Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

There have been some movies made before in the past where I really really loved the movie but I would have enjoyed it so much more if a certain actor or actress had not been cast for the lead role and felt cheated by that movie because of that.Here are a few I can think of where if they had cast somebody else for the movie,I would have enjoyed that movie so much more.

1.A Few Good Men. I cant stand Tom Cruise.I think he is so over rated as an actor.I would have enjoyed it much better if Kevin Bacon had played the main role and Cruise had played Bacons role.
2.Top Gun.again I could not enjoy it near as much as I wanted because of Tom Cruise.
3.Ghost. I love this movie,it is by far one of my top favorite movies of all time.However I would have enjoyed it so much more and far better if they had cast someone like Kirstey Alley or Kim Basinger or Micheele Phieffer instead of Demi Moore who is not at all pretty looking in that film with that short butch haircut. That movie more than the other two infuriated me the most with the casting.what are some of your movies you really loved but would have enjoyed so much more if a certain actor or actress hadn't been cast in one of the lead roles?

Anything with Kirsten Dunst, can't stand the actress.

I can't think of anyone else at the moment.

so which movies was she in that you really loved but her presence made it not anywhere near as enjoyable? surely you didnt hate the story or the screenplay for EVERY film she was in?

I thought Demi Moore was lovely in 'Ghost'. )

Jennifer Lopez and Vince Vaughn in The Cell

Jake Lloyd in Star Wars I.

I didn't say I hated the films/storyline etc that she was in, just couldn't stand her as an actress.

I enjoyed for example Spiderman, and Virgin Suicides. But would have enjoyed them a lot more if she was replaced with a different actress.

Road To Perdition. It was a good movie, and Tom Hanks was suprisingly good in it, but it was still Tom Hanks. Not only is he a vastly overrated actor, but he was also playing a part that he could not be more ill-suited for.

Another one, Platoon. I may have enjoyed it slightly if anyone but Charlie Sheen was in it. Doubtful, though.

John Leguizamo in Land of the Dead.

Originally posted by Makedde
I thought Demi Moore was lovely in 'Ghost'. )

yuck.

Oh, Keenu Reeves in Constantine. If he wasn't in it, and Weiz lost the American accent, I would have adored the movie a lot more.

'Ghost' would still be hysterical no matter who starred in it...

Hysterical? that movie wasnt a comedy.It had some comical moments in it no doubt but it wasnt a comedy.It's for sure one of my favorite movies of all time.The end was such a touching moment.The excellent casting Of Patrick Swayzee as Sam Wheat was enough to cancel out Moore for me thankfully.Him being the main character and all.

Jim Carrey in 'The Dead Pool'.

I like the actor. He was just in the wrong role....By a long shot.

And also, I dislike Christian Slater in anything.

I love Platoon, but Charlie Sheen simply isn't the right actor for the main role.

Originally posted by BackFire
I love Platoon, but Charlie Sheen simply isn't the right actor for the main role.

Are you fukking kidding? Sheen made that movie! He's the reason it's the most successful 'Nam movie of all time.


Platoon>>>>>>>>>>>>>Full Metal Jacket, Born on the Fourth of July, Hamburger Hill, Missing in Action, Rambo, Good Morning Vietnam, We Were Soldiers, etc..........

Even True Romance, and Heathers?

Pirates of the Carribean, I hate Orlando Bloom.

Leonardo Dicaprio in anything. He spoiled Titanic a lot. He is not even close to cute.
I think Tom Hanks will have this effect on a lot of people that liked the Davinci code book.

Originally posted by Wolfie
Pirates of the Carribean, I hate Orlando Bloom.
I second that.

Anything with Jim Carey -- sometimes I can tolerate...

Originally posted by MildPossession
Even True Romance, and Heathers?

Yes, and yes.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Are you fukking kidding? Sheen made that movie! He's the reason it's the most successful 'Nam movie of all time.


Platoon>>>>>>>>>>>>>Full Metal Jacket, Born on the Fourth of July, Hamburger Hill, Missing in Action, Rambo, Good Morning Vietnam, We Were Soldiers, etc..........


No? It's the most successful 'Nam movie because of it's visual sense of insanity during combat and it's story of not glorifying Americans and it's success and portraying combat in an unexciting manner. Sheen just looked the part, his acting ability was still subpar.

Originally posted by BackFire
No? It's the most successful 'Nam movie because of it's visual sense of insanity during combat and it's story of not glorifying Americans and it's success and portraying combat in an unexciting manner. Sheen just looked the part, his acting ability was still subpar.


