That’s the point the movie reaches, yes, but the script is the journey that should bring us there. In the dialogue between the other characters, the Captain begins as a cold, distant, probably brutal figure. His best friend there has been with him since Kasserine, and doesn’t have a clue as to what he did before the war. Before he orders the German set loose, the Rangers are ready to shoot, and react with shock when they get the order. Why? Because the Captain they know would kill the prisoner, no question. They can’t believe what they’re hearing. Taken scene by scene on script alone, it’s easy to see a completely different character of the Captain emerge that looks nothing like Hanks’ portrayal, and yet fits the dialogue quite a bit better imo. Some of the softer scenes that would have lent character development like his crying fit, the shaking hands, the church conversation, and the revelation of his pre-war vocation would have had far greater impact coming from the character described by the other soldiers, rather than the Hanksian everyman.
What we hear of the script agrees completely with your conclusion: it is something of a deconstruction of the Greatest Generation superman myth. But we can’t deconstruct what Hanks never presents to us. Would Tom Hanks tell Sgt. Horvath where he comes from and what he did before the war? Of course he would, he’s Tom Hanks. I must stand by my conclusion.
My perennial example of bad casting is that of Rosie O’Donnell as Betty Rubble in the first Flintstones movie. Betty was one of the sexiest cartoon characters ever and you give us Rosie O’Donnell?? To quote “Galaxy Quest”: “Did any of you ever WATCH the show?”
Speaking of Tom Hanks, I thought he and his bizarre hairpiece were horribly miscast in The Da Vinci Code. Too old, for one thing (Hanks, not the hairpiece), and no chemistry with the female lead. I would have cast Ron Livingston, who could easily have pulled off the role of smart-guy-thrown-into-befuddling-situation.
I once played Nathan Detroit in a community theater production, driving home to me that he has less singing to do than any other lead character. Now, Frank Sinatra did a perfectly good Nathan Detroit in the movie, but isn’t that kind of a waste of the hottest singer of the time?
Under this heading: Matt Damon in Batman and Robin. I repeat yet again: Robin is not the Twentysomething Wonder. Robin is not the Teenage Wonder. Robin is the Boy Wonder. When he first joins Batman he should be no older than twelve, just like in the comic book. (And don’t tell me modern audiences wouldn’t accept putting a boy that age in harm’s way. In Master and Commander there was a prepubescent midshipman, just like you would have found in the real-life Napoleonic-Wars Royal Navy; and he gets his arm blown off in the very first scene.)
Tell the truth, I never could buy the character of Nadine in the book. Her conversion to the Dark Side was just too facile and too inconsistent with her character up to that point. And her subsequent regret/defiance made it worse, not better.
I agree. My first instinct when I saw him was “this is NOT what I had in mind” from reading the book! But damn, he won me over. It was the line about “… a little psychic twinkle. Does M-O-O-N mean anything to you?” I thought he was brilliant in the part.
And while Michael Keaton as Batman kind of sucked, he did a top notch Bruce Wayen. He had a real pyschotic twinkle, that made him dark and edgy. I just wanted to see that as his “private side” and was waiting for the very non-Batman “playboy” side to be his alter ego.
Val Kylmer as Bruce Wayne/Batman sucked goat balls. At least Clooney’s chin worked in the cowl.
