Best Bond?

[urquell]

Are you saying American actors are not talented enough to portray British characters? Didn't Robert Downey Jr. play Sherlock Holmes? And didn't Renee Zellwegger portray Bridget Jones (and also get an Oscar Nomination for doing so?)

Yes. That's what I'm saying. Downey was passable but Zellweger was bloody awful to my ears. I find there's often a certain level of discomfort and/or a level of resources diverted to maintaining an accent while also properly interpreting your lines. If you do it natively then you can focus entirely on the performance. I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying it will be likely be done better by someone who does it naturally. Why get an imitation instead of the real thing? Are you saying that there aren't any british actors fot for the role? Didn't you already in fact put forward a desirable British candidate?

Aren't you assuming that they are going to cast the part written by Ian Fleming? Just a reminder that Fleming wrote his books in the 1950s and 1960s when the UK still had a colonial empire, and we are now living in 2025. The UK's position in the world order has changed since the plots of the Bond books. Another reminder is they have pretty much used up all of the Ian Fleming novels on movies anyway, including the half completed The Man With The Golden Gun, which was considered Fleming's weakest book.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm assuming. It's Bond. If you want to redefine the character you either do it within the confines of the Bond universe (which has happened several times already) or you go do something else that's perhaps Bond-like and develop a new character. I used the Ludlum books (Jason Bourne etc) as an example above. There's no reason why Bond can't be modern, but he should still be Bond. That's what we all signed up for.

Does Bond really even need to belong to one nation's spy service? Maybe he will be a free agent. If you have ever watched the Danger Man UK TV series of the 1960s you would know that Patrick McGoohan (an Irish American actor) portrayed the John Drake character in season 1 as an American agent for the NATO spy service (there was no such thing then or now). However in seasons 2-4 the Drake character loses his American accent and becomes British and is working for MI6. It's kind of preposterous yet it works for all 4 seasons because the formulas of each episode remain the same as does McGoohan's acting which is good whether speaking with an American or British accent.

Yes, he does. Again, he's Bond and that's part of the core identity. However, once again you can adapt new characters into multinational services with no problem. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. was actually conceived as being exactly that. You could reinterpret that in any way you like for the modern age, and use any character (or collection of characters) at all. There are better vehicles for doing this than Bond. As for McGoohan, I think he's awesome, but I preferred The Prisoner.

As for defecting to Control, I mean why not? I'd hubba hubba over for a little 99.

 

[urquell]

Haven't seen him in much else, but Jamie Dornan was really good in Season 1 of The Fall ...

I've always loved Patrick McGoohan, especially in The Prisoner ... he had the cool factor, obvious intelligence and acting chops. But he might have been a little too intense at times for Bond, who should (at least for me) have a debonair, laid back, slightly louche quality.

Cary Grant (the Best Man at future Bond co-producer Broccoli's wedding) might have done the first Bond, except the producers wanted someone contracted for five films--a later sore point for Connery.

Similarly, Hitchcock might have directed the first film, if we can believe the stories; but the producers (Saltzman was from Quebec, btw) probably thought he (and Grant) were too expensive.

Of course, if Hitchcock had done it, it would have been a "Hitchcock picture," not exactly what they had in mind, even if Hitchcock's North By Northwest, with Grant, is the obvious template for cinematic Bond, which would later steal a variation on the famous crop-dusting scene for FRWL.

View attachment 88956

Cary Grant would be a dream Bond in almost every aspect, but he lost some of physical prowess relatively early in middle age, and you can see that in films like North by Northwest. If they had caught him early enough I don't think any of us would be questioning who was the best Bond, I think the decision would have been almost unanimous for him. Nobody else before or since has exuded charm and grace like Mr. Leach. I also completely agree with you about McGoohan ( I just finished commenting about him to EB before I read your post. lol). He's awesome, cool and intelligent, but he is more perfect Bond villain than perfect Bond because of that frowning intensity he has. I can totally see McGoohan as a Bond villain. Hitchcock would have been a poor choice to direct a Bond film, as much as I love Hitchcock films, because Hitchcock is a master at developing suspense and tension, and that's not the right tone for a Bond film, which is more about developing action (of course there are elements of both tension and action that cross over each way, but I'm referring to the predominant mood and tone.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Haven't seen him in much else, but Jamie Dornan was really good in Season 1 of The Fall ...

