Seriously Miscast Films

[Kitty Whiskers]

Tom Hanks would have to win some sort of award for being miscast in so many, many movies, but I always thought it was a shame the entire cast of Bonfire of the Vanities were wrong (and the film was such a stinker), otherwise it would have been a beautiful little time-piece of life and attitudes in the 80s (much as Wall Street succeeded capturing).

[CaptainWaggett]

Tom Hanks would have to win some sort of award for being miscast in so many, many movies, but I always thought it was a shame the entire cast of Bonfire of the Vanities were wrong (and the film was such a stinker), otherwise it would have been a beautiful little time-piece of life and attitudes in the 80s (much as Wall Street succeeded capturing).

Really? It wasn't a great film but I thought Hanks was excellent in it. What other films was he miscast in?

[Kitty Whiskers]

Really? It wasn't a great film but I thought Hanks was excellent in it. What other films was he miscast in?

Off the top of my head: The Da Vinci Code, The Ladykillers, Joe vs The Volcano and Dragnet.

This is not to say I don't like him as an actor or a person (I do), but I think he gets some parts that really aren't 'his' just because he's a nice guy and a good box office draw.

[dremble wedge]

Off the top of my head: The Da Vinci Code, The Ladykillers, Joe vs The Volcano and Dragnet.

This is not to say I don't like him as an actor or a person (I do), but I think he gets some parts that really aren't 'his' just because he's a nice guy and a good box office draw.

I thought he was great in Joe Versus the Volcano... but it's possible I have a 'brain cloud'

[Mr Sloane]

Off the top of my head: The Da Vinci Code, The Ladykillers, Joe vs The Volcano and Dragnet.

This is not to say I don't like him as an actor or a person (I do), but I think he gets some parts that really aren't 'his' just because he's a nice guy and a good box office draw.

Don't forget Philidelphia.

I do like him ( I believe Big is one of great screen performances) but I do agree he plays "nice" excellently but I can't see the dark side of him.Hhe is the antihesis of Fred Mac Murray who sets mt teeth on age as a hero but as the sleazy villian,Double Indemnity andThe Apartment, has no equal.

[Kitty Whiskers]

Don't forget Philidelphia.

I do like him ( I believe Big is one of great screen performances) but I do agree he plays "nice" excellently but I can't see the dark side of him.Hhe is the antihesis of Fred Mac Murray who sets mt teeth on age as a hero but as the sleazy villian,Double Indemnity andThe Apartment, has no equal.

In retrospect, Philadelphia was a bit of a preachy film - but a very important film for the era it was made. I think Hanks was about the only person who could play a lead character with AIDS without the 'Moral Right' getting their knickers in a twist, purely because he is so likeable. I had a bigger issue with Denzil Washington, who is a perfectly awful actor in any part (even if he is very handsome).

I quite agree, Tom Hanks has no dark side. Or, at least, no convincing dark side. I even struggle with him in 'in command' roles. But stick him in a part like Forrest Gump and the guy's brilliant.

[Mr Sloane]

In retrospect, Philadelphia was a bit of a preachy film - but a very important film for the era it was made. I think Hanks was about the only person who could play a lead character with AIDS without the 'Moral Right' getting their knickers in a twist, purely because he is so likeable. I had a bigger issue with Denzil Washington, who is a perfectly awful actor in any part (even if he is very handsome).

I quite agree, Tom Hanks has no dark side. Or, at least, no convincing dark side. I even struggle with him in 'in command' roles. But stick him in a part like Forrest Gump and the guy's brilliant.

I don't want to off and be preachy (again) about Philidelphia but it is as you say deliberate miscasting and while I accept it was an important film in the sense it brought the Aids issue out to a wider audience it did it in a very cowardly way.

[Kitty Whiskers]

I don't want to off and be preachy (again) about Philidelphia but it is as you say deliberate miscasting and while I accept it was an important film in the sense it brought the Aids issue out to a wider audience it did it in a very cowardly way.

I could not agree more. I think it was as bland, unchallenging and as safe as they could possibly make it - and I think the (mis)casting was a large part of that. But looking at the wider context of where the Americans were at this stage of the AIDS evolution versus Britain and Australia (who were about a decade ahead as far as social acceptance), and given the relative conservatism of an American audience, I can see why the makers were trying not to be too challenging. And The Band Played On came out the same year and was far more honest.

[Mr Sloane]

I could not agree more. I think it was as bland, unchallenging and as safe as they could possibly make it - and I think the (mis)casting was a large part of that. But looking at the wider context of where the Americans were at this stage of the AIDS evolution versus Britain and Australia (who were about a decade ahead as far as social acceptance), and given the relative conservatism of an American audience, I can see why the makers were trying not to be too challenging. And The Band Played On came out the same year and was far more honest.

To be fair to Tom it was brave of him to take on the role.

The best film about Aids is Longtime Companion but TV's Angels in America is superb too.

[CaptainWaggett]

I actually thought Tom was very good in The Ladykillers if you accept that it wasn't actually trying to be an exact fascimile of the Ealing film (which only about 1% of the target audience would have seen). I liked him in The Da Vinci Code too. In fact I can't actually think of any performances of his I haven't liked.

[Kitty Whiskers]

I actually thought Tom was very good in The Ladykillers if you accept that it wasn't actually trying to be an exact fascimile of the Ealing film (which only about 1% of the target audience would have seen). I liked him in The Da Vinci Code too. In fact I can't actually think of any performances of his I haven't liked.

I think he's a good performer, and he's highly enjoyable to watch. I just feel that producers know that audiences will love him regardless and don't try for more suitable casting sometimes.

[judylou]

Don't forget Philidelphia.

I do like him ( I believe Big is one of great screen performances) but I do agree he plays "nice" excellently but I can't see the dark side of him.Hhe is the antihesis of Fred Mac Murray who sets mt teeth on age as a hero but as the sleazy villian,Double Indemnity andThe Apartment, has no equal.

I think he played as good "dark side" in Road to Perdition...to me it was a very "un" Tom Hanks role.

[didi-5]

Andrew McDowell in Tarzan,Ape Lord of Greystoke or whatever.

ANDREW McDowell???

I never would have guessed!

[batman]

I prefer Hanks in non-nice roles, as stated earlier he gives a good performance in Road to Perdition and he is also pretty good in Angels and Demons, which is under-rated in the action thriller stakes IMHO.