O Galante Vagabundo

The 1936 version was a masterpiece or close to it and this is a pale imitator. I like David Niven and June Allyson but they suck compared to William Powell and Carole Lombard. This one stars Niven as a man hiding out because he doesn't have a passport unlike the original when Powell was just homeless. Allyson is on a scavenger hunt and takes Niven along with her and then hires him as a butler. She's in love with Niven and it turns out he had a lot of money but lost it but i don't remember and it doesn't really matter. The original was much better and you should just watch that one instead and Powell and Lombard were much better. Why did they even bother to remake this.

...then watch this one first. Because IMHO the original 1936 version is just better. And then your opinion will not be colored by the comparison between the two. It's kind of like Son of Frankenstein versus Young Frankenstein. If you must watch both, watch Son of Frankenstein first, otherwise a serious movie will become unintentionally hilarious. But I digress.

This one has the same structure as the original - A scavenger hunt turns up the titular Godfrey (David Niven), who is given a job with the Bullock family as the butler. He's a bit mysterious and very urbane, but Irene Bullock (June Allyson), one of the daughters of the family, comes to love him. In the original, Godfrey's big secret was that he was from a rich family living among the city's forgotten men due to a love affair that ended badly. In this one, Godfrey is in the country illegally. Naturally they couldn't keep the original Great Depression centered plot - It would be ridiculous.

This film was well acted, well directed, and attractively shot. But other than being in color, I just could not see the point of this being remade. It's something that I watched once, found to be OK, but probably would not seek out again.

This is the 50s remake of the 30s classic screwball comedy. This remake feels more like TV than the slick 30s comedy does. The slick is about the only part that is still in this 50s version, and the screwball. This is, more than anything, a silly flick.

A spoiled rich beautiful family falls hard for their new butler, Godfrey, played by David Niven. The younger daughter (June Allyson) brings him home after a scavenger hunt. He doesn't judge and helps wherever he can, best of all he isn't perfect. Even though this is such a silly flick, for some reason at the end I had a big smile. Silly is important.

The is the 50s remake of the 30s classic screwball comedy. This remake feels more like TV than the slick 30s comedy does. The slick is about the only part that is still in this 50s version, and the screwball. This is, more than anything, a silly flick.

A spoiled rich beautiful family falls hard for their new butler, Godfrey, played by David Niven. The younger daughter (June Allyson) brings home after a scavenger hunt. He doesn't judge and helps wherever he can, best of all he isn't perfect. Even though this is such a silly flick, for some reason at the end I had a big smile. Silly is important.

I've never understood the urge to remake *great* movies. They usually fail (e.g., We're No Angels) but very occasionally they succeed (e.g., His Girl Friday). This one is frothy enough to float away into forgotten-movie heaven.

The original with William Powell and Carole Lombard was on the dark side, to be sure, but this was necessary to the 'message' and the times. Nor was the message entirely political and social--at heart it is about a man who discovers that his world of privilege is empty without accepting his responsibility to others and to his community. A sharp contrast in tone, but ultimately a complement to this theme, is in Nobody's Fool. The Paul Newman character is not privileged, but his commitment to others is just as deep and at the heart of the movie.

The Niven/Allyson remake of My Man Godfrey is, in my opinion, inoffensive and fun, but also shallow and meaningless.