There are many things I like about OHMSS, most of which have been pointed out above by others. But what prevents it from being amongst my favourite Bonds is Bond himself. I just cannot warm to Lazenby and that's primarily because of his accent. That may sound silly to some people, but bad accents really grate with me and often prevent me from enjoying a film. Now, Lazenby may not quite be Dick van Dyke, but it - and especially the comic book Hillary Bray - really detract from the film's positives for me. I am quite likely in the extreme minority amongst genuine Bondites, but although I enjoy OHMSS and will be the first to acknowledge its strengths, I just can't get into as much as some of the other films.
I'm going to toss my hat onto the hatrack to add my agreement on OHMSS for all the reasons mentioned by the other members. However, I wished they had gotten a more sophisticated actor for Blofeld's part, (don't get me wrong, I loved Savalas in other films) and I wish they would not have rushed Bond and Tracey's relationship growth in the script. The "music video" sequence of "We Have All The Time In The World" (thank you for all your music, Louie) seemed to have been a lazy way of showing their developing relationship. It's easier to just play music and have actors looking at each other while walking through a garden than have actual dramatic scenes of dialogue. I think Gilbert threw that in because he had to - not because he wanted to, as he was more interested in Bond and his mission than Bond and Tracey.
The bottom line is I think one of the main reasons the film is considered the best if not near best in the series is because it stayed close to the novel - which was also one of Fleming's best. Yes the film is thrilling, but Fleming was the man who created the plot. Thank you, Mr. Fleming! Wish you had written more novels so we'd had better films now, instead of retreads of your plots from scriptwriters thinking they can fill your boots but obviously cannot.
Telly was good. Nothing against his performance. The character just seemed too hands-on by strapping on his little ski cap and competing in the '69 Winter Olympics.
Haven't read the novel for a while, but I believe he had lost weight since Thunderball (in the novels) and was more athletic. Though he was not in the Bond escape scene in the novel, he was in the bobsled chase at the end (as he was in the film), so if Fleming had him in the novel skiing scene chasing after Bond as it happened in the film, it would not have seemed unusual to me.
Fortunately, Sean Connery only ever had bite-shized shentencesh in hish dialogue to besht dishguishe hish accent. It'sh shtill there but like hish tattoosh, you have to look/lishten closhely!
Even though most long-time Bond-fans here and elsewhere on the internet seem to consider OHMSS to be the best in the series, I for one just can't stand it. In fact, I think it's the worst Bond movie apart from Die Another Day. I certainly don't have any problem with a more serious and sensitive adaptation of Bond and I've really tried watching it with an open mind wanting to like it, but I only end up disliking it more and more every single time. The main reasons I hate this movie is:
- George Lazenby (He ruins every single second of the movie, bad actor, HORRIBLE James Bond).
- Cinematography (The movie has a vail of semi-transparent darkness throughout and is poorly filmed, it's hard to explain I guess, but when watching it I get a sensation of emptiness and boredom).
- The action scenes (Atrociously shot and edited, this must be the first version of the shaky-cam that ruins every single action movie made today. Every fight looks jerky and the chase sequences aren't much delight either)
- The love story (I wouldn't mind it at all if it didn't feel contrived, rushed and the fact that GEORGE LAZENBY RUINS EVERY POTENTIAL IT EVERY HAD! The lovers hardly meet, and they instantly fall in love, the relationship is descarded by the half-hour mark and is suddenly reintroduced and they decide to marry, not well constructed at all).
- Lack of interesting characters (No, I don't require men with metal teeth or claws for hands, but I'd love some performances that don't put me to sleep, there are NO interesting roles in OHMSS and I stick to that statement).
- Telly Savalas as Blofeld (much better than Charles Gray, but that doesn't say much unfortunately)
The few positive notes:
- Diana Rigg is one of the better female actors in the series, and does a good job here. Does that make her character interesting though? No, of course not.
- George Lazenby only made one Bond Movie! {[]
- The poem Diana Rigg recites to Bofeld is quite beautiful.
