Having read the book long before I saw the movie, I actually thought Bruce Willis (as depicted in a photo on the cover of the novel), played Assistant DA Kramer. Wouldn't that have made much more sense? Remember Kramer's obsession with his muscles in the film? Willis, in all his jacked, receding hairline glory and action-hero cockiness, would have been perfect as Kramer! I was so surprised that he was the British lush Fallow in the movie. Big letdown.
shareThe journalist should have been played by David Warner (always had in my mind when I read the book)
shareHume Cronyn should have played the judge - Trying to be politically correct by balancing out the negative black characters with a 'positive' black person(Morgan Freeman) was big mistake..
shareI completely agree with you, big letdown. I had to read the book recently for a class and I hadn't seen the film yet. I remembered from the poster as well that Willis was in the film, but I didn't know who he played. As I was reading the book, the only character I thought he'd fit into was Kramer - and I think he would have made a great Kramer. Imagine my surprise when I saw the movie - talk about miscasting! There's some great actors in the film, they're just in the wrong parts. Too bad the original choice, John Cleese, didn't end up being cast as Farrow, it would have worked so much better. Or Catrell as Maria instead. I'm sorry to say, but the only film Melanie Griffith didn't suck in was Working Girl.
[deleted]
I've read the book, enjoyed it immensly and I'm yet to see the film. I wonder whether I should due to the hate it's getting, maybe someday just out of curiosity I'll judge it for myself.
And as for Willis, I too thought he'd play Kramer. He'd be perfect for the role, it's as if Tom Wolf had him in mind as he wrote the book. I'm not sure what De Palma was thinking when he directed the film, but it's simply madness to cast Willis as Fallow.. There's about 20 brittish actors who'd make an excellent job portraying this great character.
Aw man, I just finished the book, and I knew that Griffith, Hanks, & Willis were in the film, but I didn't know who played who, so I didn't look it up until finishing. I never saw it. I had heard it bombed. Agreed, Tom Warner for the british Fallow. Willis?? - omg, what a cast against type!! And Kim Catrell for Judy?? It was supposed to be someone sorta mousey, not a beauty!
I don't know whether to rent this one from Netflix or not....probably a waste of time..lol.
~ Hell yeah Bruce Willis was miscast for the role of Fellow. As well as Melanie Griffin for Maria & Kim Kantrall for Judy. I thought their performances sucked and their characters did not quite matched the novels characters. As for Tom Hanks as Sherman, I thought he could have done better.
*~~*
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Sometimes, loyalty gets in the way
of what you want to do. Sometimes,
it’s not your secret to tell."
-Jacob Black from New Moon
Almost every significant character was miscast. The book The Devil's Candy describes the casting of some of the main roles and it's depressing to see how stupid Hollywood can be. Stars become stars by shining in roles that SUIT them down to the ground and show them off at their best. Shoving them into roles that aren't right for them, just to sell tickets, is guaranteed to produce crappy films like this one.
Tom Hanks is so so wrong for Sherman. Not sure which 80s actor would be good for the part, but nowadays Aaron Eckhart would be about right. Melanie Griffith was playing it like a tacky screwball comedy and didn't capture the intelligence of here character at all, plus she wasn't sexy enough for Maria, even with surgically enhanced breasts. And Willis? MAYBE he could have played Kramer, but with that dumb smirk on his face and no dramatic range I'm not sure there's any character in the novel who's written shallow enough for him to play.
No idea if it could've worked, but I'd love to have seen what Altman would've made of this movie.
Actually, the only two people I thought did a decent job out of the main cast were Hanks and Griffith. Hanks was a little young for the part, but not by much, and he had some decent acting and some funny scenes, albeit FAR from his best work. Griffith was sexy and coy, which is what the part called for. While De Palma's original choice for McCoy, John Lithgow, would have been perfect for the part, Hanks was actually not bad.
Bruce Willis and Morgan Freeman on the other hand, GOD AWFUL! Even Freeman, one of the best actors in the history of anything, couldn't do anything with the equal parts yelling ala Principal in Lean on Me and big self-aggrandizing speech-giving at the end. Painful. Awful.
And wow, you read my mind on Robert Altman. Reading the book by Wolfe, it's sprawling and an *ensemble* piece, not to mention a scathing but human portrait of a specific city of America. He actually could have done much better, since he knows how to work with a big cast and dense storylines. De Palma has a sense of wit, and of course visual flair, but he cowtailed to studio execs who wanted stars over proper talent (ironically because of how big the production was, GOOD, and RIGHT actors for parts, like Walter Matthau for the Judge, were turned down due to costs! and Willis, with a 5 million budget!)
Watch my new short film Lines of Glory (NR): http://www.youtube.com/jackandzackfilms