As for Lazenby, his lack of acting experience is painfully obvious during much of OHMSS.
Disagree. It is only the first scene with Marco, and his first meeting with M, that his inexperience shows otherwise he is spot on and nails the important ones, confrontation with Blofeld, proposal, safe cracking, final scene. Not at all bad for a rookie.
Of those four important scenes, I would say the confrontation with Blofeld is the only one where George Lazenby impresses me. He's convincing and shows real potential for what might have been if he'd starred in more Bond films.
As for the others, I quite like him in the safe cracking scene, but that doesn't require much acting. And to be fair, (considering his lack of experience) he does reasonably well in the proposal scene and the final scene, but ultimately I am not convinced by either.
he does reasonably well in the proposal scene and the final scene, but ultimately I am not convinced by either.
Even the people that dislike/despise him give him credit for the way he acted in those two scenes.
Interesting.
Let's make a few things clear. I do not dislike/despise George Lazenby as himself. On the few occasions I have seen him being interviewed in person he has come across as a friendly easy going sort of person.
As for Lazenby as Bond. It's true he's my least favourite, but in no way do I despise him. Even dislike is a bit strong.
As for Lazenby as Bond. It's true he's my least favourite, but in no way do I despise him. Even dislike is a bit strong.
I did not mean to imply anything about your feelings about Lazenby. I was just saying that everybody (even those that do not care for his performance) give him credit for the two scenes mentioned.
I was just saying that everybody (even those that do not care for his performance) give him credit for the two scenes mentioned.
I don't despise Lazenby, however I do pretty much hate most of his performance. Of the two scenes that you mentioned, I thought he was okay in the proposal scene, but superb in the final scene. The final scene is really the only time that I wasn't thinking to myself how terrible Lazenby was.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Some people liked Lazenby's peformance. Some people disliked it. It seems to me that people harbor similar feelings about other actors who played Bond.
Yes, that's true. What exactly is your point?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
My point is that this argument has shown to be pointless if we're going to keep arguing the same thing over and over again. Don't you think?
No. If you think it's pointless, then don't respond. Some of us enjoy arguing about such things.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Why do people make comments about Connery and Lazenby's performances as if they were a matter of fact? They're not. If you're going to comment on a movie or an actor's performance, why not include that this is merely an "opinion" and not "fact"?
Sorry, I guess it comes from writing essays where formally you state your opinion as fact and then try to back it up. So let me acknowledge that yes, what I say is simply my own opinion, and then I try to use examples to support it.
Speaking of which, thank you for the examples from OHMSS, I completely agree, with comments about Lazenby as well as Bernard Lee. To me, Lee was really the guy who "sold" the fantasy of the films right until his replacement. Even if everything else was fantastical he always seemed very real.
Well, if you honestly post with the intention of 'bothering' people, then I would question why you joined this site. That said, you can continue pointing out of how pointless it is to have discussions about various Bondian aspects; just don't be shocked if I respond to you the same way every time.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Well, if you honestly post with the intention of 'bothering' people, then I would question why you joined this site. That said, you can continue pointing out of how pointless it is to have discussions about various Bondian aspects; just don't be shocked if I respond to you the same way every time.
Whooey, can't wait to read that back and forth -- thanks Dan and Fish! 8-)
Why do people make comments about Connery and Lazenby's performances as if they were a matter of fact? They're not. If you're going to comment on a movie or an actor's performance, why not include that this is merely an "opinion" and not "fact"?
Sorry, I guess it comes from writing essays where formally you state your opinion as fact and then try to back it up. So let me acknowledge that yes, what I say is simply my own opinion, and then I try to use examples to support it.
Speaking of which, thank you for the examples from OHMSS, I completely agree, with comments about Lazenby as well as Bernard Lee. To me, Lee was really the guy who "sold" the fantasy of the films right until his replacement. Even if everything else was fantastical he always seemed very real.