Jamie Dornan was particularly good in The Tourist. He is 42 years old and is the right age. He is Irish, however, not English like Theo James.

 

[talkinghead]

It's enormous fun to read this lively and lighthearted thread, especially the playful speculation about Cary Grant as Bond and even Hitchcock as director. NbyNW is a terrific example of Grant's cool, sexuality, and heroic masculinity, everything that we see in Sean Connery. ("Notorious" does much of the same, though without the same cheek.) I would only add that Hitchcock established the Bond movie template before NbyNW and even before Ian Fleming's books: the remarkable "39 Steps" (1935) has it all: the humor, the chase, the evil (disfigured) villain, the romance, the English/Scottish urban/rural settings, and ... the train!

English football fans have expressed a great deal of skepticism about the national team being coached by someone who isn't English (the German Thomas Tuchel); surely Bond has to be played by a UK actor?

 

[EagerBeaver]

I've always loved Patrick McGoohan, especially in The Prisoner ... he had the cool factor, obvious intelligence and acting chops. But he might have been a little too intense at times for Bond, who should (at least for me) have a debonair, laid back, slightly louche quality.

You are confusing the roles McGoohan played as #6 and as John Drake and the intensity of those characters with Bond. McGoohan absolutely could have played Bond and was offered the part or to screen test for the part before Connery, as he was a bigger star than Connery at the time. McGoohan, who was a fairly religious Catholic, did not approve of elements of the Bond scripts, specifically kissing actresses other than his wife, and he was against using guns when the character can rely on resourcefulness and guile as opposed to guns and fists. These "restrictions" are reflected in the Danger Man TV series as the producers bowed to McGoohan's demands and also allowed him out of the Danger Man contract so he could make the Prisoner. If you watch Danger Man's 4 seasons, there are some fistfight scenes, but not very many after the first season, and McGoohan only uses a gun once or twice in the whole run of the series, and only when it was absolutely necessary to do so because his guile and resourcefulness were not going to get him out of the situation. In other words it had to make sense. His John Drake character also voices these opinions in the Danger Man series. In shooing away women who come on to him in the series, his usual line is that romantic trysts are not a good idea in his line of business, which is 100% true in the spy business.

Could McGoohan have played Bond as debonair and even humorous, were it not for his objections? Absolutely. I have read he was an extremely private and laid back person in real life, and his sense of humor is evident in the John Drake role, although far less so playing #6 in the Prisoner.

 

[urquell]

You are confusing the roles McGoohan played as #6 and as John Drake and the intensity of those characters with Bond. McGoohan absolutely could have played Bond and was offered the part or to screen test for the part before Connery, as he was a bigger star than Connery at the time. McGoohan, who was a fairly religious Catholic, did not approve of elements of the Bond scripts, specifically kissing actresses other than his wife, and he was against using guns when the character can rely on resourcefulness and guile as opposed to guns and fists. These "restrictions" are reflected in the Danger Man TV series as the producers bowed to McGoohan's demands and also allowed him out of the Danger Man contract so he could make the Prisoner. If you watch Danger Man's 4 seasons, there are some fistfight scenes, but not very many after the first season, and McGoohan only uses a gun once or twice in the whole run of the series, and only when it was absolutely necessary to do so because his guile and resourcefulness were not going to get him out of the situation. In other words it had to make sense. His John Drake character also voices these opinions in the Danger Man series. In shooing away women who come on to him in the series, his usual line is that romantic trysts are not a good idea in his line of business, which is 100% true in the spy business.

Could McGoohan have played Bond as debonair and even humorous, were it not for his objections? Absolutely. I have read he was an extremely private and laid back person in real life, and his sense of humor is evident in the John Drake role, although far less so playing #6 in the Prisoner.

