Shadow of a Doubt (1943) Humphrey Bogart: Maybe my go-to example of how much casting can hurt or elevate a movie. I don't care for this movie too much due to Cotten, who wasn't much of an actor and who thinks being charismatic means to have a dumb smirk on your face. I almost always find Cotten terrible, but he sort of can function in an ensemble cast at times. But here, he's exposed. Bogie would have been perfect and would give the movie rewatchability. Shane (1953) Robert Mitchum: Shane is one of my favorite 10-15 movies but what Ladd has to try really hard to do, Mitchum does effortlessly. Re-cast the annoying kid too.The Wild Bunch (1969) Robert Mitchum: Holden's performance is more than fine, but having Mitchum alongside Ryan would have meant much more since they were such staples in crime and western movies 10-20 years prior. Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973) Jeff Bridges: Kristofferson was too old for the part and Bridges would have been perfect. He could have the right balance of romantic youthfulness + cold-bloodedness.Bull Durham (1988) Kurt Russell & Charlie Sheen: Ron Shelton wrote the movie for Kurt Russell but apparently backed down to the suits that wanted Costner, which was a huge mistake. Costner is perfect for the role he played in the mediocre and flawed For Love Of The Game (1999) as a first ballot HOF pitcher. But for the role of a failed minor leaguer, Russell played in the minors and Sheen threw 85 mph. Both naturally inherit the traits of the characters whereas Tim Robbins throws like a girl and Costner looks too much like a HOF player and not a guy that never made it. Zodiac (2007) Liev Schreiber (Ruffalo), Philip Seymour Hoffman (RDJ), Sam Rockwell (Gyllenhaal): Schreiber and Rockwell would have had to gain weight and PSH would have had to drop 20-30, and that cast would have been infinitely better. I usually like RDJ and Gyllenhaal but there was clearly a disconnect between Fincher and the main cast in this movie. The three leads come off as playing dress-up (or in Gylenhaal's case, not even bothering to have a 70s haircut) and it's the big flaw in the movie, but it's still the best movie of the 21st Century. James Ellroy said it way better than I ever could.
Shadow of a Doubt (1943) No Bogart. He cast more than a doubt. Cary Grant or James Stewart,Shane (1953) Robert Mitchum: no, Glenn Ford, he's more common man. But anybody but Ladd: he's too small. One of the greatest ever pieces of miscasting.The Wild Bunch (1969) Mitchum. No. Holden's fine for me. He keeps being most undervalued actor in Hollywood. Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973) Kristofferson is good for me. Bridges could have worked fine had he matured at the time as an actor. But he hadn't, as proven by Thunderbolt. I should check though who were the young actors at the time who could have played the part.
Noodles, I disagree about Ruffalo. I think he's a rotten actor that overacts way too much and usually has a dumb look on his face -- maybe thats something he can't overcome since he's a complete idiot. Schreiber, with a weight gain looks exactly like that cop and can effectively play a blue collar 70's cop. RDJ looks nothing like the real character and PSH, with a weight loss, looks like a lot like the reporter. Rockwell, with a weight gain also could have a bad 70's haircut and look a lot like the actual reporter. We'll just have to agree to disagree about the three leads in Zodiac. I think they're absolutely dreadful.
But you know I never agree to disagree. I'm insufferable.Rockwell could have been great. He's even a better actor now (but too old for the part), as is Gyllenhaal. Anyway, we probably agree here. Although Gyllenhaal really, really got the character and came up with the best joke of the whole movie: "You don't smoke, do you?" "Once, in high school."Liev Schreiber has a made for TV face. Nothing against him, I just don't want to see him in a real role in a real movie. He would instantly make "Zodiac: one of the greatest movies of the XXIth" look like "Zodiac: an HBO miniseries".PSH would have been great as any character in any movie so I'm not arguing against him. He would have brought a lot of warmth to the picture... but we would have lost a lot of fun: RDJ makes every scene he's in fun as hell (even if most of those are mostly about synthesizing huge amount of complex information). It would have been a different movie.So in the end we really disagree about Schreiber.