The OHMSS Bondwagon is getting more crowded everyday. Soon the film eggheads will be scartching their collective noggins and wonder how they could have blundered so badly in appraising what is shaping up to be a classic of its genre.
Film historians better start paying proper respect to this film and get over their Sean-is-007 disposition.
As a matter of fact, Loeff, film historians better do some M-A-J-O-R re-appraisal of the series as a whole. 007 gets nowhere near the respect or level of praise praise it deserves.
Sure...its popcorn entertainement,
But its the best popcorn in the business.
21 films. 45 years and running. 'Nuff said.
"This never happened to the other fella."
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
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.
Indeed; the whole movie would have been different-- starting with the tone. We would have had a more serious Bond movie, in the spirit of the classics of the 60s. Factor into that the revenge theme, John Barry's excellent score, the setting out in the desert of Las Vegas, and it becomes easy to see how good that movie could have been (and I'm not even a hater of what did come out).
DAF would not have ended with Blofeld stuck in a mini-sub.
The whole climax of DAF is weak beyond measure. I read somewhere that they intentionally left the Blofeld character hanging because they wanted him to be a recurring villain (he was supposed to be Stromberg in TSWLM) only they found later that the legal rights to the whole Blofeld/Spectre name belonged to someone else, forcing them to abandon the character, leaving us with the single most gaping hole in the whole series.
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
Agreed.
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.
I would make the stronger claim that in his one film he did surpass Connery in the action department in all but FRWL and perhaps TB. The physical action scenes in OHMSS were arguably the best in any Bond movie up to the very latest one.
But to know that there was a possibility that Peter Hunt would have made DAF? That one really hurts.
I know! I spent a lot of time when I was younger wishing that Connery had stuck it out for one more movie. Now I realize that OHMSS is Lazenby's movie through and through. He was the rightful recipient of the mantle of Bond and should have been around a lot longer.
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.
Indeed. I won't say that they would have surpassed the classic 60s films, but they would at least have been comparable to them.
"Fancy meeting you here frauline!"
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited March 2007
Blofeld should have built his 'Garden of Death' atop the hotel in Las Vegas )
Think of it: Telly Savalas in a suit of armour, looking out over the neon Vegas landscape at night...recently obsessed with the Japanese culture of ritual suicide...clearly unhinged by the repeated defeats dealt him by James Bond---who is about to exact righteous vengeance...
A diamond smuggling plot which ends in a bizarre mix of Las Vegas kitsch and samurai-inspired death with honour...
Weird...but I like it 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
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).
I'm not upset that Lazenby walked away. Yes, he was brilliant in the action scenes, and his handling of the final scene was fantastic, but other than that, I think he was terrible. I am extremely relieved that he never did another Bond film.
Regarding TMWTGG, I do consider it to be Moore's second worst performance (although I do think he was okay), but I think that Moore should either have done the film later on in his career or the script should have been rewritten. IMO the major reason why TMWTGG was such a disappointment was the screenplay.
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).
An interesting idea. I love Guy Hamilton (the second best Bond director of all time IMO) but I also have alot of respect for Hunt. I think a Hunt-directed DAF would have been very fascinating. That said, I think the problem with DAF is with its screenplay, and considering the relative lack of success of OHMSS, I'm not sure any director could have turned DAF into a masterpiece (which I actually quite liked anyway) when the producers were looking to go in an opposite direction. It would certainly have been great though if Hunt had directed more Bond films.
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."
{[] OHMSS is indeed a masterpiece. I really think it's a beautiful film. I do think it has flaws, but its brilliance truly outweighs the flaws and so really OHMSS will always occupy a special place in my heart. :x
"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
Blofeld should have built his 'Garden of Death' atop the hotel in Las Vegas )
Think of it: Telly Savalas in a suit of armour, looking out over the neon Vegas landscape at night...recently obsessed with the Japanese culture of ritual suicide...clearly unhinged by the repeated defeats dealt him by James Bond---who is about to exact righteous vengeance...
A diamond smuggling plot which ends in a bizarre mix of Las Vegas kitsch and samurai-inspired death with honour...
Weird...but I like it B-)
Jesus, Loeff, that's brilliant!
Connery could've done OHMSS, but would've been best as originally planned, right after GF. With Catherine Deneuve as Tracy. My one concern doing OMHSS right after GF would be the gadgets, would they have stuck a few in just to stick them in? Escaping from Piz Gloria with help from Q branch would be so, so wrong. Worse still, might they have substituted a happy ending?
GF to TB represents such turning point for the series, not sure OHMSS would have survived the hype back then. It's nice to think what EON could have done, but I'm pretty darn happy with OHMSS as is.
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
I'm not upset that Lazenby walked away. Yes, he was brilliant in the action scenes, and his handling of the final scene was fantastic, but other than that, I think he was terrible.
I disagree with this assessment. While he was a little rough in some areas his physical grace and power as well as his "coolness" and overall screen presence more than made up for that. While I am not a hater of Roger Moore by any means I believe that Lazenby would have been a much better Bond during the early-mid 70s.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Blofeld should have built his 'Garden of Death' atop the hotel in Las Vegas )
Think of it: Telly Savalas in a suit of armour, looking out over the neon Vegas landscape at night...recently obsessed with the Japanese culture of ritual suicide...clearly unhinged by the repeated defeats dealt him by James Bond---who is about to exact righteous vengeance...
A diamond smuggling plot which ends in a bizarre mix of Las Vegas kitsch and samurai-inspired death with honour...
Weird...but I like it B-)
Jesus, Loeff, that's brilliant!
;% You're too kind...
I think it would be cool, though---have Bond get to the rooftop Garden the same way he got into Whyte's penthouse in the actual movie...
I still hope the Garden of Death makes it to the big screen at some point.
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
I'm not upset that Lazenby walked away. Yes, he was brilliant in the action scenes, and his handling of the final scene was fantastic, but other than that, I think he was terrible.
I disagree with this assessment. While he was a little rough in some areas his physical grace and power as well as his "coolness" and overall screen presence more than made up for that. While I am not a hater of Roger Moore by any means I believe that Lazenby would have been a much better Bond during the early-mid 70s.
Lazenby, it seems that we'll never agree. I am a huge Moore fan (he's my third favourite Bond) and the idea of Lazenby replacing Moore for any film horrifies me. I think though that while we may have different views on the overall quality of Lazenby's performance, we both agree that the physicality was amazing. The action scenes are in fact a major reason why OHMSS is my seventh favourite Bond film. They were truly superb. -{
"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
Blofeld should have built his 'Garden of Death' atop the hotel in Las Vegas )
Think of it: Telly Savalas in a suit of armour, looking out over the neon Vegas landscape at night...recently obsessed with the Japanese culture of ritual suicide...clearly unhinged by the repeated defeats dealt him by James Bond---who is about to exact righteous vengeance...
