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
edit: All art is subjective. Of course. I'm not disputing that. But I do genuinely struggle to see what people see when they say they think Laz is good in the film. As 007, in particular, but just in general as a performance. I do not see it. It is not good. Most opinions that I disagree with I can see why people hold them (fans of SP, those who prefer TWINE to DAD, those who dislike Serra or Conti's music, etc). But this one I just cannot see. And my only conclusion is that the rest of the film masks Lazenby's shortcomings.
This has always, always been my take. If he gave his all, or if they got someone new who was, you know, an actual actor.
OHMSS would absolutely have been my #1. Alas, as it stands it's still an amazing Bond film that just so happens to have a weak lead performance.
Same here. I'll also say I was never totally convinced by Savalas' Blofeld.
Yep, my controversial opinion on that is that it would have been better with Roger Moore. He's a bit more human than Connery and could have done the romance stuff very well, as well as had no trouble with the comedy stuff at Piz Gloria. Playing it more in his Saint style where everything is treated a little more seriously, I think he'd have had no problem with this film and I think he and Rigg would have been equally matched.
That's interesting: I think he's my favourite of the 60s ones. I think he feels the most dangerous.
And I agree about Roger Moore. He would have been great for OHMSS.
Yeah, that's my bombshell controversial opinion for today. Now go ahead and collectively sue me! ;)
Lazenby is best in the film when he is not acting at all--either seducing women (which he did throughout the production) or seeming scared in fleeing Piz Gloria (and I'm sure, deep down, he was scared, in taking the role over from Sean Connery).
And of course Hunt being an editor par excellence found a way to have George Baker "help" Lazenby's performance.
Or indeed fighting, which I would say he’s easily the best at until Craig is on the scene.
I could still lean towards saying Lazenby is the best fistfighter of the series, although Craig leaves it damn close.
I was thinking that it's funny that I think we'd probably all agree that Roger is perhaps the least convincing fighter all of the Bonds, and yet he probably had the most practise: with The Saint and Maverick and The Persuaders and his other movies he must've easily have had at least 150, probably many more, screen fights! :)
Laz was very good and quite dynamic in his fight scenes. But sometimes his walk looks like a mentally-slow horse.
Controversial opinion:
This was one helluva an entry and I was moved quite intensely…
I just watched this again the other night, IMO Tele is let down by some of the dialogue he's given.
But Tele doesn't really need much dialogue to get across, he just had a natural presence that suggested a tough guy, unlike the other actors who have played the role, and Fleming wrote him as as powerfully built in YOLT.
I also agree about Roger being perfect for Piz Gloria, and he got to appear in his share of action ski scenes in TSWLM pre credit sequence and FYEO. (I was just thinking the other day that Connery might be the only Bond who never saw snow action?)
I attribute the above average fight sequences in OHMSS more to the quality of the direction and camera work, although Lazenby certainly performed his end with great gusto.
That might be it. Also I never found very believable that Blofeld would fall for Tracy's ruse at the climax.
While I more or less agree with you, I think the series needed Moore but not necessarily a different interpretation, or at least not as radical as what we saw in TSWLM or MR for exemple. LALD was a box-office hit and ensured the survival of the series but Moore's Bond wasn't that different from what preceded; I would even say that his performance was more traditional than Connery's one in DAF. As long as the movies were good and liked from the audience (what lacked to TMWTGG), I think Moore could have continued with this less humorous Bond and the series would have been just fine.
That’s true, it wouldn’t have been as good though :)
And yet I can never quite picture him in it for some reason. Not just because of his slightly low power YOLT performance, but also because his Bond was almost more of the untouchable superman than Roger -even in his button-pressing pomp- ever was. Can you imagine Connery doing the 'dig two graves' stuff from FYEO? I can't really. Also he was slightly more distant and unknowable, so it's a tricky fit for me.
Roger slides into it in my mind much easier: he's more genial, warmer, I think I could buy him as the more romantic and vulnerable Bond in this. And plus, as I've said before, OHMSS opens with Bond practically being The Saint, on holiday on the Riveria, cruising the casinos and helping damsels in distress- Roger could do that stuff in his sleep and still shine like a beacon. In 1969 he'd just come off being Simon Templar, who was a marginally more humourless and hard version of his Bond persona, so I think we'd have got less of that Persuaders jokiness which he perhaps hadn't fully embraced yet.
Oh how strongly I disagree! I think Diana Rigg could charm the paint off the wall...
Her sudden turn is a bit obvious perhaps, but I think that's a dramatic conceit for us the audience really, to show that she's playing up to him. As you say, she's utterly wonderful, and of course he's utterly insane (he wants to be a Baronet!) so I guess that makes it easier to buy into.
The thing about the Craig hand-to-hand stuff to me is that sometimes they seem a little bit over-choreographed and too well rehearsed. It started to seep in with QoS, though the rapid fire editing hides it a substantial amount, and continues into SF and SP. Though I think they managed to bring back a bit of that raw energy in NTTD. It's a trait that infected the Brosnan films as well, I think - compare the very real feeling of Bond fighting Alec in GoldenEye with his showdown against Renard in TWINE.
I think in that respect, maybe Lazenby comes out on top. But I'll have to go back and rewatch OHMSS again to be sure.
Roger shows disgust at Scaramanga and Zorin, kills brutally in TSWLM and FYEO, and gets quite angry with Orlov and others in OP. He gets extremely shaken in Mr and pants as he sprints up stairs to take revenge in FYEO. His feeling for Lisl and Octopussy are more believable than anything from Connery as well. He could totally do OHMSS....
Moore was also the most believable widower of all the Bond actors. Imagine any other Bond actor in the PTS of FYEO. I don't think they'd sell it as well.
Even in Moonraker, the silliest of the lot, it's hard to imagine Connery's Bond coming out of that centrifuge looking as vulnerable as Moore's does, or indeed showing that glimmer of anger towards Holly.
Well to be fair, I don't think Dalton or Craig would have had trouble there. But I do agree that he's best of the 'first generation' of Bonds there.
I can't help but picture Roger in scenes like the confrontation with Blofeld after his Sir Hilary disguise is blown, and just think you'd be getting a proper lead performance there, going toe-toe with Savalas.