to sleep with his sister. Threatens her son, a possible heir to the throne. He stabs people in the back and has hissy fits. Disables Maximus in their duel by stabbing him in the liver.

This is a perfect villain with almost no redeemable qualities, even according to his father. Joaquin plays this evil bitch perfectly.

 

He played it so well, I hated him in real life 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2018 at 3:10 PM, Parliament said:

Vince Vaugn could pull it off. He does serious work now.

side note- Vince Vaughn never really makes me laugh, and i don't understand the appeal at all. the movie in which he made me genuinely laugh the most was Return To Paradise, a serious movie where his character possessed a bit of wit. That > his roles in any comedy i've ever seen, as far as laughs go anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/4/2018 at 10:59 AM, Goo Punch said:

side note- Vince Vaughn never really makes me laugh, and i don't understand the appeal at all. the movie in which he made me genuinely laugh the most was Return To Paradise, a serious movie where his character possessed a bit of wit. That > his roles in any comedy i've ever seen, as far as laughs go anyway. 

 Kind of agree here but I thought he was fantastic in wedding crashers.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Have to agree on the Tom Cruise as reacher posts. Horrible casting.   Horrible casting does not mean that the actors that were cast are horrible actors it is just that they were not a good fit for the role.    I am probably in the minority but I think cruise is actually a very talented actor.  

 I assume Hollywood would make a movie based on a book character in order to get all of the tens of millions of people that read the books to go to the movie.   Considering that zero people that were fans of the book would think he was good in that role  seems to indicate that it was poorly cast 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...