A diamond smuggling plot which ends in a bizarre mix of Las Vegas kitsch and samurai-inspired death with honour...
Weird...but I like it B-)
Jesus, Loeff, that's brilliant!
;% You're too kind...
I think it would be cool, though---have Bond get to the rooftop Garden the same way he got into Whyte's penthouse in the actual movie...
I still hope the Garden of Death makes it to the big screen at some point.
I've been dreaming of that for years, also Dr No's squid--might as well put them together, instead of piranha in a pond, have a squid in a crevice, lol.
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
Another great review from Amazon.com:
"My initial reaction to seeing this extraordinary film on its first release was summed up in one indelible question that I kept repeating over and over again to myself. If Sean Connery decided not to appear in a Bond film, why did it have to be this one? This film brought the series to a culmination of emotional fervor. It was the first film to address James Bond, the man. It seemed to have been made for Connery. This is the one we had been waiting for. I thought it was an excellent film, but Connery wasn't in it. Yet, I also could not get the image of George Lazenby out of my head. He looked the part and there was something very unique about his facial features. Many critics said his performance was bland. Even if they were right Lazenby still possessed the physique and physical attributes that really fit the part and again his unique looks just added to the wordily and masculine aura he exuded. I went to see the film three more times. I really liked it. I missed Connery, but I still couldn't get the screen image of Lazenby out of my head. I did some real self-analysis of this film over the next two years. I started to read the Fleming books. To my amazement they were very dry yet very interesting and appealing at the same time. Fleming single-handedly drew the reader into the world of James Bond whereas the filmmakers achieved the same result in a collective effort of talents. When I read "Dr. No" and "Thunderball" I visualized Sean Connery or someone vaguely familiar to him yet not with his sardonic humor. When I read "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" I could visualize no one other than George Lazenby. As it turned out ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is the one film closest to any Fleming novel of the same name. I began to see the merits of Lazenby. The filmmakers had gone out of their way to make this the epic Bond film. The introduction of Lazenby as Bond was a well thought out and well crafted piece of pure cinema. There is no dialogue and only the strains of the James Bond Theme in another innovative interpretation by John Barry are heard. Less dialogue is better. Let the images tell the story. In the case of George Lazenby that's what worked best for him. Early on in the film he is having a bad night at the tables and you can see the disgust on his face as he deals out another loosing hand. He breaks into Gumpolt's office and penetrates his safe with assuredness and conviction while under the clock. This well directed scene is nerve racking and suspenseful again played without dialogue. The editing, music and Lazenby's presence make this another tour de force of pure cinema. It wasn't until the release of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER that I realized that ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE was the best Bond film for me. The combined efforts of all the filmmakers and Lazenby's performance of a James Bond with conviction, assuredness and determination made this the definitive James Bond film. The film had a sense of real drive behind it accentuated by Lazenby's no-nonsense approach and the urgency of John Barry's instrumental theme used repeatedly to never let up the pace. If James Bond was ever the dedicated civil servant it was in this film. I can't even imagine Sean Connery in this film any more. The filmmakers traded in Connery's worldliness for Lazenby's energetic determination. It seems apparent that Lazenby probably looked to DR. NO for inspiration. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is considered to be one of the better Bond films in the series. It follows the directorial style of DR. NO. Sean Connery in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE continued his portrayal of the character in the Fleming literary mold, but refined his performance adding more depth to the character's worldliness, intellect, social graces and wry humor. Lazenby reverts back to the James Bond we saw in DR. NO concentrating on his resoluteness and tenacity as the man with a mission who will not be deterred until the opposition is completely vanquished. Lazenby's scenes with Diana Rigg as Tracy, his bride to be, showed genuine compassion and depth. This was Bond's only true love interest up to that point in the series. Connery had showed genuine subdued sorrow tinged with anger at the death of Jill Masterson and her sister Tilly Masterson in GOLDFINGER and again with Aki in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. However, I don't see how any actor could have given a better reaction as George Lazenby did to the death of James Bond's new bride slumped over limply into his lap. George looked like he was really hurt as he buried his head onto the Tracy's lifeless body. This Letterbox VHS version of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is excellent and does real justice to this epic film. "
"My initial reaction to seeing this extraordinary film on its first release was summed up in one indelible question that I kept repeating over and over again to myself. If Sean Connery decided not to appear in a Bond film, why did it have to be this one? This film brought the series to a culmination of emotional fervor. It was the first film to address James Bond, the man. It seemed to have been made for Connery. This is the one we had been waiting for. I thought it was an excellent film, but Connery wasn't in it. Yet, I also could not get the image of George Lazenby out of my head. He looked the part and there was something very unique about his facial features. Many critics said his performance was bland. Even if they were right Lazenby still possessed the physique and physical attributes that really fit the part and again his unique looks just added to the wordily and masculine aura he exuded. I went to see the film three more times. I really liked it. I missed Connery, but I still couldn't get the screen image of Lazenby out of my head. I did some real self-analysis of this film over the next two years. I started to read the Fleming books. To my amazement they were very dry yet very interesting and appealing at the same time. Fleming single-handedly drew the reader into the world of James Bond whereas the filmmakers achieved the same result in a collective effort of talents. When I read "Dr. No" and "Thunderball" I visualized Sean Connery or someone vaguely familiar to him yet not with his sardonic humor. When I read "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" I could visualize no one other than George Lazenby. As it turned out ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is the one film closest to any Fleming novel of the same name. I began to see the merits of Lazenby. The filmmakers had gone out of their way to make this the epic Bond film. The introduction of Lazenby as Bond was a well thought out and well crafted piece of pure cinema. There is no dialogue and only the strains of the James Bond Theme in another innovative interpretation by John Barry are heard. Less dialogue is better. Let the images tell the story. In the case of George Lazenby that's what worked best for him. Early on in the film he is having a bad night at the tables and you can see the disgust on his face as he deals out another loosing hand. He breaks into Gumpolt's office and penetrates his safe with assuredness and conviction while under the clock. This well directed scene is nerve racking and suspenseful again played without dialogue. The editing, music and Lazenby's presence make this another tour de force of pure cinema. It wasn't until the release of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER that I realized that ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE was the best Bond film for me. The combined efforts of all the filmmakers and Lazenby's performance of a James Bond with conviction, assuredness and determination made this the definitive James Bond film. The film had a sense of real drive behind it accentuated by Lazenby's no-nonsense approach and the urgency of John Barry's instrumental theme used repeatedly to never let up the pace. If James Bond was ever the dedicated civil servant it was in this film. I can't even imagine Sean Connery in this film any more. The filmmakers traded in Connery's worldliness for Lazenby's energetic determination. It seems apparent that Lazenby probably looked to DR. NO for inspiration. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is considered to be one of the better Bond films in the series. It follows the directorial style of DR. NO. Sean Connery in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE continued his portrayal of the character in the Fleming literary mold, but refined his performance adding more depth to the character's worldliness, intellect, social graces and wry humor. Lazenby reverts back to the James Bond we saw in DR. NO concentrating on his resoluteness and tenacity as the man with a mission who will not be deterred until the opposition is completely vanquished. Lazenby's scenes with Diana Rigg as Tracy, his bride to be, showed genuine compassion and depth. This was Bond's only true love interest up to that point in the series. Connery had showed genuine subdued sorrow tinged with anger at the death of Jill Masterson and her sister Tilly Masterson in GOLDFINGER and again with Aki in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. However, I don't see how any actor could have given a better reaction as George Lazenby did to the death of James Bond's new bride slumped over limply into his lap. George looked like he was really hurt as he buried his head onto the Tracy's lifeless body. This Letterbox VHS version of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is excellent and does real justice to this epic film. "
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
Awesome, thanks for that! It's always nice to see George getting some recognition. Minor quibble though-- wasn't it Tanaka who put the throwing star into Blofeld's forearm in YOLT (the article said it was Bond)?
