Sunday, December 05, 2004

I'm not sure why I bothered reading this article, in which some people complain about the possible casting of an upcoming movie based on that Da Vinci Code book, since I generally don't get to wrapped up about speculating on who'd play certain roles well if favorite books were made into movies (although, admittedly, I am convinced that Lance Henriksen should be Mad Eye Moody in the next Harry Potter flick), and also because I haven't read that Da Vinci Code book. A lot of the article consists of people bitching about Tom Hanks getting to play pretty much everybody in every movie these days. And yeah, I suppose Hanks might just be a tad overexposed currently, but I don't really have a problem with that, since in my view he's a pretty chameleonic actor.

But I was quite taken aback by this particular complaint from one "Amanda":

While Tom Hanks has a good draw, I do not see him as a particularly brainy character. This is far too cerebral for him I think.

Yeah, it sure is a stretch to envision Tom Hanks playing a smart character; I mean, looking at his filmography, I see one blockhead after another. Jim Lovell in Apollo 13? What a dunce. Agent Handratty in Catch Me If You Can? A total dolt. Michael Sullivan in Road to Perdition? The picture of stupidity. Captain Miller in Saving Private Ryan? A rank moron. Sam Baldwin in Sleepless In Seattle? He ain't no rocket scientist. (An architect, maybe, but no rocket scientist.) Andrew Beckett in Philadelphia (for which Hanks won his first Oscar)? An opera-loving gay big-city lawyer – as stupid a class of people as you'll find.

Obviously "Amanda" knows Hanks pretty much exclusively by Forrest Gump and the string of amiable comedies he made in the 80s like The Burbs. Or maybe she stopped paying attention to Tom Hanks when Bosom Buddies got canceled, and she's wondering why Peter Scolari isn't being considered for the role. Whatever the reason, she certainly isn't familiar at all with Tom Hanks's body of work.

No comments: