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
- 'Request permission to come aboard, Sir?'
- the Moneypenny scene
- the Henderson scene
- 'Siamese wodka'
- 'Really?' (referring to Helga's healthy chest')
- Every scene with Tanaka
- 'Heaven forbid'
- 'Impregnable?'
-...
Well, they say that one man's trash is another mans treasure. In no way, shape or form do I sell Connery short as he's my second favourite Bond actor behind Lazenby and to me is the quintessential cinematic Bond. If you look at my favourite 5 Bond films, 4 of the 5 are Connery pictures. I appreciate his portrayal of Bond and the animal-magnetism and sheer charisma he brought to the role. As for Moore he is the reason I'm on this forum and growing up I wanted to be Roger Moore. However, when I first watched On Her Majesty's Secret Service I fell in love with Lazenby's portrayal of Bond for the reasons mentioned above. I will concede that the filmmakers made obvious attempts to draw parallels between Connery and Lazenby in the film, but I honestly don't see them in the same light. That is possibly due to the context of the narrative or Peter Hunt's direction, but that's all we have to go on as he didn't return for a second outing, unfortunately. Fleming is up for interpretation and when reading the book I can picture Lazenby and that isn't due to him being Bond in the film, IMO. Despite the Bond in the books being at a latter stage of his career, I personally think that the film proves that the story can work with a younger Bond too. I'm not saying that Connery couldn't have pulled it off, I'm saying that he wouldn't have given his character arch, IMO. I can see the Connery of Dr. No or From Russia With Love falling in-love, but not that of the films that followed, IMO.
OHMSS could arguably be the best Bond film. But Lazenby is the second worst actor for the following reasons;
- His acting ability is ok, he looks the part, but as John Barry put it; “Laurence Olivier he is not”. He benefited from a great Director, great score, great script and a great supporting cast.
- His none descript fake English accent doesn’t suit Bond.
- His Australian swagger/ walk is not right for Bond.
- He lacks the screen presence of Connery or Moore. Again, whilst he is ok, it is obvious that he lacks that essential ‘star quality’.
- He isn’t convincing as a Brit. He seems like an imposter/ ‘stand in’ as described above.
As an Englishman I can categorically say that no Englishman has ever picked out Lazenby as the best Bond, because we can pic out the flaws above. Again, OHMSS could be the best film, but it is laughable to me to suggest Lazenby as the best Bond IMO.
Anyway, this really uplifted it and so at least I enjoy this movie more due to it. Many movies are ruined by the dub - but not this one (in fact no Bond movie was).
Why would they give Bond a German accent when he’s a Brit character? Why not just subtitle the film. The only Germans in OHMSS are the bad guys! :)
I'd tend to agree. And I'll add to this that had he come back he would have seriously hurt the franchise, maybe to its death. And as much as I dislike DAF, it is the movie the franchise needed at that point.
Seems to say more about Cubby and Harry there. But even if Connery had gotten his million, would he have also demanded the provisions that went along with his DAF contract such as a determined shooting schedule with X amount paid for every week over? My sticking point is how long it took to shoot OHMSS would it have cost more to keep him and what would that have done to his patience or would Hunt have had to compromise his vision to accommodate Connery's demands? It's sort of a case of watch what you wish for.
I like Octopussy but the plot is very convuluted and Connery slipped back in to the Bond role with ease that year and proved that even after such a long absence,he was the best Bond.
I'll be honest, I found both pretty convoluted. OP: Two opposing sides within the Russian construct, a real egg, a fake egg, suddenly there were diamonds and a bomb... Too much going on IMO. TLD I thought was less convoluted but still had a lot happening.
Ironically the novel story I find to be exquisitely simple, internal, and powerful. One of my favourites. Property of a Lady is also great on it's own.
I love NSNA. I tend to rank both films as equals.
+1.
I find every under water sequence in the Bond films boring to watch and always look forward to them being finished.
Caveat: the only one I don't dislike quite as much is the FYEO keelhauling scene, probably because it's paced reasonably quickly.
It's more interesting than Bond investigates racehorse doping and the overall basic plot of FYEO of find the ATAC. There are other things involved in those as well and leading to a bigger thing, but OP just does it better.
+1
Yes! There are way too much under water scenes in TB. The footage is fascinating when we think about the time it was produced. However, I feel a bit bored, too. And the scenes in the shipwreck in FYEO and TND aren't more than okay.
I like the underwater scenes in LTK. They are short and combined with action on the watersurface.
First of all, his motivation for the part were not right. The series needed a new actor with series purpose and intent to follow after Connery, an actor they could establish through a continuous series of films. A man that wanted the role to get chicks and who´s heart and intent was not really to continue in the role was far from ideal. When he turned down a second film it created many unecesarry problems. OHMSS could potentially have been a great kick start movie for a new actor, instead it turned out to be a curious (yet obviously great) one off in the series.
Secondly he was a trouble maker. All the shenanigans and misbehaviors during the production and the ways in which he rubbed his co stars and producers the wrong way are well documented by now, so I don´t feel the need to go into depth. But it goes without saying that better professionalism should be expected from a man in such a coveted role. Learning about all these stories, I am really quite surprised the producers actually wanted him to continue. His performances and star attraction had to be absolutely stellar to justify such bad behavior and problems he created during production. Which leads me on to the final point...
His acting. Lets be honest, even if I feel the need to defend him (which I actually have on many occations) my objective opinion has to be that Lazenby was really not a good actor. When I see people praise his performance, I simply can´t concur. I suppose you could make the case that he at least is servicable, that the film makers were for most of the time cleverly able to direct and edit away his obvious limitations, and that there are some scenes he does better than others. Yes, I get it. But was he a worthy succesor to Connery, the one the series needed to move on strongly? Obviously not I´d say. His lack of charisma, integrity and believability is striking in so many places. In so many scenes he is simply being Lazenby, not James Bond. The few scenes he does well can´t hide the fact that this in truth was an inexperienced model in a role far too big for him. Could he have grown into the role given more experience? It´s the question his fans love to ponder, which in many ways admits that there were some serious issues there to begin with... And after all the question is a completely useless one when we know that his motivation to continue and do his all in the role was not there to begin with. It is basically a lost case.
I am always struck with how good OHMSS is. It sits comfortably in my top five, often in my top three. But when I hear people say Lazenby "did great" I cannot help rolling my eyes. The film is a succes despite of him, not because of him.
The man is self-assured and elegant throughout OHMSS. I also buy effortlessly into the romance with Tracy and the final scene is one of the best acted and most moving moments in the series.
George completely outshines Craig when we compare the death scenes of Tracy and Vesper.
+1, except I think Craig did great with the reaction to Vesper’s death. I think the difference in reaction largely stems from the fact that Tracy of course didn’t betray Bond like Vesper did. I think Craig sold the mixture of being crushed by her betrayal and crushed even more by her death. Add to that the fact that she chose to die, and he couldn’t save her. All this is plainly going through Bond’s head and Craig nailed it.
Lazenby had the advantage with a pure Fleming style ending and he really hit the ball out of the ballpark.
This is a legitimate point. And even the "For James" email softens the blow in a way that Fleming did not.
Excellent post, couldn’t have said it better myself.
And as great an ending as On Her Majesty's Secret Service has, that scenario was atypical for Fleming or the movies.