Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 10, 2022, 01:05:21 AM
:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Other/Miscellaneous
| |-+  Off-Topic Discussion (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  If you could re-cast any movies, what would be your picks?
0 and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
: [1]
: If you could re-cast any movies, what would be your picks?  ( 1762 )
T.H.
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2314



« : December 12, 2020, 04:56:55 PM »

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.



Claudia, we need you to appear in LOST COMMAND. It's gonna revolutionize the war genre..
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16187


I have Something to Do with Death . . . So do you.


« #1 : December 15, 2020, 03:22:52 PM »

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.
Wow, ace post! I cannot find fault with any of your ideas. The one comment I have to make is that Bogart did several psycho roles in the period (The Two Mrs. Carrolls, Conflict, et. al.) and that maybe adding another would be less interesting than having someone less typed for the part give it a try. But yes, Cotten is always bad and he certainly ruins Shadow.



"McFilms are commodities and, as such, must be QA'd according to industry standards."
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6417


Lonesome Billy


« #2 : December 16, 2020, 04:44:21 AM »

I never got the dislike for Zodiac?s cast on this board. Robert Downey Jr gave for me what is his best performance ever, and Ruffalo is great. I agree that Jake isn?t the best though, he became much more interesting after that movie, unfortunately.

I strongly suggest you listen to Fincher?s commentary: https://youtu.be/5Hn5y9s6te8
Around 0:40 or 42 he starts discussing Mark and Robert. There is also great stuff around 00:52. I tend to fully agree with David on this one (and, yeah, on a lot of things).


titoli
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8898



« #3 : December 16, 2020, 05:34:01 AM »

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. ;D

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.


Cusser
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001


Remember, I always see the job through !


« #4 : December 16, 2020, 06:24:57 AM »

1.  I loved "For Love of the Game", very realistic baseball scenes too.

2.  What about nice old Henry Fonda as the uncle in "Shadow of a Doubt" ?  And I loved Teresa Wright !!

T.H.
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2314



« #5 : December 17, 2020, 01:01:38 AM »

DJ, you could be right for indirectly implying (and titoli is probably right for directly stating) that the audience could have been instantly expecting Bogie to be the heel in 1943. It was more of an anti Cotten statement, but in 1943 maybe casting Bogie might have been too on-the-nose after he played villains throughout the 30's. Bogie would have been great in that role in hindsight, and only George Raft could have done worse than Cotten. Titoli's Cary Grant choice probably would have made the most sense in 1943, but Bogart would have been the best choice in hindsight.


Titoli, I love Holden but I do think that Mitchum's standing in genre films would have elevated the movie to some degree. I agree that Glenn Ford would have been great in Shane, either him or Mitchum would have been much better than Ladd. I do think Mitchum works better if you view the movie in a mythical lens.


Cusser, I agree that the baseball scenes in For the Love of the Game are well done, it's just the love/family scenes are jarring and don't really work.
 

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 that
s 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.

« : December 19, 2020, 10:55:44 PM T.H. »


Claudia, we need you to appear in LOST COMMAND. It's gonna revolutionize the war genre..
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6417


Lonesome Billy


« #6 : December 17, 2020, 03:41:22 AM »

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 that
s 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.



« : December 17, 2020, 03:42:31 AM noodles_leone »

T.H.
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2314



« #7 : December 19, 2020, 10:45:09 PM »

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.
We are all cordially insufferable, with me maybe the most guilty of that.

I can agree on swapping out Schreiber, but a young Walter Matthau (with a weight gain) wouldn't have been possible. He would have been amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukl8ufFlyzg

The real Toschi had a made for radio kind of demeanor, so I think a fat Schreiber would be perfect. Toschi looked like an assistant coach on Vince Lombardi's 1960's Packers, so it's a tough role to cast for somewhat contemporary actors, who are more aristocratic than ever before.



Claudia, we need you to appear in LOST COMMAND. It's gonna revolutionize the war genre..
: [1]  
« previous next »
:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
0.122118