...whom do you think would have been better? Besides the obligatory, "Anyone!" who in 1994 could people see inhabiting this role believably? Who can you see properly delivering lines about skulking or not noticing rain?
My top picks would be the obvious ones: Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts, Meg Ryan. Perhaps Michelle Pfeiffer, Uma Thurman or even Melanie Griffith could have pulled it off as well.
I agree with Julia Roberts, she would be perfect for the part of Carrie. I don't like Andie McDowell that much.
sharehated andie in this movie.. but only when she opens her mouth....her voice is just so annoying.. just the way she saying "hi" is awful.. but you must remember this is 1994, and it is believable that carrie/andie was this drop dead georgeus lady back then.. and meg ryan could not pull that off.. i can not see her as a breathtaking american woman, whom everybody is just wooow.. sandra bullock is too goofy.. maybe julia roberts, if she was pretty woman-sexy.. and she is also more charming, making her more likeable..
share"Notting Hill" to me just puts MacDowell in perspective. Julia Roberts is glamorous, natural and sexy in a way that easily could have been similar in 1994.
Meg Ryan I always champion because she has underrated versatility. In 1994 she had "Sleepless in Seattle" under her belt and "When A Man Loves A Woman" in release. Also, physically she had long hair at the time which was IMO very flattering. I was surprised how she pulled off an edgier kind of sensuality in "Addicted to Love," (it's a wonder what a little eyeliner and leather can help an actress do). Still, while I reimagine that performance and I see her having great chemistry with Grant, it is definitely hard to picture a performance angle from her that's less of a wallflower and more of a seductress.
Yes, Elizabeth Shue would have been great standing next to Hugh Grant, but I think that the whole role needed a re-think. I just couldn't understand what Hugh saw in her, as I never thought she was THAT beautiful, and she had no 'personality' as they say.
shareJulia Roberts would have been better.
Andie McDowell annoys me.
You may not like him, Minister, but you can't deny, Dumbledore's got style.
I love this thread.
I loved Julia Roberts in Notting Hill, I thought it was her best role.
Well, we can't re cast Andie, I continue to blame Richard Curtis. There is nothing likeable about her character and the voice is incredibly annoying.
Just to show you how much better Julia Roberts is, imagine Andie McDowell as Anna Scott!!!!!!!
Andie would have never been able to pull off the "I'm just a girl, standing in front of a boy" line in Notting Hill. Julia at least did the best she could with that line, which was kind of cheesy.
Julia also did a good job in the scene where she was trying to win the brownie, and she was talking about how one day her looks would fade, and they would realize she can't act ect.
You may not like him, Minister, but you can't deny, Dumbledore's got style.
No doubt. The brownie scene and the whole bring on the other women to Hugh Grant for dinner dates were the best scenes.
The I'm just a girl scene is a tough one, sometimes I like it and sometimes not. Since I've seen the movie about 20 times it's getting a tad repetitious.
Despite what nearly everyone thinks, I feel Andie McDowell was pretty okay as Carrie. And hey, when I was young and romantic, I, too, kissed someone I loved in the rain, in the middle of the street in Greenwich Village (NYC) with passersby smiling at us.
Remember, Sparky?
I don't know who I would have put in there, but I know that Andie McDowell wasn't it.
I've read the thread and some people try to blame the script. Some people try to blame the director.
To me, Carrie's motives for marrying an older, wealthy man she didn't love was neatly summarized with the revelation that she worked for Vogue. To most people, the image of such a person is one who would be vain, a little (or a lot) heartless, and definitely shallow. She most likely would have been around a lot of very rich and glamorous people. She would either want to be part of that crowd after constant exposure to it (if she had "ordinary" origins), or stay inside it/marry what she knew (if she came from a wealthy family).
As it is, except for Groundhog Day and bits and pieces of sex lies and videotape, Andie McDowell is always as wooden, annoying, and stunningly awful as she was in FWAF. Green Card was a wonderful little film that her lousy acting nearly sabotaged. If it hadn't been for the extraordinary talent of Gerard Depardieu, that movie would have stunk to the high heavens. Viewers wanted Gerard to get the girl because he was so damned lovable, not because they thought the couple belonged together. They could have thought the latter...if Andie McDowell hadn't been such a car crash.
Now for the suggestions of a better casting: I always see the the same boring names of half-talented actors throw out here, actors I would have recast in their so-called "best" roles. Needless to say, I don't think any of the suggestions (save for possibly Michelle Pfeiffer) are even worth mentioning for ANY role.
60 years ago, I would have suggested Lauren Bacall as Carrie. She would have pulled off the sexy, mysterious, maneater American babe, no problem. And she looked like someone who would have worked for Vogue.
Of modern American actresses, Diane Lane is the only one who comes to my mind as being remotely close to having what it takes to play Carrie. But she might have been too overpowering for Richard Curtis.
[deleted]
May be someone gorgeous with some lovely curves and who could be a bit more expressive.
shareThe time wouldn't matter. Both Bullock and Diaz are all wrong for Carrie, as you said. Their acting is okay, but it's not enough for that part. And Sandra Bullock... Ugh. She isn't glamorous, and she's pretty enough in her own way, but definitely not a raving beauty. She's a girl next door schlmiel type. And that's fine, for certain roles. Not this one.
Cameron Diaz almost has the looks for the part, but she's too... I don't know. She's not right, either. She's too frumpy, somehow (which made her a revelation in Being John Malkovich). She also has an annoying habit in most of her roles of not seeming to be all there. I don't know if she's minimalizing too much or if she's really clueless, but she has very little depth in most of her performances. She couldn't pull off that role even today.
I still think Diane Lane would have been smashing in the part, and the thought of her on screen with Hugh Grant? Day-um! That would have smoked.
