MovieChat Forums > Friends with Kids (2012) Discussion > they couldn't have found a better-lookin...

they couldn't have found a better-looking man than Edward Burns ...


...to play the part?

His extreme "gorgeousness" isn't obvious to me, nor did I think that he was the best-looking man in the room. And everyone in the movie acted like he was supposed to be the most handsome of them all by far.


reply

They should give that part to Jon Hamm and Edward Burns should play Ben and that would make much more sense

reply

I think you're on to something. I love Adam Scott, but I think he was miscast here. Or maybe he is, at least to me, stereotyped because of Parks and Rec, which I loved...the show and his character. I didn't see enough of Party Down to know what his character was like. I just didn't buy him here as the Lothario bedding every woman in sight. (Though he is very cute...I guess I'm not making sense.)

Ed Burns, though? If there's a better-looking man, I don't know who it is. Hubba hubba! (And agree with the person above who wrote about his voice.) I'm always surprised that he wasn't a bigger, leading-man type actor.

Jon Hamm is fine, as in fine. And Chris O'Dowd was so cute in Bridesmaids. But there's something about Ed Burns.

This movie had an abundance of extraordinarily good-looking men. Too bad it wasn't better.

reply