George Lazenby

What did you guys think of Lazenby? Strangely, although he's probably my least favourite Bond, his character is perhaps quite close to the figure Fleming had in mind. His Bond was more of a haunted soul, unlike Connery whom I've never imagined pulling off that final scene of OHMSS. He also had a strong sexual appitite (unlike Dalton), had the right image and was physically tough. I suppose Lazemby, although he wasn't a great actor, had the advantage of being in one of the more Fleming-esque stories.

Comments

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
    I have to agree with you mrbain007, Lazenby (just my opinion) was the right age for Bond in the novels and looked like a young officer,He moved well,looked good in a tux and was good in the fight scenes.He got bad advice,If he'd stayed on I sure his acting would of improved ( IMHO it wasn't that bad) and we might of got a less camp DAF.
    "I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
  • mrbain007mrbain007 Posts: 393MI6 Agent
    DAF was a weak Bond film, probably one of the worst. I certainly think Lazenby should have at least done one more if for anything to continue the continuety after OHMSS. I personally don't think his acting was THAT bad either. Again I reiterate that IMO Lazemby did that last scene superbly in a way I just couldn't envision with Connery (although I could imagine TD, PB and DC pulling it off).
  • Ricardo C.Ricardo C. Posts: 916MI6 Agent
    This was the wrong film for Lazenby to debut because it called for a seasoned actor who was emotionally mature. George didn't do a bad job though and I actually wish he would have stuck with Bond for two or three more films.
  • Napoleon PluralNapoleon Plural LondonPosts: 10,484MI6 Agent
    Lazenby is okay for the initiated, but generally he gets a god how awful reaction from the casual fan. Once you're used to him and predisposed to the film in general it's okay, Couldn't deliver a one liner to save his life mind, a big drawback.
    "This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

    Roger Moore 1927-2017
  • LOO7K OUTLOO7K OUT United KingdomPosts: 474MI6 Agent
    I think the main problem is the perception of George Lazenby as OO7.

    The fact is he was a model, he had little acting experience, so I will cut him no slack at all as this was the chance of his life.

    In short, for the while of OHMSS he WAS James Bond, no doubt about it. Roger Moore did very well, but of GL had stayed then I think the series would have done the same business. We have what we have and history can''t be rewritten, but what ifs are always interesting and a DAF with Laz intrigues me most of all.

    He would have had drama and acting lessons shoved up him all the way and my god he looks the most like Flemings Bond we've ever had - plus you can see him improving through the film, by the time of DAF he would have been pulling in the punters like connery, of that I'm sure. I think Roger Moore had more detractors than George. The bad press was over Georges ill advised decision to leave.

    DC
  • Ricardo C.Ricardo C. Posts: 916MI6 Agent
    LOO7K OUT wrote:
    I think the main problem is the perception of George Lazenby as OO7.

    The fact is he was a model, he had little acting experience, so I will cut him no slack at all as this was the chance of his life.

    In short, for the while of OHMSS he WAS James Bond, no doubt about it. Roger Moore did very well, but of GL had stayed then I think the series would have done the same business. We have what we have and history can''t be rewritten, but what ifs are always interesting and a DAF with Laz intrigues me most of all.

    He would have had drama and acting lessons shoved up him all the way and my god he looks the most like Flemings Bond we've ever had - plus you can see him improving through the film, by the time of DAF he would have been pulling in the punters like connery, of that I'm sure. I think Roger Moore had more detractors than George. The bad press was over Georges ill advised decision to leave.

    DC

    I think Connery and Dalton are far closer to the appearance of Fleming's Bond. Lazenby is not even in the same ball park.
  • mrbain007mrbain007 Posts: 393MI6 Agent
    http://bondzology.blogspot.com/2009/09/bond-james-bond-what-did-ian-flemings.html

    Strange, thats not what the writer of this article seems to think lol

    Its a difficult one. Although Connery often comes to mind when reading the books, personally I think Lazemby was (probably) a little closer to the image Fleming had in his head. He was slimmer than Connery but still had a strong physical presence. Lazenby was atheletic and could handle himself but was not a body-builder or a "muscle man". He has a similar look to both Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan IMO.

