My opinion is that Julia Roberts was not the best person to play this role...I am suprised no one else mentioned it yet. Cambell Scott, however, was perfect.
shareany suggestions?...on a "better" actrice for this part, i am just curious...
" If I want your opinion?, I will give you one "
I really can't think of anyone else besides her who could have played the part. Jodie Foster, the other 'it' girl at the time, may not have been considered sexy enough to some. Sandra Bullock wasn't A-list yet...Anjelina Jolie wasn't on the scene yet...Michelle Pfeiffer may have been considered too old at the time...Winona Ryder may have been deemed TOO young...Uma Thurman wasn't quite A-list yet...so really, Roberts was the perfect choice. And I thought she did really well.
Dammit Carol Sue, where is the vodka?!
what made her unfit for the role?
she nailed it in my opinion.
------------------------------
let me dope you
Julia Roberts was the IT girl of the time and other than her in this pretty depressing role I doubt many would've bothered to see it. Demi Moore was still big after Ghost but probably not right for this kind of role, not sure who else would've been suitable or a big enough box office draw.
shareExactly! Surely this movie only got made in the first place as a vehicle for the big star of the moment, Julia Roberts. What other earthly reason could there have been to make such schmaltz?
shareThat's pretty much why it was made-this was the first movie made after Julia hit it big with "Pretty Woman". "Flatliners" and "Sleeping with the Enemy" were already in the can. So they hired Joel Schumacher, who had just worked with Julia in "Flatliners", to direct it, Sally Field produced it, Julia had her "Pretty Woman" red hair back, it rehashed the "Pretty Woman" rich guy/poor girl characters etc. It was pretty much an overblown production. There was a story in there, but it was so altered from the book and it focused so much on Julia, that it turned out the way it did.
share