"DOWNTON ABBEY" – Series Three (2012) Retrospective
It took me a while to get around watching Series Three of "DOWNTON ABBEY". I had been inclined to watch it, while it aired on PBS last winter. But in the end, I decided to wait until the DVD release was offered through Netflix.
I suspect that some of my reluctance to watch the show's Series Three could be traced to my major disappointment over the lackluster Series Two. In fact, a part of me is amazed that the series' shoddy look at World War I could end up with an Emmy nomination for Best Drama. But I figured that series creator, Julian Fellowes, would make up for the Emmy-nominated disaster known as Series Two with an improved third season. In the end, Series Three proved to be an improvement. Somewhat.
What did I like about Series Three of "DOWNTON ABBEY"? It possessed three plot lines that I found a good deal to admire:
1) The estate's financial crisis
2) Valet Thomas Barrow's infatuation with new footman Jimmy Kent
3) Lady Sybil Branson's death
Downton Abbey's financial crisis, kick-started by Robert, the Earl of Grantham's disastrous investment into Canada's Grand Trunk Railway, which truly emphasized the peer's inability to handle money and his estate. In fact, this story line also exposed Lord Grantham's other flaws - stubborness and inability to move with the times - in full force. Actually, the third story line involving the death of his youngest daughter, Lady Sybil Branson - of childbirth, did not paint a pretty picture of the peer, considering that his decision to ignore Dr. Clarkson's medical advice led to Lady Sybil's tragic death, following the birth of his oldest grandchild. The plot regarding Thomas Barrow's feelings for Jimmy Kent allowed Fellowes to explore the status of homosexuals during early 20th century Britain. The plot surrounding Lady Sybil's death in Episode Five not only proved to be heartbreaking, but also featured fine performances from the departing Jessica Findlay-Brown as the doomed Lady Sybil; Allen Leech as Sybil's husband Tom Branson; David Robb as the desperate Dr. Clarkson; Rob James-Collier as a grieving Thomas Barrow; Hugh Bonneville as the Earl of Grantham; a guest appearance by Tim Pigott-Smith as the society doctor recruited by Lord Grantham to treat Lady Sybil; and especially Elizabeth McGovern, who I believe gave the best performance as Lady Sybil's grieving mother, the American-born Countess of Grantham.
But even these first-rate story lines were marred by some questionable writing. Lord Grantham's bad investment and financial loss had the family flailing for a bit, until salvation appeared in the form of a possible inheritance for the peer's heir presumptive, son-in-law Matthew Crawley. The latter learned that Reginald Swire, the recently dead father of his late fiancée had named him as an heir to his vast fortune. Matthew felt reluctant to accept money from Lavinia Swire's money, considering what happened before her death in Series Two. Most fans expressed frustration at Matthew's reluctance to accept the money and save Downton Abbey. I felt nothing but contempt toward Fellowes for utilizing this ludicrous plot point to save the estate from financial ruin. I found it absolutely tasteless that Matthew would inherit money from the father of the fiancée who witnessed him kissing his future wife Lady Mary Crawley, before succumbing of the Spanish Flu. This was just tackiness beyond belief.
And I wish Fellowes had found another way for Lord Grantham or Matthew to acquire the cash needed to save the estate. Lady Sybil's death and Lord Grantham's participation in it led to a serious marital estrangement between the peer and his wife, who angrily blamed him for ignoring Dr. Clarkson's medical advice. Lady Grantham's anger lasted through most of Episode Six, until the Dowager Lady Grantham convinced the good doctor to lie to her son and daughter-in-law that his medical advice may not have saved Lady Sybil in the end, ending Lady Grantham's anger and the marital strife between the pair. I suspect the majority of the series' fans were relieved that Lord and Lady Grantham's marriage had been saved before it could get any worse. I was not. I saw this as Fellowes' reluctance or inability to fully explore the negative consequences of Sybil's death. Even worse, I saw this as artistic cowardice on Fellowes' part. A martial conflict between Robert and Cora could have spelled a dramatic gold mine.