I disagree with you. As I previously mentioned I love McGoohan, and had he wanted the role he could have had it, but he wasn't the right guy for the vision. Even he recognized that he wasn't the right guy. Saying that he could have played something were it not for an integral character disconnect is pretty much like saying he couldn't play it, at least as envisioned. I stand by the intensity comment I made earlier. I don't think he's breezy enough to play the role as we conceive it today. Timothy Dalton wasn't either, and that's why he didn't resonate well with audiences. McGoohan was a big name at that point and could have gotten the role, and he probably could have impressed his preferences into the role like he did with Danger Man, but then the role wouldn't have been what it is now, and with the benefit of hindsight we can see why he wouldn't fit as well with the current (and historical) vision of what the film Bond should be, or, had he taken it, why the role wouldn't be what it is today. Given the success of the franchise the latter direction was probably the right way to go.

I think he would have made a fantastic villain though. The Bond franchise has had some real stinkers for villains and I would have happily switched McGoohan out for one of them (Living Daylights anyone?). It would have fit right in with his personal preferences too. The main villains were rarely personally violent and were not usually closely attached to their girls. This assumes that McGoohan could have lived with what everyone else was doing in the film, of course.

 

[Meta not Meta]

Haven't seen him in much else, but Jamie Dornan was really good in Season 1 of The Fall ...

I've always loved Patrick McGoohan, especially in The Prisoner ... he had the cool factor, obvious intelligence and acting chops. But he might have been a little too intense at times for Bond, who should, at least for me, have a debonair, laid back, rather louche quality to him.

Cary Grant might have done the first Bond, except the producers wanted someone contracted for five films--a later sore point for Connery. Similarly Hitchcock might have directed the first film, if we can believe the stories. But the producers (Saltzman was from Quebec, btw) probably thought he (and Grant) were too expensive. Of course, if Hitchcock had done it, it would have been a "Hitchcock picture," not exactly what they had in mind, even if 1959's North By Northwest is the obvious template for cinematic Bond, and which would later steal a variation on the crop-dusting scene for FRWL.

Cary Grant would be a dream Bond in almost every aspect, but he lost some of physical prowess relatively early in middle age, and you can see that in films like North by Northwest. If they had caught him early enough I don't think any of us would be questioning who was the best Bond, I think the decision would have been almost unanimous for him. Nobody else before or since has exuded charm and grace like Mr. Leach. I also completely agree with you about McGoohan ( I just finished commenting about him to EB before I read your post. lol). He's awesome, cool and intelligent, but he is more perfect Bond villain than perfect Bond because of that frowning intensity he has. I can totally see McGoohan as a Bond villain. Hitchcock would have been a poor choice to direct a Bond film, as much as I love Hitchcock films, because Hitchcock is a master at developing suspense and tension, and that's not the right tone for a Bond film, which is more about developing action (of course there are elements of both tension and action that cross over each way, but I'm referring to the predominant mood and tone.

Yeah, Grant was really too old by then. He'd soon retire, and, though still appealing, just doing variations on his persona by that point. Fun to consider in retrospect, but he wouldn't have been James Bond, he'd have been "Cary Grant". Which of course had long been the ingenious construct by one Archie Leach. To say that Grant/Leach was a self-made man barely scratches the surface.

There is a younger version of Grant that I could see as Bond, or one element of Bond anyway: where he deploys a kind of ladykiller-coldness in Hitchcock's 1946 Notorious. I'm sure you know it, where he plays an OSS-style secret agent who exploits Ingrid Bergman's infatuation so that she'll infiltrate a group of wealthy Nazis in South America. It's basically what would become the trope of Bond turning the Bad Girl over to "the side of right and virtue," so well mocked by Fiona Volpe in TB:

 

[Meta not Meta]

It's enormous fun to read this lively and lighthearted thread, especially the playful speculation about Cary Grant as Bond and even Hitchcock as director. NbyNW is a terrific example of Grant's cool, sexuality, and heroic masculinity, everything that we see in Sean Connery. ("Notorious" does much of the same, though without the same cheek.) I would only add that Hitchcock established the Bond movie template before NbyNW and even before Ian Fleming's books: the remarkable "39 Steps" (1935) has it all: the humor, the chase, the evil (disfigured) villain, the romance, the English/Scottish urban/rural settings, and ... the train!

