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
It's got it's groaner moments like all the Rog films do, tarzan yell most noticeably, but otherwise it's a potent mix of Bondian colour and excess, grounded in hard-edged, dangerous adventure. And as usual, Barry's score dramatically ramps up the tension and suspense when needed.
Love the cast of camp-dangerous villains and femmes, from Kamal Khan, Gobinda, the killer twins, Yo-Yo assassin to OP and Magda.
Nice job with the actual octopussy too (the sea creature) and slipping in bits of both Fleming's OP and POAL.
OP is easily my favourite of the Glen films. It's one of the great Bonds, even worthy of inclusion with the best of Young and Hamilton, I'd say.
And we are all entitled to that :)
Agreed. :)
Not standing for this.
OK, in the first act and disguised as Sir Hilary he might be somewhat unpolished and not the best actor in history, but from the second Blofeld exposes him under the Christmas tree George simply smashes it out of the park and doesnt let up until the credits roll.
Until Dan hes the only Bond who genuinely looks in fear of his life as he chokes the guy in the forest or when huddling with a glass of gluwein at the ice rink, he does well for his inexperience in the proposal scene and really holds his own against Bernard Lee in some of the best M scenes of the series. And he nails the final scene.
When talking about someone portraying the character of Ian Fleming's James Bond feel free to call me someone who doesnt know what they are talking about then because personally I prefer the guy who portrays a believable man who is vulnerable and afraid rather than the podgy guy in the toupee who phones in performances because the fact hes Sean Connery should be enough for the audience (by the way please tell me; how many great actors need to have some spurious reason their character hails from Scotland written into every script because they can only play themselves?), the holiday camp comedian who cavorts in underwater cars and hover-gondolas (or even space itself FFS) or the smug James Bond parody who just runs methodically through his check list of every Bond cliche for film after film.
If we're talking about great acting then only Sean in DN and FRWL, Tim and Dan have any claim to that.
Before accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about I would point you towards exhibit A SirHenryLee Stanislavski: - 'He knew all about my shoooulder'.
Yeah - the only reason Daniel Day Lewis gets work is because Brozza turns it down as it doesnt stretch him enough as an actor.
With that aside, I wish to return to the main topic of this thread before things spiral out of control.
Now THAT is a brilliant image.
Thank you! :D
Just answer the Octopussy question 007 poses:
https://twitter.com/007/with_replies
Fair enough he didn't take the character into bold new terrority but although his Bond was essentially a mix of Connery and Moore, I thought it was a brilliant mix of Connery and Moore that was always entertaining.
He wasn't the best actor (he really is better outside of Bond though, brilliant in The Matador for example), but he did have some moments where he did the darker and emotional stuff really well (his best probably being the Kauffman scene).
I thought Brosnan did a very good cinematic Bond, and that was just what the series needed to get it going again.
I agree. I certainly don't hate Brozza and think he had some excellent moments as Bond despite the Sean/Rog hybrid approach.
He just ended up as collateral damage in my defence of Laz.
I can appreciate your defense of Lazenby but I'm not sure I like your argument here. It seems as though as long as an actor portrays Bond the way that you want him too then you consider it a great performance. Regardless of their abilities or lack of abilities. Let's throw Fleming out the window for a moment and just go by talent alone. Do you really feel that George's performance in OHMSS is better than Sean's in GF and TB? I just can't agree with that.
I also love how George brought vulnerability to the role. I think he nailed that side of Fleming's Bond better than anyone else actually. However, he does come across as a man with little acting experience. Which is what he was.
Anyone whose opening gambit is this line is already on the verge of losing the argument in my book.
My whole point is that George does a better job of portraying the guy Fleming wrote about than the others with only Sean in DN and FRWL, Tim and Dan coming as close. If I do as you say and throw Fleming out then thats my whole argument gone so I'm not about to do that am I?
Of course I'm not about to argue that George is oozing more talent than the rest as they are after all guys who have made a career out of acting and he hasnt but to answer your question - 'Do you really feel that George's performance in OHMSS is better than Sean's in GF and TB?'
Well in terms of playing a wisecracking playboy who strolls around shagging loads of birds and getting himself out of sticky situations by pressing a button then the answer is 'no'. Sean has that down in GF and TB and only Rog would come anywhere near those heights. His performances may be slick, may be polished, may be well acted but are they Ian Flemings Bond?
After FRWL Sean only plays Flemings Bond sporadically and not at all after TB.
I dont think Rog could ever be said to have played Flemings Bond - kicking Locque over the cliff the only moment that springs to mind, maybe dinner with Scaramanga at a pinch and the scene with Anya where he reveals he killed Sergei? (Although ultimately what a waste the Sergei plot strand was. Imagine what Dalton or Craig could have done with it).
Brozza? Maybe the scene with Alec in the statue park but is quite Flemingesque but Bean acts him off the screen anyway. Shooting Elektra in the face perhaps? Its slim pickings though.
Of course George benefitted from having one of the best and most faithful to the novel scripts and if Broz or Sean had got it (although I dont think Sean in 69 would have put in anything but a lazy, perfunctory effort) then who knows? OHMSS might have been even better. Also Georges flame burnt out like James Dean so we are left with a perfect image of him. Had he trudged through the likes of DAF and TMWTGG then perhaps he would have been shown up for what he was - a guy off the street who got lucky.