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
Cool OHMSS review I tracked down at IMDB. The spelling and grammar are atrocious, but his genuine love for the movie really shone through, and that made me happy.
"This film is simply amazing, i cant watch it enough, it really astounds me how anybody could raise a word of complaint against it, i have to admit Timothy Dalton is my favourite bond but Ohmss beats his two films flat out, the acting is just short of superb what on earth are people talking about i don't know, they just get it in there heads that its leads are two b-television actors and a car sales man and it must be bad without actually watching the movie very well, when bond escapes from the piz gloria half way through it sends chills down my spine, the music, the direction is so perfect, this has one of the best pre-credit sequences, Lazenby looks so good in the film a true bond like figure, just look at the pictures that fleming had drawn up of bond They're not connery they're Lazenby, he has just the right features, if a little slightly boyish, and what about that ending, nobody can argue it is one of the greatest endings of all time in both bond and every other film, perhaps only being rivalled by that of Get Carter, it just get me that ending, all the time.
there are just some out there who cant give up the ghost of connery's bond whose films where always good but never (maybe FRWL) reached that of greatness, this is the ONLY bond film where i thought the relationship between bond was truthfall, connery just picked up the woman "Oh there's one ill have her" but lazenby had to woo her and win her, thats half the film bond chasing after the woman not one scene like in all the others, like i say i am a huge fan of Daltons bond but come on the women in thoses films where hardly believable, Diana Rigg is really real, don't even mention those girls brosnan had, the film is simply great mostly due to peter hunts direction why oh why did they forget him as well, and then who could not feel that this is John Barrys opus, not anymore do we have a nice theme playing though the films like in the days of connery but we have music, we have a pounding score that emotes so much, i am listening to it now and cant help but imagine adventure and daring, its is just so perfect,
How can people claim this film is boring, please your minds have been melted by this matrix, LOTR's fast paced stuff this is film making my friends this is WOW film making, this film is not a bond movie, it is a film in its own right, it doesn't need the clout of connery or moore to carry it, it needed the bloke from the chocolate orange adverts. Lets be honest here taking away all the silly stuff that was put about, "Oh hes not an actor its gonna be crap", "Oh he sold cars its gonna be crap" "Oh how can they replace connery its gonna be crap" "So on and So on" in reality George Lazenby gives the best acting performance, NOT the best Film bond performance thats always Connery, NOT the best adaptation of the Novel bond thats Dalton, And not the best bond for the teenagers and teeny boppers Brosnan, And not the best fun to watch Bond thats Roger but he gives the best acting performance, (yes i know some of him was dubbed - but if you did research his voice is used and mixed with that of the dubber ala, Orson Welles in Citizen Caine) but both physically he looks the best in a fight exceeding more power then Connery did in the action scenes, he actually shows emotion not just the "Oh that just happened" looks of Sean and Brosnan, a bond crying and i believe it.
there are three things that i cant think about in the realm of film lazenby giving up bond is one of them. we all lost at least two great films because of this, am i the only one who at the closing of the film wants to see goerge murder blofeld, not connery half-ass'edly dumping him off a oil refinery,
so in in conclusion the greatest bond film (Perhaps not the best bond movie, you know fast paced non-stop action) but definitely the best bond film, a down beat story, great set pieces, a true love story, the best sound work of all the films, amazing cinematography i mean that snow is WHITE and perhaps the best thing, no silly gadgets i think we're all in agreement that with moore gadgets where used for humour, with connery in the 60's they were used for the WOWing the kiddies and amusing the adults factor but what are the Brosnan films doing hmm, please keep the gadgets to a minimum i don't what to be treated like the very small majority of mindless teenagers out there whom you all think will love the huge lazers and armour suits, Dalton only needed some explosives and his gun, Lazenby only needed his fists oh and a semi-automatic weapon. So what makes this the best bond film apart from all the above mentioned reason's, well Bond does not get the girl, and i personally think that this is marvelous, take cubby's "Bond" format which has systematically killed Bronsans bond and stuff it, give me originality every time,
Dam i love this film
Dam just look at my other posts there only about a sentence long i must feel passionate about this."
I watched this movie last night for the first time in quite a few years. I remembered that it wasn't a favorite of mine but that I found it "ok". Yesterday I changed my mind completely! I find this movie to be amazing! Lazenby does a good job as the new Bond (although too much like Connery), the script is great, so is the editing, music and direction.
The highlight of the film must be the ski-chase, which is IMO one of the greatest action sequences of any Bond movie. This movie is beyond entertaining, it has everything IMO. This shouldn't get the amount of heat that it does
It's funny, just last night my friend and I were arguing over which of the Bond actors would win in a fight, if they were all the same age when they fought. He was gunning for Connery, and I'll say here the same thing I said to him: I don't care what you think of Lazenby as an actor, but he could kick everyone else's @$$. . . at the same time! :v :007)
It's obvious, Roger Moore would win. He would tell George Lazenby that Pierce Brosnan had called him a "cissy". He would then tell Pierce that George had called him a "pretty boy". He would then tell Sean Connery that Timothy Dalton had said he was "a scrooge with his money". He would then tell Timothy that Sean had called him "Dracula".
George and Sean would emerge victorious from their respective fights. Roger would then tell George and Sean that Daniel Craig had called them "planks of wood". Roger would then tell Daniel that George and Sean had called him "a buffed up pastry boy". George and Daniel would then knock each other out leaving Sean standing. Roger would then leave a five pound note on the floor, "Look Sean, there's money to be had." As Sean bends down to pick up the money Roger would kick him and knock him out like he did that karate guy in TMWTGG.
