i met Ginsburg, Radcliffe doesn't look even vaguely like him!

Spot on! Exactly what I was going to say.

I feel your pain, Nedhorn, but sorry to say that it can't be helped - they're doing it with just about every biopic these days. It's become almost completely standard practise. Nearly every second film coming out at the moment seems to be a real-life story - they've turned into some kind of trend (could have something to do with the fact that they usually secure Oscar noms). It's like people want to join the crowd while they're popular, and as such, why waste time finding the right face. The actor who gets cast no longer needs to look anything like the person who they're portraying; they don't even need to do a decent imitation of them really, they just need to be an established star. I realise that the movie needs to be sold, but to the poster who said, "Why should an actor look exactly like the person who they're playing?", well because we're meant to believe that we're finally seeing that real-life icon come to life. That's generally the whole purpose of watching a film that's based on a true story, or claims to be. If you're going to say that physical resemblance doesn't need to be an issue, then you might as well say that Daniel Day-Lewis didn't need to be buried under all of that make-up and fake hair for Lincoln. They should have just scrubbed him clean and stuck his usual handsome face on the billboards, along with a banner reading, "Look! The 16th President of the United States! Sure they look nothing alike, but he does the same weedy voice pretty well, so cripes, it's like Abe is walking amongst us again eh?"

OK, if the actor cannot cannot look exactly like the man/woman in question, then yes I agree, they could at least impersonate them plausibly. But lately, some of the examplars that we've seen haven't even done that. It's getting very tiresome that people in Hollywood are more concerned with landing a well-known name over honouring a historical person who probably broke down several social barriers.

Over the past few years we've been subjected to Jessica Biel as Vera Miles (Jessica's not a bad actress, but she was wrong for that part), Michelle Williams as Marilyn Munroe (terrible choice), Keira Knightley as Domino Harvey (UGH), Leonardo DiCaprio as J. Edgar Hoover (and Howard Hughes), John Cusack as Edgar Allen Poe, Johnny Depp as John Dillinger, Robert Pattinson as Salvidor Dali, Angelina Jolie as that woman who lost her son (one of the worst casting decisions ever) and...oh yeah, James Franco as Allen Geinsburg! And some of these actors are people who I really like. But they just end up being a distraction. You never really feel like you're watching the real person, you're just watching a Hollywood actor with the same name. Why not make it a fictional tale and slap the headline "Inspired by true events" on it? I'm becoming more and more convinced that these casting directors are just picking names out of a hat. Hell, we're soon to see Tom Hanks as Walt Disney! I don't know if they're still going ahead with that Frank Sinatra vehicle, but going by the guys who I heard were being considered, scrapping the idea may've indeed been the more sensible decision if that's what they've done.

Having said all of this, I admit it - I'm actually very curious to see this film. But only because I'm hugely interested in writers of the beat generation. I'm not sure if I'm going to believe Radcliffe as Giensburg, but I'll focus on the story above all else. And Ben Foster is certainly a very interesting choice for William Burroughs; I'm intrigued to see if he pulls it off.