Even the Thomas Barrow-Jimmy Kent storyline was marred by aspects that led me to shake my head in disbelief. The entire matter began with a minor feud between former friends Thomas and lady's maid Sarah O'Brien over the former's unwillingness to help the latter's nephew, Alfred Nugent, with his duties. One, why would Thomas refuse to help the nephew of his only friend on the estate? And two, this little incident led O'Brien to escalate the feud, leading her to set up a scheme that would expose Thomas' homosexuality? It seemed to come out of no where. This story line ended with more head scratching for me. First, Fellowes had Thomas sneaking into Jimmy's bedroom for some petting and caresses, making for the former look like a sexual molester. One would think after his experiences with the Duke of Crowborough and Mr. Pamuk would have led him to be more careful. And following his exposure, Thomas faced losing his job and being arrested and convicted for his sexual preference. And while he faced personal censure from Mr. Carson, Alfred and the object of his desire, Jimmy Kent; most of Downton Abbey's inhabitants seemed unusually tolerate of Thomas'homosexuality. Only Lord Grantham's tolerance seemed to ring true, in light of his comments.
But there were other aspects of Series Three that failed to impress me. I read somewhere that Dan Stevens had informed Fellowes that he would not return for a fourth season, before they started filming this season. Judging from most of Stevens' clunky dialogue in many of the episode, I got the feeling that Fellowes took his revenge on the actor. Stevens' last lines following the birth of Matthew and Lady Mary's son seemed like pure torture - "Can this hot and dusty traveler enter?"and "Oh my darling, I feel like I've swallowed fireworks!". Fortunately, Stevens was provided with one scene in which he truly shone - when Matthew lost his temper over his father-in-law's refusal to consider modernizing Downton Abbey's estate management. And Matthew's death in that last episode was one of the most clumsily directed sequences I have ever seen during the series' three seasons, so far. Many critics and viewers blamed Shirley MacLaine for the poor characterization of Lady Grantham's American mother, Martha Levinson. Even Fellowes went so far as to claim in this 2012 article that Americans cannot do period drama. Frankly, I found his comment full of shit and those critics and viewers unwilling to admit that the producer-writer did a piss-poor job in his creation of Martha's character. Poor MacLaine was saddled with some ridiculous dialogue that no actor or actress - no matter how good they are - can overcome. Look at what happened to Dan Stevens. And he is British. Like Stevens, MacLaine had her moment in the sun, when her character saved a disastrous dinner party-in-the-making by transforming it into a cocktail party in Episode Two.
Poor Brendan Coyle and Joanne Foggett were saddled with the long and tedious story line surrounding Bates' time in prison and his wife Anna's efforts to exonerate. Every time that particular plot appeared on the screen, I found myself forced to press the Fast-Forward button of my DVD remote control. When Bates finally left prison, he and Anna proved that their romance had become incredibly dull by three seasons. And could someone explain why the Crawleys suddenly believed that Sir Anthony Strallan was too old for middle daughter, Lady Edith Crawley. They certainly felt differently six years ago in Series One, as they considered him as a potential mate for both Lady Edith and Lady Mary. And I find it hard to believe that an arm damaged by the war would turn him into an unwanted son-in-law. I find that too ridiculous to believe. And when Lady Edith found love again, she discovered that the object of her desire - a magazine editor named Michael Gregson - was a married man. And he could not get a divorce, because his wife was mentally handicapped and living in an asylum. In other words, Fellowes had to borrow from Charlotte Brontë's 1847 novel, "Jane Eyre" to make this story interesting. Unfortunately, I did not find the circumstances of Gregson's marriage interesting. Merely unoriginal.
I could go on about the numerous problems I encountered in Series Three. Believe me, I found more. Among them are the number of story lines that Fellowes introduced and dropped during this season. I have already discussed how he ended a potential estrangement between Lord and Lady Grantham before it could get into full swing. Other dropped story lines included:
*Mrs. Hughes' cancer scare
*Mrs. Patmore's relationship with a new shopkeeper
*A potential romance between Isobel Crawley and Dr. Clarkson
*Tom and Lady Sybil Branson in Ireland, which was never explored
*Tom Branson's revolutionary beliefs nipped in the bud
I noticed that "DOWNTON ABBEY" recently received several Emmy nominations - including one for Best Drama. Best Drama? I was disgusted when I heard the news. My disgust did not stem from any dislike of the show. "DOWNTON ABBEY" may be flawed, but it is still entertaining. But I believe it is not good enough to be considered for a Best Drama Emmy nomination. Even worse, a far superior series like FX's "THE AMERICANS" was overlooked for the same category. Series Three of "DOWNTON ABBEY" had some good moments - especially Episode Five, which featured the death of Lady Sybil Branson. And I found it slightly better than Series Two. But the series remains a ghost of its former self. It still failed to reach the same level of quality of Series One. And even that was not perfect.
