Why did they pick that over sized thing to play buds love interest?? Her face is about 2 feet long, she's like 6 foot 7 tall, she talks w that annoying lisp...of all the hotties they could have.chosen for the role and they pick that obnoxious and boring actress.
She almost ruined the movie but took it down to a 8 from a 9.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000435/board/thread/260034065
Her acting is beyond terrible. Her presence in a film can make it unwatchable. I physically cringe every time she delivers a line. In every role I've seen her in, I never once, for a single moment, found it to be a genuine moment.
Worst Supporting Actressshare
Daryl Hannah in Wall Street as Darien Taylor
Gloria Foster in Leonard Part 6 as Medusa Johnson
Mariel Hemingway in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace as Lacy Warfield
Grace Jones in Siesta as Conchita
Isabella Rossellini in Siesta and Tough Guys Don’t Dance as Marie and Madeleine Regency (respectively)
Winner: Daryl Hannah
I’m not going to quibble too much with the nominees here. It’s a bit weird to me to see two nominees from Siesta. Siesta was a little arthouse movie starring Ellen Barkin, Gabriel Byrne and Julian Sands. It was directed by Mary Lambert who got her start directing music videos for Madonna and would later go on to make the Pet Sematary movies. Rossellini and Jones aren’t really in the movie all that much. Of course, Rossellini’s nomination is mostly for Tough Guys Don’t Dance and Jones’ is probably belated nomination for Conan the Destroyer and A View to a Kill.
I have always liked Mariel Hemingway, but Superman IV is awful. I don’t understand how Jon Cryer wasn’t nominated in the next category.
Daryl Hannah took home the prize and it’s hard to disagree. Even writer-director Oliver Stone thought the blonde beauty was miscast in Wall Street – and he cast her! Costar Sean Young repeatedly pleaded with Stone to let them switch roles. But Stone was so annoyed with Young that he refused even though he grudgingly admitted that Young was better-suited to Hannah’s role.
You're crazy. Hannah is very good looking. (And I'm saying this as someone who prefers brunettes, like Sean Young, who is also pretty.)
shareShe looks like a transvestite to me. In the trivia section it says that Stone was too proud to replace her, even when everyone told him to.
shareEveryone told him to replace her because she was miscast, not because she was ugly. She was miscast because she was terrible at playing a snobby socialite who only cared about money.
shareNot being able to play a snobby socialite certainly doesn't say much for her abilities as an actress, as she comes from a wealthy background. But I wouldn't say she's ugly.
shareDarryl Hannah immediately strikes me as being more of a hippy than convincingly being able to play a snobby, gold-digging, socialite.
sharePoor man’s Kim Bassinger.
shareSean Young wanted to play her but I don't think Young was hot enough for that role either at least not the way she looked in the film. She has looked good in other films.
shareLol, the standards of beauty were different in the '80s and favored the tall, athletic, blond. Splash was to Daryl, what Pretty Woman was to Julia Roberts. I don't think either actress is beautiful by today's standards.
🐾
You have got to be kidding me.
Both are gorgeous by today's standards.
Actually, she is 5'10 tall. And the 'face that is 2 feet long' remark is odd. Anyone with that feature would be considered to be DEFORMED! Considering her long career, and that no less than JFK Jr. has dated her, she can't be all that off-putting. With that said, she wasn't especially happy with her role in this - she actually refused to watch the finished product.
shareHer asss is about 3 feet and flat as a board, can't imagine how bad it looks these days...
sharePleasant crowd. :)
I didn't mind her as the love interest nor did her looks disgust me in this film. That's all.
[deleted]
I found her skinny legs to be a turn off. Also due to her being taller than everyone else she has to wear flat shoes throughout the film. You would think given the time period and her role in it, the character would be in heels. The whole glamour thing is just lost.
shareA beautiful woman in flats is much hotter and more glamorous than an ugly woman in heels.
In my single days going to nightclubs and bars do you know how many times me or one of my buddies said 'I would prefer an average looking woman in fancy heels to a hot woman in bad shoes' or something along those lines?
Never.
Do you know how many times I heard of a straight man saying something like that?
Never.
The shoe thing is, to be honest, invented to some extent by women that are not particularly attractive. Some of these women would like to think that a makeover and a stylish outfit can make them hot. That is just not the case, unless she is attractive to begin with.
Marisa Miller in a Walmart dress is hotter than Amy Schumer in something expensive by BCBG. I have never met a straight man who thinks differently.