English football fans have expressed a great deal of skepticism about the national team being coached by someone who isn't English (the German Thomas Tuchel); surely Bond has to be played by a UK actor?

Of course, you're right about Notorious ... I actually mentioned it above before seeing your comment.

The 39 Steps, what you say is so true ... well spotted! Hitchcock and trains, and their influence on Bond, haha ... good point!

Hitchcock basically established (at least for the movies) many of the still recognizable elements of the spy thriller: yes, The 39 Steps, especially, and its charming, indefatigable hero so well played by Robert Donat ... some might say, others have, that NBNW is a loose remake or compendium of Hitchcock's own spy-thriller greatest hits.

Relatedly, there's also Fritz Lang, some of whose German movies portrayed recognizable versions of what would become the grandiose, megalomaniacal Bond villain.

But not sure I'd agree with you on the importance of Tuchel's nationality. England had the Italian Fabio Capello before him, so they've already been there. Just as Bond the character has had both an Australian (true, not the best Bond) and Irish actor play him.

In each case above I'd just want the best man for the job. I mean, it might be different if England still produced great football managers. But they don't. Just look at the Premier League, where only two of the current 20 managers are even English. Fans of each team just want the best.

Or consider Cary Grant, for that matter, is he English [Archie Leach] or is he American ["Cary Grant"] ... and does it even matter.

Bond, the character, will always be British - or he's not Bond. What would worry me is an actor not well conveying that, less where he comes from. But of course someone born into it will have obvious advantages in portraying the character.

Ditto everyone's justified worries with Amazon and how they might degrade/dilute/destroy what Bond is.

And also consider that none of the four producers (five if you count Kevin McClory) were themselves British and I think they mostly did a pretty good job of establishing and then shepherding the series.

 

[charmer_]

Problem is he is too old. He is 52 and a 5 film deal would take him into his 60s which is just too old for this part. Cavill, at age 41, is the perfect guy for the part.

Dunno if I'd call him "perfect". They should honestly go with an up-and-comer in his mid 30s, so he has room to grow and can sustain the role.

Cavill is an okay actor, but there are better out there.

 

[EagerBeaver]

They should honestly go with an up-and-comer in his mid 30s, so he has room to grow and can sustain the role.

Cavill is an okay actor, but there are better out there.

I am inclined to agree with this. There has been intense media speculation on Cavill and a half dozen or so other actors, but the truth is they should be looking for someone young to grow into the role, especially if a 5 movie deal is going to take 16 years to complete like it did with Danny Craig. In that case mid 30s is where they should be looking. They should figure out what the character is going to be and then screen test a few hundred actors, the old fashioned way. Maybe someone will get the part that nobody knows very well.

Sean Connery was 31 years old when he made his first Bond film. He had appeared in a few British films, but his only leading role prior to that was in the 1959 Walt Disney film Darby O'Gill And the Little People, a movie about leprechauns. We should consider that history, and the fact that Ian Fleming was (initially) disappointed by the casting choice:

"James Bond's creator, Ian Fleming, originally doubted Connery's casting, saying, "He's not what I envisioned of James Bond looks", and "I'm looking for Commander Bond and not an overgrown stunt-man", adding that Connery (muscular, 6' 2", and a Scot) was unrefined. Fleming's girlfriend Blanche Blackwell told him Connery had the requisite sexual charisma, and Fleming changed his mind after the successful Dr. No première. He was so impressed, he wrote Connery's heritage into the character. In his 1964 novel You Only Live Twice, Fleming wrote that Bond's father was Scottish and from Glencoe in the Scottish Highlands."

Sean Connery - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[urquell]

I am inclined to agree with this. There has been intense media speculation on Cavill and a half dozen or so other actors, but the truth is they should be looking for someone young to grow into the role, especially if a 5 movie deal is going to take 16 years to complete like it did with Danny Craig. In that case mid 30s is where they should be looking. They should figure out what the character is going to be and then screen test a few hundred actors, the old fashioned way. Maybe someone will get the part that nobody knows very well.