But we can only judge on what we have and in terms of playing Ian Flemings James Bond and not the cinematic version that became a cliche that spawned Austin Powers then its George all the way for me. Indubitably.
But then I've never just 'thrown Fleming out of the window' so what do I know?
Though I have seen a slap similar to the one at 0.21 before ;)
Anyway happy anniversary to OP. A solid little Bond flick.
Well said, Mr Ice. Great to see some support for Mr Lazenby on these boards, but then OHMSS is my favourite Bond film precisely because it is so very different!
I'll have plastic surgery like Denise Richards :)
Thanks for that. Made a lot of sense.
Yes, you are definitely @samainsy. Nuff said.
What type of prizes?
Smashes it out of the park, you say?. Well, you and others are entitled to have this rather humorous opinion. All I see is a hopelessly wooden chocolate model with a monotone delivery, with his support cast leading him around by the nose through his various scenes to make sure he was at least passable. That is when he wasn't too busy shagging women during working hours when he should have been studying first and worrying about girls later when off duty (after all, a man cannot live by bread alone and must have his fish ;) ), beefing about not getting star treatment, and generally thinking he should be treated like Sean when he'd proven absolutely nothing as a movie star, let alone an actor with prior credits. I doubt Dana Broccoli ever had to remind the other fellas about their place. And speaking further about Sean, I'd say TB was his finest performance after seamlessly assimilating the Hamilton super spy with Young's sensibilities. That's what a great actor with an Oscar on his mantle can do, comparing George favorably to a bloated DAF performance where Sean was clearly in it for the money is a whole lot of straw clutching to me. Georgie couldn't shine Sean's shoes on his very best day, and if a motivated Sean had done OHMSS, fugeddaboutit, it would have been the very best Bond film ever. Which as far as I'm concerned it can never be because a non-actor who couldn't convince me via acting skills he was more than a fill-in for Sean was the star. George's glaring ineptness as an actor may fool some of you out there, but I know better [-X
When I call Brosnan a "caricature", I mean that strictly in terms of his GQ looks and the too obvious way he ticks the boxes rather than venturing a fresh new vision of Bond. In comparison to Lazenby, the former is fair. George, taking nothing here away from his real life gravitas and balls, pursued a caricature of Sir Sean by giving himself a makeover in Sean's JB image, going so far as to go to Sean's barber and tailor. Now if you want to compare both as an actor, I'd venture to say that short of George's action star skills that make him a better on screen fighter (no doubt honed by years of drunken bar brawling), I really don't see where he's the better actor. And that's not to defend your Exhibit A or the many other instances where the Brozzer seems too content with cheesy deliveries, but I also see certain scenes like the ending fight with Trevalyan where he does well in action spots, and can name several scenes such as his Kaufman confrontation that show me when given the right lines and motivations, he can occasionally be convincing in the role. Pierce studied at the Drama Centre, London, for several years before he had his first role in any production, and had many credits before taking the role of James Bond. In this, he qualifies as an accomplished actor. Now whether one sees him as a good actor is open to interpretation, personally I like him much better in non-Bondian roles and don't feel he was a good Bond in comparison to Sean, Roger, or Tim who came before let alone Daniel, but in the above comparisons only one logical conclusion can be drawn- Pierce is an actor and George is an action star. And for most, the actor wins every time.
Getting back to Sir Roger on this, again we have a real actor at work. Yes it's fair to say as you have, that at times during his tenure he is "the holiday camp comedian who cavorts in underwater cars and hover-gondolas (or even space itself FFS)", but here's something that has to be said in his defense. He is far more than just a comedic talent. Again, we have an accomplished actor who was trained and had many film and TV credits going back some 23 years that included being a MGM contract player during Hollywood's golden age of the 1950's. The truly telling factor in the way of comparing either as Bond is very telling- after George everyone including myself was screaming for Sean to return and being an original fan, I lived through the uproar and read all the press clippings and everything else going on because I was a young and obsessed new Bond fan. After Moore debuted in LALD, the public and Bond fans were not screaming and everyone seemed mostly satisfied. Rather than thinking that looking the part was the lone prerequisite, and quite frankly he had brown hair which didn't match the standard any more than Craig's look, he went in with a game plan that Pierce and George either lacked or failed to bring to fruition. He knew that if he hoped to succeed, he HAD to be different than Sean 1962-1965. And it mostly worked because the man was a legitimate actor and established his own interpretation of the role. Something Sean did, Tim did, and something Craig is currently still defining. Again, this is certainly reason to consider these four actors ahead of both Pierce and George in any list based on more than one's personal preferences, and further reason to congratulate OP and Sir Roger on the film's 30th anniversary because without Sir Roger, we might not have a series :)
George is closer to Fleming in terms of presenting a more "human" Bond BUT is let down a bit by some wooden line deliveries (especially early on), the exceptional cast around him and the fact he's dubbed for a lengthy period in his one and only Bond flick.
That said George, like Broz, had some occasionally fine moments in the part and each were somewhat let down by external circumstances (George - his goofy agent, Broz - cheesey writing and stunt casting).
Both had their limitations as well as their strengths.
If I were asked who I felt was more charismatic in the part though, sorry Laz but Broz wins this time. The same can be applied to Rog.
I can understand why many hardcore Bond fans prefer Laz though.
Yes, that scene is handled most excellently by John Glen. Superb. I get it when the people in the crowd start standing up!
That's the beauty of suspense.