Mary Astor - worst casting ever?

i have to agree with the majority here, it just diddnt feel right. this was the first film noir and first bogart movie i had seen, about a year ago, and all the movies ive seen since just convinces me someone else may have been better.

Actually I disagree, Mile's wife looked like a reasonably attractive women in her late thirties, early forties, which matched the character in the book.

I have to agree with the main poster here, the thing is we're talking about casting in terms of the book. I've read the book recently and somebody tell me if I am incorrect, but the character is supposed to be 24 and very attractive.

Also whoever said her character used feminism not sexuality, that's actually so wrong it's not true. The ONLY thing that she has going for her IS her sexuality, bare in mind they do actually sleep together in the book. Up until that point Spade couldn't have cared less and she had to use sex as a diversion to stop him asking awkward questions as to what the case was really about. I do agree that Spade was always on to her on some level and he hinted in the film and the book that he could only relate to women from a physical standpoint.

Astor's actual performace was bang on, she was a poor femme fatale basically, who's ambition was greater then her reach. But looks wise she actually just looked weird, almost pyschotic with that pointy, lopsided hair.

i think this movie was not only misguided in its casting but also that it lifted too much from the book. Its hard to digest noir when the actors are having trouble delivering an entire page in one breath. While I am a much bigger fan of Raymond Chandler and I thought That "The Big Sleep" was miles above this tripe in every aspect, its no fault of the Hammett novel, as i was fan. Clearly this is a mediocre attempt from a first time director who i felt failed to distinguish himself during the span of his career. Watching this was as painful as one would imagine it would be like to watch a peter jackson movie without cgi. why not just film the pages book and give out awards for best page flippage.

In no way is this trolling and its certainly not the worst movie above an 8, but can't we all agree that Bogart is way overated. - the end

I couldn't be further from being a "religious conservative," but I'll take Bogart over Ricardo Cortez any day. John Huston wasn't too bad of a director either. Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre may have been the most entertaining screen pair ever.

And, as great as Dwight Frye was, Elisha Cook, Jr. made a better gunsel.

I agree that the '31 version was more explicit, but that was simply because it was pre-code.

Don't think John Huston would have been timid if he had been given a free hand.

You forget that the Hayes Commission was not on Hollywood's back in 1931. When the Hayes Commission got on board, everything changed as to what could be shown or said in the movies. Directors (like Hitchcock) snuck things in though to distract the censors.

the 1931 version is for rabid freak troll bigots like fakebush who whine constantly if people like a version with the ultmate noir man ever. shut up, people like this one, get over it. go watch your old vhs copy and masturbate to it.

Betty Davis wouldn't have been available to them, and probably not affodable either. But Astor did a fine job with what she was givne. Just finished watching it again, and yet again she looked perfect in her role as the chronic liar who was not very good at it, but persisted despite setbacks. She wanted to be the femme fatale but never succeeded at any time.

What about Joan Fontaine or Paulette Goddard?