"SUNSET" (1988) ReviewBruce Willis and James Garner co-starred in this period piece murder mystery about famous Western movie star Tom Mix and former Old West lawman Wyatt Earp solving a case in 1929 Hollywood. Written and directed by Blake Edwards ("PINK PANTHER" and "VICTOR/VICTORIA"), the movie was based upon Rod Amateau’s novel of the same title. The movie begins with studio boss Alfie Alperin (Malcolm McDowell) assigning Tom Mix to star in a movie about Wyatt Earp and the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. He even hires Earp to act as the film’s technical adviser. The two legends become good friends before getting caught up in a real case that involved prostitution, corruption and the murder of a Hollywood madam. And Alperin’s step-son Michael (Dermot Mulroney) becomes the police’s main suspect. Alperin’s wife and Michael’s mother Christina (Patricia Hodge) recruits Earp (an old flame) and Mix to help her son by finding the real killer.Let me be frank. "SUNSET" is at best, a mediocre film. It is filled with cinematic clichés, plot twists that either do not make any sense or come off as predictable, and some rather bad dialogue. Surprisingly, one of the worst offenders turns out to be Bruce Willis. I am not accusing him of bad acting. On the contrary, I believe that he gave a pretty damn good performance. Unfortunately, Willis was forced to deal with some pretty atrocious dialogue, thanks to writer/director Blake Edwards. Honestly . . . the poor man came off sounding like a California surfer circa 1985, instead of a Hollywood cowboy from the 1920s. Perhaps if Edwards had refrained from including the term "dude" into Mix’s dialogue, Willis could have emerged from the movie unscathed.However, Willis was not the only cast member who suffered in this movie. The director’s daughter, Jennifer Edwards, did not fare any better as Victoria Alperin, Alfie’s sister. Poor Ms. Edwards. A year later, she would give a wonderful performance as a ditzy secretary in the 1989 remake of the 1950s television classic, "PETER GUNN". But in "SUNSET", her Victoria Alperin seemed even more out of place in this 1920s tale than Willis’ Tom Mix. Her performance struck me as petulant and unnecessarily brittle. I could not help but think she would have fared better in a guest appearance on "MIAMI VICE" as the brittle wife of some drug dealer or corrupt businessman. Honestly. Actor Joe Dallesandro portrayed Dutch Kieffer, a take on the famous gangster, Dutch Schultz. Granted, he did a competent job in adding menace to the character. Unfortunately . . . his demeanor seemed more suited to a character in something like "BARETTA" or"STARSKY AND HUTCH". Like Ms. Edwards, he seemed even more out of place in this movie than Willis. But the one person who truly seemed out of place in "SUNSET" was character actor M. Emmet Walsh. Poor Mr. Walsh. He had the bad luck to portray the chief security officer of Alperin Studios, Marvin Dibner. If there was one character who seemed unnecessary to the story, it was him. Honestly, his character could have easily been deleted. Instead of creating another addition to his gallery of interesting supporting roles, poor Mr. Walsh popped up in every other scene, wearing a dumb expression. Fortunately, "SUNSET" could boast some good, solid performances. Despite some of the bad dialogue dumped on him, Bruce Willis had the good luck to be teamed with James Garner. Between Garner’s earthy performance as the legendary lawman and Willis’ cocky take on the famous Western star, the pair managed to create an electrifying screen team. Kathleen Quinlan made a nice addition to the cast as the sly and humorous Nancy Shoemaker, one of Alperin Studios’ publicists. Mariel Hemingway had been nominated for a Razzie Award as Worst Supporting Actress for her role as the daughter of the murdered madam. This nomination merely confirmed my belief that the Razzie Awards are full of shit. I thought Hemingway gave a good, solid performance and had a nice chemistry with Garner. Richard Bradford, fresh from his role in 1987’s "THE UNTOUCHABLES", gave a convincingly venomous portrayal of a corrupt cop named "Dirty" Bernie Blackworth . . . despite some questionable dialogue. Patricia Hodge and Dermot Mulroney portrayed Christina Alperin and her son, Michael. They gave competent performances, but I found nothing memorable about them. And of course, there was Malcolm McDowell portraying Alfie Alperin, the movie comedian-turned-studio head. It is obvious that Alperin is based upon Hollywood icon Charlie Chaplin. I can only wonder if Chaplin was as cruel and sadistic as the Alperin character. Thankfully, McDowell did not use the character’s negative traits as an excuse for an over-the-top performance. His Alfie Alperin came off as