    Connery however had the cunning and "verve" that was vital for Bond. The slight physical differences thus didn't matter as much.
  • Ricardo C.Ricardo C. Posts: 916MI6 Agent
    What he composited is pretty Lazenby-ish. Still, I just don't picture anything close to Laz when I read the books. I have my own mental image which is somewhat drawn from the official commisioned image and derived from my own imaginiation.
  • thesecretagentthesecretagent CornwallPosts: 2,151MI6 Agent
    I think Lazenby was OK. OHMSS was a pretty good outing all in all. I hated Lazenby's dubbed voice/kilt and delivery of humour - but I certainly would have liked him to save us all from DAF.
    Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:

    http://apbateman.com
  • mrbain007mrbain007 Posts: 393MI6 Agent
    Ricardo C. wrote:
    What he composited is pretty Lazenby-ish. Still, I just don't picture anything close to Laz when I read the books. I have my own mental image which is somewhat drawn from the official commisioned image and derived from my own imaginiation.

    That just shows we all picture the character slightly differently. I personally pictured a leaner version of Connery a lot of the time.
  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 22,427MI6 Agent
    OHMSS is one of my favourites and Lazenby should have stayed on for more films. But I think Lazenby actually influenced EON to cast Moore after his resignation. Lazenby was without any acting experience, so they replaced him with Moore who was an experienced (but not good) actor. Lazenby let his success go to his head and became a bit of a primadonna, so they wanted Moore who was nice to everyone on set.
  • LOO7K OUTLOO7K OUT United KingdomPosts: 474MI6 Agent
    mrbain007 wrote:
    Ricardo C. wrote:
    What he composited is pretty Lazenby-ish. Still, I just don't picture anything close to Laz when I read the books. I have my own mental image which is somewhat drawn from the official commisioned image and derived from my own imaginiation.

    That just shows we all picture the character slightly differently. I personally pictured a leaner version of Connery a lot of the time.


    That is so true. I think what Flemings Bond is actually like is quite a personal thing. Everybodys opinion is valid. Make's me wonder if there is anyone who's favourite Bond is David Niven?

    DC
  • thesecretagentthesecretagent CornwallPosts: 2,151MI6 Agent
    LOO7K OUT wrote:
    mrbain007 wrote:
    Ricardo C. wrote:
    What he composited is pretty Lazenby-ish. Still, I just don't picture anything close to Laz when I read the books. I have my own mental image which is somewhat drawn from the official commisioned image and derived from my own imaginiation.

    That just shows we all picture the character slightly differently. I personally pictured a leaner version of Connery a lot of the time.


    That is so true. I think what Flemings Bond is actually like is quite a personal thing. Everybodys opinion is valid. Make's me wonder if there is anyone who's favourite Bond is David Niven?

    DC

    I think David Niven could have played a very good early Bond. Ignore Casino Royale - which was a silly parody - he was swarve/sophisticated etc, but he was a fine actor and could have done a very good sixties Bond with a little Moore humour and twinkle thrown in. He could have carried it off in much the same vein as Carry Grant would/could have.
    Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:

    http://apbateman.com
  • Andy007Andy007 Posts: 100MI6 Agent
    Yeh i think George Lazenby did ok in one of the key films in the series. He looked a good Bond, styled to look like Connery & he gave Bond a human aspect, more so than Moore & Brosnan, but 1 film just isn't enough. I agree with people who say DAF would be better with Lazenby. i wish he'd done that film. DAF is probably my worst Bond film -its that poor. I also dislike the kilt image & long scenes with that. Looking back it's fair to say he shouldn't have been cast as Bond as he didn't have acting experience & let it go to his head. At 29 was too young, although he looked 35 easily. But if he'd gone on to do 5 or 6 films, instead of Moore i think he could have been as good, maybe better than Moore. But it is what it is & Lazenby will always be the odd one out of the Bond actors. i've always thought OHMSS is a good Bond film, but would be interesting to see Connery in this. As i say i found Lazenby ok but never got used to him as Bond, so he's always my least favourite.
  • BlackleiterBlackleiter Washington, DCPosts: 5,615MI6 Agent
    I think Lazenby could have been an excellent successor to Connery had he been given more time to hone his acting skills. Although I don't think he was nearly as bad as some other Bond fans seem to think, I do believe his lack of acting experience showed at several crucial points in the film (not the final scene, however, which I think he pulled off quite well). He sometimes sounded stiff and amateurish when he was tossing off the quips, and the scenes with the dubbed voice certainly didn't help. But I think he had a natural charm, a great physical presence, and a certain vulnerability that fit well with the story. I would take Lazenby's Bond over the Roger Moore version ANY time.
    mrbain007 wrote:
    What did you guys think of Lazenby? Strangely, although he's probably my least favourite Bond, his character is perhaps quite close to the figure Fleming had in mind. His Bond was more of a haunted soul, unlike Connery whom I've never imagined pulling off that final scene of OHMSS. He also had a strong sexual appitite (unlike Dalton), had the right image and was physically tough. I suppose Lazemby, although he wasn't a great actor, had the advantage of being in one of the more Fleming-esque stories.
    "Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
  • BlackleiterBlackleiter Washington, DCPosts: 5,615MI6 Agent
    One minor quibble with your analysis - Roger Moore didn't replace Lazenby. Connery returned after Lazenby's one outing as Bond, and then Moore replaced Connery.
    Number24 wrote:
    OHMSS is one of my favourites and Lazenby should have stayed on for more films. But I think Lazenby actually influenced EON to cast Moore after his resignation. Lazenby was without any acting experience, so they replaced him with Moore who was an experienced (but not good) actor. Lazenby let his success go to his head and became a bit of a primadonna, so they wanted Moore who was nice to everyone on set.
    "Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
  • superdaddysuperdaddy englandPosts: 917MI6 Agent
    Imo old George was by far more Bondian than the one we have at the present.
  • zaphodzaphod Posts: 1,183MI6 Agent
    One minor quibble with your analysis - Roger Moore didn't replace Lazenby. Connery returned after Lazenby's one outing as Bond, and then Moore replaced Connery.
    Number24 wrote:
    OHMSS is one of my favourites and Lazenby should have stayed on for more films. But I think Lazenby actually influenced EON to cast Moore after his resignation. Lazenby was without any acting experience, so they replaced him with Moore who was an experienced (but not good) actor. Lazenby let his success go to his head and became a bit of a primadonna, so they wanted Moore who was nice to everyone on set.


    There may be something in what you say as Lazenby although having great potential was hassle.
  • mrbain007mrbain007 Posts: 393MI6 Agent
    LOO7K OUT wrote:
    mrbain007 wrote:

    That just shows we all picture the character slightly differently. I personally pictured a leaner version of Connery a lot of the time.


    That is so true. I think what Flemings Bond is actually like is quite a personal thing. Everybodys opinion is valid. Make's me wonder if there is anyone who's favourite Bond is David Niven?

    DC

    I think David Niven could have played a very good early Bond. Ignore Casino Royale - which was a silly parody - he was swarve/sophisticated etc, but he was a fine actor and could have done a very good sixties Bond with a little Moore humour and twinkle thrown in. He could have carried it off in much the same vein as Carry Grant would/could have.

    Having never seen Niven's CR I can't really comment on it. However I do think its ironic that Niven is virtually forgotten as Bond when he was originally Fleming's choice for the character.

    Based on Niven's "image" I agree with you. He was suarve, eligant and very much the old-fashioned English gent.
  • 72897289 Beau DesertPosts: 1,691MI6 Agent
    GL is more appreciated today than when he debuted as Bond.

    In 1969, Sean Connery WAS James Bond. Replacing him was unimaginable. The only other Bond was David Niven in "Casino Royale" which was regarded as a joke. So when OHMSS came out GL already faced an uphill battle.

    GL's struggle was further complicated when he prematurely quit the role, therefore NO effort was made by EON or the press to puff him up as Bond. He was deliberately sunk in the film itself by the costumer, who put him in white and pink, a tuxedo with more lace than a call girl's laundry hamper, wearing a kilt in a room full of girls in ski pants, a terrible hair comb with sideburns any teenager could better and lastly being dubbed in one fourth of the film.... no GL was toast before he could even say "This never happened to the other fella." To top it all off the title sequence was an homage to Connery ... possibly the worst insult possible.

    One can look back today and see the film in a more reasonable prespective. But even 40 years later OHMSS features some of the worst casting possible in a Bond film. I loved Diana Rigg as Mrs. Peel, but she was a poor choice for "bird with a wing down" Tracy. Savalas had only one qualifaction for Blofeld, he was bald.

