So I've been foaming at the mouth for a while about the Jack Reacher movie. As a fan of the books, I could not, for the life of me, understand why they cast for the role of Jack Reacher (six-foot-five and 250 pounds of muscle, heavily scarred, unattractive, blonde hair and blue eyes) the actor Tom Cruise (who has none of those characteristics). Then I saw an interview with the author, who insisted that the character's size was a metaphor for him being an unstoppable force, which Tom Cruise portrays "in his own way". Now I can't decide if that's legitimate artistic license which I don't happen to agree with, OR a bad casting decision backed up by hypocritical greed.
So I found some other commonly-cited examples and I'm letting you make the decision. Which of these represents the worst casting decision ever made? And if you select "other" please give details!
EDIT: Remember when voting that there is a difference between a bad casting decision, and either a role OR actor who just sucks to begin with. A lot of people think George Clooney is a good actor, but don't understand how he became Batman, for example. George Lazenby's Bond is almost universally proclaimed the worst, but the writing and the role of that god-awful movie are more responsible than the American actor.