Sorry, let me just add that Lee was also a crucial part of one of the finest thriller films ever, The Third Man.{[]
You do have a sense of humor. Right??:) Because I'm beginning to wonder.
Oh give me a break. 8-) If I was completely serious, why would I include a wink at the end of my post? (But if it does appear that I don't have a sense of humour, perhaps it's because I'm a little tired of reading posts by you in which you complain about how arguing about certain topics is pointless. )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Thank you, Dan. Not only do I realize that you don't have a sense of humor, you exaggerate, as well. I haven't constantlycomplained about how "arguing about certain topics is pointless". But I see that you dislike me, so . . . I won't argue with you, anymore. I'm sure this will make you feel better.
Do whatever you want (and I'm not exaggerating BTW). However I just want to note that I find it rather interesting that you didn't respond to the first part of my post; where I spoke of my using a wink in my earlier post.
Think of me whatever you like (and I don't dislike you BTW; any more than you might dislike me) but if you want to confirm for yourself that I don't have a sense of humour, it might help if you actualy respond to the parts of my posts in which I talk about not having a sense of humour.
But why am I defending my sense of humour? I didn't say something like "And refrain from bothering you? Why?" Anyway, do whatever you want; I just find it interesting what you didn't quote.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
sorry i haven't posted in a few days. ive been away..
Anyways, I just checked this one out from the library a few days ago and I have to say...OHMSS is probably the most underrated Bond movie of all time! I saw it once a while ago and thought it(and Lazenby) were mediocre at best. But then, on this second viewing, I admit I really got into it and it turned out to be one of 007's most exciting adventures! Story and execution thereof were fantastic, and I now have to say Lazenby was a very good Bond. He had the look, the build(though not up to Connery's physique). It's a shame he didn't do anymore. I wonder how DAF would have been with Lazenby in it?
Anyways, who else here likes OHMSS and thinks it's an underrated Bond movie?
It's a little slow in the first half but once Bond arrives at Piz Gloria and meets the Angels of Death, OHMSS takes off and the remainder of the film is among the best in 007 cinema. The original Ian Fleming novel is even better IMHO.
Here's a great website in honor of the 1969 Bond film-
I thought OHMSS was sooo good cuz at the end, i was like omg!!!!!! but then the chick's not that hot...i don't like how it went from Connery to Lazenby and then back to connery again...it was difficult to connect
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
edited March 2007
OHMSS is my favorite Bond movie (though Lazenby not my favorite Bond-- that honor belongs to Connery and, I think it's now safe to say, Daniel Craig); here is something I posted in another forum:
I think a good case can be made for OHMSS as the top Bond movie ever (I have been a fan of the series for over 20 years, so this is not a claim I make lightly). The most obvious point against it is, of course, the absence of the iconic Connery-- but in some respects that might have been for the better. By the time 1969 rolled around Connery was older and greyer than he was in the earlier films and on top of that he was very evidently bored out of his mind with the role. While I won't dispute that a Goldfinger era Connery would have been the best fit for this movie, I can't help but note that Lazenby's youthful vitality is one of this film's strongest points (in that respect his performance reminds me a lot of Daniel Craig's in the latest). I have watched this film many times over the past 20 years and, while at the beginning I frequently wondered "why oh why did Connery have to sit this one out?", it has gotten to the point where I can't even imagine anyone other than George Lazenby in the starring role. And lets be honest, considering this is his first go at it, he did pretty damn good. The acting was a little rough in parts, to be sure, but his athleticism (and personal charisma) more than made up for it.
Besides that there are a number of other points that, I feel, place OHMSS in a category over and above just about every other Bond movie (save perhaps only Goldfinger and From Russia With Love).
1) The score! There never has been, and probably never will be, a better soundtrack to a Bond film. The music in Bond movies has always been one of the key elements. When I look back at the list of Bond movies that struck me the most, I find it strangely coincident with those that had the most memorable music. In many ways this film was the turning point in for Bond soundtracks. A hallmark of the 60s films, to a large degree (YOLY being the most obvious exception), is the jazzy big-band brassy scores. After this one they started to drift into the realm of pop, romanticism and haunting atmosphere. While there were some amazing soundtracks in the 70s and 80s none captured the /essence/ of Bond as did the ones of the 60s, of which OHMSS is the crown jewel.