Sean Connery was 31 years old when he made his first Bond film. He had appeared in a few British films, but his only leading role prior to that was in the 1959 Walt Disney film Darby O'Gill And the Little People, a movie about leprechauns. We should consider that history, and the fact that Ian Fleming was (initially) disappointed by the casting choice:

"James Bond's creator, Ian Fleming, originally doubted Connery's casting, saying, "He's not what I envisioned of James Bond looks", and "I'm looking for Commander Bond and not an overgrown stunt-man", adding that Connery (muscular, 6' 2", and a Scot) was unrefined. Fleming's girlfriend Blanche Blackwell told him Connery had the requisite sexual charisma, and Fleming changed his mind after the successful Dr. No première. He was so impressed, he wrote Connery's heritage into the character. In his 1964 novel You Only Live Twice, Fleming wrote that Bond's father was Scottish and from Glencoe in the Scottish Highlands."

Sean Connery - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm inclined to agree with this too, and to have someone in their early-mid thirties pick up the batoin and run with it. I'm not sure that wer can be wedded to the canon 5 picture thing though, given the movie industry's current challenges and funding issues extending the space between films. TBH I don't really know what that looks like as it passes into Amazon's hands though. There's been some things in Bond that feel like (or are) endings, and not really much that gets into origins. You could probably go into even actors in their 20's if you wanted to explore Bond's entry into the espionage world. Might be interesting to have a less experienced and more fallible young Bond as he enters the field and develops some of his character quirks and relationships with M, Q, Moneypenny etc. Still get to have the girls, of course, only younger. Oh no, they couldn't be younger or they'd be illegal. lol. I think the Bond franchise has had a bunch of 20-22 year olds already. Young Bond would have to do a reverse Leonardo DiCaprio.

 

[Meta not Meta]

That Amazon paid 8.5 billion for a dying or dead business, MGM, and then a further billion on top of that directly to Wilson & Broccoli for artistic control tells me they're not going to be satisfied making one big movie every 2 to 5 years.

By keeping it theatrical Bond film releases always felt like a big event to me. I really don't want Amazon watering that down. I'm not a fan of other franchises, like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, and their 'multiverse' spinoff projects, especially when they woke-it up. But at least in theory I understand that there's a much greater wealth of 'content' for the owners of those franchises to 'exploit.'

But with Bond it's different. He's just one character. A bit of a loner, in fact. Everyone else is an ancillary stock character. And it should remain that way. Until the Craig era nobody really cared about his "back story," as he mostly didn't have one. He was just never written that way. Nor was there any great "psychological complexity." Bond is a simple guy. He just went on his missions, met a few beautiful women, did what he had to do, and 'saved the world' from film to film, or book to book, with little to no forced "narrative arc" between them.

Ideally they'd get back to that ... but I know they won't.

Keep it Bond.

Single. Straight. Male. British.

 

[talkinghead]

Relatedly, there's also Fritz Lang, some of whose German movies portrayed recognizable versions of what would become the grandiose, megalomaniacal Bond villain.

But not sure I'd agree with you on the importance of Tuchel's nationality. England had the Italian Fabio Capello before him, so they've already been there. Just as Bond the character has had both an Australian (true, not the best Bond) and Irish actor play him.

In each case above I'd just want the best man for the job. I mean, it might be different if England still produced great football managers. But they don't. Just look at the Premier League, where only two of the current 20 managers are even English. Fans of each team just want the best.

Or consider Cary Grant, for that matter, is he English [Archie Leach] or is he American ["Cary Grant"] ... and does it even matter.

I know this thread has moved on but this is good stuff, @Meta not Meta. You've got me with Fritz Lang's German movies. I think I've seen Metropolis and M, but it may just be that I've seen clips and images so often that I've absorbed them. (I also have memories of being at Woodstock and being in the stadium when Bobby Thomson hit "the shot heard round the world.")

