Soitenly
Moronika
The community forum of ThreeStooges.net

Houdini and bad Hollywood casting

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Svengarlic

What I'd like to discuss is bad Hollywood casting, and I will start with the upcoming 4 hr. History channel offering of "Houdini" airing on Labor Day. In the old version, Tony Curtis, the matinee idol, portrayed the 5'5" muscular powerhouse. This time around it's the tall, thin (but wiry) Adrian Brody that gets to mangle the role. Of course, being a Houdini nut, I will still watch every minute of it, just like that 3 Stooges movie in 2000. More on that later*

Just off the top of my head I'll mention some other fairly recent casting disasters: Has Scorsese lost his mind? Casting DiCaprio as Howard Hughes was not so bad, but this was insane!



I actually walked out on this movie. It had been 30 years since I'd done that. I walked/drove out on Harold and Maude, which goes to prove that you should NEVER try to watch a quality movie at the Drive-in!

Another head scratcher was whatever man-love prompted Tim Burton to cast Beetlejuice as Batman. Has Hollywood ran out of lantern jawed Hunks? (Josh Brolin comes to mind)

Can anyone come up with more casting gaffes?

 *I think that Stooge movie would have been watchable if the actors only portrayed the behind the scene Moe, Larry, Curly and Shemp, and used the original footage for the routines. And I could have used a little more Harry Cohn.


Offline Svengarlic

I just finished watching part 1 of "Houdini", and I must say that I enjoyed it. I'm not sure if I would have as much if I had watched it live last night, given that the commercial time was daunting, to say the least. It's best seen "on demand" where you can fast forward.

I'm not going into specifics, just in case anyone reading these words plans to watch, but I must say even I was impressed by things touched upon in the film that heretofore were only touched upon in dusty biographies.

I say "even me" because as a child (and adult) I read absolutely everything I could get my hands on about the man. In my mind he was like a living, breathing Superman..... I could go on, but I'm going to stop here because the lack of feedback on Bad Movie Remakes has had zero response. But maybe there's a Houdini fan or two lurking around here.  ;)

 



Offline Desmond Of The Outer Sanctorum

Another head scratcher was whatever man-love prompted Tim Burton to cast Beetlejuice as Batman
Actually, a lot of people (myself included) think Keaton did very well with the role. One usually cynical movie reviewer even said, "in the eyes of many fans (myself included), Keaton will always be Batman in the same way that Christopher Reeve will always be Superman."

I can understand someone thinking Keaton wasn't right for the role -- certainly, a lot of people thought he'd do bad until they saw how he actually did -- but I don't know how much agreement you'll get about this.
"Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day." -- Samuel Goldwyn

The people who have your best interests at heart...
...are generally not the ones telling you whatever you want to hear.


Offline Svengarlic

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough Des....I had no problem whatever with the jobs Keaton and Di Caprio did. Both are top notch talents. My contention is that they were miss-cast, particularly in the case of Hoover.

But this has been going on for a long time. Many cite Wm. Bendix as Babe Ruth the biggest casting snafu of all time, but I go with skinny, little, and blonde Richard Widmark as the dark, hulking (6'6") Jim Bowie in The Alamo. He and John Wayne should have switched roles! But that movie was the Duke's baby. He was just fine with Widmark's casting. (why not Mickey Rooney?)





Offline Signor Spumoni

Just curious - - did you see the 1990s movie, "The Babe," with John Goodman in the lead?  If so, what did you think of that casting?  I saw it because I used to win movie tickets fairly often, and that's how I saw that movie.  For me, the idea of John Goodman as Babe Ruth was better than the fulfillment of same.


Offline Svengarlic

Just curious - - did you see the 1990s movie, "The Babe," with John Goodman in the lead?  If so, what did you think of that casting?  I saw it because I used to win movie tickets fairly often, and that's how I saw that movie.  For me, the idea of John Goodman as Babe Ruth was better than the fulfillment of same.
Bendix was the better actor, but I really can't think of anyone around today that would have fit the part any better than Goodman. I'm sure there were plenty, but none with the name recognition of John.


Offline Signor Spumoni

No doubt about it, Bendix was much the better actor.  Goodman didn't live up to his promise.  But he really looked the part.  The whole production was lacking, somehow, just flawed.