- The outfit Lazenby wears in the facility is hilarious
I wish I could understand why so many fans like OHMSS so much, but I guess I never will.
Even though most long-time Bond-fans here and elsewhere on the internet seem to consider OHMSS to be the best in the series, I for one just can't stand it. In fact, I think it's the worst Bond movie apart from Die Another Day. I certainly don't have any problem with a more serious and sensitive adaptation of Bond and I've really tried watching it with an open mind wanting to like it, but I only end up disliking it more and more every single time. The main reasons I hate this movie is:
- George Lazenby (He ruins every single second of the movie, bad actor, HORRIBLE James Bond).
- Cinematography (The movie has a vail of semi-transparent darkness throughout and is poorly filmed, it's hard to explain I guess, but when watching it I get a sensation of emptiness and boredom).
- The action scenes (Atrociously shot and edited, this must be the first version of the shaky-cam that ruins every single action movie made today. Every fight looks jerky and the chase sequences aren't much delight either)
- The love story (I wouldn't mind it at all if it didn't feel contrived, rushed and the fact that GEORGE LAZENBY RUINS EVERY POTENTIAL IT EVERY HAD! The lovers hardly meet, and they instantly fall in love, the relationship is descarded by the half-hour mark and is suddenly reintroduced and they decide to marry, not well constructed at all).
- Lack of interesting characters (No, I don't require men with metal teeth or claws for hands, but I'd love some performances that don't put me to sleep, there are NO interesting roles in OHMSS and I stick to that statement).
- Telly Savalas as Blofeld (much better than Charles Gray, but that doesn't say much unfortunately)
The few positive notes:
- Diana Rigg is one of the better female actors in the series, and does a good job here. Does that make her character interesting though? No, of course not.
- George Lazenby only made one Bond Movie! {[]
- The poem Diana Rigg recites to Bofeld is quite beautiful.
- The outfit Lazenby wears in the facility is hilarious
I wish I could understand why so many fans like OHMSS so much, but I guess I never will.
Dear Apanblod, let me try to explain why this film is always regarded as one of the best of the series. First, let me say that all your arguments are valid. I'm not as hard on Lazenby as Bond, because he was a model and not an actor, and he didn't get any help from the director, who was more at ease directing non dialogue scenes and editing film. It amazed me that he was able to do the part at all, given these handicaps. The actions scenes were hamstrung by the technology at the time (there was no steadicam). We are all used to actors in realistic greenscreen environments, and can spot the inferior back projection techniques used back then (people on fake horses, in fake cars or on fake ski slopes on a soundstage in front of a projected piece of film). The jerky editing was done to increase the kinetic energy in the action scenes (many short edits in a short time frame), the same way some directors used to speed up scenes in film (the famous Benny Hill chases). It only works if you accept this style of editing. The love story - well, you won't find a fan of the film that won't disgree with you on that point either. I don't think the director knew how to direct a romantic scene, which is why they threw in that horrible MTV music montage of Bond and Tracey, and why their whole relationship gets shortchanged over the mission. Lack of interesting characters? Thats probably more a matter of taste. One viewer's idea of an actor's flat performance is another's idea of understated acting, and one viewers' idea of a great peformance is another viewer's idea of overacting and "scenery chewing". Savalas as Blofeld - didn't care for this casting either.
So, why is this always high on lists? Because it's one of the few films that sticks close to Fleming's novel. Because it was the first film that gave the audience a more three dimensional "human" side to Bond by showing him fall in love and even consider settlling down. Because it was the first to show Bond in a different enviroment (the freezing, beautiful and dangerous alps), as well as the first to show him skiing - which he was supposed to be fond of (as Fleming had been). Because it was the first to show off a villains lair that wasn't just a set piece in a studio - it really was on top of a mountain. Because it showed Bond in a mission that takes place over the Christmas holiday, which seems to impart a small and ironic yuletide atmosphere to part of the film - in the first three films its seems as though Bond is only given missions during the summer! It's difficult to like a film that has dated to a lot due to technology and a lack of sufficient budget. It's one of the many reasons I dislike Dr. No. - as many as you give for not liking OHMSS. It's seems horribly dated and slow moving now. More like a detective show than a action thriller. Fleming's book was creepy and mysterious - that's why it's fun to read. They threw that out and replaced it with a guy in an enviromental suit with black shiny gloves and a spider walking over a piece of plate glass instead of a foot long centipede crawling across Bond (as in the novel). They even had to throw out the fight with the giant octopus because of the cost. If any Bond film should be remade, it should be that one.