As you likely know, there's a neat moment in His Girl Friday, a favorite moment of film buffs, when Cary Grant's character remarks that "the last man that said that to me was Archie Leach just a week before he cut his throat." So, yes, Cary Grant played with that English/American identity!

And I actually don't have much stake in the nationality of the English football manager. I think that Fabio Capello's tenure as the manager was a mixed bag at best. What's interesting about Tuchel is that he's clearly good at short-term runs (eg Chelsea) but tends to burn out. He's explicitly taking the job just for the World Cup, and anything less than making (if not winning) the final will be considered disappointing.

 

[Doc Holliday]

If i produced & directed the next Bond movie i’d give the role to this well known Brit whose late mother was slated to play the main role opposite Kevin Costner in The Bodyguard 2 had she not unexpectedly pass away.

 

[Meta not Meta]

I know this thread has moved on but this is good stuff, @Meta not Meta. You've got me with Fritz Lang's German movies. I think I've seen Metropolis and M, but it may just be that I've seen clips and images so often that I've absorbed them. (I also have memories of being at Woodstock and being in the stadium when Bobby Thomson hit "the shot heard round the world.")

As you likely know, there's a neat moment in His Girl Friday, a favorite moment of film buffs, when Cary Grant's character remarks that "the last man that said that to me was Archie Leach just a week before he cut his throat." So, yes, Cary Grant played with that English/American identity!

And I actually don't have much stake in the nationality of the English football manager. I think that Fabio Capello's tenure as the manager was a mixed bag at best. What's interesting about Tuchel is that he's clearly good at short-term runs (eg Chelsea) but tends to burn out. He's explicitly taking the job just for the World Cup, and anything less than making (if not winning) the final will be considered disappointing.

With Lang, I'm thinking mostly of his Dr. Mabuse films: Mabuse, the supervillain with his own criminal network ... the Evil Genius who controls events from behind the scenes, etc.

But otherwise the Mabuse films are very different from Bond. Mabuse is a kind of shape-shifting, supernatural presence with demonic powers hanging out in the shadows. It's all highly cinematic, expressionistic ... at one with the horror films of the 1920s.

Nor are they as good as the films you mention or some others. Do see Lang's Die Niebelungen, if you ever get the chance. It's really amazing ...but then I'm a maniac for these sorts of things.

I'm sure there are other antecedents for the megalomanical Bond villain: Moriarty in the Sherlock Holmes books ... Fu Manchu ... probably others.

It's funny you mention "M" because, as may know, Peter Lorre is quite literally the first actor to portray a Bond villain, in the 1954 CBS-TV adaptation of Casino Royale. Which features an American Bond ... "Jimmy Bond," in fact. It's all pretty terrible, only worth watching as a bizarre curiosity.

Yes, indeed ... if someone ever forced me choose the greatest comedy ever made it would probably be ... His Girl Friday. I love Grant in The Awful Truth; Bringing Up Baby; et al ... but he was never better, funnier, more dynamic, charismatic, a ball of energy than in that film!

 

[talkinghead]

With Lang, I'm thinking mostly of his Dr. Mabuse films: Mabuse, the supervillain with his own criminal network ... the Evil Genius who controls events from behind the scenes, etc.

But otherwise the Mabuse films are very different from Bond. Mabuse is a kind of shape-shifting, supernatural presence with demonic powers hanging out in the shadows. It's all highly cinematic, expressionistic ... at one with the horror films of the 1920s.

Nor are they as good as the films you mention or some others. Do see Lang's Die Niebelungen, if you ever get the chance. It's really amazing ...but then I'm a maniac for these sorts of things.

I'm sure there are other antecedents for the megalomanical Bond villain: Moriarty in the Sherlock Holmes books ... Fu Manchu ... probably others.

It's funny you mention "M" because, as may know, Peter Lorre is quite literally the first actor to portray a Bond villain, in the 1954 CBS-TV adaptation of Casino Royale. Which features an American Bond ... "Jimmy Bond," in fact. It's all pretty terrible, only worth watching as a bizarre curiosity.