    GL held his own rather well for a rookie. Had he chosen to say on for another film or two, his stock would have risen, and he would have been able to defeat the Connery jinx. In a classic example of how to "chuck it" wih both hands he quit, and will forever be a blip in the Bond pantheon.
  • BlackleiterBlackleiter Washington, DCPosts: 5,615MI6 Agent
    I agree that Lazenby faced a stacked deck, and I don't know many actors who could have measured up at the time. To me, it's a bit surprising that he made out as well as he did considering what he was up against. But I totally disagee with your comment about the overall casting of the film. First Diana Rigg - I think she captured perfectly the wounded bird with the tough veneer. She was rebellious, disillusioned, suspicious when it came to men, and a spoiled daddy's girl who obviously wished she had received more love, and fewer material things from her father. Yet after a while she began to sense that Bond had grown genuinely fond of her, and she let down her shield and succumbed to his affections. I think Rigg brilliantly portrayed all of these facets of the character. As for Savalas as Blofeld, I think he projected more intelligence, arrogance and menance than any other actor in the role. True, none of the Blofeld's were up to the level one would have hoped, but to me Telly Savalas was clearly the best of the bunch.
    7289 wrote:
    GL is more appreciated today than when he debuted as Bond.

    In 1969, Sean Connery WAS James Bond. Replacing him was unimaginable. The only other Bond was David Niven in "Casino Royale" which was regarded as a joke. So when OHMSS came out GL already faced an uphill battle.

    GL's struggle was further complicated when he prematurely quit the role, therefore NO effort was made by EON or the press to puff him up as Bond. He was deliberately sunk in the film itself by the costumer, who put him in white and pink, a tuxedo with more lace than a call girl's laundry hamper, wearing a kilt in a room full of girls in ski pants, a terrible hair comb with sideburns any teenager could better and lastly being dubbed in one fourth of the film.... no GL was toast before he could even say "This never happened to the other fella." To top it all off the title sequence was an homage to Connery ... possibly the worst insult possible.

    One can look back today and see the film in a more reasonable prespective. But even 40 years later OHMSS features some of the worst casting possible in a Bond film. I loved Diana Rigg as Mrs. Peel, but she was a poor choice for "bird with a wing down" Tracy. Savalas had only one qualifaction for Blofeld, he was bald.

    GL held his own rather well for a rookie. Had he chosen to say on for another film or two, his stock would have risen, and he would have been able to defeat the Connery jinx. In a classic example of how to "chuck it" wih both hands he quit, and will forever be a blip in the Bond pantheon.
    "Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
  • 72897289 Beau DesertPosts: 1,691MI6 Agent
    Blackleiter,

    Admittedly I am looking back at OHMSS through the lens of a 1969 era Bond fan desperately trying to like a film series that began to degenerate with the release of both "Casino Royale" and "You Only Live Twice" some 24 months previous.

    Back in '69, GL was not well regarded... and became the poster boy for bad acting. His stock began a slow rise with Connery's return in DAF, with unshaven brows and a George Burns toupee. That "final" Connery appearance made it clear that he was no longer the same "spy" we came to love in the first three films. I think at that point, GL's "blip" actually helped Roger Moore's rather seamless transition into James Bond - the audiance caught up with EON's position that Sean Connery WAS NOT James Bond.

    With respect to Diana Rigg, she cannot be faulted as an actress. But in 1969, fresh off "The Avengers", she was typecast as Emma Peel almost as strongly as Connery was brudened as Bond. While Rigg had no problems pulling off all the charecterisms you discribed... " rebellious, disillusioned, suspicious when it came to men, and a spoiled daddy's girl who obviously wished she had received more love" she also came off as too gifted fighting in hand to hand combat, pursuit driving and verbal fencing with Blofeld - so in 1969 her strong screen presence overwhelmed GL.

    Back in '69. Savalas was best known as the disgusting sex manaic "Maggot" in the "The Dirty Dozen". That creepy role and his American voice really worked against him as the mysterious man with the white cat, who made such a memorable non-appearances in FRWL and "Thunderball".

    So pulling my rant back to topic, GL looks much better today than he did when OHMSS debuted. In his original context I don't remember anyone of note thinking he came anywhere close to pulling it off.
  • BlackleiterBlackleiter Washington, DCPosts: 5,615MI6 Agent
    It sounds like you are from the same era as I when it comes to Bond fandom (although I suspect I am perhaps a bit older). I was a huge fan of Sean Connery's Bond since he first appeared on screen in Dr. No, and I even enjoyed You Only Live Twice, although I know there are many detractors when it comes to that film. I was even thrilled to see the admittedly out of shape Connery return in Diamonds Are Forever, because for me at the time Sean Connery WAS James Bond. DAF was his weakest effort, but there are parts of it that I still enjoy quite a bit.