2) All of the elements from the coolest Bond decade of all were delivered to perfection in this movie-- the aforementioned jazzy score; the quintessential Bond villian, Blofeld; the world-wide extortion plot without going into cheesy, blatantly unrealistic overkill (as in the previous movie); the casinos, martinis and cigarettes; the very 60s-ish /feel/ of the film. Did I mention the excellent soundtrack?
3) The girl, the ending, and the very personal feel of the movie. This film is unique, as we all know, in that Bond falls in love and gets married. Also, more than any other Bond movie, in this one we feel as though we are witnessing the personal side of James Bond-- in all of the other movies (save perhaps the new one) Bond comes across as almost this cartoonish superman, but in this one he appears very human. I really felt for the guy when he cradled his wife's dead body at the end of it. And the romantic subplot was very well done. Diana Rigg worked wonderfully and, again, the ending was very emotionally moving.
4) The direction and pace of the movie. This is probably the longest James Bond movie of them all-- and one hardly notices. Everything is done so tightly-- none of the scenes seem tacked on or out of place and everything seems to move at just the right pace (a lot of this, again, comes back to the wonderful soundtrack).
6) The action sequences were some of the best in any Bond movie. The opening fight, the ski chases (that killer soundtrack again), the chase through the Swiss village, and the assault on Piz Gloria at the end, were all very well done.
6) Lazenby. I really think he did an excellent job, all things considered, and given that this film is unique in so many other ways, it only seems fitting that its star, like so many other of its elements, was a one time only deal.
It really was the epic Bond movie to cap the epic Bond decade and, after 20 years of waffling, I feel secure in declaring it my all time favorite.
I have this feeling - and I'm not alone - that the GOLDFINGER era Connery would not have been right for OHMSS. And by the time EON Productions did OHMSS, it would seem to late to wish for an early Connery in the movie.
Fish, I inserted the word "not" in your quote above because I think that's what you meant to say. If that's true, I agree with you 100%. Try as I may, I cannot imagine a Connery of any era in OHMSS. Aside from George's raw physicality (much of which Connery had), Bond was simply more emotionally vulnerable in this film than I can picture Connery portraying. Not that he didn't have the acting chops to do it -- it was just so against his portrayal of Bond to be anything but totally in control of situations and emotions.
Hilly...you old devil!
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
Try as I may, I cannot imagine a Connery of any era in OHMSS. Aside from George's raw physicality (much of which Connery had), Bond was simply more emotionally vulnerable in this film than I can picture Connery portraying. Not that he didn't have the acting chops to do it -- it was just so against his portrayal of Bond to be anything but totally in control of situations and emotions.
I think you guys might be right here. I've just always taken the party line that Connery would have been better in that movie-- it's only lately that I have started to believe that Lazenby really did make it his own and was ultimately better suited for it.
Harry Palmer Somewhere in the past ...Posts: 325MI6 Agent
It is indeed a great movie; and Lazenby, though far from perfect, is not the train-wreck many people assume he is.
I disagree however with Agent 0010 saying it is underrated. I think if you check the tomatometer on rottentomatoes.com, or even the in-house statistic we made on this site, you'll find that it is very highly rated. I think it ranks third or fourth favourite among memebers of this forum.
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
Great review of OHMSS I found at Amazon.com:
"Here's how you break the James Bond formula completely, in a vain attempt to destroy the franchise forever, only to end up with a film that is cherished by fans 30 years later:
When the foundation of your success, Sean Connery, quits, you audition 400 actors for the role, and then you hire a guy with no acting experience at all, who has the word 'lazy' in his name. It's hard to tell if he even qualifies as good-looking (note: he does). You then work with a script that has a big gap in the action not far into the story, in order to focus on--of all things--the romance! So that Bond can fall in love! You give Bond no gadgets, you have him try and quit (a couple of times, actually!), you dub his voice for a large part of the film, and just before you marry him off (what kind of nightmare are we trapped in here??!!), you have a chase scene that ends with him parking himself on a bench, looking disconsolate as various gunsels close in on him, right up until his future wife skates up and saves his bacon. I wouldn't believe it myself if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes fifteen or twenty times. Yes, this is my favourite Bond film.
Formula-breaking is an essential part of running a series. If you're running the same routine by your audience over and over again, sooner or later it all gets a little too familiar. And in that light, you have got to give the folks behind OHMSS credit for guts. They had a lot of guts. They picked the moment Connery left to risk blasting the formula to smithereens with a love story and Lazenby. I wouldn't have had the nerve. I would have made Goldeneye first. I would have gone with Formula right down the line. But every aspect of OHMSS makes you think they had all lost their minds--every aspect, that is, except the wonderful action sequences that make this film a James Bond film.
But then, Lazenby got the part because of the way he moves. He moves like a tiger. There's a power and physical grace when Lazenby enters combat, prepares to throw a knife, even crosses a catwalk while reloading a machine-gun. Watch him move. I've never seen this kind of power in a guy who's not supposed to have a clue what he's doing.
And while we're on the subject, let me address Lazenby's dramatic performance right here and now: It works. Is it just luck? This film demands a more vulnerable Bond, a Bond unceremoniously shoved into a script where the woman MUST look more dynamic than he does in a few key moments, so that we know they are a team, they are meant to be. That it's real. Marriage for this man must mean that, previous to him committing his heart, she must save him when even he has given up and sat down, uncertain what will happen.
I will always wonder what this film would have been like with Sean Connery in it, but I can't find the portal to the correct parallel universe--so, I'm left saying that it makes sense that this rule-breaking freak of a Bond flick have a George Lazenby in it, so that he could absolutely nail that last tragic scene. So that he could have that great fight on the beach, so that he can crouch with a knife in his hand as if ready to take on the world--but also look and act like a deer caught in the headlights of love.
Daniel Craig had it a bit easy. We all expect a new Bond. But Lazenby stepped in after Connery, and they threw him in a formula-breaker. But it's actually a masterpiece."
In the 1970s, he did ROBIN AND MARIAN (which I have never seen)
'Robin and Marian' is my favourite Connery film. He is terrific as a past-his-prime Robin Hood, looking to rekindle past glories. I think it's the only time I've seen Connery show tenderness on film. The chemistry between him and Hepburn is remarkable. I'd recommend it to any fans of the big man who want to see a different side to him.
My two cents: a wonderful Richard Lester romance/adventure that gets better with age. Anyone doubting Connery's romantic side should have a look. And lets not forget The Wind and the Lion (1975).
Great review, Fish 1941. And whoever wrote that review for amazon ABSOLUTELY rocked the house. Lazenby has never gotten a more balanced appraisal. Top marks.
Poor George...not only does he walk away from Bond but he could have OWNED Bond in the 70's...the way in which OHMSS ends would have guaranteed that.
Robin And Marian? With Sean Connery facing off with Robert Shaw, and John Barry doing the music (sound like any other film we know ?)...
I remember seeing this one in the cinema 30 years ago and being underwhelmed enough not to watch it again till maybe 3 years ago. It's definitely aged well, and I enjoyed it a lot more second time around.
PS Back on topic: OHMSS isn't just a great Bond movie, it's a great movie period.
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
Poor George...not only does he walk away from Bond but he could have OWNED Bond in the 70's
I agree. He is that great 70s Bond that never was. I have this theory that with him and all his fighting/physical prowess in the far eastern martial arts setting of TMWTGG we would have had another masterpiece (instead of a campy lighthearted flick that nobody really takes all that seriously).
the way in which OHMSS ends would have guaranteed that.