Yes, indeed ... if someone ever forced me choose the greatest comedy ever made it would probably be ... His Girl Friday. I love Grant in The Awful Truth; Bringing Up Baby; et al ... but he was never better, funnier, more dynamic, charismatic, a ball of energy than in that film!

Dang, it's a pleasure being schooled out here on somewhat obscure German films from the 1920s! And I had no idea that Peter Lorre played a Bond villain, or that there was a 1954 Casino Royale. I do know the 1967 Casino Royale ("so long, suckers....").

I also love His Girl Friday and its dizzying, zippy patter. As great as Cary Grant is, Rosalind Russell is every bit his equal, and manages to be one of the boys AND disarmingly beautiful. Rounding out my list would be The Lady Eve, To Be or Not to Be, It Happened One Night, and My Man Godfrey. Pleasures, all.

 

[Meta not Meta]

Dang, it's a pleasure being schooled out here on somewhat obscure German films from the 1920s! And I had no idea that Peter Lorre played a Bond villain, or that there was a 1954 Casino Royale. I do know the 1967 Casino Royale ("so long, suckers....").

I also love His Girl Friday and its dizzying, zippy patter. As great as Cary Grant is, Rosalind Russell is every bit his equal, and manages to be one of the boys AND disarmingly beautiful. Rounding out my list would be The Lady Eve, To Be or Not to Be, It Happened One Night, and My Man Godfrey. Pleasures, all.

I think Woody Allen was also "Jimmy Bond" in that utterly insane '67 version of CR. It was an independent Hollywood production. Producer Charles Feldman had the rights to just that one Fleming title. So when he couldn't get Connery for a "serious" adaptation he turned into a mostly unfunny, incredibly self-indulgent parody with ... what was it, five or six actors playing "James Bond," including Peter Sellers and actress (!) Daliah Lavi. Or maybe I'm just dreaming that latter part ... and OMG the bathtub scene alone with David Niven and "daughter" would get everyone cancelled today.

Actually, there's one truly great thing about the film: the Burt Bacharach score, especially with Dusty Springfield singing The Look of Love:

PS Couldn't agree more about Rosalind Russell, she's just perfect! As is Ralph Bellamy and all the character actors, too.

It was Hawks' genius to take what became her role, originally a man in the stage play, and turn it into a woman, which worked brilliantly. As did his idea for the overlapping dialogue, which made it all especially fast.

 

[urquell]

Dang, it's a pleasure being schooled out here on somewhat obscure German films from the 1920s! And I had no idea that Peter Lorre played a Bond villain, or that there was a 1954 Casino Royale. I do know the 1967 Casino Royale ("so long, suckers....").

I also love His Girl Friday and its dizzying, zippy patter. As great as Cary Grant is, Rosalind Russell is every bit his equal, and manages to be one of the boys AND disarmingly beautiful. Rounding out my list would be The Lady Eve, To Be or Not to Be, It Happened One Night, and My Man Godfrey. Pleasures, all.

There was an earlier Casino Royale with Lorre, but it has virtually nothing to recommend to it, and I don't think it can really be considered a Bond movie in the conventional sense. I watched it only because I love Peter Lorre, years ago, but it's not very good. You can catch the entirety of it here.

Yes, indeed ... if someone ever forced me choose the greatest comedy ever made it would probably be ... His Girl Friday. I love Grant in The Awful Truth; Bringing Up Baby; et al ... but he was never better, funnier, more dynamic, charismatic, a ball of energy than in that film!