Roger is TRIUMPHANT AND VICTORIOUS! {[]
That's the funniest damn thing I've ever read on any forum )
I watched this movie last night for the first time in quite a few years. I remembered that it wasn't a favorite of mine but that I found it "ok". Yesterday I changed my mind completely! I find this movie to be amazing! Lazenby does a good job as the new Bond (although too much like Connery), the script is great, so is the editing, music and direction.
The highlight of the film must be the ski-chase, which is IMO one of the greatest action sequences of any Bond movie. This movie is beyond entertaining, it has everything IMO. This shouldn't get the amount of heat that it does
A new favorite of mine for sure {[]
I remember watching it on TV as a kid after reading the novel. The way the film was cut with constant commercial interruptions(the more of it which came as the film went on) and the dubbing of Lazenby during his "Sir Hilary Bray" scenes tended to hurt my enjoyment of it. Then I rented the uncut version of it later and loved it a lot more. The somewhat slower placing of the first half tends to hurt it in TV viewings but watching it uninterrupted allows the first half to flow better. From the point where Bond dons his kilt and meets the "Angels of Death" to its tragic end makes for some of the best Fleming cinema ever. Like CR, OHMSS is a James Bond film for more mature viewers.
But I love OHMSS!!! I really really do, Savalas's portrayal of Blofeld is king, being a cultured gangster, yet at the same time, a believable genius, a beautiful and fleshed out Bond girl, a haunting final scene... etc. etc.
However, I just can't find any love for CR, but I'm not all crazy w/ film tastes (FRWL I think is my 9th choice, meaning it makes the top 10).
But I love OHMSS!!! I really really do, Savalas's portrayal of Blofeld is king, being a cultured gangster, yet at the same time, a believable genius, a beautiful and fleshed out Bond girl, a haunting final scene... etc. etc.
However, I just can't find any love for CR, but I'm not all crazy w/ film tastes (FRWL I think is my 9th choice, meaning it makes the top 10).
But I love OHMSS!!! I really really do, Savalas's portrayal of Blofeld is king, being a cultured gangster, yet at the same time, a believable genius, a beautiful and fleshed out Bond girl, a haunting final scene... etc. etc.
However, I just can't find any love for CR, but I'm not all crazy w/ film tastes (FRWL I think is my 9th choice, meaning it makes the top 10).
I think I'm just different.
You're unique, JFF. But hey, I'm a fan who has both OHMSS, TLD and FRWL in my top 10 but I also have YOLT and the often criticized MR. And I've never been as wild about FYEO as it seems like the majority of the Bond fans on the planet are so I'm unique too.
I consider OHMSS to be a brilliant film. The score, the plot, the screenplay, Diana Rigg, Terry Savalas, the action scenes and the final scene all make for one of IMO the greatest Bond films of all time. I do however think it has two major flaws; Lazenby and the screenplay.
Although I loved his handling of the final scene and his physicality, I thought that Lazenby was otherwise pretty bad. I loved the screenplay, however I hought it was quite flawed. That is, I felt that the romance was a little undeveloped and I didn't like all of the moments that were intended to remind the audience that Lazenby was Bond (such as the 'that never happened to the other fellow' line.) IMO OHMSS was the sixth greatest Bond film of all time (after the first four Bonds and TSWLM), however, if Connery had been cast and if the screenplay had been improved, I think it could have been among the three or four greatest Bond films of all time.
Like CR, OHMSS is a James Bond film for more mature viewers.
I agree that OHMSS features elements that (good or bad) some younger viewers might not appreciate as much, such as a focus on the relationship with Tracey and the tragic ending, although I think that there are numerous other elements that viewers of all ages might appreciate. One could make a similar claim about CR due to the focus on the relationship between Bond and Vesper, however I think that expactations have changed. That is to say, I don't think that people are as shocked by the idea of a Bond film focusing on a relationship as they might have in the 60's. Therefore I wonder wether or not CR is a Bond film more for mature viewers (not that it's a reflection of OHMSS's and CR's quality either way. )
"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
I've always liked the film, but at the same time, always had a problem with Lazenby.
For the first half an hour or so, I usually find him extremely unconvincing as Bond. But then after that, I begin to warm to him, and then when the movie ends, I end up wishing that he did more Bond movies. It's strange.
Anyway, the movie itself...
In my opinion it's different. Very different. For me, it's a difficult one to rank amongst the others as it's that different. It's Bond from a completely different angle. Bond falls in love, which is proper love, and this is the only time (except for CR'06) that we see Bond in love. The character development is great, and considering Lazenby had not much acting experience, he was pretty good.
Lazenby still remains my least favourite Bond. But that's just down to personal taste, and to be honest, there isn't a Bond that I dislike.
Draco is a highly likable ally. He is very helpful to Bond, and this is what I like to see in an ally. Tracy is an excellent Bond girl and excellent actor. Savalas (spelt?) as Blofeld - well, not bad, but there's something about him that doesn't seem evil enough... may be just me...
The plot is crazy I think. But it's no Moonraker.
Overall, good stuff. Was one of the first Bond films I saw too, which makes me like it more, for nostalgic reasons. Always a good feeling.
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
Another cool review I found at IMDB.
"Ladies and Gentlemen Mr. and Mrs. James Bond
by James Jeffrey
For rather obvious reasons, 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' stands outside the majority of Bond films. It was, of course, the one and only film to feature George Lazenby as James Bond. He refused to renew his contract, and had no real prior acting experience. This was also the directorial debut of Peter Hunt, and existed in a time where the glossiness of Bond films gave way to harder edged films like 'The Wild Bunch', 'Easy Rider' and the permissiveness of 60s values was being challenged.
For all these reasons, this film should indeed be a disaster and the flop its reputation would suggest. Therefore, it's all the more shocking that this is quite easily, for me at any rate, the very best film ever to come out of the Bond series. There simply isn't another film in the series that is as consistently excellent, or has the depth, as this pretty much perfect film has.
The first factor a reviewer will immediately judge is the performance of George Lazenby. He has taken flak over the years from people who have said his lack of acting experience is painfully obvious. Well, not to me. His portrayal of James Bond is near flawless. The one thing I feel he stumbles with are the customary one liners, which Sean Connery had patented in his tenure in the role.