Offline Svengarlic

No doubt about it, Bendix was much the better actor.  Goodman didn't live up to his promise.  But he really looked the part.  The whole production was lacking, somehow, just flawed.
Flawed in the same way that most films are flawed today....in the writing. They spend so much money today on the technical aspects, CGI and all, when there are great screenplays out there by writers they could get for crumbs.

And even movies without need of technical enhancement, like Babe Ruth, suffered from a weak script. I cite the scene where Goodman's Babe breaks down, crying and shrieking alone in the tunnel to the clubhouse. The scene was a downer and totally inconsistent with the Ruth we think we know. Whatever good aspects of the movie felt previously were washed over by that morbid, over dramatic scene.

It wasn't the actors, or the editor, or even the director that ruined that film. It was the writing.



Offline Desmond Of The Outer Sanctorum

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough Des....I had no problem whatever with the jobs Keaton and Di Caprio did. Both are top notch talents. My contention is that they were miss-cast
Well, there's no doubt Keaton was a surprising choice for the role. But can someone do a good job with a role and still be "miscast"? If so, how would "miscast" be defined?
"Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day." -- Samuel Goldwyn

The people who have your best interests at heart...
...are generally not the ones telling you whatever you want to hear.


Offline Svengarlic

Well, there's no doubt Keaton was a surprising choice for the role. But can someone do a good job with a role and still be "miscast"? If so, how would "miscast" be defined?
Well, as I alluded to, De Caprio portraying an ugly troll like J. Edgar was ridiculous. He didn't represent the real Hoover. I don't know what he represented! Another example was the great job turned in by Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash. But a face as familiar as Cash being played by an actor with a hair lip was just too distracting in the closeups.

Going back to Babe Ruth, Bendix was at his best in the role, but he was right handed, and instead of reversing the film, (as with Cooper in The Pride of the Yankees) they opted for him swing and pitch lefty, and as a baseball fan, the scenes of him pitching were flat out embarrassing. My Grandmother would have been more convincing!

Johnny Dep, though not Italian, was at least a dark actor, and was good in the role of Joe Pistone in Donny Brasco. I'll tell you who I think was perfectly cast for a role: Dustin Hoffman as Dutch Schultz in Billy Bathgate. He may have been a tad old for the role, but he represented the intelligent, yet cruel and ruthless criminal psychopath that was the Dutchman extremely well.  ;)



Hoffman with Steven Hill. Remember him as the original leader of the Mission Impossible team before Peter Graves?


Offline Desmond Of The Outer Sanctorum

Ah, so "miscast" basically means physically wrong for the role. Makes sense!
"Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day." -- Samuel Goldwyn

The people who have your best interests at heart...
...are generally not the ones telling you whatever you want to hear.


Offline Svengarlic

Ah, so "miscast" basically means physically wrong for the role. Makes sense!
Pretty much, but in the case of Spencer Tracy in Captains Couragous, it was not just his fair skin and bright blue eyes, but his accent that resembled nothing Portugese that made him an awful choice.

 He did not want the role. As a perfectionist type actor he refused all roles requiring an accent. He was lousy at them, and knew it. But Louie B. insisted, and somehow Tracy bagged an Oscar.



Offline Svengarlic

Not too egregious was Funny Girl, with tall, dark and handsome Egyptian, Omar Sharif, portraying the hulking (6'6") New Jersey Jew, Nick Arnstein.

The title role of Fanny Brice was of course perfectly cast by Streisand. Few discrepancy's there. An attractive, schnoz laden singer with comic talent Brooklynite playing an attractive, schnoz laden NYC comedienne with singing talent. Of course, both Jewish.


Sweet face Fanny



Rubber faced Fanny as Baby Snooks


 
Smokin' hot, long legged Fanny in the Zigfield days


Offline Svengarlic

In keeping with the positive I'd like to mention my favorite film by Lorna Luft's step dad, Vincent Minelli. Love it or hate it, the leads in Lust for Life were pretty well chosen.









 
Two actors at the top of their games in this one. A funny story told by Kurt Douglas  on his role: He ran into John Wayne during a party. He had shared the screen in a macho Western with the Duke, where they became friends. Kurt asked him if he had seen Lust, and the Duke replied "What the hell was that? Don't ever let me catch you in a sissy role like that again or I'll kick shit out of you!"