Peter Hunt has stated that had Lazenby agreed to continue he would have been willing to direct DAF. Now that would have been something.
Lazenby, did you say Peter Hunt directing George in DAF? Stop it...you're killing me.
THAT, my friend, is the true lost film of the series. Can you imagine? It would have been a true revenge flick, unlike the present DAF. Why? Because if Sean was in OHMSS...with Tracy in his arms...DAF would not have ended with Blofeld stuck in a mini-sub.
You just know that Connery's Bond would have killed Blofeld stone-cold dead. (And Irma Bunt while we're at it).
But in true film logic the only Bond who ever had the right to kill Blofeld was George. Cosmic justice would have reigned in the Bond universe (I mean, really, has the Blofeld question ever been properly answered?).
Lazenby moving like a cat through the 70's (with Hunt directing) is the stuff of action-lovers dreams.
It is my contention that Lazenby would have rivalled and, perhaps even surpassed the incomparable Connery in the action department. Believe me, George was that good.
But to know that there was a possibility that Peter Hunt would have made DAF? That one really hurts.
As far as I'm concerned, Harry and Cubby should have made Hunt Bond director for life in 1969. The notion of a half-dozen Peter Hunt 007 movies as good as OHMSS would be a Bond-lovers dream come true.
What a shame. Well, we still got a Bond classic that haunts the series in a way that is hard to measure.
OHMSS is the Bond film which elevates the series beyond the mere norm...it deepens the world of Bond...it defines his character...the series feels richer in its tones and moods because of the film's uncompromising ending. Without it, Bond is just a playboy.
It is glorious that the film is finally getting its proper due. And a tip of the hat for George and Peter Hunt for the memories.
"But sir, Blofeld is something of a must."
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Lazenby, did you say Peter Hunt directing George in DAF? Stop it...you're killing me.
THAT, my friend, is the true lost film of the series. Can you imagine? It would have been a true revenge flick, unlike the present DAF. Why? Because if Sean was in OHMSS...with Tracy in his arms...DAF would not have ended with Blofeld stuck in a mini-sub.
You just know that Connery's Bond would have killed Blofeld stone-cold dead. (And Irma Bunt while we're at it).
But in true film logic the only Bond who ever had the right to kill Blofeld was George. Cosmic justice would have reigned in the Bond universe (I mean, really, has the Blofeld question ever been properly answered?).
Lazenby moving like a cat through the 70's (with Hunt directing) is the stuff of action-lovers dreams.
It is my contention that Lazenby would have rivalled and, perhaps even surpassed the incomparable Connery in the action department. Believe me, George was that good.
But to know that there was a possibility that Peter Hunt would have made DAF? That one really hurts.
As far as I'm concerned, Harry and Cubby should have made Hunt Bond director for life in 1969. The notion of a half-dozen Peter Hunt 007 movies as good as OHMSS would be a Bond-lovers dream come true.
What a shame. Well, we still got a Bond classic that haunts the series in a way that is hard to measure.
OHMSS is the Bond film which elevates the series beyond the mere norm...it deepens the world of Bond...it defines his character...the series feels richer in its tones and moods because of the film's uncompromising ending. Without it, Bond is just a playboy.
It is glorious that the film is finally getting its proper due. And a tip of the hat for George and Peter Hunt for the memories.
"But sir, Blofeld is something of a must."
BZ, you and Lazenby are onto something. Mind if I jump on the bandwagon?
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
In the 1970s, he did ROBIN AND MARIAN (which I have never seen)
'Robin and Marian' is my favourite Connery film. He is terrific as a past-his-prime Robin Hood, looking to rekindle past glories. I think it's the only time I've seen Connery show tenderness on film. The chemistry between him and Hepburn is remarkable. I'd recommend it to any fans of the big man who want to see a different side to him.
Fish, you should really check out ROBIN AND MARIAN, it's an amazing film. Especially if you like OHMSS. 'Nuff said.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited March 2007
I just had this vision of Lazenby's hands round Telly Savalas' neck: "Die, Blofeld! Die!"