    I was extremely disappointed when Connery departed the series for the first time after YOLT, and it was with great trepidation that I anticipated the unveiling of his successor. I can recall exactly how I felt watching George Lazenby take over the role. I thought - "This guy is no Sean Connery, but perhaps he has potential." Despite his lack of acting skill, I thought he could possibly grow into the role. I realize that the general reaction to Lazenby at the time was largely negative, but I was also accutely aware of the fact that he was being compared to Connery. Those are huge shoes to fill, and I am not surprised that Lazenby fell short. But again, I thought he had potential, and to this day I would gladly watch Lazenby's Bond in OHMSS any time over Roger Moore's Bond in any of his films (except maybe For Your Eyes Only).

    I agree with your view that Diana Rigg had a strong screen presence, perhaps too strong for a novice like Lazenby, and I understand that for many it might have been difficult to separate her from her Mrs. Peel persona. But I was able to buy her as Tracy, which I think is a tribute to her skill as an actress. As for Savalas, had he taken on the role of Blofeld after he became Kojak, I think his Blofeld would have been more difficult to accept. But despite his previous roles and his obviously American accent, I feel he did a decent job as the "on screen" Blofeld. Remember, prior to OHMSS the only other time we actually saw Blofeld was in the form of Donald Pleasance in YOLT, and I thought Pleasance made for a rather fey and ineffective villain. And if you ask me, Charles Gray's incarnation of Blofeld in DAF was only a slight improvement. So in comparison to Pleasance and Gray, I believe Savalas was the better Blofeld, although I would admit that he wasn't the ideal actor for such a role.

    I am glad OHMSS gets more respect in retrospect than it received when it was first released, because despite its flaws (and the lack of Connery as 007), it remains one of my favorite Bond films.
    7289 wrote:
    Blackleiter,

    Admittedly I am looking back at OHMSS through the lens of a 1969 era Bond fan desperately trying to like a film series that began to degenerate with the release of both "Casino Royale" and "You Only Live Twice" some 24 months previous.

    Back in '69, GL was not well regarded... and became the poster boy for bad acting. His stock began a slow rise with Connery's return in DAF, with unshaven brows and a George Burns toupee. That "final" Connery appearance made it clear that he was no longer the same "spy" we came to love in the first three films. I think at that point, GL's "blip" actually helped Roger Moore's rather seamless transition into James Bond - the audiance caught up with EON's position that Sean Connery WAS NOT James Bond.

    With respect to Diana Rigg, she cannot be faulted as an actress. But in 1969, fresh off "The Avengers", she was typecast as Emma Peel almost as strongly as Connery was brudened as Bond. While Rigg had no problems pulling off all the charecterisms you discribed... " rebellious, disillusioned, suspicious when it came to men, and a spoiled daddy's girl who obviously wished she had received more love" she also came off as too gifted fighting in hand to hand combat, pursuit driving and verbal fencing with Blofeld - so in 1969 her strong screen presence overwhelmed GL.

    Back in '69. Savalas was best known as the disgusting sex manaic "Maggot" in the "The Dirty Dozen". That creepy role and his American voice really worked against him as the mysterious man with the white cat, who made such a memorable non-appearances in FRWL and "Thunderball".

    So pulling my rant back to topic, GL looks much better today than he did when OHMSS debuted. In his original context I don't remember anyone of note thinking he came anywhere close to pulling it off.
    "Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
  • 72897289 Beau DesertPosts: 1,691MI6 Agent
    Blackleiter,

    It appears as if we are both "first generation" Bond fans! Sorry to lecture on the 1969 perspective since you were there too!

    In essence we agree about OHMSS, and forty year perspective aside, GL's turn as Bond wasn't so bad at all. What I find annoying is that the film seems "dated", speeded up fights, dubbing, goofy sound effects and clothing are distracting. I do find it odd that while OHMSS seems dated the first three films do not.

    Generally though I watch OHMSS during the Chirstmas season, if nothing else I run it to annoy the family with one of the worst Christmas songs ever written, "Do you know how Christmas trees are made?" So I'll be taking the disc out for a run in the next couple of weeks.