Perhaps recognizing this, the script very wisely keeps these to a minimum. Other than that, I can find nothing to fault in Lazenby. Compared to the rather emotionless Connery performances in the last few films, his is a good deal more rounded. Lazenby's Bond is haunted, still relentlessly in pursuit yet more human than Connery's- he even falls in love and considers throwing his career away as a result. The line 'I'll have to find something else to do' in relation to his job, after his marriage proposal is the most telling one in how more mature this film is to the others. Anyone who thinks Lazenby's performance is poor should be directed to the confrontations with M in this film. We get two stunningly acted scenes- one where Bond threatens resignation (Moneypenny's meddling calms the situation) and another where Bond is appalled by the flippancy showed by M towards Blofeld holding his lover hostage. These scenes between Bond and M were never as good again, until 'Licence To Kill'- a film that itself has much in common with this one.
As specified, Bond marries in this film. This is yet another example of how it stands alone from the pack. Yet, the romance is played beautifully and is probably the only truly believable one of the entire series.
Much of this is down to the superb actress Diana Rigg. Besides being perhaps the most beautiful woman ever to grace a Bond film, she's easily the best actress of the 'Bond girls'. It's somewhat fitting that Tracy Draco is the best written 'Bond girl' of all- she is, like Bond, something of a lost soul and has a reckless, even suicidal (literally in the opening scenes), streak. Despite initial antagonism, a romance develops. You can see the character of Tracy develop into a vivacious, adventurous woman with a new lust for life. Look at some of the disgracefully written 'Bond girls' that followed, and wonder how it went from the wonderful writing you see here to the nadir of Tiffany Case, Mary Goodnight and Stacey Sutton. There is also a genuine chemistry between Lazenby and Rigg (despite rumours of their falling out on set) which was more or less completely absent during the 70s films.
Of course, it wouldn't be a Bond film without action. For my money, the best action of the whole series is in this film too. Whilst there are the odd action bursts in the first half, it doesn't kick in proper until the second half. From then, it's almost relentless, with stunningly directed chase scenes veering from ski chases to car chases, not to mention the blistering final assault on Blofeld's lair with the assistance of Tracy's gangster father. The only let ups are a beautifully judged scene where Bond proposes marriage, and the marriage itself. This makes for a more consistent package overall.
The other elements work equally wonderfully. Pretty much every fan is adamant that John Barry's best ever score for the series is in this film. What's more, the wondrous and beautiful 'We Have All The Time In The World' was first heard in this film. It works splendidly, too.
The villains are first class. Telly Savalas' Blofeld is the most sophisticated portrayal- at odds with the alien-like Donald Pleasant and high camp Charles Gray models- plus he's excellent in the combat scenes. We have a wonderful super-bitch villain in the Rosa Klebb tradition in Irma Bunt. Other peripheral characters are well observed. Marc Ange Draco, the father of wayward Tracy, initially tries to bribe Bond into marrying his daughter, and their scenes together are amongst the best written of the series. Even Miss Moneypenny gets something more to do- she was completely wasted throughout the next decade. Here, Moneypenny prevents Bond from resigning and looks visibly distraught at Bond's wedding, lending the character more depth.
Of course though, everyone who's seen a later film and not this one would realize the marriage is short lived. Tracy's demise is very movingly done and the fallout is superbly acted by Lazenby (however the triumphant strains of the Bond theme which follow is all wrong- the one false note of the whole film). At this point, it's heartbreaking to think what a great Bond Lazenby could have been, had he stayed. That said, if ever there was a good film to have ended an actor's tenure on, it's this one. It offers all the pulse pounding excitement one would expect yet the most human and compassionate of the lot. A true masterpiece."
I adore OHMSS, but I think that reviewer praises Lazenby's performance far too much. I consider OHMSS to have two flaws; the script and Lazenby's performance.
In regards to the script, I thought that it was focused too much on Lazenby's being a new Bond (the 'that never happened to the other fella' line and the scene with Moneypenny) and I think that the relationship with Tracey was not developed enough.
In regards to Lazenby, I think it was a terrible performance. With the exception of his physicality and his handling of the final scene, I thought that Lazenby was extremely disappointing and the scenes that the reviewer brought up were actually IMO examples of Lazenby's bad acting. To be specific, Lazenby's timing IMO was way off and he always looked deeply uncomfortable to me; that is, with the exception of his physicality and his handling of the final scene. Plus, in terms of saveness, it often appeared to me that he didn't know what the word meant.
I consider OHMSS to be a masterpiece, and the sixth best Bond film of all time (after the first four Connery films and TSWLM), but I think it was a deeply flawed masterpiece.
"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
Sweepy the CatHalifax, West Yorkshire, EnglaPosts: 986MI6 Agent
I agree that OHMSS is a stone cold classic in the Bond series and an important milestone to be appreciated. The only thing's stopping it from No#1 on my list are...
#1 Bad Pacing
#2 George Lazenby
Sweepy the CatHalifax, West Yorkshire, EnglaPosts: 986MI6 Agent
Dan Same, OHMSS is sixth on your list following the first FIVE! films and OHMSS
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
I agree that OHMSS is a stone cold classic in the Bond series and an important milestone to be appreciated. The only thing's stopping it from No#1 on my list are...
#1 Bad Pacing
#2 George Lazenby
Pacing? What do you mean? Regarding Lazenby, back in my unlettered youth I also used to regard his presence as an unfortunate fact about this film...however I've since come full circle and now consider him one of the highlights of an already awesome film and perhaps the best and most believable Bond of them all.
Sweepy the CatHalifax, West Yorkshire, EnglaPosts: 986MI6 Agent
Not the man himself. I mean the film goes on too long in some parts and it's all action in others.
Comments
The OHMSS Bondwagon is getting more crowded everyday. Soon the film eggheads will be scartching their collective noggins and wonder how they could have blundered so badly in appraising what is shaping up to be a classic of its genre.
Film historians better start paying proper respect to this film and get over their Sean-is-007 disposition.
As a matter of fact, Loeff, film historians better do some M-A-J-O-R re-appraisal of the series as a whole. 007 gets nowhere near the respect or level of praise praise it deserves.
Sure...its popcorn entertainement,
But its the best popcorn in the business.
21 films. 45 years and running. 'Nuff said.
"This never happened to the other fella."
Indeed; the whole movie would have been different-- starting with the tone. We would have had a more serious Bond movie, in the spirit of the classics of the 60s. Factor into that the revenge theme, John Barry's excellent score, the setting out in the desert of Las Vegas, and it becomes easy to see how good that movie could have been (and I'm not even a hater of what did come out).
The whole climax of DAF is weak beyond measure. I read somewhere that they intentionally left the Blofeld character hanging because they wanted him to be a recurring villain (he was supposed to be Stromberg in TSWLM) only they found later that the legal rights to the whole Blofeld/Spectre name belonged to someone else, forcing them to abandon the character, leaving us with the single most gaping hole in the whole series.
Agreed.