I like Andi but her performance in the film was really bad. Maybe is the character of Carrie that is dull. I really do not know. The British are so funny and great and here comes this American dull girl, and he falls for her. Well understandable considering the dogs he dated before.
shareMadeline Stowe might have worked. Though sadly forgotten now, she had a brief period of moderate popularity in the mid nineties and her luminous beauty may have been enough to make Hugh Grant's attraction to her believable. Another name that just popped into my head: Kim Catrall. She certainly has the looks and man-eating sexuality necessary for the role as well some talent for comedy.
shareI'm not sure how this would fit in with her acting career/arch of fame - but I think Renee Russo could have played the maneater aspect with far more conviction. I always felt that I'd buy Carrie more if she across as less nice.... I think Renee could have done that effectively. Being less nice, while still likable.
shareAndie McDowell was up against some funny, natural actors in this film. There's something different about English actors and the way they deliver their lines.
Eg: In the scene where Carrie leaves Charles at The Boatman - believe it or not, she's meant to be making a joke about the engagement but it's just not funny. I think an English actor would've been able to make it work. Take Kristin Scott Thomas for example. Both their characters have that dry English wit, but KST makes it work...maybe because she's English and she's used to subtle humour...
PS: I can understand why Charles chose Carrie over Duckface, even though Carrie is a truly horrible and insensitive person (Curtis' writing, not McDowell's acting), but why did he choose Duckface over Fiona??? Why??? (I do love Duckface though - I think she's hilarious!!!)
I think he was unable to choos Fiona as a girlfriend because she was too much of a great friend. Or like a sister to him or something. I don't think he had the heart to lie to her about such things.
Duckface is great, though. Actually, I really like her as a person too. I mean, she's kind of hopeless, but it's more due to low self-esteem and being heart broken about the love of her life ditching her.
**********
They blew up Congress!!! HAHAHA!
This may sound a litle crazy because she's not one of my favorite actresses, but she's done some very successful romantic comedies with some pretty big stars: Daryl Hannah.
shareMichele Pfeifer, Juliane Moore, Diane Lane, Jennifer Connelly or Robin Wright Penn
sharehonestly i respect all the other actresses too much to have them play an air head american slut.
shareThe problem is that the character is tacky and acts dumb. Andie is only okay playing a sympathetic character, like the betrayed wife in Sex, Lies and Videotape. She looks ridiculous in this, up against Brtish actors who are really talented. I wonder who all they approached before getting her to do this. Maybe Julianne Moore would have worked, I've seen her come off as sarcastic before and I still liked the character.
shareI think Annette Benning would have been wonderful in the role of Carrie.
shareI agree with the suggestions of Annette Benning and Robin Wright Penn. Both are very good actresses and are very attractive. I think Robin would have been great because she could have been that glamorous American girl and could have been more of an interesting character. However, I thought Andie was fine in this.
Curtis is not the most sophisticated of directors...I hated Love, Actually at first, but then certain parts grew on me. But his work is not subtle or intricate, so it's no real surprise that Andie's performance is, perhaps, a little uneven. It's like he doesn't really know what to do with women as real people/characters.
One thing I noticed...all the actresses mentioned are white. What about Angela Bassett? I caught the end of Waiting to Exhale and even though that's not a great film, she is fantastic. I think she is consistently good from film to film. Just a thought...
[deleted]
>>I think Annette Benning would have been wonderful in the role of Carrie.<<
Not a bad choice, especially the Annette Benning of 1994. She could've pulled off the cool, sophisticated air that I think Carrie is suppose to have.
My problem is that I don't understand how "Carrie" was meant to played. You've all mentioned the woodeness and detachment. It is painful to watch.
Was that how Carrie was suppose to be, or was that bad acting/directing/writing? Tell me how she was suppose to be and then I can offer a suggestion of who should've played that role.
You guys all hit the nail on the head when you said Carrie was an unsympathetic character. We all knew she didn't love Hamish (and he came across as a jerk anyway, so we figured the two were meant for eachother.)
Yet she marries him anyway? Sleeps with Charles in the meantime? She totally toys with Charles but seems to like him. Was that insecurity or unsure of her own feelings or what??? I don't get her as a person, so the character is not believable and lacks empathetic qualities.
I love, LOVE "Love, Actually." Phenomenal.
As far as Notting Hill, I loved Grant and the supporting cast. I think Julia Roberts' character was unsympathetic too. (Side note: I don't care for Julia Roberts anymore anyway. Is it just me, or has her stock plummeted in the public opinion arena?)
-Jane
From Sarah Jessica Parker's imdb bio: "Andie MacDowell beat her for the role of "Carrie" in Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)."
I'm not sure how SJP would have been, but I'm thinking just about anyone would have been better than Andie MacDowell.
>>I'm not sure how SJP would have been, but I'm thinking just about anyone would have been better than Andie MacDowell. <<
I'm not a huge SJP fan (not sure why). I wonder if Andie MacDowell could've done better if the character's motivations would've been fleshed out more?
I don't think the character was well established. Was "Carrie" insecure, flighty, or just a self indulgent ho'?
I liked the chemistry between MacDowell and Grant, but some of her lines were just awful (Is it raining? I hadn't noticed). Stupid!
-Jane
Charles knew Carrie was engaged to Hamish when he *chose* to sleep with her after Wedding No. 2. I think the key to Carrie & Charles is his toast at Wedding No. 1 when he says he could never commit to marriage. You can see the hope go out of Carrie's eyes. From then on she views him as "unattainable" but ready for a tumble in the mean time -- isn't this what men do all the time? She didn't "use" Charles or treat him badly. She had no way of knowing he was falling in love in a real way, since everything he said and did with her indicated he wasn't interested in that type of relationship.
share