10. Cary Grant
Ultimately proving too expensive as the preferred choice as Bond for the inaugural Dr No film, Cary Grant had everything that Sean Connery ever had and more besides. Perhaps Grant had become too old for the roles by the time the swinging 60s were in full swing. But imagine Cary Grant stealing a peep on Ursula Andress instead of Connery? It still works, doesnt it? Thats because Grant was the archetypal Bond. He surely would have excelled as the international man of mystery. Infinitely suave and debonair, Grant had in spades that most Bond-like quality; Carey Grant was the original man every other man wanted to be. Once told by a reporter that Everybody would like to be Cary Grant, Grant replied, So would I. That sounds pretty 007 to me. Grants omission is doubly lamentable for, at one point, Hitchcock was to direct Dr No. Had it been a success (and with the Grant and Hitchcock formula it surely would have) the master of suspense and the master lead man may have brought a swelteringly differently take on the Bond formula. But given how well Connery excelled as Bond in the 60s, Grants omission can hardly be called a great loss. In fact, Grant may have been better in Bonds recent a la Daniel Craig days, since he so often excelled in these darkly mysterious roles where an elegant surface belied inner turmoil of the mind. Grant, then, would have been great. And wouldnt it be a wonderful British quirk that 007, that most stylish of our cultural ambassadors, was really called Archibald Leach.