I would make the stronger claim that in his one film he did surpass Connery in the action department in all but FRWL and perhaps TB. The physical action scenes in OHMSS were arguably the best in any Bond movie up to the very latest one.
I know! I spent a lot of time when I was younger wishing that Connery had stuck it out for one more movie. Now I realize that OHMSS is Lazenby's movie through and through. He was the rightful recipient of the mantle of Bond and should have been around a lot longer.
Indeed. I won't say that they would have surpassed the classic 60s films, but they would at least have been comparable to them.
"Fancy meeting you here frauline!"
Think of it: Telly Savalas in a suit of armour, looking out over the neon Vegas landscape at night...recently obsessed with the Japanese culture of ritual suicide...clearly unhinged by the repeated defeats dealt him by James Bond---who is about to exact righteous vengeance...
A diamond smuggling plot which ends in a bizarre mix of Las Vegas kitsch and samurai-inspired death with honour...
Weird...but I like it B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Regarding TMWTGG, I do consider it to be Moore's second worst performance (although I do think he was okay), but I think that Moore should either have done the film later on in his career or the script should have been rewritten. IMO the major reason why TMWTGG was such a disappointment was the screenplay.
An interesting idea. I love Guy Hamilton (the second best Bond director of all time IMO) but I also have alot of respect for Hunt. I think a Hunt-directed DAF would have been very fascinating. That said, I think the problem with DAF is with its screenplay, and considering the relative lack of success of OHMSS, I'm not sure any director could have turned DAF into a masterpiece (which I actually quite liked anyway) when the producers were looking to go in an opposite direction. It would certainly have been great though if Hunt had directed more Bond films.
{[] OHMSS is indeed a masterpiece. I really think it's a beautiful film. I do think it has flaws, but its brilliance truly outweighs the flaws and so really OHMSS will always occupy a special place in my heart. :x
Jesus, Loeff, that's brilliant!
Connery could've done OHMSS, but would've been best as originally planned, right after GF. With Catherine Deneuve as Tracy. My one concern doing OMHSS right after GF would be the gadgets, would they have stuck a few in just to stick them in? Escaping from Piz Gloria with help from Q branch would be so, so wrong. Worse still, might they have substituted a happy ending?
GF to TB represents such turning point for the series, not sure OHMSS would have survived the hype back then. It's nice to think what EON could have done, but I'm pretty darn happy with OHMSS as is.
I disagree with this assessment. While he was a little rough in some areas his physical grace and power as well as his "coolness" and overall screen presence more than made up for that. While I am not a hater of Roger Moore by any means I believe that Lazenby would have been a much better Bond during the early-mid 70s.
;% You're too kind...
I think it would be cool, though---have Bond get to the rooftop Garden the same way he got into Whyte's penthouse in the actual movie...
I still hope the Garden of Death makes it to the big screen at some point.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I've been dreaming of that for years, also Dr No's squid--might as well put them together, instead of piranha in a pond, have a squid in a crevice, lol.
"My initial reaction to seeing this extraordinary film on its first release was summed up in one indelible question that I kept repeating over and over again to myself. If Sean Connery decided not to appear in a Bond film, why did it have to be this one? This film brought the series to a culmination of emotional fervor. It was the first film to address James Bond, the man. It seemed to have been made for Connery. This is the one we had been waiting for. I thought it was an excellent film, but Connery wasn't in it. Yet, I also could not get the image of George Lazenby out of my head. He looked the part and there was something very unique about his facial features. Many critics said his performance was bland. Even if they were right Lazenby still possessed the physique and physical attributes that really fit the part and again his unique looks just added to the wordily and masculine aura he exuded. I went to see the film three more times. I really liked it. I missed Connery, but I still couldn't get the screen image of Lazenby out of my head. I did some real self-analysis of this film over the next two years. I started to read the Fleming books. To my amazement they were very dry yet very interesting and appealing at the same time. Fleming single-handedly drew the reader into the world of James Bond whereas the filmmakers achieved the same result in a collective effort of talents. When I read "Dr. No" and "Thunderball" I visualized Sean Connery or someone vaguely familiar to him yet not with his sardonic humor. When I read "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" I could visualize no one other than George Lazenby. As it turned out ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is the one film closest to any Fleming novel of the same name. I began to see the merits of Lazenby. The filmmakers had gone out of their way to make this the epic Bond film. The introduction of Lazenby as Bond was a well thought out and well crafted piece of pure cinema. There is no dialogue and only the strains of the James Bond Theme in another innovative interpretation by John Barry are heard. Less dialogue is better. Let the images tell the story. In the case of George Lazenby that's what worked best for him. Early on in the film he is having a bad night at the tables and you can see the disgust on his face as he deals out another loosing hand. He breaks into Gumpolt's office and penetrates his safe with assuredness and conviction while under the clock. This well directed scene is nerve racking and suspenseful again played without dialogue. The editing, music and Lazenby's presence make this another tour de force of pure cinema. It wasn't until the release of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER that I realized that ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE was the best Bond film for me. The combined efforts of all the filmmakers and Lazenby's performance of a James Bond with conviction, assuredness and determination made this the definitive James Bond film. The film had a sense of real drive behind it accentuated by Lazenby's no-nonsense approach and the urgency of John Barry's instrumental theme used repeatedly to never let up the pace. If James Bond was ever the dedicated civil servant it was in this film. I can't even imagine Sean Connery in this film any more. The filmmakers traded in Connery's worldliness for Lazenby's energetic determination. It seems apparent that Lazenby probably looked to DR. NO for inspiration. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is considered to be one of the better Bond films in the series. It follows the directorial style of DR. NO. Sean Connery in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE continued his portrayal of the character in the Fleming literary mold, but refined his performance adding more depth to the character's worldliness, intellect, social graces and wry humor. Lazenby reverts back to the James Bond we saw in DR. NO concentrating on his resoluteness and tenacity as the man with a mission who will not be deterred until the opposition is completely vanquished. Lazenby's scenes with Diana Rigg as Tracy, his bride to be, showed genuine compassion and depth. This was Bond's only true love interest up to that point in the series. Connery had showed genuine subdued sorrow tinged with anger at the death of Jill Masterson and her sister Tilly Masterson in GOLDFINGER and again with Aki in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. However, I don't see how any actor could have given a better reaction as George Lazenby did to the death of James Bond's new bride slumped over limply into his lap. George looked like he was really hurt as he buried his head onto the Tracy's lifeless body. This Letterbox VHS version of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is excellent and does real justice to this epic film. "
This review was by Amazon user gobirds2.
Good stuff.