[...]
So, why is this always high on lists? Because it's one of the few films that sticks close to Fleming's novel. Because it was the first film that gave the audience a more three dimensional "human" side to Bond by showing him fall in love and even consider settlling down. Because it was the first to show Bond in a different enviroment (the freezing, beautiful and dangerous alps), as well as the first to show him skiing - which he was supposed to be fond of (as Fleming had been). Because it was the first to show off a villains lair that wasn't just a set piece in a studio - it really was on top of a mountain. Because it showed Bond in a mission that takes place over the Christmas holiday, which seems to impart a small and ironic yuletide atmosphere to part of the film - in the first three films its seems as though Bond is only given missions during the summer! It's difficult to like a film that has dated to a lot due to technology and a lack of sufficient budget. It's one of the many reasons I dislike Dr. No. - as many as you give for not liking OHMSS. It's seems horribly dated and slow moving now. More like a detective show than a action thriller. Fleming's book was creepy and mysterious - that's why it's fun to read. They threw that out and replaced it with a guy in an enviromental suit with black shiny gloves and a spider walking over a piece of plate glass instead of a foot long centipede crawling across Bond (as in the novel). They even had to throw out the fight with the giant octopus because of the cost. If any Bond film should be remade, it should be that one.
Thanks, CmdrAtticus, for a very well put reply on the topic. First of all, I have to concede that I haven't read the OHMSS novel. It'll be on my list of things to do as soon as I get hold of it, but I doubt I will judge the movie differently after reading it, I think the movie should be evaluated on it's own merits. Regarding the fight scenes and the camera technique used I wholeheartedly prefer the old way of editing and cutting rather than the new ditto. The thing about OHMSS is that the fights are filmed and cut differently than the other early Bond movies, i.e. closer, more shaky, more cuts and weird speed. Compare any fight in OHMSS with the train fight in FRWL for instance, there's nothing resembling the "shaky-cam" in the latter. I don't think this is a matter of dated technique, just the incompetence of the OHMSS filming crew.
It seems that in your opinion the reason for the laudatory reviews for OHMSS by modern Bond fans is the fact that is was the first to show different aspects of Bond that the audience was previously unexposed to, such as a more sensitive, romantic Bond, winter landscape and a real villain's stronghold. However, I don't see how that would compensate for all the flaws of the movie. The novelty of such introductions should have worn off by now and not be taken into consideration when weighing the pros and cons of the movie today. I can understand though, if there's a certain sentimental value about the movie to many fans because of it.
About the movie being an adaptation of the original Flemming novel to a much greater extent than any other movie in the franchise: in short, as I previously wrote, I don't think that's anything speaking in favour of the movie. In fact, if I was a fan of the (I suppose) superiour novel I'd be infuriated to see such a poor transition to the silver screen. I do give the movie credit for trying to be more flemingesque, I applaud that and prefer the more serious side of Bond, but I just think the movie is so bad it doesn't matter how closely the movie follows the book.
One thing about the movie that gets me every single time is that as I can't get any Bond-feeling out of the movie what-so-ever, and I start to drowse, to the verge of falling asleep when reaching the climax of the movie on top of the mountain, when the James Bond-theme suddenly starts playing when the small-scale war breaks loose, my first reaction is always: "Eh.. what? Ah yeah it's a Bond movie, I forgot.." it's that non-Bond to me. Maybe I'm just being stubborn, I don't know..
For reference, my favourite Bond is Dalton and my two favourite movies are Licence to Kill (by many considered the worst of the bunch, I can see the paradox here) and From Russia with Love.
[...]
