this movie was so disjointed from the beginning, having seen both gwyneth and hope's movies, I would have really preferred to see them swap roles. Hope would have been so much more interresting/believable/likeable than Gwyneth in this role...
shareI completely disagree. I think the casting was perfect. Did you watch the "making of" on the DVD? They show Gwyneth Paltrow in the same role on stage. She knew this character inside and out after playing her for so long. She was meant to play her in the movie.
Tomorrow's just your future yesterday!
Frankly, after seeing the film, I can't see anyone but Paltrow as Catherine and I can't see anyone but Davis for Claire. Can you imagine Paltrow saying "Did you use the word dickhead?" after hearing Davis say it? Davis is too old for Catherine anyway.
It would be interesting to see them swap for a stage production though.
You spilled my egg. I needed that egg.
G. Paltrow doesn't have to be likable. She has to be empathized with and understood. I thought she was excellent in the role.
shareI thought Gwyneth Paltrow was terribly miscast in this role and when she said the proof was hers it was absolutely laughable coming from her. Anne Heche played the role to great acclaim in New York after Mary-Louise Parker moved on and I kept thinking she would have been so much more interesting and convincing in the part (Paltrow just seemed annoying and delivered her lines like she was whining [they were also not at all nuanced -- she delivered the lines exactly as written, whereas a great actress and director know that what you say is often completely different than what you mean or what's revealed in your body language]). It was a waste. Hope Davis was, indeed, much more interesting in this film, but Parker, Heche, or just about anyone else would have been better than vacuous, unengaging Paltrow.
shareGwyneth Paltrow is one of my favorite actors. I think she was PERFECT in this movie. She is so versatile; she can do almost any role. I personally don't think Hope Davis could have played as good a Catherine. And I don't think Paltrow simply "delivered the lines exactly as written." I think she delivered them the way they were intended to be delivered. She often sounded awkward and pathetic and depressed, which was how the character was. I think she played this role PERFECTLY.
sharecouldn't disagree more, i'm not a fan of paltrow at all. i'm on the opposite side of the opinion spectrum. i didn't believe her as the character for one second. i did not believe she was vulnerable, possibly crazy, or remotely smart. she came across as very annoying to me, with lots of juvenille angst. the sarcastic humor i read in the character was also lost. i thought she did better with some of the end scenes but it was too late by then. i've only read the play before seeing this and it fell flat. even claire came across as a one note character.
the whole movie missed the mark for me, though the scene flow was pretty good for flashing back & forth so much.
now if only paltrow's head was in a box at the end...
"WHO'S ON TOP & WHO'S ON BOTTOM NOW, huh?! WHO'S ON TOP & WHO'S ON BOTTOM NOW!"
All the parts were superbly cast. Gwyneth owns Catherine. I can't imagine a more perfect match, and a more sensational performance, in my wildest imagination. The others were also excellent in their roles.
Now, it's true that actors of this caliber can adapt in amazing ways. I can imagine Gwyneth and Hope trading places and doing full justice to the characters (age problems aside) - but I can't imagine that the movie would have been as perfect. Obviously Anthony and Jake couldn't have traded places, because of their ages.
In the end, my tears were equally for Catherine's circumstance, experiences, and her soul's torture - and joy and recognition for Gwyneth's breathtaking performance. Anthony had some masterpiece scenes as well, but from start to finish the film was Gwyneth's in pure jaw dropping fashion.
having seen both gwyneth and hope's movies, I would have really preferred to see them swap roles.
To me the cast was excellent and Gwyneth absolutely brilliant in this role.
This part almost made me love her, and the subtlety and precision of her peformance is magnificent!
Every nuance of the character, that I know so well from the play, came across as it should. A very convincing, beautiful and touching performance. A great movie, I naturally own the DVD, but I'm already waiting for the blu-ray to come out (hopefully)!
ML
I agree! Gwyneth Paltrow as a mathematical genius? She even sounds confused when saying "zero". I guess that's the difference between celebrity and actress, if an "star" doesn't have serious acting skills (and Paltrow frankly doesn't) they lose the ability to transform themselves into playing anything and roles like these are laughable
shareI agree with Rob. I saw Mary-Louise Parker in the play and she was terrific. You couldn't tell if she was a smart eccentric or really cray cray. Paltrow just seems whiny and disagreeable in comparison and her characterization lacks complexity.
shareI'm wondering if the OP realized how sexist his complaint sounds.
I've known a lot of mathematicians. Some are women just as attractive as Gwyneth Paltrow. Most mathematicians that I've known do _not_ fit the stereotype of what a math geek is supposed to look like.
Very few mathematicians look like the characters from Revenge of the Nerds.