191 replies to this topic

[Johnny Henning]

Ogul's iddea of them being private sector astronauts is what I had in mind. Reed and Ben would have been the actual astronauts, with Sue and Johnny being their passengers on a private space flight.

I like the idea of sticking to the original conception, but honestly, you'd really have to make it something of a comedy.

I mean, if you read the original comics, it is laughable. Reed Richards tries to convince the US government that they need to do a space mission (to Mars, was it?) to beat the Russians - I mean, "Commies." The government sorta disagrees, I guess, but they also apparently build a spaceship for him anyway - just they won't let him take off until he's done a little research into the safety of space flight, those cowardly bureaucrats! The first thing Ben brings up is the effect cosmic rays would have on them, but then Sue calls him a coward and he breaks a desktop with his fist (was he already super-strong?) and, apparently right then and there, they sneak onto a restricted military space-pad, take off and, just like Ben feared, are hit by high doses of biologically altering cosmic rays.

Really, the first story should've been the entire family on trial for trespassing, theft of government property, child endangerment, public endangerment and millions of dollars in destruction of public property.

It would have to be completely comical.

[Ogul]

I like the idea of sticking to the original conception, but honestly, you'd really have to make it something of a comedy.

You could, but you could also play it straight (just without the goofy elements you raised). The real sticking point, which is why I liked the Ultimate story, is the "cosmic rays." The moon was made of cheese or whatever in 1963, but now we know that while there is radioactivity in space it doesn't cause super powers, so the stumbling block isn't how or why you get them into space, it's what is out there that would give them superpowers, and also how it it Reed's fault that this happens (rather than just being an unavoidable accident).

[Johnny Henning]

Again, I have problems with 'Saving Private Ryan' but this isn't where they lie for me. I think the scene on Omaha Beach shows that he's not Captain America, dodging bullets and flinging his mighty shield. He's just steadfast. I never got the sense that he's seen as anything more than a reliable man that people trust.

Yeah, it's not such a big deal in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, but it's pretty strange how often his men refer to Hanks as this unshakeable, indestructible war machine, but obviously we are never given that sense throughout the movie because, well - it's TOM HANKS! for one thing - and we're always given that Spielbergian view of the character emphasizing how sympathetic he is.

However, in ROAD TO PERDITION, part of the story was - or at least started out being about a young boy confronting the violent and shocking reality of his father's profession and the secret violent world of all the adults he knows. On top of that, the father-son relationship became pretty maudlin and mawkishly predictable while the meat of the story, Sullivan's quest for vengeance sorta did not make sense based on the way Hanks either played the character or was presented. The drive for vengeance wasn't there as strongly because Hanks never put on the killer's mask in the story. We always saw him from the inside, and, though that is kinda his job, Mendes as the director, never gave us an objective perspective to show us how the rest of the characters and that world perceived him.

And the story actually offered plenty of opportunities for that. The cinematic decisions though always kept us planted firmly in his shoes so even when the kid finds out what his father does, it's not shocking to us because we really sympathize with Sullivan - not the boy.

In the end, I think the lack of a strong point of view on the reality of violence sunk the movie which came in more muted than similar films about the same era. Not that it bombed, but it never really broke out as a notable film. Oddly, though, some critics thought it was too cold and emotionless while I thought it was too sentimental and lacked intensity.

[al-x]

Hello:

Some said that Katie Holmes was miscast
in Batman Begins. I haven't seen the movie in
years but I don't remember anything wrong
with her performance. I still feel that they
cast her because she was very popular at
the time being married to Cruise and all.


Al...

[Chris D]

Hello:

Some said that Katie Holmes was miscast
in Batman Begins. I haven't seen the movie in
years but I don't remember anything wrong
with her performance. I still feel that they
cast her because she was very popular at
the time being married to Cruise and all.


Al...

Pretty sure they didn't start dating until after she was cast (and had filmed) Batman Begins. And they didn't get married until a year or so after Begins was released. So no, I don't think her relationship with Cruise had anything to do with her being cast. If anything it might have had something to do with her not being in The Dark Knight. I didn't really have anything against her in Batman Begins, though. She was the weakest part of the cast, but it was overall and exceptional cast. Mostly, I just feel like Nolan never much cared about the Rachael character and she was just in there because all action movies are required to have some sort of love interest. She felt very throw away as a character.

[craggy]

Hello:

Some said that Katie Holmes was miscast
in Batman Begins. I haven't seen the movie in
years but I don't remember anything wrong
with her performance. I still feel that they
cast her because she was very popular at
the time being married to Cruise and all.


Al...

I think a lot of people say she was miscast because they couldn't imagine Bruce Wayne giving a damn about someone so clearly mental. If you were friends with someone as a kid, and they grew up to become someone who constantly spoke in a way that was unconvincing and felt like they were reading from a script they didn't fully understand, who was supposed to be a deputy DA in one of the most corrupt cities in the world, but still walked around with a cheery, naive/Wall-E grin on their face...wouldn't you just be waiting til some maniac blew her up also?

edit: Maggie Gylen...Gillenha...Maggie Gyllenho...The Actress in Dark Knight was a bit better. Still smiley, but in a more devious, knowing way. Like she was a bit of danger-junkie, which actually would have made her a perfect match for ol Brucey Bonus.

[steveuk]

Yeah, it's not such a big deal in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, but it's pretty strange how often his men refer to Hanks as this unshakeable, indestructible war machine, but obviously we are never given that sense throughout the movie because, well - it's TOM HANKS! for one thing - and we're always given that Spielbergian view of the character emphasizing how sympathetic he is.

However, in ROAD TO PERDITION, part of the story was - or at least started out being about a young boy confronting the violent and shocking reality of his father's profession and the secret violent world of all the adults he knows. On top of that, the father-son relationship became pretty maudlin and mawkishly predictable while the meat of the story, Sullivan's quest for vengeance sorta did not make sense based on the way Hanks either played the character or was presented. The drive for vengeance wasn't there as strongly because Hanks never put on the killer's mask in the story. We always saw him from the inside, and, though that is kinda his job, Mendes as the director, never gave us an objective perspective to show us how the rest of the characters and that world perceived him.

And the story actually offered plenty of opportunities for that. The cinematic decisions though always kept us planted firmly in his shoes so even when the kid finds out what his father does, it's not shocking to us because we really sympathize with Sullivan - not the boy.

In the end, I think the lack of a strong point of view on the reality of violence sunk the movie which came in more muted than similar films about the same era. Not that it bombed, but it never really broke out as a notable film. Oddly, though, some critics thought it was too cold and emotionless while I thought it was too sentimental and lacked intensity.

The film definitely favoured Hanks over the kid, and that was a mistake. It's the boy's story but the movie doesn't feel like that a lot of the time.

But it still worked for me. Hank's quest was clear enough, his need for revenge was believable, as was his disappointment at the way his "father" treated him. That fitted well with his desire to be a good father to his son.

The point of view though, as I say, was moved too often. Perhaps the cause was less that Hanks got more attention than that the movie was too distanced from everyone, as some of the critics felt?

[al-x]

Hello:

How about the one who played Anakin Skywalker in
Attack of the Clones?

I know the prequels were awful but the lack of chemistry
between Portman and him... the awful dialogue didn't help
either.



Al...

[craggy]

well, I still have a hard time believing that after spending a few days with Natalie Portman, looking like she did in that film, he was having dreams about his mum, or that he was complaining about sand or what have you...seriously. It should take a lot to convince me that any hetero man, or even a hollywood actor, didn't just want to jump her bones and say "to hell with the galaxy!". Somehow Hayden Christiansen managed it. That's some sort of achievement, right?

[al-x]

Hello:

True, I almost laughed in the theater when there was a scene
where she got up early in the morning and looked incredible.
There were a few postings by some girls I knew who said they
wished they looked like that early in the morning.

Still, Hayden was miscast. If there was real chemistry between
them, it would have been a saving grace for the film. But...


Al...

[craggy]

the scene in Episode 3 where Obi Wan goes to see Padme and says he knows that Anakin (the only man Padme has had over to her place before or after her getting pregnant) is the father...that, where an aging warrior tells a Senator he respects for her beliefs, and who is carrying his best friend/surrogate son's child, that scene has more sexual tension than any single Padme/Anakin scene. I think the only good thing about Hayden's part in those scenes in Attack of the Clones is that he's so souless and empty that I can picture myself in his place, totally woo-ing her with my charms and Jedi-card tricks and Force-Bra-Unclasping.

[al-x]

Hello:

Lets not get too carried away Craggy...

Anyway... Is there another movie that suffered
from miscasting a key character?


Al...

[craggy]

JCVD, I didn't find the lead actor believable as his on-screen role.

[Christian U]

Hello:

How about the one who played Anakin Skywalker in
Attack of the Clones?

I know the prequels were awful but the lack of chemistry
between Portman and him... the awful dialogue didn't help
either.



Al...

There's a difference between being miscast and just acting badly. Hayden Christiansen in the Star Wars movie is an example for the latter, as is Keanu Reeves in a lot of his movies. I mean, Reeves wasn't miscast in Jonny Mnemonic, on paper this is as good a role as any for him, he's just a shite actor there. On the other hand, I'd say he was definitely miscast as John Constantine, because a world-weary, cynical working-class magician just isn't the kind of role where you'd think of him.

Same thing with Jessica Alba in Fantastic Four; that was just a bad choice, not because Alba is a bad actress, but because she's not a good fit for Susan Storm.

[Ricardo_C]

JCVD, I didn't find the lead actor believable as his on-screen role.

[Arjan Dirkse]

I didn't have any problem with Katie Holmes in BB...I thought she was better than Christian "do I look grim and determined now or what" Bale. You could say the grimness and determinedness suits the part, but I still prefer Michael Keaton's Batman.

[HowardAshton]

On one hand I would say that Tobey Maguire was miscast as Peter Parker, but on the other I think the script called for a humourless social shut-in who was also somewhat of a pervert and he played that part rather competently.

[Robert B]

I thought Tobey Maguire was a perfect Peter Parker.

[Andrew]

Not liking the Nic Cage hate in this thread (and the web in general) - he's one of our finest actors.

[Ogul]

Not liking the Nic Cage hate in this thread (and the web in general) - he's one of our finest actors.