OHMSS v Casino Royale

Kent007

I've just finished watching OHMSS and every time I do, I like it more and more. I'm not gonna lie, I don't like Lazenby but I think apart from that it's a great film. This got me wondering, how do people think it compares to what could be seen as it's twin in the reboot, Casino Royale? Both have received great praise but in my opinion it's for different reasons. I prefer the love story aspect of On Her Majestys Secret Service but prefer the action scenes and the villain's plot in Casino Royale.

Just wondering what everyone else thinks?

Thunderpussy

All I can say Is I enjoy Both, They my #1 and #3 Bond films. -{

LastRatStanding

That's a pretty tough one, they are quite close! I think over all OHMSS is probably better. To me, Tracy is better than Vesper in every way; I can't really watch Vesper without thinking 'this is just Tracy but..not as good!'. The romance is portrayed better in OHMSS I think and comes across as genuine whereas I've just never felt that Bond and Vesper were truly in love. I'm not sure if that is because of Craig or Green or the story or what really - I just prefer Tracy. However I must agree with you that the action is Casino Royale is better and certainly more consistent. The second half of OHMSS is pretty non-stop though it has to be said but Casino Royale get's off to more of a flying start I think. The biological warfare plot in OHMSS is the only downfall of the film to me, other than that it's nearly perfect. They are both long films but OHMSS seems to go by in a flash to me which means I must really enjoy it as there is quite a lot of actionless scenes through the middle. They are both very high up on my list but OHMSS just nabs it!

superado

Interesting comparison. I watched CR again about a month ago and marvel at the craftsmanship in taking Fleming's pretty pedestrian, 1st novel and adapting it to today's world; I appreciate how many of the novel's nuances were given cleaver treatments although some of them could have been let go had the scriptwriters decided to for the sake of the wider audience, but which were kept for the Bond fans. Now, had EON had the rights from the begining and decided to make it the first Bond movie, we might have seen a traditional, no frills espionage movie very unlike DN with it's fantastic film treatment...and that CR might have been just as pedestrian as the novel. Had EON gotten the rights instead of Charles Feldman at the height of Bondmania, CR might have been very similar in flavor to OHMSS since there were significant similarities between the 2 novels. Would it have stood out as much as CR 2005? Maybe not and admittedly, reboot or not, DC or not, CR became better because of the way it was expanded to accommodate not only a more complex and textured story-telling to suit our post-postmodern world, but in a limited but essential measure, the rich tradition of the series.

Jimmy Bond

Hm... OHMSS, for sure.

CR is great, but there are too many superhero-like moments for me to rank it above OHMSS (not to mention SF, even), which some of you might argue could be seen as "left-overs of the Brosnan era" (which someone did say they were, and I disagreed, as I do so now). These moments, of course, clash with the overal tone of the film, and somewhat bring it lower than, well, this. But its a great Bond film.

Still... OHMSS is absolutely awesome. The story is the best in Fleming's canon, and the films, too, and thats a hard thing to go against.

Strangeways

I love both movies, obviously.
The two novels also have a place my heart too, especially the opening lines of both. I love OHMSS.....

it was one of those Septembers when it seemed like the summer would last forever

Not had one of those for a while!!!!!!

Silhouette Man

Well, OHMSS is my favourite, but I really love CR too! -{

davidelliott101

Silhouette Man wrote:

Well, OHMSS is my favourite, but I really love CR too! -{

Ditto

TonyDP

For me, OHMSS is the superior film because it makes James Bond human without robbing him of his history, persona and supporting characters. In OHMSS Bond is every bit the seasoned, womanizing, know it all, nearly always unflappable agent yet we still manage to see a human and vulnerable side to him.

The romance with Tracy is also far more believable; beginning as a one night stand and gradually blossoming into something far more meaningful over an extended period of time. One of CR's many failings for me was that I never really bought or even understood why Bond would fall so completely in love with Vesper so quickly (I mean we're talking hours - two days at most between their first meeting and LeChiffre's death).