    Back in the day I too wanted GL to succeed. I recall sitting in the theatre squinting at the screen and saying to myself "that guy IS James Bond". But honestly, I was trying too fool myself and many years passed with many screenings of the film before I was finally able to accept the Lazenby Bond. I tried to do the same with Roger Moore, but his Bond quickly tumbled into a comic effort, and by the time of his last film I despised him. It wasn't until DC and Casino Royale that I found myself really happy with the Bond actor. I did favor TD, but despite having two turns as oo7, it seemed he never quite hit his stride.

    So in the end GL is still a blip for me - but an enjoyable one. For me he serves as a prime example of a fellow being handed the world in a basket, then tossing it over with both hands. He had the talent, but not the maturity for oo7. I am glad that he weathered the storm, and isn't living in a cardboard box in Melbourne!
  • BlackleiterBlackleiter Washington, DCPosts: 5,615MI6 Agent
    We are indeed kindred spirits, my friend, even if we don't exactly agree on every aspect of OHMSS. By the way, would you believe that I actually have that song, "Do You Know How Christmas Trees Are Made?" on my iPod? Why, you might ask, would I have that ghastly tune in my collection. Well one, because it annoys the hell out of my family when I play it (I told you we had something in common), and also because in a strange way it takes me back to '69 when I first saw OHMSS (although I must admit that the only way that song ever made it to my iPod is because I purchased the entire soundtrack for OHMSS, one of my John Barry favorites).
    7289 wrote:
    Blackleiter,

    It appears as if we are both "first generation" Bond fans! Sorry to lecture on the 1969 perspective since you were there too!

    In essence we agree about OHMSS, and forty year perspective aside, GL's turn as Bond wasn't so bad at all. What I find annoying is that the film seems "dated", speeded up fights, dubbing, goofy sound effects and clothing are distracting. I do find it odd that while OHMSS seems dated the first three films do not.

    Generally though I watch OHMSS during the Chirstmas season, if nothing else I run it to annoy the family with one of the worst Christmas songs ever written, "Do you know how Christmas trees are made?" So I'll be taking the disc out for a run in the next couple of weeks.

    Back in the day I too wanted GL to succeed. I recall sitting in the theatre squinting at the screen and saying to myself "that guy IS James Bond". But honestly, I was trying too fool myself and many years passed with many screenings of the film before I was finally able to accept the Lazenby Bond. I tried to do the same with Roger Moore, but his Bond quickly tumbled into a comic effort, and by the time of his last film I despised him. It wasn't until DC and Casino Royale that I found myself really happy with the Bond actor. I did favor TD, but despite having two turns as oo7, it seemed he never quite hit his stride.

    So in the end GL is still a blip for me - but an enjoyable one. For me he serves as a prime example of a fellow being handed the world in a basket, then tossing it over with both hands. He had the talent, but not the maturity for oo7. I am glad that he weathered the storm, and isn't living in a cardboard box in Melbourne!
    "Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
  • 72897289 Beau DesertPosts: 1,691MI6 Agent
    On the IPOD!

    You are brave! I downloaded the soundtrack on my MP3, but left that track off .... didn't want it to unexpectedly come on and wreck my day - sometimes a tune can gets trapped in my brain and it takes a long while to displace it. That song is dangerous, my god I think I can just hear it now, softly playing in the distance!
  • BlackleiterBlackleiter Washington, DCPosts: 5,615MI6 Agent
    But most of ALLLLLLL........they need LOOOOOVE!!!
    7289 wrote:
    On the IPOD!

    You are brave! I downloaded the soundtrack on my MP3, but left that track off .... didn't want it to unexpectedly come on and wreck my day - sometimes a tune can gets trapped in my brain and it takes a long while to displace it. That song is dangerous, my god I think I can just hear it now, softly playing in the distance!
    "Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
  • Absolutely_CartAbsolutely_Cart NJ/NYC, United StatesPosts: 1,740MI6 Agent
    I really enjoyed Lazenby. He was a strong attractive man with a boyish charm. He didn't have to go overboard on the macho-ness to be respectable. He was human, he actually cared about people and he respected women. Lazenby was ahead of his time in that sense. But in the 1960's, it was accepted that men were supposed to be aggressive and women were supposed to be submissive. And I think that is what caused Connery to be so loved and Lazenby to be so poorly received.

    Lazenby wasn't an "actor" in the sense that the others were. Lazenby basically played himself and it felt natural.
Sign In or Register to comment.