Any one else thought that Charlie Cox is ugly for the role?

Oh come on! They were not looking for a hero with conventional good looks were they?
If someone like Ben Barnes had been in the lead role why would Victoria turn him down in the beginning? Charlie was able to go from a little "ugly" but sweet in the beginning to Prince Charming at the end- something I don't think the ever so pretty Ben Barnes could.
If you have the DVD you can listen to the audio commentary you will hear Matthew Vaughn saying that he thought Charlie was perfect for the role because he was one of the few actors who could 'play both a geek & a hero' (or words to that effect) and IMO he can. Plus I think a lot of people prefer sweet looking boys like Charlie to more "sexy" men like Ben. (Personally I think Ben is prettier than Claire Danes (he's rather effeminate) & so would be very put off if they were to be an onscreen couple)

YES. YES YES YES. I absolutely agree with you 100%, CC really annoys me, I CANNOT understand why the casting was not the other way around, particularly when BB went on to play Caspian so well, clearly he could have handled Tristan easily.

I do think Charlie Cox is quite ugly, nearly ruins the movie for me - I just get irritated by him in every scene he's in. Fortunately Claire Danes is some very distracting eye candy. Mmmmmmmmhm. =)

he looks stupid with short hair but he is supposed to look stupid.
he is getting smarter as his experience grows so he is allowed to change his hairstyle from idiot to smart.

Ben Barnes is flat and can barely act. Cox was great in the movie. He had charisma and just the right attitude for the character.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

He has an annoying face. He's not ugly his face just annoys me. He did look a bit better with the hair extensions though.

When I was watching this in the theatre, my mom & I kept commenting why didn't they switch roles of Tristan with the one who played the young Dunstan. Then, the transformation happened, I literally squealed. He turned from a dorkish looking boy into a handsome charismatic & cute young man. I think the casting worked, they wanted him to transform. & they wanted us to see that transformation ourselves & be floored by it. Often in films, when a character transforms from plain to fetching, it's obvious that the before character was already as equally beautiful as the after. What they did to Cox here was amazing & effective imo.

Besides, Danes is far from pretty, she looked like a Neanderthal here, so IDK why they have to get someone that would jarr (jar?) her looks even more by comparison.



Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel

Pretty isn't the issue. Both men are attractive - saying one is prettier over the other is just personal preference. Obviously they're not so very different looking, since they were cast as relatives.

Ben Barnes would be a better lead because he has a stronger onscreen presence, he's a better actor, he's more than equal to the main cast - Michelle Pfeiffer, Claire Danes, Henry Cavill, Sienna Miller, etc. - and because, in real life, he is

a good hearted dork

Barnes could never pull off the charm. They are both really nice to look at and Barnes is a better actor in general but not for the part of Tristan.