"To Dream the Impossible Dream..."
B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
Of those four important scenes, I would say the confrontation with Blofeld is the only one where George Lazenby impresses me. He's convincing and shows real potential for what might have been if he'd starred in more Bond films.
As for the others, I quite like him in the safe cracking scene, but that doesn't require much acting. And to be fair, (considering his lack of experience) he does reasonably well in the proposal scene and the final scene, but ultimately I am not convinced by either.
Even the people that dislike/despise him give him credit for the way he acted in those two scenes.
Interesting.
Let's make a few things clear. I do not dislike/despise George Lazenby as himself. On the few occasions I have seen him being interviewed in person he has come across as a friendly easy going sort of person.
As for Lazenby as Bond. It's true he's my least favourite, but in no way do I despise him. Even dislike is a bit strong.
Sorry, I guess it comes from writing essays where formally you state your opinion as fact and then try to back it up. So let me acknowledge that yes, what I say is simply my own opinion, and then I try to use examples to support it.
Speaking of which, thank you for the examples from OHMSS, I completely agree, with comments about Lazenby as well as Bernard Lee. To me, Lee was really the guy who "sold" the fantasy of the films right until his replacement. Even if everything else was fantastical he always seemed very real.
Whooey, can't wait to read that back and forth -- thanks Dan and Fish! 8-)
Sorry, let me just add that Lee was also a crucial part of one of the finest thriller films ever, The Third Man.{[]
Think of me whatever you like (and I don't dislike you BTW; any more than you might dislike me) but if you want to confirm for yourself that I don't have a sense of humour, it might help if you actualy respond to the parts of my posts in which I talk about not having a sense of humour.
But why am I defending my sense of humour?
It's a little slow in the first half but once Bond arrives at Piz Gloria and meets the Angels of Death, OHMSS takes off and the remainder of the film is among the best in 007 cinema. The original Ian Fleming novel is even better IMHO.
Here's a great website in honor of the 1969 Bond film-
http://www.ohmss.ohmss-007.com/
I think a good case can be made for OHMSS as the top Bond movie ever (I have been a fan of the series for over 20 years, so this is not a claim I make lightly). The most obvious point against it is, of course, the absence of the iconic Connery-- but in some respects that might have been for the better. By the time 1969 rolled around Connery was older and greyer than he was in the earlier films and on top of that he was very evidently bored out of his mind with the role. While I won't dispute that a Goldfinger era Connery would have been the best fit for this movie, I can't help but note that Lazenby's youthful vitality is one of this film's strongest points (in that respect his performance reminds me a lot of Daniel Craig's in the latest). I have watched this film many times over the past 20 years and, while at the beginning I frequently wondered "why oh why did Connery have to sit this one out?", it has gotten to the point where I can't even imagine anyone other than George Lazenby in the starring role. And lets be honest, considering this is his first go at it, he did pretty damn good. The acting was a little rough in parts, to be sure, but his athleticism (and personal charisma) more than made up for it.
Besides that there are a number of other points that, I feel, place OHMSS in a category over and above just about every other Bond movie (save perhaps only Goldfinger and From Russia With Love).
1) The score! There never has been, and probably never will be, a better soundtrack to a Bond film. The music in Bond movies has always been one of the key elements. When I look back at the list of Bond movies that struck me the most, I find it strangely coincident with those that had the most memorable music. In many ways this film was the turning point in for Bond soundtracks. A hallmark of the 60s films, to a large degree (YOLY being the most obvious exception), is the jazzy big-band brassy scores. After this one they started to drift into the realm of pop, romanticism and haunting atmosphere. While there were some amazing soundtracks in the 70s and 80s none captured the /essence/ of Bond as did the ones of the 60s, of which OHMSS is the crown jewel.
