What miscast roles do you think ended up making a movie more enjoyable/Adding another dimension?

One that comes to mind for me, is Vernon Wells in Commando.

Well, there are a few ways you can think about this. One way are cases where an actor appears to be completely wrong for a role, but they (and the other filmmakers) make it work. Some examples: Charlize Theron in "Monster", Cameron Diaz and Catherine Keener in "Being John Malkovich" (all logic suggested that Diaz shouldn't played the "hot" girl, with Keener playing the frumpy one), Bill Murray and Robert DeNiro in "Mad Dog and Glory". In cases like that, the unconventional casting almost becomes a selling point of the movie.

Then there are the cases of truly misguided casting - but they help make a movie so bad it becomes comical to watch. Uwe Boll is the modern master of this. Who in their right mind would think actors like Burt Reynolds, Michelle Rodriguez, Michael Madson, and Meat Loaf are well-suited for medieval period pieces?

Michael Keaton as Batman. There were riots in the streets by comic book fans when he was announced in the role. Proved to be an excellent but certainly not obvious choice.

If he was excellent in the role, how could it be considered miscast?

I guess I don't see how there can be a miscast role and a good performance at the same time. People might THINk the actor was miscast before they see the movie but if the actor ends up doing a good job then I just don't think anybody can consider the role miscast.

Yeah, I'm not sure if this works. Maybe...Surprise casting? Miscast means that whatever they were cast in didn't work Ex: Diaz in Gangs of NY. Miscast cuz she sure as hell couldn't act next DDL or DiCaprio.

I'm not going to say this was a case of being miscast, because it worked, but French Stewart was in Surveillance and I'll be damned if he wasn't great. I couldn't even tell it was him since he wasn't acting like an annoying ass.

Tom Hanks in Road to Perdition

Haven't seen the movie so I'll just take your word for it. I think examples like that are more like good casting rather than miscasting that just somehow turns out well. I can only assume that the powers that be went that route on purpose and had an idea in mind and it happened to turn out well.

I think it's cool when certain actors go WAY outside their comfort zone and end up pulling it off.

Take Tom Hanks in Philadelphia for example. For the most part, he was a comedic actor and his Philadelphia role was a huge departure. I bet a lot of people back then said it was a major miscasting mistake to put a goofy comedy actor in that role but he did a good job so it was impossible to say he was miscast. Was it possibly a gamble? Sure, but it paid off.

^^^
That was one I thought about including. I suppose I chickened out, not wanting to be subjected to any "Tom Cruise sucks!" ridicule

In retrospect, Cruise had the charisma to pull the role off ... despite physically being about as far away from Lestat as possible. That was really emphasized when we saw Stuart Townshend, an actor who looks the part but doesn't have a fraction of Cruise's charisma, take on the role a few years later.

Especially if you read the novella first...

All depends on your definition of "miscasting" and "that works."

For me, I think that any performance "that works" can be considered a successful performance, therefore a good one. I don't see another definition for "that works." It either works or it doesn't.

If you feel miscast can only mean failure, then by that train of thought there is no real answer to the OP's question.

Now, if what the OP means is a bad performance that's still entertaining because it's so bad it's good, then, yes, my example of Keaton as Batman is off the mark.

I assume he means someone you wouldn't expect to be good in the role ultimately proves to be good in the role. A lot of people didn't expect Keaton to be good as Batman.

You can also purposely cast out-of-character for a role, but again if the performance works, it's still a good performance.

Right. And, he won an Oscar for his performance. I guess you would call that a "good performance".

And to use your own words:
"If he was excellent in the role, how could it be considered miscast?"

And just like Hanks, Keaton was known as a comic actor, not an action star.

This thread can be "Miscasting that is so bad, it's good." or "Potentially miscast, but ended up being good/great."

Potentially miscast, ended up being Good/Great:

Pat Morita, The Karate Kid.

Wilford Brimley, The Firm.

I was going to say you shouldn't include DiCaprio there with DDL, but to be fair he was acting, he made it painfully obvious.

lol

Where can I get this action figure?

You waited 3 1/2 YEARS to clear this up?!

I still don't understand why they didn't just say "aww hell, just play someone Scottish".

Ex-fucking-actly!

Honestly, it could have been Sean Connery in anything. It's the "Chicago way!"

Ryan Gosling in The Believer. They were looking for someone passably Jewish/passably not Jewish and they got someone who actually looks Aryan. Then they cast Summer Phoenix as the daughter of a white supremacist and she definitely doesn't look like she would fit in at a Nazi rally. But the reverse contrast worked well for the screen time together.

Arnold Schwarzenegger in The Terminator. Cameron wanted a guy who could blend into the crowd and chose some looking like The Hulk that sticks out in a crowd. Turned what would might have been a cult classic into a blockbuster and underlined the idea that the terminator was unstoppable.

That looks like a still from "Robot Chicken".

I have to say that in GONY DiCaprio was almost as bad as Diaz. What the hell was going on in Scorsese's head.