Here's an intense review of the film
http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/49/majesty.htm
and a cool fan website devoted to OHMSS-
http://www.ohmss.ohmss-007.com/
http://commanderbond.net/article/3148
"This film is simply amazing, i cant watch it enough, it really astounds me how anybody could raise a word of complaint against it, i have to admit Timothy Dalton is my favourite bond but Ohmss beats his two films flat out, the acting is just short of superb what on earth are people talking about i don't know, they just get it in there heads that its leads are two b-television actors and a car sales man and it must be bad without actually watching the movie very well, when bond escapes from the piz gloria half way through it sends chills down my spine, the music, the direction is so perfect, this has one of the best pre-credit sequences, Lazenby looks so good in the film a true bond like figure, just look at the pictures that fleming had drawn up of bond They're not connery they're Lazenby, he has just the right features, if a little slightly boyish, and what about that ending, nobody can argue it is one of the greatest endings of all time in both bond and every other film, perhaps only being rivalled by that of Get Carter, it just get me that ending, all the time.
there are just some out there who cant give up the ghost of connery's bond whose films where always good but never (maybe FRWL) reached that of greatness, this is the ONLY bond film where i thought the relationship between bond was truthfall, connery just picked up the woman "Oh there's one ill have her" but lazenby had to woo her and win her, thats half the film bond chasing after the woman not one scene like in all the others, like i say i am a huge fan of Daltons bond but come on the women in thoses films where hardly believable, Diana Rigg is really real, don't even mention those girls brosnan had, the film is simply great mostly due to peter hunts direction why oh why did they forget him as well, and then who could not feel that this is John Barrys opus, not anymore do we have a nice theme playing though the films like in the days of connery but we have music, we have a pounding score that emotes so much, i am listening to it now and cant help but imagine adventure and daring, its is just so perfect,
How can people claim this film is boring, please your minds have been melted by this matrix, LOTR's fast paced stuff this is film making my friends this is WOW film making, this film is not a bond movie, it is a film in its own right, it doesn't need the clout of connery or moore to carry it, it needed the bloke from the chocolate orange adverts. Lets be honest here taking away all the silly stuff that was put about, "Oh hes not an actor its gonna be crap", "Oh he sold cars its gonna be crap" "Oh how can they replace connery its gonna be crap" "So on and So on" in reality George Lazenby gives the best acting performance, NOT the best Film bond performance thats always Connery, NOT the best adaptation of the Novel bond thats Dalton, And not the best bond for the teenagers and teeny boppers Brosnan, And not the best fun to watch Bond thats Roger but he gives the best acting performance, (yes i know some of him was dubbed - but if you did research his voice is used and mixed with that of the dubber ala, Orson Welles in Citizen Caine) but both physically he looks the best in a fight exceeding more power then Connery did in the action scenes, he actually shows emotion not just the "Oh that just happened" looks of Sean and Brosnan, a bond crying and i believe it.
there are three things that i cant think about in the realm of film lazenby giving up bond is one of them. we all lost at least two great films because of this, am i the only one who at the closing of the film wants to see goerge murder blofeld, not connery half-ass'edly dumping him off a oil refinery,
so in in conclusion the greatest bond film (Perhaps not the best bond movie, you know fast paced non-stop action) but definitely the best bond film, a down beat story, great set pieces, a true love story, the best sound work of all the films, amazing cinematography i mean that snow is WHITE and perhaps the best thing, no silly gadgets i think we're all in agreement that with moore gadgets where used for humour, with connery in the 60's they were used for the WOWing the kiddies and amusing the adults factor but what are the Brosnan films doing hmm, please keep the gadgets to a minimum i don't what to be treated like the very small majority of mindless teenagers out there whom you all think will love the huge lazers and armour suits, Dalton only needed some explosives and his gun, Lazenby only needed his fists oh and a semi-automatic weapon. So what makes this the best bond film apart from all the above mentioned reason's, well Bond does not get the girl, and i personally think that this is marvelous, take cubby's "Bond" format which has systematically killed Bronsans bond and stuff it, give me originality every time,
Dam i love this film
Dam just look at my other posts there only about a sentence long i must feel passionate about this."
The highlight of the film must be the ski-chase, which is IMO one of the greatest action sequences of any Bond movie. This movie is beyond entertaining, it has everything IMO. This shouldn't get the amount of heat that it does
A new favorite of mine for sure {[]
That's the funniest damn thing I've ever read on any forum
I remember watching it on TV as a kid after reading the novel. The way the film was cut with constant commercial interruptions(the more of it which came as the film went on) and the dubbing of Lazenby during his "Sir Hilary Bray" scenes tended to hurt my enjoyment of it. Then I rented the uncut version of it later and loved it a lot more. The somewhat slower placing of the first half tends to hurt it in TV viewings but watching it uninterrupted allows the first half to flow better. From the point where Bond dons his kilt and meets the "Angels of Death" to its tragic end makes for some of the best Fleming cinema ever. Like CR, OHMSS is a James Bond film for more mature viewers.
However, I just can't find any love for CR, but I'm not all crazy w/ film tastes (FRWL I think is my 9th choice, meaning it makes the top 10).
I think I'm just different.
However, I just can't find any love for CR, but I'm not all crazy w/ film tastes (FRWL I think is my 9th choice, meaning it makes the top 10).
I think I'm just different.
You're unique, JFF. But hey, I'm a fan who has both OHMSS, TLD and FRWL in my top 10 but I also have YOLT and the often criticized MR. And I've never been as wild about FYEO as it seems like the majority of the Bond fans on the planet are so I'm unique too.
Although I loved his handling of the final scene and his physicality, I thought that Lazenby was otherwise pretty bad. I loved the screenplay, however I hought it was quite flawed. That is, I felt that the romance was a little undeveloped and I didn't like all of the moments that were intended to remind the audience that Lazenby was Bond (such as the 'that never happened to the other fellow' line.) IMO OHMSS was the sixth greatest Bond film of all time (after the first four Bonds and TSWLM), however, if Connery had been cast and if the screenplay had been improved, I think it could have been among the three or four greatest Bond films of all time.
I agree that OHMSS features elements that (good or bad) some younger viewers might not appreciate as much, such as a focus on the relationship with Tracey and the tragic ending, although I think that there are numerous other elements that viewers of all ages might appreciate. One could make a similar claim about CR due to the focus on the relationship between Bond and Vesper, however I think that expactations have changed. That is to say, I don't think that people are as shocked by the idea of a Bond film focusing on a relationship as they might have in the 60's. Therefore I wonder wether or not CR is a Bond film more for mature viewers (not that it's a reflection of OHMSS's and CR's quality either way.
I've always liked the film, but at the same time, always had a problem with Lazenby.
For the first half an hour or so, I usually find him extremely unconvincing as Bond. But then after that, I begin to warm to him, and then when the movie ends, I end up wishing that he did more Bond movies. It's strange.
