I came across this thread from IMBD
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/board/nest/79648305
and here is the original post: -
I know this was probably discussed about at length during the first movie, but it irritates me to no end that this Christopher Nolan has the audacity to hire a bunch on his UK chums to play the parts of Americans. How big of a deal would the Brits be making if, say, George Clooney, or Brad Pitt were cast in place of Daniel Craig for the Casino Royale movie? They would have been delirious with anger. Why is it that we Americans seem to let the world of actors (Bale, Oldman, Ledger, Neeson, Tom Wilkinson, Cillian Murphy) play American characters? Hell, even Bruce's dad in the first movie is a Brit! A bit excessive, almost like Nolan was daring the American public to be able to tell the difference, snubbing his nose at us. I left Michael Caine out of the argument since, well, HIS PART SHOULD BE PLAYED BY A BRIT! Neeson's character in the first film i have less of a problem with as his characters' past is unknown, and he doesn't try to fake an American accent in "Begins". Think of the movie "Next Of Kin" with Patrick Swayze to see his bad American accent in action! On that subject, Tom Wikinson was the worst, Oldman was tolerable, barely, but i still knew, which affected my enjoyment of the movie.
I'm not knocking the final product of the film, as it was good, just the execution of it. In the back of my mind while watching the first movie two years ago, i knew they were Brits, except Neeson and Murphy, a couple of micks like myself, close enough. The discerning linguist can hear the forced "R's" when a Brit tries to speak in American accent. It's the difference between "The Joker", and "The Joe-kerr", too much emphasis on the R! It drives me nuts. Enough with my rant. I'm sure the next film will be good, Im annoyed that Nolan is now looking towards Australia for his actors (ledger), and I'll still be annoyed that the Americans that are in the film will only be in the periphery, rather than in the focus of the film.
Is this a relevant criticism for anyone else?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/board/nest/79648305
and here is the original post: -
I know this was probably discussed about at length during the first movie, but it irritates me to no end that this Christopher Nolan has the audacity to hire a bunch on his UK chums to play the parts of Americans. How big of a deal would the Brits be making if, say, George Clooney, or Brad Pitt were cast in place of Daniel Craig for the Casino Royale movie? They would have been delirious with anger. Why is it that we Americans seem to let the world of actors (Bale, Oldman, Ledger, Neeson, Tom Wilkinson, Cillian Murphy) play American characters? Hell, even Bruce's dad in the first movie is a Brit! A bit excessive, almost like Nolan was daring the American public to be able to tell the difference, snubbing his nose at us. I left Michael Caine out of the argument since, well, HIS PART SHOULD BE PLAYED BY A BRIT! Neeson's character in the first film i have less of a problem with as his characters' past is unknown, and he doesn't try to fake an American accent in "Begins". Think of the movie "Next Of Kin" with Patrick Swayze to see his bad American accent in action! On that subject, Tom Wikinson was the worst, Oldman was tolerable, barely, but i still knew, which affected my enjoyment of the movie.
I'm not knocking the final product of the film, as it was good, just the execution of it. In the back of my mind while watching the first movie two years ago, i knew they were Brits, except Neeson and Murphy, a couple of micks like myself, close enough. The discerning linguist can hear the forced "R's" when a Brit tries to speak in American accent. It's the difference between "The Joker", and "The Joe-kerr", too much emphasis on the R! It drives me nuts. Enough with my rant. I'm sure the next film will be good, Im annoyed that Nolan is now looking towards Australia for his actors (ledger), and I'll still be annoyed that the Americans that are in the film will only be in the periphery, rather than in the focus of the film.
Is this a relevant criticism for anyone else?