warm, clever, charming and most importantly, quietly menacing.Plot wise, "SUNSET" turned out to be another one of those murder mysteries set in Old Hollywood. And yes, it was filled with the usual clichés and name droppings. I would reveal the killer’s identity, but I suspect that anyone with a brain would guess within forty minutes into the story. Or make a close guess. The only difference from this Hollywood mystery and others was that the two investigators turned out to be famous figures and not some Los Angeles detective or minor studio employee. Speaking of Earp and Mix, many film critics pointed out that the two had never met in real life. As it turned out, they did meet and Mix had served as a pallbearer at Earp’s funeral. Talk about an egg in the face. However . . . Earp did pass away two months before the movie’s setting. And Mix was at least seventeen years older than Willis' true age during the movie’s production.If there is one aspect about "SUNSET" that I must commend, it is the film’s artistic designs. Patricia Norris beautifully re-captured the 1920s in her Academy Award nominated costumes. Hell, I could say the same about Richard Haman’s art direction, Marvin March’s set decorations and especially Rodger Maus’ production designs. Thanks to these four artisans,"SUNSET" fairly reeked of the slightly corrupt gloss of late 1920s Hollywood."SUNSET" is such a mediocre film that there are times I wonder why I like it. Some of the characters seemed out of place in the 1929 setting. M. Emmet Walsh was practically wasted in his role as a studio security chief. The movie was filled with some atrocious dialogue. And to be honest, the plot came off as so predictable that it almost seemed easy to pinpoint the killer’s identity. So why did I bother to watch this movie? Why did I bother to purchase a used VHS copy of the movie, several years ago? Despite its obvious flaws, I rather like "SUNSET". Willis and Garner literally lit up the screen as a charismatic duo, McDowell made a fantastic villain and the movie did feature some witty dialogue. But most importantly, ”SUNSET” was drenched in a late 1920s setting thanks to such work from artisans like Rodger Maus’ production designs and Patricia Norris’ costumes.
"SHIFTING HEIRS AND THE FERRARS ESTATE"
I have been a fan of Jane Austen's 1811 novel, "Sense and Sensibility" ever since I saw Ang Lee's 1995 adaptation. In fact, the 1995 movie initiated my appreciation of Austen's novel and other works. But there is a certain aspect of Austen's tale that has confused me for years. And it has to do with Edward and Robert Ferrars and their family's fortune.
"Sense and Sensibility" told the story of Elinor and Marianne Dashwood - the older two of three sisters that encountered love, heartache and romantic obstacles when their father's death and half-brother's lack of generosity left them in financial straits. Elinor had fallen in love with Edward Ferrars, the mild-mannered brother of her sister-in-law Fanny; before she, her sisters and mother were forced to leave Norland Park in the hands of half-brother John and Fanny. Unfortunately for Elinor, Edward's family was determined that he marry an heiress. Later, she discovered that he had been engaged for several years to another impoverished young woman named Lucy Steele, the cousin-in-law of Sir John Middleton, Mrs. Dashwood's cousin and the family's benefactor. The younger and more impetuous Marianne fell deeply in love with a young man named John Willoughby. Although the latter harbored feelings for Marianne, he loved the idea of a fortune even more. Willoughby eventually rejected Marianne in order to marry a wealthy heiress, leaving the Dashwoods' neighbor Colonel Christopher Brandon to console her.
The story arc regarding Marianne's love life proved to be problem-free for me. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about Elinor's story arc. I still have a problem with that obstacle to Elinor's romantic happiness - namely Edward's engagement to the manipulative Lucy Steele. In the novel, Mrs. Ferrars disinherited Edward in favor of his younger brother, Robert, after the Ferrars family learned about his engagement to Lucy . . . and he refused to break said engagement. Mindful of Edward's financial situation and his ambitions to earn a living with the Church of England, Colonel Brandon offers him the rectory at the former's estate, Delaford, for a low salary. This is where "Sense and Sensibility" becomes a bit tricky. The novel concluded Edward's visit to the Dashwoods' home, Barton Cottage, in which he not only proposed marriage to Elinor, but also announced that Lucy Steele had broken their engagement in order to elope with Robert. Only . . . the latter remained heir to the Ferrars estate by the novel's conclusion.
The financial fates of both Edward and Robert seemed to be tied with the character of Lucy Steele. Most of the Ferrars family and Lady Middleton seemed to harbor a high regard for Lucy and her sister, Anne. Yet, when Anne exposed Lucy's secret engagement to Edward, Mrs. Ferrars disinherited the latter in favor of her younger son, Robert. But after Robert's elopement to Lucy, he remained heir to the Ferrars estate. And to this day, I can only ask . . . why? Why did Mrs. Ferrars disinherited Edward after he refused to break his engagement to Lucy . . . and fail to disinherit Robert, after he had eloped with the same woman?
In the 1981 BBC adaptation, Edward (portrayed by Bosco Hogan) claimed that Robert's inheritance became irreversible, despite his elopement with Lucy. Frankly, the explanation given by Austen struck me as rather confusing. The miniseries' screenwriters Alexander Baron and Denis Constanduros failed to explain why Edward financially paid the price for refusing to break his engagement with Lucy. They especially failed to explain why Robert DID NOT pay the price for marrying her. Is there someone out there who can offer an explanation?
"NORTH BY NORTHWEST" (1959) ReviewWhen producers Albert "Cubby" Broccoli and Harry Saltzman first set about creating the James Bond movie franchise, author Ian Fleming - who had written the novels - suggested they hire Hollywood legend, Cary Grant, for the role of the famed British agent. I do not know whether Broccoli and Saltzman seriously considered Fleming's suggestion, but I cannot help but wonder if had seen the actor in Alfred Hitchcock's 1959 thriller, "NORTH BY NORTHWEST". "NORTH BY NORTHWEST" originated with a deal Hitchcock had with MGM Studios to do a film version of Hammond Innes' novel, "The Wreck of the Mary Deare". Hitchcock recruited a friend of his, screenwriter Ernest Lehman, to write the script. But after several weeks, Lehman found himself unable to write an adaptation. Longing to work with Lehman, Hitchcock suggested that he write something else - namely the ultimate "Hitchcock film". The results turned out to be a chase film featuring an innocent man accused of a crime he did not commit.The movie's story begins with advertising executive Roger O. Thornhill being mistaken for a U.S. government agent named George Kaplan, when he summons a hotel bellhop, who is paging Kaplan at the same time. Two enemy agents named Valerian and Licht kidnap Thornhill and take him to their superior, a major foreign spy named Phillip Vandamm, who is using the Long Island home of a man named Lester Townsend for this meeting. When Thornhill continues to insist that he is not George Kaplan, Vandamm orders his right-hand man Leonard, along with Valerian and Licht to stage a drunk driving death for ad executive. The attempt fails and Thornhill escapes. And when Thornhill fails to convince the law that he had been kidnapped, he sets out to clear his name. He tracks the real Lester Townsend to the United Nations, but the latter is killed by one of Vandamm's henchman. Thornhill is accused of the crime and he flees. When he learns that Kaplan had checked into a hotel in Chicago, he boards the 20th Century Limited, where he meets an attractive woman named Eve Kendall. She helps him evade the police upon their arrival in Chicago. But unbeknownst to Thornhill, Eve is working with Vandamm and Leonard.Author and journalist Nick Clooney once described "NORTH BY NORTHWEST" as Alfred Hitchcock's "most stylish thriller, if not his best". And I have to agree. "NORTH BY NORTHWEST" proved to be an exciting chase film and travelogue that started in Manhattan and Long Island, and ended up on the side of Mount Rushmore in South Dakota. Thanks to Lehman's screenplay,"NORTH BY NORTHWEST" brimmed with sharp dialogue and even sharper characterization. The movie's opening, which featured Cary Grant's Thornhill and his secretary engaged in a last minute meeting over his schedule on the streets of Manhattan, gave audience a pretty clear idea of the ad executive's personality - charming, intelligent, arrogant and impatient. Thornhill is a character that cries for emotional development.If I must be honest, the characters proved to be the movie's biggest assets. As much as I like Lehman's chase story of an innocent man trying to clear his name of murder, I feel that it has some questionable writing. In fact, some of its inconsistencies reminded me of such one would find in a James Bond movie. If Vandamm wanted Thornhill dead that badly, why arrange for the latter's death at an isolated bus stop in the middle of the Indiana countryside . . . in broad daylight, using a crop duster? Why not have one of his minions quietly put a knife between his ribs on the streets of Chicago? Even arranging Thornhill's death as a drunk driving incident seemed a bit over-the-top to me. Why not kill Thornhill first, pour alcohol on his body, set the car on fire before sending it over a ledge? I am not claiming to know how Lehman and Hitchcock should have handled these scenarios. But the methods they used for Vandamm's attempts on Thornhill's life struck me as similiar to the idiotic methods that many Bond villains used to kill the British agent.I have to admit that Vandamm's attempts on Thornhill's life provided some of the movie's more memorable moments. The attempt to pass off Thornhill's death as a drunk driving incident had me on the edge of my seat and at the same, laughing rather hard. A "drunken" Cary Grant really did have me in stitches. I could also say the same about the sequence at the Chicago auction, following the dust cropper incident, in which Thornhill confronted Vandamm and Eve before being hauled away by cops for his hilarious disruption of the auction. The finale sequence at Mount Rushmore brimmed with Hitchcock's usual style of suspense. But it was the crop duster sequence that truly impressed me. From a narrative point-of-view, the sequence seemed filled with questionable writing. But as a suspenseful and action sequence, I consider it a masterpiece. The most interesting aspect of the crop duster sequence seemed to be its beginning - that fascinating moment in which Thornhill stands at that isolated bus stop for several minutes, staring at another man who has appeared on the scene before the crop duster's attack. I noticed that director Terence Young did not hesitate to copy it for one action sequence in the 1963 movie,"FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE".The crop duster sequence and many other scenes benefited from Robert Burks' excellent photography. I was also impressed by George Tomasini's editing, which struck me as especially effective in the Long Island, crop duster and Mount Rushmore sequences. Composer Bernard Herrmann, who once made an interesting comment on Richard Rodney Bennett's score for"MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS", collaborated on many Hitchcock's films during a nine-year period between 1955 and 1964. One of those scores was the memorable one he wrote for "NORTH BY NORTHWEST". His score blended well with the opening titled sequence created by Saul Bass.But as I had stated earlier, the movie's biggest strength turned out to be the cast. Both Adam Williams and Robert Ellenstein made quite a sinister pair as Vadamm's two henchmen, Valerian and Licht. Jessie Royce Landis, who was only seven years older than Cary Grant, gave quite a humorous and stylish performance as his witty mother, Mrs. Thornhill. Leo G. Carroll, who later became famous for the 1960s series "THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.", was perfect as the intelligent and manipulative spymaster, "the Professor".For me, there were four performances that stood out for me. Martin Landau gave his first stand-out performance as Vandamm's observant, yet malevolent henchman, Leonard. Unless my eyes were deceiving me, Landau seemed to have given Leonard a slight homosexual subtext that I found interesting. In many ways, James Mason's Vandamm seemed to be the perfect nemesis for Cary Grant's Thornhill . . . especially with his silky voice, suave manners and good looks. But Mason made sure that the menace was always there behind the debonair facade. I must admit that Eva Marie Saint would have never been my first choice as the movie's femme fatale, Eve Kendall. But I had forgotten that Saint was a first-rate actress and Oscar winner. I should not have been surprised by her ability to be chameleon and create a leading female character who seemed to be ahead of her time. However, the man of the hour proved to be Cary Grant. He has portrayed characters more complex than Roger Thornhill. But Lehman's script still managed to provide plenty of bite to a role that began as a child in a man's body and developed into a heroic and responsible man who managed to retain his wit. I think that Thornhill may prove to be one of my favorite Grant roles.I do not feel that "NORTH BY NORTHWEST" was one of Alfred Hitchcock's best movies. But I cannot deny that I found it to be one of his most stylish and entertaining films. Not only did it feature memorable action sequences, humor and a superb cast led by Cary Grant; I feel that it could have easily served as a template for many James Bond movies throughout the years. I really look forward to watching the movie as many times possible in the future.