So, why is this always high on lists? Because it's one of the few films that sticks close to Fleming's novel. Because it was the first film that gave the audience a more three dimensional "human" side to Bond by showing him fall in love and even consider settlling down. Because it was the first to show Bond in a different enviroment (the freezing, beautiful and dangerous alps), as well as the first to show him skiing - which he was supposed to be fond of (as Fleming had been). Because it was the first to show off a villains lair that wasn't just a set piece in a studio - it really was on top of a mountain. Because it showed Bond in a mission that takes place over the Christmas holiday, which seems to impart a small and ironic yuletide atmosphere to part of the film - in the first three films its seems as though Bond is only given missions during the summer! It's difficult to like a film that has dated to a lot due to technology and a lack of sufficient budget. It's one of the many reasons I dislike Dr. No. - as many as you gi
for not liking OHMSS. It's seems horribly dated and slow moving now. More like a detective show than a action thriller. Fleming's book was creepy and mysterious - that's why it's fun to read. They threw that out and replaced it with a guy in an enviromental suit with black shiny gloves and a spider walking over a piece of plate glass instead of a foot long centipede crawling
across Bond (as in the novel). They even had to throw out the fight with the giant octopus because of the cost. If any Bond film should be remade, it should be that one.
Thanks, CmdrAtticus, for a very well put reply on the topic. First of all, I have to concede that I haven't read the OHMSS novel. It'll be on my list of things to do as soon as I get hold of it, but I doubt I will judge the movie differently after reading it, I think the movie should be evaluated on it's own merits. Regarding the fight scenes and the camera technique used I wholeheartedly prefer the old way of editing and cutting rather than the new ditto. The thing about OHMSS is that the fights are filmed and cut differently than the other early Bond movies, i.e. closer, more shaky, more cuts and weird speed. Compare any fight in OHMSS with the train fight in FRWL for instance, there's nothing resembling the "shaky-cam" in the latter. I don't think this is a matter of dated technique, just the incompetence of the OHMSS filming
It seems that in your opinion the reason for the laudatory reviews for OHMSS by modern Bond fans is the fact that is was the first to show different aspects of Bond that the audience was previously unexposed to, such as a more sensitive, romantic Bond, winter landscape and a real villain's stronghold. However, I don't see how that would compensate for all the flaws of the movie. The novelty of such introductions should have worn off by now and not be taken into consideration when weighing the pros and cons of the movie today. I can understand though, if there's a certain sentimental value about the movie to many fans because of it.
About the movie being an adaptation of the original Flemming novel to a much greater extent than any other movie in the franchise: in short, as I previously wrote, I don't think that's anything speaking in favour of the movie. In fact, if I was a fan of the (I suppose) superinovel I'd be infuriated to see such a poor transition to the silver screen. I do give the movie credit for trying to be more flemingesque, I applaud that and prefer the more serious side of Bond, but I just think the movie is so bad it doesn't matter how closely the movie follows the book.
For reference, my favourite Bond is Dalton and my two favourite movies Licence to Kill (by many considered the worst of the bunch, I can see the paradox here) and From Russia with Love.
Really strong arguments from both sides of the divide...for my part I love it, the ski scenes alone have never been equaled. I also like Lazenby a lot, I accept his limitations, but coming after Connery's sleep walking through the disappointing YOLT I like his physicality and Diana Rigg is divine. But this stuff is highly subjective (witness the divided opinions re QOS)
And if it does not connect with you there it probably never will. It's fun to debate it though
I'm with you, Zapod. OHMSS is one of my favorites despite its admitted weaknesses (Lazenby's inexperience and dubbed dialogue, the dicey camerawork and editing on some of the action scenes, and the goofiness of Blofeld's "allergy girls". Still, the movie is gorgeous to look at, particularly the ski scenes and the other scenes set in The Alps, Diana Rigg was one of the all-time best of the Bond girls, Telly Savalas made for a properly menancing and quietly egomaniacal Blofeld, it had a magnificent musical score, and the ending was one of the most affecting of any Bond film. For me, that was enough to propel OHMSS near the top of my Bond film list (although Goldfinger and From Russia With Love take top honors).
