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
Imagine your first film role is filling in for one of the most popular actor and role on the planet. Lazenby delivered in many areas and needed some seasoning. I needed him to reprise the role at least one more time for a follow-up.
his favourite of his Bonds. The Spy Who Loved Me :) I still remember the excitement of first seeing this in the cinema as a kid.
Great choice! It's the Roger film I've seen the most times on the big screen.
I never used to like this film very much but I actually think it's one of the better films of the Moore era. That said my biggest regret in the whole series is that we didn't get to see George Lazenby develop as Bond in what would have been a sequence of grittier films in the early 70s directed by Hunt. Lazenby squaring off against Christopher Lee in the far east setting in this film would have been something.
I don't doubt that getting Connery back was a big deal back in 1971. But watching now, 50 years after the fact, I question if it was worth it. There are 1.25M reasons why he is there, and not one of them are because he wants to. The film is so tacky, moreso when you look at the film that came before it. And the tone is frankly... bizarre. It's camp, then violent, then back to camp, and back to violent.
Though to be fair, the soundtrack is alright. I especially like Gunbarrel & Manhunt, Bond To Holland and Bond Meets Bambi & Thumper (at least the first two minuites or so, roughly up to when the fight begins). And anyone driving a Triumph Stag can't that bad, even if Franks was an international smuggler.
Silver Anniversary Bondathon (1996-2021)
1. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
2. From Russia With Love
3. Dr No
4. You Only Live Twice
5. Goldfinger
6. Thunderball
7. Diamonds Are Forever
Plus another terrific score from mastercomposer John Barry.
Hong Kong of the mid-1970s would've made a good fit for Lazenby's Bond.
Too Cool...
After the film, I started to listen to Roger's audio commentary of it, his reminiscences of the filming. I usually don't listen to those. He talked about how they were thinking of having Frank Sinatra do the theme song (apparently Cubby asked Frank but he pulled out of the project), and I can imagine he would've sung it well, but a woman's voice was probably preferable for that song.
I love me some Moonraker.
A few days ago. No complaints, an enjoyable entry in the official Bond cannon.
Silver Anniversary Bondathon (1996-2021)
1. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
2. From Russia With Love
3. The Spy Who Loved Me
4. Dr No
5. Live And Let Die
6. You Only Live Twice
7. The Man With The Golden Gun
8. Goldfinger
9. Thunderball
10. Diamonds Are Forever
Gay jokes. Rectal smuggling joke. Pubic hair joke. African woman-as-gorilla, Blofeld in drag. Somebody recognizing James Bond as a celebrity. Completely anti-climatic final showdown. "Blow up your pants." THREE different scenes or discussions of somebody going to/coming out of the bathroom. Bond's old-man gut. A moon buggy chase.
But damn if it isn't still a bunch of fun for most of it's runtime. Somehow and against all odds.
Lazenby is undeniably bad in this. I maintain that anybody who says otherwise has coerced themselves into a state of willful ignorance because the rest of the film around him is so good. On a formal and scriptural and technical level, this is clearly one of the better Bond films in the entire series. Hunt's direction is refreshing and his shot compositions are extremely compelling (those shots before we are properly introduced to the new Bond are stunning). John Barry's score is, if perhaps a little narrow, iconic and for good reason and the theme for Bond and Tracy is an all-timer. There's so much testosterone in Barry's choices of instrument as well for this score.
Diana Rigg as Tracy di Vincenzo is easily one of the best Bond girls the series has ever, or will ever, see. The mark she leaves is indelible, and she carries the chemistry between the two by herself.
I cannot get over Lazenby in this, and I have resigned myself to accepting that I never will. He brings down the film. The film is infinitely better whenever Rigg is around and markedly worse whenever Lazenby is the full-focus. I know it isn't his fault that he was dubbed for something like a third of it (when he's undercover as Hillary Bray), but that certainly doesn't help matters either. He is far too chipper to be James Bond, far too much of a golly-gee boy scout, or even worse he is completely flat and wooden more often than not. Some of his line readings, particularly in his initial scene with Draco, are unforgivably bad. Throughout, though, I never once see James Bond. With every other actor, during their better moments or in general, I see James Bond on screen. With Lazenby, I never do. This is not James Bond. I see people defending his performance as vulnerable or Flemingesque and I feel as though I am going insane. All I see is an aw-shucks hyuck hyuck actor reading off lines with lifeless eyes and a complete lack of understanding of who the character is or should be.
I can overlook this stuff and enjoy the film around them. The last hour, in particular, is alongside the first half of Goldfinger and the middle section of Casino Royale probably just the best extended "chunk" of any Bond film ever. The action sequences hold up incredibly well (Lazenby handles himself wonderfully in the fisticuffs moments). The ski chases, Barry's score, the breathtaking cinematography, the assault on Piz Gloria, the tenderest moment in the series when Bond tosses his hat to Moneypenny presumably for the last time, the scene in the barn and the overall strength and complexity of Tracy. The list goes on. This is undeniably a classic, but it will never climb too high on my list because Lazenby brings down everything around him as the rest of the film strains to elevate him and his lackluster performance.
I come off harsh on Lazenby because it bums me out. This would be probably my #1 or at least top 3 Bond film if he weren't so bad. Hunt's direction is stunningly good and has a lot of personality in the way that so few of the films in the series do. It adapts Fleming remarkably well, too.
I won't call it a missed opportunity, because it isn't -- it's a fantastic Bond film -- but it could've been more. A lot more.
He misunderstands 007, and when he isn't doing that he's giving line painful line readings. People give Moore flack for his deviations from Fleming, but I think people don't give Moore enough credit. His levity comes across as a man deflecting or masking, a deep cynicism beneath. His charm and charisma are also off the charts, and that helps. He made the role his own, Fleming or not.
Lazenby comes off as a schoolboy who is all-too-chipper to be convincing as 007. Again, not a personal attack, just an analysis of the performance. Aside from the action scenes, in which he is fantastic, he is never convincing as Bond to me.
I agree. I always thought had Eon followed TB up with something low key, like a faithful adaptation of MR instead of YOLT, then Connery might have been more enthused about OHMSS.
He would have been great, especially since the novel depicts Bond as being bored with Operation Bedlam. Seeing Connery go up against Savalas' Blofeld would have been epic!
The biggest mistake was not following up TB with OHMSS. I do remember reading that it was supposed to, but something with weather and lack of available snowy locations forced them to scrap it and go with YOLT, which is enjoyable to an extent. I completely understand the concept of bringing the best to the screen for entertainment purposes, but they totally hack some of the Fleming novels and became too large for their own good.
I'm not bashing any of the films or what they did. I love them all. It's just that Fleming had so much great material that got thrown aside for spectacle.
Definitely one of the biggest "what could've been" moments - a true Blofeld trilogy.
I totally get what they were going for. As much as I love the Moonraker novel (I'm currently rereading it now) it wouldn't translate well enough to the big screen to an audience/escapism expectation. This and only keeping the Japan atmosphere and a somewhat proper relationship with Bond and Tanaka are what was translated to YOLT on the screen. At least they kept the diamond smuggling aspect from the DAF to the film.
That said, I'm also a big fan of the more cinematic Bond films, the ones that really pushed the medium to go as big as it could. So for me, I'm glad there's a balance.
But yeah I'm pretty much right there in agreement with you.
I agree. And if by 'weird' you mean peppered with dopey-ness, then yeah. I mean, imagine in Skyfall if they'd added a slidewhistle as Bond fell through the ice... why was that acceptable back then? I grew up with that crap and I had to kind of ignore it to enjoy those films...
Just the overall campiness that was never seen in the early Connery films and OHMSS. Compare FRWL to DAF-TMWTGG. Complete opposite ends of the spectrum. A gritty spy thriller to moon buggy chases, gay villains, JW Pepper, slide whistles and Kung fu fighting teenage girls. This was chosen over adapting things such as the Spangled Mob, Garden of Death, even Bond going undercover in Scaramanga's syndicate in which even the least memorable elements from Fleming was discarded for the aforementioned above.