So for me OHMSS is the best of both worlds: a movie full of all the classic hallmarks of a Bond film while managing to stay surprisingly faithful to the source material and still packing a genuine emotional wallop at the very end.

tigersharka

I'm prejudice...I know George Lazenby personally. A wonderful, talented man. And every time I watch OHMSS...it gets better. I do like CR. It moves and brings the franchise to a current status. It is hard to compare two movies over 40 years apart. But the nod goes to OHMSS.

Napoleon Plural

Neither captures the essence of the novel imo. Or really convey the romance of it all. I don't care for either Tracey or Vesper. Decent visuals in both however.

Of course, would have been better to have Craig's world weary Bond in OHMSS and Lazenby's eager young greenhorn in CR.

L Jones

OHMSS vs. CR?

My God, that's a hard choice! They are my top two favorite Bond movies of all time. As much as I love CR, I have to give the edge to HMSS.

CmdrAtticus

OHMSS was always my favorite outside Connery's efforts because it stayed pretty true to the novel. The locations only boost the attractiveness of the adventure (the photography is a plus) and the fact it was in a real location just gives it that extra air of authenticity. I never really understood the criticism of Lazenby's performance - perhaps it's just me - but I bought into him being Bond the moment he shows up on the beach. He looked the part, could handle he stunts and threw off the witty lines just as well as Connery did. I really wished he could have done a few more films. For having just done modeling up to that point and given little direction by Hunt, I was impressed at how well he did - even the end with the death of Tracy.
Fortunately, he had old pros like Savalas and Rigg to give him some pointers. As far as the romance - the filmmakers really have a difficult time showing the evolution of Bond's relationship with either Tracy or Vesper - and unfortunately it's due to the nature of the Bond films
history. In the case of OHMSS, they were still trying to sell the character as an action hero in an suspense/action film littered with spectacle sequences. They felt showing too much of any personal feelings involving Bond would slow down the plot or pace too much and lengthen the running time. The end result was the same thing that what happened with CR. Though Hunt tried to convey the evolution of Bond/Tracy's relationship in a short hand way (using that awful video music montage) - for me it just never worked. It was only Rigg's sincere performance that helped it feel less forced. Unfortunately for me, as much as I understand the reason behind making her character more like Emma Peel and less like the more vulnerable Tracy of the novel, it doesn't come across to me as authentic. I have a harder time feeling Rigg as much as in danger when she's doing hand to hand combat with a Blofeld henchman or being able to drive her way out of the chase scene. Tracy was supposed to be the spoiled, suicidal, bored daughter of a wealthy father - more like a mature version of Paris Hilton (though with more class, intelligence and empathy). Just can't picture a Tracy/Hilton having a tussle with a henchman. However, since they wrote the film Tracy with Rigg in mind, Rigg is the perfect match for Bond.
As for Vesper - again only the acting abilities of the two leads putting as much sincerity in the relationship as they could helped - but could not totally convince the audience. They were handicapped terribly by the demands of an audience that prefers seeing Bond going after the bad guys or just having a one night stand, so once again we get a short hand version of a relationship that would normally take longer to develop. In the future, they should just stay away from these type of relationships with Bond if they can't be handled properly. Since they're not doing Fleming's novels now, they can do this.

Getting back to the two film comparisons, I think it's difficult to put them next to each other because they have very different plots. The first is Bond starting out (even though in the novel he's really a veteran agent) and the OHMSS Bond is the veteran on Blofeld's tail while falling in love and getting married only to end in tragedy. I think what puts both films up near the top (or at the top) of the series for most is that they treat Bond as a real flesh and blood spy with emotions and he is put into more realistic plots. Put that together with the fact they originally come straight out of Fleming's imagination and you have a winning combination.

Richard--W

OHMSS, of course. It's genuine, authentic and true Bond from the inside out.

CASINO ROYALE is strictly monkey-see monkey do.

Higgins

Hey, everytime that I see Richard--W posting something new, I know exactly what will be coming

And he always delivers

Blackleiter

Bondtoys wrote:

Hey, everytime that I see Richard--W posting something new, I know exactly what will be coming

And he always delivers

No doubt!

chrisisall

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Of course, would have been better to have Craig's world weary Bond in OHMSS and Lazenby's eager young greenhorn in CR.

Great observation NP!