2) All of the elements from the coolest Bond decade of all were delivered to perfection in this movie-- the aforementioned jazzy score; the quintessential Bond villian, Blofeld; the world-wide extortion plot without going into cheesy, blatantly unrealistic overkill (as in the previous movie); the casinos, martinis and cigarettes; the very 60s-ish /feel/ of the film. Did I mention the excellent soundtrack?
3) The girl, the ending, and the very personal feel of the movie. This film is unique, as we all know, in that Bond falls in love and gets married. Also, more than any other Bond movie, in this one we feel as though we are witnessing the personal side of James Bond-- in all of the other movies (save perhaps the new one) Bond comes across as almost this cartoonish superman, but in this one he appears very human. I really felt for the guy when he cradled his wife's dead body at the end of it. And the romantic subplot was very well done. Diana Rigg worked wonderfully and, again, the ending was very emotionally moving.
4) The direction and pace of the movie. This is probably the longest James Bond movie of them all-- and one hardly notices. Everything is done so tightly-- none of the scenes seem tacked on or out of place and everything seems to move at just the right pace (a lot of this, again, comes back to the wonderful soundtrack).
6) The action sequences were some of the best in any Bond movie. The opening fight, the ski chases (that killer soundtrack again), the chase through the Swiss village, and the assault on Piz Gloria at the end, were all very well done.
6) Lazenby. I really think he did an excellent job, all things considered, and given that this film is unique in so many other ways, it only seems fitting that its star, like so many other of its elements, was a one time only deal.
It really was the epic Bond movie to cap the epic Bond decade and, after 20 years of waffling, I feel secure in declaring it my all time favorite.
I think you guys might be right here. I've just always taken the party line that Connery would have been better in that movie-- it's only lately that I have started to believe that Lazenby really did make it his own and was ultimately better suited for it.
I disagree however with Agent 0010 saying it is underrated. I think if you check the tomatometer on rottentomatoes.com, or even the in-house statistic we made on this site, you'll find that it is very highly rated. I think it ranks third or fourth favourite among memebers of this forum.
Check out this really-well-done fan trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA3FgHGJwKk
"Here's how you break the James Bond formula completely, in a vain attempt to destroy the franchise forever, only to end up with a film that is cherished by fans 30 years later:
When the foundation of your success, Sean Connery, quits, you audition 400 actors for the role, and then you hire a guy with no acting experience at all, who has the word 'lazy' in his name. It's hard to tell if he even qualifies as good-looking (note: he does). You then work with a script that has a big gap in the action not far into the story, in order to focus on--of all things--the romance! So that Bond can fall in love! You give Bond no gadgets, you have him try and quit (a couple of times, actually!), you dub his voice for a large part of the film, and just before you marry him off (what kind of nightmare are we trapped in here??!!), you have a chase scene that ends with him parking himself on a bench, looking disconsolate as various gunsels close in on him, right up until his future wife skates up and saves his bacon. I wouldn't believe it myself if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes fifteen or twenty times. Yes, this is my favourite Bond film.
Formula-breaking is an essential part of running a series. If you're running the same routine by your audience over and over again, sooner or later it all gets a little too familiar. And in that light, you have got to give the folks behind OHMSS credit for guts. They had a lot of guts. They picked the moment Connery left to risk blasting the formula to smithereens with a love story and Lazenby. I wouldn't have had the nerve. I would have made Goldeneye first. I would have gone with Formula right down the line. But every aspect of OHMSS makes you think they had all lost their minds--every aspect, that is, except the wonderful action sequences that make this film a James Bond film.
But then, Lazenby got the part because of the way he moves. He moves like a tiger. There's a power and physical grace when Lazenby enters combat, prepares to throw a knife, even crosses a catwalk while reloading a machine-gun. Watch him move. I've never seen this kind of power in a guy who's not supposed to have a clue what he's doing.
And while we're on the subject, let me address Lazenby's dramatic performance right here and now: It works. Is it just luck? This film demands a more vulnerable Bond, a Bond unceremoniously shoved into a script where the woman MUST look more dynamic than he does in a few key moments, so that we know they are a team, they are meant to be. That it's real. Marriage for this man must mean that, previous to him committing his heart, she must save him when even he has given up and sat down, uncertain what will happen.