I was fine with Sheen in the lead. It's just, sometimes I have to concentrate on Sheen himself, instead of his character on 'Hot Shots' and 'Hot Shots part Deux'.

Havta agree about Keanu in Constantine, not the best choice, IMO.

Anyone but Ben Affleck in Daredevil. He ruined that flick.

Originally posted by Impediment
Anyone but Ben Affleck in Daredevil. He ruined that flick.

Agree 100%.

Casting was bad. Kingpin wasn't black. But I really like Michael Clark Duncan.

I liked Daredevil.

And yeah, Kingpin is white, but Michael Clark Duncan was the best choice to play him, despite the racial difference.

Personally, I can't think of any white actor who could have pulled off The Kingpin. Duncan did a good job, I think. Also, since we're on the topic, I think they could have picked a better actress than Jennifer "The Forehead" Garner. Don't get me wrong, I think she's hot, but Elektra deserved better, if you ask me.

I think Chazz Palminteri could have been a good Kingpin. He's big to at 6' 3".


http://www.nndb.com/people/681/000086423/chazz-1.jpg

Kirsten Dunst in Elizabethtown

Originally posted by Wolfie
I liked Daredevil.

And yeah, Kingpin is white, but Michael Clark Duncan was the best choice to play him, despite the racial difference.

I also liked Daredevil.One of the few comicbook movies made that I thought hollywood did a good job with.I also agree with you on your point here about Duncan being the best choice to play him despite the racial difference.

Originally posted by Impediment
Personally, I can't think of any white actor who could have pulled off The Kingpin. Duncan did a good job, I think. Also, since we're on the topic, I think they could have picked a better actress than Jennifer "The Forehead" Garner. Don't get me wrong, I think she's hot, but Elektra deserved better, if you ask me.
Yeah, they could've done a better job casting Elektra. She was fine in her own way but she wasn't the same Elektra as in the comics.

Originally posted by Wolfie
I liked Daredevil.

And yeah, Kingpin is white, but Michael Clark Duncan was the best choice to play him, despite the racial difference.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
I also liked Daredevil.One of the few comicbook movies made that I thought hollywood did a good job with.I also agree with you on your point here about Duncan being the best choice to play him despite the racial difference.


I enjoyed the film.

Ben Makes me wince though.

Originally posted by BackFire
No? It's the most successful 'Nam movie because of it's visual sense of insanity during combat and it's story of not glorifying Americans and it's success and portraying combat in an unexciting manner. Sheen just looked the part, his acting ability was still subpar.


Yes is was graphic and realistic, as were all those other 'Nam movies, except for Rambo. Charlie Sheen was the deciding factor that made Platoon what it was. He perfectly portrayed a college dropout turned soldier. What other 80's actors his age coulda done a gooda job? No one.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Yes is was graphic and realistic, as were all those other 'Nam movies, except for Rambo. Charlie Sheen was the deciding factor that made Platoon what it was. He perfectly portrayed a college dropout turned soldier. What other 80's actors his age coulda done a gooda job? No one.

Sheen had little to do with the films success, it was more dependant on the directing and the style in which it was filmed. I doubt the film won best picture because of Sheen's acting. Despite your thoughts of the contrary, none of the other war films of that time were able to produce such frightening, confusing and realistic portrayalls of combat and accurately depict the common type of morale of so many of the soldiers. It's seen by many as one of the only true anti war films because it's achieved something that very very few films have- a portrayal of combat that isn't exciting, yet tragic and confusing, as it would be in real life.

An 80's actor that could probably have done a better job then Sheen? Off the top of my head: Johnny Depp, who ironically had a small part in the movie.

Originally posted by BackFire
Sheen had little to do with the films success, it was more dependant on the directing and the style in which it was filmed. I doubt the film won best picture because of Sheen's acting. Despite your thoughts of the contrary, none of the other war films of that time were able to produce such frightening, confusing and realistic portrayalls of combat and accurately depict the common type of morale of so many of the soldiers. It's seen by many as one of the only true anti war films because it's achieved something that very very few films have- a portrayal of combat that isn't exciting, yet tragic and confusing, as it would be in real life.

An 80's actor that could probably have done a better job then Sheen? Off the top of my head: Johnny Depp, who ironically had a small part in the movie.


I think Tom Berenger Made up for any actors that were disliked..

Yeah, he was ace, as was Willem Dafoe

Originally posted by BackFire
Yeah, he was ace, as was Willem Dafoe

For sure.

And they did the scars on Tom's face so well. Everytime I watch it, I wonder how the hell they did it.

Your sig makes me randy.

Originally posted by BackFire
Your sig makes me randy.

I can't say the same thing about your sig.

Oh, I can.

Originally posted by DarkWizard
I can't say the same thing about your sig.

Backfire's siggy makes me appreciate horror films more and more. He's basically my Muse!

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Backfire's siggy makes me appreciate horror films more and more. He's basically my Muse!

I love you, WD.

Oh hey, off topic. But I jsut got a new PC Gamer magazine where they talk, in depth about the new upcoming Warhammer Online MMOG. It sounds really awesome, you should find some info online.

I somehow liked S.W.A.T, but I cant stand Colin, so that pretty much spoiled the movie for me

Good thread Mr Parker. Well , i think that demi moore wasnt the best part in ghost, but i dont think that she was that bad.

Charlie Sheen wasnt the best part in platoon but he was decent.

Ben Afleck, Clarke Duncan and Jennifer Garner wasnt the best choices in daredevil, althought they werent bad. Afleck isnt really a good actor, Jennifer didnt look the part and she isnt a good actress and about Duncan, i understand that he gets the part because his Phisichal, but i fell that the kingpin needs to be a better skilled actor, althought i uderstand that its difficult to get some good actor with that phischal.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Yes is was graphic and realistic, as were all those other 'Nam movies, except for Rambo. Charlie Sheen was the deciding factor that made Platoon what it was. He perfectly portrayed a college dropout turned soldier. What other 80's actors his age coulda done a gooda job? No one.

good point Diamondbullets.I honestly dont understand why a few people here thought he was so bad in that film.Those points you made are why I thought he was a good choice.I dont think back then in the 80's any other actors his age could have done a good job either.

anything with ben affleck.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Are you fukking kidding? Sheen made that movie! He's the reason it's the most successful 'Nam movie of all time.


Platoon>>>>>>>>>>>>>Full Metal Jacket, Born on the Fourth of July, Hamburger Hill, Missing in Action, Rambo, Good Morning Vietnam, We Were Soldiers, etc..........

Platoon better than Full Metal Jacket? I'd be interested to know what kind of substance you've been smoking recently. Platoon is to Vietnam war movies what Saving Private Ryan is to WWII movies. The easy Hollywood alternative. Platoon is realistic, and there are moments of real tenison, I'll give it that, but Full Metal Jacket is clearly a superior film, in every department. Hamburger Hill and The Deer Hunter both blow it out of the water too.

Charlie Sheen is a horrible actor. He should stick with his crappy sitcoms. Harsh I know, but seeing as his own father is responsible for one of the great movie performances of our time, he doesn't really have an excuse.

Platoon being superior than FMJ is entirely valid. Many many people see it as the BEST vietnam movie ever, I think it definately beats Hamburger Hill as well.

Platoon, as I said earlier, achieves its greatness by doing what was once thought to be impossible - Showing combat not as exciting, but as tragic and scary. The combat in most other war films comes off as exciting, and sometimes fun. Platoon's portrayal is by far the most plausable and accurate, with the sense of pure insanity during the combat scenes, you, as the characters in the film, often can't even see where the enemies are firing from. Many veterans of Vietnam also feel Platoon is the most accurate at depicting combat, not to mention it's accurate depiction of the negative morale and the deplorable actions executed by US soldiers, something no other movie had tackled up until that point.

It makes sense, seeing as Oliver Stone based much of the film on his own experiences in Vietnam. Don't get me wrong, Full Metal Jacket is my personal preference, it's one of my favs, but Platoon being the better film is an entirely plausable argument.

The Matrix should have starred Chuck Norris.

Originally posted by Deathblow
Platoon better than Full Metal Jacket? I'd be interested to know what kind of substance you've been smoking recently. Platoon is to Vietnam war movies what Saving Private Ryan is to WWII movies. The easy Hollywood alternative. Platoon is realistic, and there are moments of real tenison, I'll give it that, but Full Metal Jacket is clearly a superior film, in every department. Hamburger Hill and The Deer Hunter both blow it out of the water too.

Charlie Sheen is a horrible actor. He should stick with his crappy sitcoms. Harsh I know, but seeing as his own father is responsible for one of the great movie performances of our time, he doesn't really have an excuse.

Heeyeeeeell No!

Full Metal Jacket's only memorable things were R. Lee Ermey screaming his head off and the ever-popular line "Me love you long time". The movie is all-good entertainment-wise but its realism is overshadowed by Platoon's.

Hamburger Hill and The Deer Hunter were a'ight.

Born On the Fourth of July is number 2 in my book, cuz its a true story---If it was made up it wouldn't be as good cuz it would come across as very Hollywood-ish.

And Platoon and Saving Private Ryan are not comparable. Other than being "War Movies" they don't have much in common.

No doubt the irony of you liking 'Born on the Fourth of July' and being a staunch Bush supporter completely escapes you.

EDIT: I like 'Chasing Amy', but I find that whiny 'lady' in it barely tolerable.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
No doubt the irony of you liking 'Born on the Fourth of July' and being a staunch Bush supporter completely escapes you.

Relevance?

And it was a good movie for the reason I mentioned: It was based on a true story and it was realistic.

Originally posted by BackFire

An 80's actor that could probably have done a better job then Sheen? Off the top of my head: Johnny Depp, who ironically had a small part in the movie.

Naw, Johnny Depp is too much of a softee and pretty boy to star in a graphic 'Nam flick. He's better off stickin' to roles like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Relevance?

Observation.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
And it was a good movie for the reason I mentioned: It was based on a true story and it was realistic.

Those are good reasons for liking a movie that is otherwise in opposition to your political views. Have you got a 'Fahrenheit 9/11' poster on your wall?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo


Those are good reasons for liking a movie that is otherwise in opposition to your political views. Have you got a 'Fahrenheit 9/11' poster on your wall?

Born on the Fourth of July was made way before Bush's presidency.

Michael Moore pisses me off. The only thing he's good at is annoying corporations. The only difference between a stalker and paparazzi is the camera, and thats exactly what he is. I would love nothing more than to beat the shit outta that annoying fat white-boy.

I must admit, that his "cameo" in Team America: World Police was one of the most hilarious (and accurate) portrayals of a person through a caricature.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Born on the Fourth of July was made way before Bush's presidency.

Really? In that case, there must be be no correlation between a war fought under false pretenses and...Vietnam.

Originally posted by BackFire


I love you, WD.

Oh hey, off topic. But I jsut got a new PC Gamer magazine where they talk, in depth about the new upcoming Warhammer Online MMOG. It sounds really awesome, you should find some info online.

I was reading some of it yesterday. Shame it won't be out till next year...bummer. Hopefully it'll be good as Dawn of War.

Come to think of it...on topic...I feel my enjoyment for the new SW would have been greater if only there wasn't a Hayden Christensen. Maybe Leonardo would have been a better Anakin.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Naw, Johnny Depp is too much of a softee and pretty boy to star in a graphic 'Nam flick. He's better off stickin' to roles like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

At least back then he was.Back then he was not anywhere near as good an actor as he is now.He really ddint start to blossom as a great actor until like the mid 90's.

Originally posted by BackFire
Platoon being superior than FMJ is entirely valid. Many many people see it as the BEST vietnam movie ever, I think it definately beats Hamburger Hill as well.

Platoon, as I said earlier, achieves its greatness by doing what was once thought to be impossible - Showing combat not as exciting, but as tragic and scary. The combat in most other war films comes off as exciting, and sometimes fun. Platoon's portrayal is by far the most plausable and accurate, with the sense of pure insanity during the combat scenes, you, as the characters in the film, often can't even see where the enemies are firing from. Many veterans of Vietnam also feel Platoon is the most accurate at depicting combat, not to mention it's accurate depiction of the negative morale and the deplorable actions executed by US soldiers, something no other movie had tackled up until that point.

It makes sense, seeing as Oliver Stone based much of the film on his own experiences in Vietnam. Don't get me wrong, Full Metal Jacket is my personal preference, it's one of my favs, but Platoon being the better film is an entirely plausable argument.

yeah its very plausible.To say that Full Metal Jacket is superiour in every catagory is insane.Platoon didnt get all those academy awards for nothing.they were all well earned.

In case you hadn't noticed, the Academy know very little. Or are you one of those people who thought Forest Gump was the best movie in the year in which Pulp Fiction came out? Either way, using the amount of Academy Awards a film wins as proof of it's quality is pretty idiotic, no offense.



Originally posted by BackFire
Platoon being superior than FMJ is entirely valid. Many many people see it as the BEST vietnam movie ever, I think it definately beats Hamburger Hill as well.

Platoon, as I said earlier, achieves its greatness by doing what was once thought to be impossible - Showing combat not as exciting, but as tragic and scary. The combat in most other war films comes off as exciting, and sometimes fun. Platoon's portrayal is by far the most plausable and accurate, with the sense of pure insanity during the combat scenes, you, as the characters in the film, often can't even see where the enemies are firing from. Many veterans of Vietnam also feel Platoon is the most accurate at depicting combat, not to mention it's accurate depiction of the negative morale and the deplorable actions executed by US soldiers, something no other movie had tackled up until that point.

It makes sense, seeing as Oliver Stone based much of the film on his own experiences in Vietnam. Don't get me wrong, Full Metal Jacket is my personal preference, it's one of my favs, but Platoon being the better film is an entirely plausable argument.

Maybe to some people. I think I should explain exactly why I don't think Platoon is a very good movie compared to FMJ, otherwise I'm just going to sound silly.

You mentioned the accuracy. I accept that it is one of the most accurate depictions of war, but seeing as I have never experienced war myself, I don't see why I should see that as a major plus point. Kubrick handles the war scenes very differently in FMJ, but goes to great lengths to explain why, and I for one believed in FMJ just as much as I did Platoon, why shouldn't I? As long as the movie isn't showing the soldiers flying around the jungle on wires a la Crouching Tiger, or sprinting though hails of gunfire unscathed a la any Schwarzenegger movie, and if the sense of fear and danger are palpable, then you have an accurate war movie. FMJ kept me on edge just as much as Platoon, and the brilliance of that is you don't even like the characters in FMJ; they're no longer human-humans let loose in a war-torn country with heavy firepower.

The characters in Platoon are also pretty stereotypical. They're all the same demoralized, dope-smoking racist idiots, for the most part. And when Charlie Sheen is your protagonist, well, there goes the whole caring about the characters thing. In FMJ though, Kubrick does this deliberately, he shows you the decline into monstrosity that some of these marines went through, and then dangles Joker (who in the beginning is very likeable) in front of the audience right up until the last moments of the film, you're hoping and hoping that he'll hold on to his humanity amongst this crowd of animals he's patrolling with. His journey, along with the frankly horrifying destruction of Pile, are both far more personal and emotionally gripping than the entire contents of Platoon.

Basically, FMJ is a more powerful, personal and definitely original movie, and made by a far superior director. Platoon on the other hand, IMO, relies on a ensemble of guys desperately trying to win Oscar nominations, and while it does generate a genuine sense of danger and a faithful depiction of war, it's too generic plot-wise to compete with FMJ certainly, as well as The Deer Hunter (which makes Platoon look incredibly shallow).

Well, for one Platoon and FMJ attempt to show different aspects of 'Nam. Platoon is about the jungle warfare and is simply meant to show what ACTUALLY happened in that aspect of Vietnam, and little more than that. In the end it's both bleak and hopeful. FMJ is about the urban warfare and the dehumanization of the soldiers into heartless killing machines. Platoon also shows the dehumanization of the soldiers, but in a different way. They're not transformed into merciless, cold killing machines through training, but through necessity. They become heartless machines because they need to too deal with their station in life. I'd hesitate to even compare them, seeing as their goals are utterly different. But since both films are war movies, comparisons are unavoidable. I sincerely think both movies are excellent in their own way.

The characters in both films seem pretty stereotypical and cliche but that's only because other films have adopted those types of characters and injected them into their films, at the time the characters were very unique. But their simplistic nature makes it easier to identify with them quickly and accurately. This is especially important with Platoon because the film isn't about the people as much as their plights and their actions. After all, as its name infers, it's about a group as a whole rather than a few choice characters. And like it or not, that's how people were in 'Nam. FMJ is a bit more character driven and is trying to make a point, where as Platoon is, again, just trying to show what really happened there, ignoring the rhetoric and agenda other films dealing with Vietnam tend to embrace.

Also, Platoon is hardly generic plot-wise. It barely even has a plot. It was incredibly unique for it's time by simply trying to show the events of Vietnam in an honest way, without agenda or linear plot. It was made 20+ years ago, so again, there have been many movies that have copied aspects of it, so it may come off as generic since it seems that other films have done similar things, but it's important to keep in mind that at the time it was made, there had never been a film quite like it. If anything, FMJ has a more generic feel to it since it's attempting to make a point about war like other war films in the past.

The Deer Hunter is even more incomparable to either of these films. It's primarily a drama, secondly a war movie. And I'd definitely disagree that it makes Platoon look shallow. Both films are very deep and powerful, and honest.

Oh, and for the record: As far as the Pulp Fiction/Forrest Gump year goes, I think Shawshank Redemption should have won.

I watched The Assassination of Richard Nixon at the weekend and thought while the subject matter was interesting, Sean Penn's acting was waaaay to over the top. Shame, I really like him.

Originally posted by BackFire
Well, for one Platoon and FMJ attempt to show different aspects of 'Nam. Platoon is about the jungle warfare and is simply meant to show what ACTUALLY happened in that aspect of Vietnam, and little more than that. In the end it's both bleak and hopeful. FMJ is about the urban warfare and the dehumanization of the soldiers into heartless killing machines. Platoon also shows the dehumanization of the soldiers, but in a different way. They're not transformed into merciless, cold killing machines through training, but through necessity. They become heartless machines because they need to too deal with their station in life. I'd hesitate to even compare them, seeing as their goals are utterly different. But since both films are war movies, comparisons are unavoidable. I sincerely think both movies are excellent in their own way.

The characters in both films seem pretty stereotypical and cliche but that's only because other films have adopted those types of characters and injected them into their films, at the time the characters were very unique. But their simplistic nature makes it easier to identify with them quickly and accurately. This is especially important with Platoon because the film isn't about the people as much as their plights and their actions. After all, as its name infers, it's about a group as a whole rather than a few choice characters. And like it or not, that's how people were in 'Nam. FMJ is a bit more character driven and is trying to make a point, where as Platoon is, again, just trying to show what really happened there, ignoring the rhetoric and agenda other films dealing with Vietnam tend to embrace.

Also, Platoon is hardly generic plot-wise. It barely even has a plot. It was incredibly unique for it's time by simply trying to show the events of Vietnam in an honest way, without agenda or linear plot. It was made 20+ years ago, so again, there have been many movies that have copied aspects of it, so it may come off as generic since it seems that other films have done similar things, but it's important to keep in mind that at the time it was made, there had never been a film quite like it. If anything, FMJ has a more generic feel to it since it's attempting to make a point about war like other war films in the past.

The Deer Hunter is even more incomparable to either of these films. It's primarily a drama, secondly a war movie. And I'd definitely disagree that it makes Platoon look shallow. Both films are very deep and powerful, and honest.

Oh, and for the record: As far as the Pulp Fiction/Forrest Gump year goes, I think Shawshank Redemption should have won.

See this is where the concessions stop, in terms of my opinions. I didn't find Platoon incredibly deep, I found it incredibly average, and that it had a certain aura of, well, machismo I suppose, that prevents it from ever gripping me like FMJ did. Also, Joker is not a cliched character in the slightest. You might not have meant to include him in what you said, but just to make sure. He's at first portrayed to be one kind of person, in the training half, but then proceeds to subvert, on multiple occassions, what the viewer themselves have been trained to think about him during the course of the second half.

And I definitely disagree with what you said about FMJ having a more generic feel because it's ''attempting to make a point about war'', mainly because I think it's one of the very few war films that doesn't try to make some kind of commentary on the war itself. As you said, it's very character driven and Kubrick focuses entirely on the effects of the various surroundings and situations on them, and even then in quite a distant, calculating way. FMJ is a very cold film, it never tries to force ideologies onto the audience, it simply presents them with a set of characters, in a war-time situation, and let's them make whatever they want of those character's destruction. It's not about making points, it's really just about the fragility of morality, but from an entirely neutral perspective. No preaching, no Apocalypse Now-style philosophy, just cold, hard narrative. There is nothing like it.

I hate the Shawshank Redemption, but I certainly would have taken it over Forest Gump.

SAW if it was not for Cary Elwes

just thought of another movie where I loved the story and everything but would have liked it so much better if someone else had starred in the movie.Die Hard.I pretty much cant stand any movie Bruce willis does.

I think in gone with the wind and west side story. The first one because of Leslie Howard and the second one because Richard Beymer.

I thought DOOM was decent....but the Rock did a really good job.

I'd say Kirsten Dunst in Spiderman and Mona Lisa Smile..loved both of them but I would have enjoyed them more if she wasnt in them.

Keanu Reeves in Parenthood, Matrix AND Constantine...I just cant stand him as an actor

Also Diana Scarwid who plays Jody in What Lies Beneath