His Girl Friday is an awesome movie. I actually didn't see it until after I saw the remake, which I enjoyed, until I watched the original which I enjoyed a lot more. The remake was done with Burt Reynolds and Kathleen Turner, and was called Switching Channels. It stands up just fine on its own and is worth watching but the Grant version is better. I always thought that His Girl Friday drew a lot of inspiration from It Happened One Night, which again features a newspaper man and a woman with snappy patter featuring Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert. If you haven't seen that then you should, as its one of the greatest comedy screen romance movies of all time. I'm not sure if The Thin Man actually qualifies as a romance comedy, but it does feature a couple, is definitely a comedy, and I think the banter from that film (and sequels) is possibly the best of the era. Both William Powell and Myrna Loy are both fantastic individually and with each other. Frighteningly good chemistry. I think William Powell may be Cary Grant's only possible rival in the easy breezy charm department, although I still give the edge to Grant. Powell would definitely not make a good Bond though! lol

 

[Meta not Meta]

There was an earlier Casino Royale with Lorre, but it has virtually nothing to recommend to it, and I don't think it can really be considered a Bond movie in the conventional sense. I watched it only because I love Peter Lorre, years ago, but it's not very good. You can catch the entirety of it here.

His Girl Friday is an awesome movie. I actually didn't see it until after I saw the remake, which I enjoyed, until I watched the original which I enjoyed a lot more. The remake was done with Burt Reynolds and Kathleen Turner, and was called Switching Channels. It stands up just fine on its own and is worth watching but the Grant version is better. I always thought that His Girl Friday drew a lot of inspiration from It Happened One Night, which again features a newspaper man and a woman with snappy patter featuring Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert. If you haven't seen that then you should, as its one of the greatest comedy screen romance movies of all time. I'm not sure if The Thin Man actually qualifies as a romance comedy, but it does feature a couple, is definitely a comedy, and I think the banter from that film (and sequels) is possibly the best of the era. Both William Powell and Myrna Loy are both fantastic individually and with each other. Frighteningly good chemistry. I think William Powell may be Cary Grant's only possible rival in the easy breezy charm department, although I still give the edge to Grant. Powell would definitely not make a good Bond though! lol

Talk of William Powell and Myrna Loy is music to my ears.

That kind of light humour, sophistication, dry wit you don't see much anymore. Not just in The Thin Man movies but in their other movies together too. It was perfect chemistry, which I don't think Grant had with any one actress. Not like that, anyway. Well, maybe Katharine Hepburn, of course; not that they worked as often together as Powell & Loy ... actually, now that I think of it, Grant did work with Myrna Loy a few times too, though not their best work.

It's easy to imagine Roger Moore modeling himself after both Powell & Grant. [And Robert Donat too.] Grant was definitely better looking, but Powell still got the ladies in real life, Carole Lombard & Jean Harlow among them.

Myrna Loy was herself a hottie in her earlier days, in the '20s, playing vampish, exotic roles very much contrary to her Manhattan sophisticate in the The Thin Man films of the '30s/'40s.

Since we were talking about Hoagy Carmichael earlier here they are, with others, together in a studio publicity shot for the 1946 The Best Years of Our Lives ...

PS It's possible Grant modelled himself after Powell. Powell was already a huge star before Grant perfected his persona.

 

[urquell]

Talk of William Powell and Myrna Loy is music to my ears.

That kind of light humour, sophistication, dry wit you don't see much anymore. Not just in The Thin Man movies but in their other movies together too. It was perfect chemistry, which I don't think Grant had with any one actress. Not like that, anyway. Well, maybe Katharine Hepburn, of course; not that they worked as often together as Powell & Loy ... actually, now that I think of it, Grant did work with Myrna Loy a few times too, though not their best work.

It's easy to imagine Roger Moore modeling himself after both Powell & Grant. [And Robert Donat too.] Grant was definitely better looking, but Powell still got the ladies in real life, Carole Lombard & Jean Harlow among them.

Myrna Loy was herself a hottie in her earlier days, in the '20s, playing vampish, exotic roles very much contrary to her Manhattan sophisticate in the The Thin Man films of the '30s/'40s.

Since we were talking about Hoagy Carmichael earlier here they are, with others, together in a studio publicity shot for the 1946 The Best Years of Our Lives ...

View attachment 89022

PS It's possible Grant modelled himself after Powell. Powell was already a huge star before Grant perfected his persona.

Yep. Powell and Loy were to banter what Fred and Ginger were for dancing. Some iterations were better than others, but no matter what the material was the onscreen chemistry elevates the viewing experience.