[...]
So, why is this always high on lists? Because it's one of the few films that sticks close to Fleming's novel. Because it was the first film that gave the audience a more three dimensional "human" side to Bond by showing him fall in love and even consider settlling down. Because it was the first to show Bond in a different enviroment (the freezing, beautiful and dangerous alps), as well as the first to show him skiing - which he was supposed to be fond of (as Fleming had been). Because it was the first to show off a villains lair that wasn't just a set piece in a studio - it really was on top of a mountain. Because it showed Bond in a mission that takes place over the Christmas holiday, which seems to impart a small and ironic yuletide atmosphere to part of the film - in the first three films its seems as though Bond is only given missions during the summer! It's difficult to like a film that has dated to a lot due to technology and a lack of sufficient budget. It's one of the many reasons I dislike Dr. No. - as many as you gi
for not liking OHMSS. It's seems horribly dated and slow moving now. More like a detective show than a action thriller. Fleming's book was creepy and mysterious - that's why it's fun to read. They threw that out and replaced it with a guy in an enviromental suit with black shiny gloves and a spider walking over a piece of plate glass instead of a foot long centipede crawling
across Bond (as in the novel). They even had to throw out the fight with the giant octopus because of the cost. If any Bond film should be remade, it should be that one.
Thanks, CmdrAtticus, for a very well put reply on the topic. First of all, I have to concede that I haven't read the OHMSS novel. It'll be on my list of things to do as soon as I get hold of it, but I doubt I will judge the movie differently after reading it, I think the movie should be evaluated on it's own merits. Regarding the fight scenes and the camera technique used I wholeheartedly prefer the old way of editing and cutting rather than the new ditto. The thing about OHMSS is that the fights are filmed and cut differently than the other early Bond movies, i.e. closer, more shaky, more cuts and weird speed. Compare any fight in OHMSS with the train fight in FRWL for instance, there's nothing resembling the "shaky-cam" in the latter. I don't think this is a matter of dated technique, just the incompetence of the OHMSS filming
It seems that in your opinion the reason for the laudatory reviews for OHMSS by modern Bond fans is the fact that is was the first to show different aspects of Bond that the audience was previously unexposed to, such as a more sensitive, romantic Bond, winter landscape and a real villain's stronghold. However, I don't see how that would compensate for all the flaws of the movie. The novelty of such introductions should have worn off by now and not be taken into consideration when weighing the pros and cons of the movie today. I can understand though, if there's a certain sentimental value about the movie to many fans because of it.
About the movie being an adaptation of the original Flemming novel to a much greater extent than any other movie in the franchise: in short, as I previously wrote, I don't think that's anything speaking in favour of the movie. In fact, if I was a fan of the (I suppose) superinovel I'd be infuriated to see such a poor transition to the silver screen. I do give the movie credit for trying to be more flemingesque, I applaud that and prefer the more serious side of Bond, but I just think the movie is so bad it doesn't matter how closely the movie follows the book.
For reference, my favourite Bond is Dalton and my two favourite movies Licence to Kill (by many considered the worst of the bunch, I can see the paradox here) and From Russia with Love.