I will always wonder what this film would have been like with Sean Connery in it, but I can't find the portal to the correct parallel universe--so, I'm left saying that it makes sense that this rule-breaking freak of a Bond flick have a George Lazenby in it, so that he could absolutely nail that last tragic scene. So that he could have that great fight on the beach, so that he can crouch with a knife in his hand as if ready to take on the world--but also look and act like a deer caught in the headlights of love.
Daniel Craig had it a bit easy. We all expect a new Bond. But Lazenby stepped in after Connery, and they threw him in a formula-breaker. But it's actually a masterpiece."
'Robin and Marian' is my favourite Connery film. He is terrific as a past-his-prime Robin Hood, looking to rekindle past glories. I think it's the only time I've seen Connery show tenderness on film. The chemistry between him and Hepburn is remarkable. I'd recommend it to any fans of the big man who want to see a different side to him.
My two cents: a wonderful Richard Lester romance/adventure that gets better with age. Anyone doubting Connery's romantic side should have a look. And lets not forget The Wind and the Lion (1975).
Great review, Fish 1941. And whoever wrote that review for amazon ABSOLUTELY rocked the house. Lazenby has never gotten a more balanced appraisal. Top marks.
Poor George...not only does he walk away from Bond but he could have OWNED Bond in the 70's...the way in which OHMSS ends would have guaranteed that.
"Guns make me nervous."
I remember seeing this one in the cinema 30 years ago and being underwhelmed enough not to watch it again till maybe 3 years ago. It's definitely aged well, and I enjoyed it a lot more second time around.
PS Back on topic: OHMSS isn't just a great Bond movie, it's a great movie period.
I agree. He is that great 70s Bond that never was. I have this theory that with him and all his fighting/physical prowess in the far eastern martial arts setting of TMWTGG we would have had another masterpiece (instead of a campy lighthearted flick that nobody really takes all that seriously).
Peter Hunt has stated that had Lazenby agreed to continue he would have been willing to direct DAF. Now that would have been something.
"This'll do. This'll do me nicely."
THAT, my friend, is the true lost film of the series. Can you imagine? It would have been a true revenge flick, unlike the present DAF. Why? Because if Sean was in OHMSS...with Tracy in his arms...DAF would not have ended with Blofeld stuck in a mini-sub.
You just know that Connery's Bond would have killed Blofeld stone-cold dead. (And Irma Bunt while we're at it).
But in true film logic the only Bond who ever had the right to kill Blofeld was George. Cosmic justice would have reigned in the Bond universe (I mean, really, has the Blofeld question ever been properly answered?).
Lazenby moving like a cat through the 70's (with Hunt directing) is the stuff of action-lovers dreams.
It is my contention that Lazenby would have rivalled and, perhaps even surpassed the incomparable Connery in the action department. Believe me, George was that good.
But to know that there was a possibility that Peter Hunt would have made DAF? That one really hurts.
As far as I'm concerned, Harry and Cubby should have made Hunt Bond director for life in 1969. The notion of a half-dozen Peter Hunt 007 movies as good as OHMSS would be a Bond-lovers dream come true.
What a shame. Well, we still got a Bond classic that haunts the series in a way that is hard to measure.
OHMSS is the Bond film which elevates the series beyond the mere norm...it deepens the world of Bond...it defines his character...the series feels richer in its tones and moods because of the film's uncompromising ending. Without it, Bond is just a playboy.
It is glorious that the film is finally getting its proper due. And a tip of the hat for George and Peter Hunt for the memories.
"But sir, Blofeld is something of a must."
BZ, you and Lazenby are onto something. Mind if I jump on the bandwagon?
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Fish, you should really check out ROBIN AND MARIAN, it's an amazing film. Especially if you like OHMSS. 'Nuff said.
"To Dream the Impossible Dream..."
B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM