MovieChat Forums > Year of the Gun (1991) Discussion > McCarthy seriously miscast here!

McCarthy seriously miscast here!


It's a shame bacause this really interesting political thriller (reminiscent at times of Costa-Gavras's work) fails to really take off primarily because of Andrew McCarthy who, no matter what he does-or how he does it- always ends up looking-and acting- like a spoiled brat.In 1991 McCarthy was still in the "boy" and definitely not in the "man" category of working actors.If,at the time, Sharon Stone was considered a younger Dunaway-type, then, opposite her, a younger Redford-type would be needed to create that certain "Three days of the condor" feel(that the movie really is trying to capture throughout).

reply

I think that McCarthy was excellent in this film. Far from his career over, I think he gave his best two performances in this film and 1994s Night of the Running Man.

As stated, Stone was excellent and gave the type performance that Madonna wishes she could have in Body of Evidence.

reply

I think we have an honorable disagreement here, the Stone/Madonna comment excluded.

reply

i agree, he looks like a little kid and looks high most of the time.

______________________
Eric C 4 Prez

reply

If,at the time, Sharon Stone was considered a younger Dunaway-type, then, opposite her, a younger Redford-type would be needed to create that certain "Three days of the condor" feel(that the movie really is trying to capture throughout).
It sounds like you wanted a film where the Aryans save the day (which is almost what we got here anyway, with the those swarthy 'Red' Italians as the villains). At least with McCarthy, who I do agree was miscast, we got someone who wasn't quite the classic, square-jawed, blonde, blue-eyed hunk. Sure, he's WASPy but at least he gives a less-than-assured, quirky vibe.

reply

McCarthy came into his own years down the line.
but yes here he's just a wimpy rich kid running around pretending to be a hero

reply