Never in a million years this would have occurred to me - before seeing the poster for "The Birthday girl":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0188453/photogallery-ss-0
Nicole Kidman.
(I know - a totally unbelievable idea!)
With dark lenses and dark hair, of course - she would have been much better an approximation (physically) than the actress who played her.
(BTW, I am NOT Kidman's fan.
Nor do I "hate" her.)
Sorry for putting this so bluntly but: are you out of your mind?
Kidman is at least 5'10" and Wood was only 5"2" if that. And that is
supposedly a "better physical approximation than the actress who
played her" who at 5'7" or so was already too tall for the part?
Color me shocked and confused.
Diane Lane should have played her.
shareThat is very insightful of you, Jess. Lana Wood, who co-produced this movie, has stated that of all the actresses who auditioned for the part of Natalie, Diane Lane most accurately portrayed Natalie's movements and mannerisms.
But the casting people wanted someone "lesser known" at the time. Another actress who really wanted to play Natalie, but who was extremely popular at the time with her own TV show ("Charmed"), is Alyssa Milano.
Another actress that would be excellent to portray Natalie, in that she is close to Natalie's height and size, with large brown eyes and gorgeous flowing dark hair, and a magical "adorability," is Rachel Bilson:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1404933888/nm1377375
I don't care oif this is a dead thread but wow yes! she did look like her in the poster! But yes the height is a major difference and would look just a bit sill.
My movie blog! http://the-forgotten-reel.blogspot.com/
Her own daughhter, Natasha Gregson Wagner, should have played her. She resembles her mother more closely than anyone else I could name.
Just for the record, I'm female...