Really strong arguments from both sides of the divide...for my part I love it, the ski scenes alone have never been equaled. I also like Lazenby a lot, I accept his limitations, but coming after Connery's sleep walking through the disappointing YOLT I like his physicality and Diana Rigg is divine. But this stuff is highly subjective (witness the divided opinions re QOS)
And if it does not connect with you there it probably never will. It's fun to debate it though
Really strong arguments from both sides of the divide...for my part I love it, the ski scenes alone have never been equaled. I also like Lazenby a lot, I accept his limitations, but coming after Connery's sleep walking through the disappointing YOLT I like his physicality and Diana Rigg is divine. But this stuff is highly subjective (witness the divided opinions re QOS)
And if it does not connect with you there it probably never will. It's fun to debate it though
Indeed, it's great that fans have different opinions about the movies so that there's something do discuss. And as you say, it's pretty much a matter of one's each opinion. And just to argue a bit further, I think the ski scenes in both For Your Eyes Only and A View to a Kill are way better then in OHMSS (though to be fair, they were made somewhat 15 years later)
As you said, my friend, it's great to discuss our differing opinions. I have to say that even if I agreed that visually the ski scenes in FYEO and AVTAK were better, which I don't, the mere fact that those scenes featured Roger Moore as Bond would diminish their appeal for me. But I'm a notorious Roger Moore detractor, so that's probably not a fair way to evaluate the scenes. )
Really strong arguments from both sides of the divide...for my part I love it, the ski scenes alone have never been equaled. I also like Lazenby a lot, I accept his limitations, but coming after Connery's sleep walking through the disappointing YOLT I like his physicality and Diana Rigg is divine. But this stuff is highly subjective (witness the divided opinions re QOS)
And if it does not connect with you there it probably never will. It's fun to debate it though
Indeed, it's great that fans have different opinions about the movies so that there's something do discuss. And as you say, it's pretty much a matter of one's each opinion. And just to argue a bit further, I think the ski scenes in both For Your Eyes Only and A View to a Kill are way better then in OHMSS (though to be fair, they were made somewhat 15 years later)
The "shaky-cam" you refer to in the action scenes (mainly the fight scenes) wasn't due to bad camera work. As someone who has edited film and worked with editors, I can tell you that the effect you are seeing is from the editing room (even the zooms within the scenes during the jumpcuts in the fights). The cinematographer has at least two or three cameras running during a scene for what is know as "coverage". It's too get as many angles and views (closeup/medium/distant shots) as possible so that the editor has a vast amount of footage to assemble the scene and be "creative" in putting it together. It's the way he put it together you dislike, and I agree that many people dislike this editing method - especially the large amount of jumpcuts from one angle to another - medium to closup and back, etc., and with two or three times as many cuts as people are used to. I also liked the older fights where there were fewer cuts and it just shows the antagonists having at each other without the editor cutting it to pieces. The style used in OHMSS isn't due to lack of a steadicam or any dated technology - its just the style the director and editor decided to use. I think a lot of your dislike of the film can be traced to it's director. He was totally different from Terence Young's directoral style. Thats whay I dislike
some of the Bonds - its in large part because I didn't like the direction. You'll noticed Peter Hunt wasn't given the chance to direct another Bond film! It's interesting that he was the editor on all the other films up to OHMSS, so it seems interesting that he allowed the editor on this film to use a different style than he used before. One wonders if he and the editor had "disagreements" while editing! However, in the end its always the directors final decision, so it's his responsibility on how the end product looks. You right, though, what a difference between - say, the fight with Durval in the beginning of Thunderball and the fights in OHMSS. Same editor - different director.
As for the "firsts" in the film and other aspects canceling out any flaws for its big fans due to sentimentality - well that probably is a large part of it. At the end, it still all boils down to a matter of taste, regardless of how objective a film is reviewed on the merits of how its made. There are many, many films that are extremely popular with audiences that I personally don't get how they merit this appeal, particularly since I have made films myself, have been involved in the making of others (just the "film shorts" type one sees at festivals), and hence know exactly what it takes to make a film.
As far as any fans being mad at the translation of OHMSS from novel to screen. You are right - you need to read the novel first. If you don't particularly like the plot of the film itself, then you won't probably like the novel. It really is the closest they came to sticking to the novel when writing the screenplay, next to FRWL, Goldfinger and Thunderball. It was probably closer with FRWL, though shoving SPECTRE in the plot really got my gourd. It just overcomplicated the thing for me. I know they were trying to not make the Soviets look like villains then, but it's a movie, not the United Nations. At least they kept it close to the book because Fleming was still alive and they knew he would see it (though I'll bet he wished they had did as good a job on the first film).
As far as getting a "Bond feeling" out of the film, it may be due to the story. Again, when Fleming wrote OHMSS, he was trying to take a different angle on Bond's life from his previous stories, which is why it is so different and why YOLT is also so different (almost jarringly so for me - because it was obvious he wanted it to be the last novel). Blofeld was to Bond like Professor Moriarty was to Sherlock Holmes - the yin and yang, evil vs. good mythology. Fleming wanted to have a powerful, evil villain for Bond to sacrifice his life to in order to rid the world of the evil, and also in order to not write any more Bond novels, as Doyle did when he wanted to end Sherlock Holmes.
I like Dalton as well. God, what a breath of fresh air...finally, someone like Fleming's Bond. I don't get how any think LTK is the worst of the films. To me, it seemed like a Fleming novel, and Dalton was trying to play Fleming's Bond. It reminded me A LOT of his novel TMWGG (and I agree it's probably his weakest story, next to TSWLM). In fact, I think they used a lot of TMWGG for reference when they did the LTK screenplay. I think a lot of fans dislike it because it's TOO real - drug lords and Central American revolutionaries, etc. (remember IRAN-CONTRA?), instead of super villians with satellites and volcanoes, etc. (aka Austin Powers). However, the reality of how it is done IS what makes it appealling to me. And, that I think that showdown with Bond and the villain at the end in the wreck of the tanker and Bond dispatching him with the cigarette lighter seems like pure Fleming for me.
Comments
Sho you have preferrred it with On her Masheshty'sh Shecret Shervishe inshtead?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The bottom line is I think one of the main reasons the film is considered the best if not near best in the series is because it stayed close to the novel - which was also one of Fleming's best. Yes the film is thrilling, but Fleming was the man who created the plot. Thank you, Mr. Fleming! Wish you had written more novels so we'd had better films now, instead of retreads of your plots from scriptwriters thinking they can fill your boots but obviously cannot.
- George Lazenby (He ruins every single second of the movie, bad actor, HORRIBLE James Bond).
- Cinematography (The movie has a vail of semi-transparent darkness throughout and is poorly filmed, it's hard to explain I guess, but when watching it I get a sensation of emptiness and boredom).
- The action scenes (Atrociously shot and edited, this must be the first version of the shaky-cam that ruins every single action movie made today. Every fight looks jerky and the chase sequences aren't much delight either)
- The love story (I wouldn't mind it at all if it didn't feel contrived, rushed and the fact that GEORGE LAZENBY RUINS EVERY POTENTIAL IT EVERY HAD! The lovers hardly meet, and they instantly fall in love, the relationship is descarded by the half-hour mark and is suddenly reintroduced and they decide to marry, not well constructed at all).
- Lack of interesting characters (No, I don't require men with metal teeth or claws for hands, but I'd love some performances that don't put me to sleep, there are NO interesting roles in OHMSS and I stick to that statement).
- Telly Savalas as Blofeld (much better than Charles Gray, but that doesn't say much unfortunately)
The few positive notes:
- Diana Rigg is one of the better female actors in the series, and does a good job here. Does that make her character interesting though? No, of course not.
- George Lazenby only made one Bond Movie! {[]
- The poem Diana Rigg recites to Bofeld is quite beautiful.
- The outfit Lazenby wears in the facility is hilarious
I wish I could understand why so many fans like OHMSS so much, but I guess I never will.
.... obviously.....
Welcome aboard! -{
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
A man after my own heart. I heartily agree.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
So, why is this always high on lists? Because it's one of the few films that sticks close to Fleming's novel. Because it was the first film that gave the audience a more three dimensional "human" side to Bond by showing him fall in love and even consider settlling down. Because it was the first to show Bond in a different enviroment (the freezing, beautiful and dangerous alps), as well as the first to show him skiing - which he was supposed to be fond of (as Fleming had been). Because it was the first to show off a villains lair that wasn't just a set piece in a studio - it really was on top of a mountain. Because it showed Bond in a mission that takes place over the Christmas holiday, which seems to impart a small and ironic yuletide atmosphere to part of the film - in the first three films its seems as though Bond is only given missions during the summer! It's difficult to like a film that has dated to a lot due to technology and a lack of sufficient budget. It's one of the many reasons I dislike Dr. No. - as many as you give for not liking OHMSS. It's seems horribly dated and slow moving now. More like a detective show than a action thriller. Fleming's book was creepy and mysterious - that's why it's fun to read. They threw that out and replaced it with a guy in an enviromental suit with black shiny gloves and a spider walking over a piece of plate glass instead of a foot long centipede crawling across Bond (as in the novel). They even had to throw out the fight with the giant octopus because of the cost. If any Bond film should be remade, it should be that one.