Anyway, the movie itself...
In my opinion it's different. Very different. For me, it's a difficult one to rank amongst the others as it's that different. It's Bond from a completely different angle. Bond falls in love, which is proper love, and this is the only time (except for CR'06) that we see Bond in love. The character development is great, and considering Lazenby had not much acting experience, he was pretty good.
Lazenby still remains my least favourite Bond. But that's just down to personal taste, and to be honest, there isn't a Bond that I dislike.
Draco is a highly likable ally. He is very helpful to Bond, and this is what I like to see in an ally. Tracy is an excellent Bond girl and excellent actor. Savalas (spelt?) as Blofeld - well, not bad, but there's something about him that doesn't seem evil enough... may be just me...
The plot is crazy I think. But it's no Moonraker.
Overall, good stuff. Was one of the first Bond films I saw too, which makes me like it more, for nostalgic reasons. Always a good feeling.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
"Ladies and Gentlemen Mr. and Mrs. James Bond
by James Jeffrey
For rather obvious reasons, 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' stands outside the majority of Bond films. It was, of course, the one and only film to feature George Lazenby as James Bond. He refused to renew his contract, and had no real prior acting experience. This was also the directorial debut of Peter Hunt, and existed in a time where the glossiness of Bond films gave way to harder edged films like 'The Wild Bunch', 'Easy Rider' and the permissiveness of 60s values was being challenged.
For all these reasons, this film should indeed be a disaster and the flop its reputation would suggest. Therefore, it's all the more shocking that this is quite easily, for me at any rate, the very best film ever to come out of the Bond series. There simply isn't another film in the series that is as consistently excellent, or has the depth, as this pretty much perfect film has.
The first factor a reviewer will immediately judge is the performance of George Lazenby. He has taken flak over the years from people who have said his lack of acting experience is painfully obvious. Well, not to me. His portrayal of James Bond is near flawless. The one thing I feel he stumbles with are the customary one liners, which Sean Connery had patented in his tenure in the role.
Perhaps recognizing this, the script very wisely keeps these to a minimum. Other than that, I can find nothing to fault in Lazenby. Compared to the rather emotionless Connery performances in the last few films, his is a good deal more rounded. Lazenby's Bond is haunted, still relentlessly in pursuit yet more human than Connery's- he even falls in love and considers throwing his career away as a result. The line 'I'll have to find something else to do' in relation to his job, after his marriage proposal is the most telling one in how more mature this film is to the others. Anyone who thinks Lazenby's performance is poor should be directed to the confrontations with M in this film. We get two stunningly acted scenes- one where Bond threatens resignation (Moneypenny's meddling calms the situation) and another where Bond is appalled by the flippancy showed by M towards Blofeld holding his lover hostage. These scenes between Bond and M were never as good again, until 'Licence To Kill'- a film that itself has much in common with this one.
As specified, Bond marries in this film. This is yet another example of how it stands alone from the pack. Yet, the romance is played beautifully and is probably the only truly believable one of the entire series.
Much of this is down to the superb actress Diana Rigg. Besides being perhaps the most beautiful woman ever to grace a Bond film, she's easily the best actress of the 'Bond girls'. It's somewhat fitting that Tracy Draco is the best written 'Bond girl' of all- she is, like Bond, something of a lost soul and has a reckless, even suicidal (literally in the opening scenes), streak. Despite initial antagonism, a romance develops. You can see the character of Tracy develop into a vivacious, adventurous woman with a new lust for life. Look at some of the disgracefully written 'Bond girls' that followed, and wonder how it went from the wonderful writing you see here to the nadir of Tiffany Case, Mary Goodnight and Stacey Sutton. There is also a genuine chemistry between Lazenby and Rigg (despite rumours of their falling out on set) which was more or less completely absent during the 70s films.
Of course, it wouldn't be a Bond film without action. For my money, the best action of the whole series is in this film too. Whilst there are the odd action bursts in the first half, it doesn't kick in proper until the second half. From then, it's almost relentless, with stunningly directed chase scenes veering from ski chases to car chases, not to mention the blistering final assault on Blofeld's lair with the assistance of Tracy's gangster father. The only let ups are a beautifully judged scene where Bond proposes marriage, and the marriage itself. This makes for a more consistent package overall.
The other elements work equally wonderfully. Pretty much every fan is adamant that John Barry's best ever score for the series is in this film. What's more, the wondrous and beautiful 'We Have All The Time In The World' was first heard in this film. It works splendidly, too.
The villains are first class. Telly Savalas' Blofeld is the most sophisticated portrayal- at odds with the alien-like Donald Pleasant and high camp Charles Gray models- plus he's excellent in the combat scenes. We have a wonderful super-bitch villain in the Rosa Klebb tradition in Irma Bunt. Other peripheral characters are well observed. Marc Ange Draco, the father of wayward Tracy, initially tries to bribe Bond into marrying his daughter, and their scenes together are amongst the best written of the series. Even Miss Moneypenny gets something more to do- she was completely wasted throughout the next decade. Here, Moneypenny prevents Bond from resigning and looks visibly distraught at Bond's wedding, lending the character more depth.
Of course though, everyone who's seen a later film and not this one would realize the marriage is short lived. Tracy's demise is very movingly done and the fallout is superbly acted by Lazenby (however the triumphant strains of the Bond theme which follow is all wrong- the one false note of the whole film). At this point, it's heartbreaking to think what a great Bond Lazenby could have been, had he stayed. That said, if ever there was a good film to have ended an actor's tenure on, it's this one. It offers all the pulse pounding excitement one would expect yet the most human and compassionate of the lot. A true masterpiece."
In regards to the script, I thought that it was focused too much on Lazenby's being a new Bond (the 'that never happened to the other fella' line and the scene with Moneypenny) and I think that the relationship with Tracey was not developed enough.
In regards to Lazenby, I think it was a terrible performance. With the exception of his physicality and his handling of the final scene, I thought that Lazenby was extremely disappointing and the scenes that the reviewer brought up were actually IMO examples of Lazenby's bad acting. To be specific, Lazenby's timing IMO was way off and he always looked deeply uncomfortable to me; that is, with the exception of his physicality and his handling of the final scene. Plus, in terms of saveness, it often appeared to me that he didn't know what the word meant.
I consider OHMSS to be a masterpiece, and the sixth best Bond film of all time (after the first four Connery films and TSWLM), but I think it was a deeply flawed masterpiece.
#1 Bad Pacing
#2 George Lazenby
Pacing? What do you mean? Regarding Lazenby, back in my unlettered youth I also used to regard his presence as an unfortunate fact about this film...however I've since come full circle and now consider him one of the highlights of an already awesome film and perhaps the best and most believable Bond of them all.