It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
OHMSS #7
Both great films, but Connery shines among a host of star performances and Lazenby just barely gets by. The cast, script, Peter Hunt, John Barry, etc are why OHMSS is a great film.
Not that I can think of, but nobody else could play the solemn pain of Bond as he did, along with Dan.
I can't think of a moment when Connery displayed solemn pain in a Bond film though...any time there was a death he seemed to merely brush it off and move on.
Other Bonds however have displayed this emotion: the Dalton scene in TLD with the balloon comes to mind, or Brosnan on the beach with Natalya, both reflect an inner conflict. DC has also had a few of these moments for sure: bathroom fight and the mirror shot after the stairwell fight.
I can't remember if Sir Sean cried in "Robin And Marian", but even if he didn't, saying Lazenby would have been better in any measure of acting is laughable. Sean's mere presence would have made OHMSS even better, and maybe the best Bond ever.
I would of taken George Lazenby over Connery in On Her Majestys Secret Service though. The australian did once again, a very good job of it, and after Connery's lacklustre performance and general disinterest of You Only Live Twice, I think it was for the best that Lazenby did the part. And didn't he do a good job
Sure he did ;)
Q- What do George and Mike Madsen have in common other than appearing in a Bond film?
A- Hack acting.
FRWL won over OHMSS by an impressive margin: 27 to 10!
Are you joking?
Sean's Bond felt a deep care for his allies/friends and was hurt when they passed.
*When Quarrel is killed Bond is disgusted and has even more incentive to get Dr. No.
*Kerim's death makes Bond speechless and solemn, and he grabs Kerim tight on the arm, now with all the rage in the world focused on Grant. Bond's rough and brutal killing of Grant was partly vengeance for Kerim's memory.
*Jill's death astounds his Bond and M even threatens to kick him off the mission and put 008 on it if he doesn't get revenge off of his mind. He is also shaken up over Tilly's cold death.
*He isn't happy to hear that Paula took her cyanide.
*He was shaken at Aki's death.
This isn't the image of a man who merely brushes death off:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-64aMgU0INFo/T0FbpUhXM7I/AAAAAAAADSA/lq5eq64DRuY/s1600/kinopoisk_ru-from-russia-with-love-920248.jpg
http://screenmusings.org/Goldfinger/images/Gf_208.jpg
http://screenmusings.org/Goldfinger/images/Gf_211.jpg
http://screenmusings.org/Goldfinger/images/Gf_212.jpg
I seriously think some people on here need to revisit the 60s Connery films, because it isn't pragmatic or rational to say he brushes off his allies's deaths when it is clear to see he gets quite bitter over them.
Sean would've been on his way to how he was in DAF. Maybe the script would've inspired him but with him being bored behind the scenes and gaining weight, I'm glad we got Lazenby.
If this question had been asked a couple of months ago I'd have gone for FRWL without thinking. Having watched both again recently, FRWL still gets it but only by a nose.
OHMSS is an excellent film and is a testimony to how much better the whole series would have been if Fleming's source material had been fully respected throughout.
Ah yes the old what if Connery had been in OHMSS debate. I agree with you that I wouldn't want 1969 Connery in that movie either. But what if they had made the movie earlier when Connery was in his Bond prime? I think that most people would be, at the very least, curious to see how that would've turned out. I know I sure would be.
However I also love OHMSS just the way it is. Having good ol George in there as his one and only performance in the role makes this movie unique and makes me like it even more. Lazenby also had that vulnerability that was desperately needed to make this story believable. Could Sean have pulled it off? Probably. He was a damn good actor. I don't know. I guess I have mixed feelings on it.
If I recall correctly, the original plan was to do On Her Majesty's Secret Service right after Goldfinger, with Sean Connery and Bridget Bardot. They ended up going with Thunderball, however, because of that pesky McClory.
As it is, I tend to agree that OHMSS is fine the way it is. If Connery had done it, I suspect that it would have been a wildly different film, bearing about as much resemblance its the source novel as You Only Live Twice.
That's not the point I am trying to make. Some pretend Sean's Bond has no emotions, and I am trying to show them evidence that proves he clearly does.
That bugs me too. Everyone just makes the assumption Sean was disgruntled, therefore he would have approached OHMSS like DAF. Sean has already made his mind up not to do the film for well documented reasons, and when he agreed to come back DAF was like stealing money for him. It was a fun type of script with little seriousness to it and he treated it exactly as such, it hardly called upon him to do any more than he did. I have ZERO doubt that he had agreed to take a million for OHMSS, he was professional enough to see that it was a challenge to his acting skills and he would have taken it as such. And he would have make George look like the rank amateur he was if we would have a Connery version to compare, there's no question of that either.
While I agree about Connery's superiority over Lazenby (see some of my earlier posts in this thread), I simply feel that OHMSS would have been taken in a radically different direction if it had been Sean's sixth instead of George's first. The gang at EON would have felt unnecessary pressure to up the ante from YOLT, using a shooting script that did not stick as closely to Fleming, and loading the movie with outlandish gadgets, elaborate sets along the line of the volcano lair, etc., etc.
We'll never know for sure, but I strongly suspect that the only reason they went with the Back-to-Basics approach for OHMSS is because they were starting over with a new lead actor. Thus, I'm happy it turned out as it did.
That said, I still prefer FRWL by a slim margin, largely because of Sean Connery.
That is a very interesting point that I had never thought of. It would have even been more jarring if they had kept the Bond meets Blofeld for the "first time" encounter in the script as Sean had just done that in the previous film!
Yeah, I think Sean would have nail it, too.
A poll was added.
While acknowledge when on form Connery until (for me anyway) Skyfall that in FRWL was the pinnacle of Bond performance, Connery's performance was very lazy and lacklustre in YOLT and as for DAF it was like a different actor was playing the part compared to the actor that appeared in TB.
I also find that some will over exaggerate Connery's abilities as an actor to argue their point of OHMSS being with no doubt the best Bond film if he'd have starred in it. It's like those who seem to think Brosnan proposed 5th film would have been more down to earth and grounded. With all likelihood OHMSS would have been a very different film if Connery had been Bond.
I don't believe they would have all of a sudden made his Bond sensitive and emotional when the cold fish, suave, deadpan approach is what made audience love his Bond. Having a different actor play the part was the only way to film OHMSS as close to the novel as possible, Connery's Bond would have had to seem utterly different to what had gone before for the emotional weight of the story to work.
No Lazenby is no Dalton or Craig but he offers a vulnerability that would have just looked jarring had Connery attempted it, so no OHMSS would not have been the best Bond with Connery, it's more likely it would have been a radically different tailored to Connery's persona as trying to change that element would have not made any sense at all. You can't take an actor well and truly established and then change his personality to suit the storyline, anyone thinking OHMSS would have just been the same film with Connery playing the role is being incredibly naive.
I haven't entirely made up my mind on the debate and have sometimes moved back and fourth with my opinions on this in the past - but it would at least have been 'interesting' to see an Ohmss starring Connery. The suave cool secret agent we'd all grown to love and aspire to suddenly brought to his knees by a good woman.
Either way Ohmss called for a more experienced actor in the part. Laz had his moments in the film but even he feels it wasn't a good film to start off with.
FRWL vs. OHMSS is a hard decision for me. But in the end, I'll choose OHMSS. SF doesn't matter to me, as far as I'm concerned.
George Lazenby did just fine in OHMSS. In fact, he did remarkably well for a beginning actor.