Thanks, CmdrAtticus, for a very well put reply on the topic. First of all, I have to concede that I haven't read the OHMSS novel. It'll be on my list of things to do as soon as I get hold of it, but I doubt I will judge the movie differently after reading it, I think the movie should be evaluated on it's own merits. Regarding the fight scenes and the camera technique used I wholeheartedly prefer the old way of editing and cutting rather than the new ditto. The thing about OHMSS is that the fights are filmed and cut differently than the other early Bond movies, i.e. closer, more shaky, more cuts and weird speed. Compare any fight in OHMSS with the train fight in FRWL for instance, there's nothing resembling the "shaky-cam" in the latter. I don't think this is a matter of dated technique, just the incompetence of the OHMSS filming crew.
It seems that in your opinion the reason for the laudatory reviews for OHMSS by modern Bond fans is the fact that is was the first to show different aspects of Bond that the audience was previously unexposed to, such as a more sensitive, romantic Bond, winter landscape and a real villain's stronghold. However, I don't see how that would compensate for all the flaws of the movie. The novelty of such introductions should have worn off by now and not be taken into consideration when weighing the pros and cons of the movie today. I can understand though, if there's a certain sentimental value about the movie to many fans because of it.
About the movie being an adaptation of the original Flemming novel to a much greater extent than any other movie in the franchise: in short, as I previously wrote, I don't think that's anything speaking in favour of the movie. In fact, if I was a fan of the (I suppose) superiour novel I'd be infuriated to see such a poor transition to the silver screen. I do give the movie credit for trying to be more flemingesque, I applaud that and prefer the more serious side of Bond, but I just think the movie is so bad it doesn't matter how closely the movie follows the book.
One thing about the movie that gets me every single time is that as I can't get any Bond-feeling out of the movie what-so-ever, and I start to drowse, to the verge of falling asleep when reaching the climax of the movie on top of the mountain, when the James Bond-theme suddenly starts playing when the small-scale war breaks loose, my first reaction is always: "Eh.. what? Ah yeah it's a Bond movie, I forgot.." it's that non-Bond to me. Maybe I'm just being stubborn, I don't know..
For reference, my favourite Bond is Dalton and my two favourite movies are Licence to Kill (by many considered the worst of the bunch, I can see the paradox here) and From Russia with Love.
Really strong arguments from both sides of the divide...for my part I love it, the ski scenes alone have never been equaled. I also like Lazenby a lot, I accept his limitations, but coming after Connery's sleep walking through the disappointing YOLT I like his physicality and Diana Rigg is divine. But this stuff is highly subjective (witness the divided opinions re QOS)
And if it does not connect with you there it probably never will. It's fun to debate it though
Indeed, it's great that fans have different opinions about the movies so that there's something do discuss. And as you say, it's pretty much a matter of one's each opinion. And just to argue a bit further, I think the ski scenes in both For Your Eyes Only and A View to a Kill are way better then in OHMSS (though to be fair, they were made somewhat 15 years later)
The "shaky-cam" you refer to in the action scenes (mainly the fight scenes) wasn't due to bad camera work. As someone who has edited film and worked with editors, I can tell you that the effect you are seeing is from the editing room (even the zooms within the scenes during the jumpcuts in the fights). The cinematographer has at least two or three cameras running during a scene for what is know as "coverage". It's too get as many angles and views (closeup/medium/distant shots) as possible so that the editor has a vast amount of footage to assemble the scene and be "creative" in putting it together. It's the way he put it together you dislike, and I agree that many people dislike this editing method - especially the large amount of jumpcuts from one angle to another - medium to closup and back, etc., and with two or three times as many cuts as people are used to. I also liked the older fights where there were fewer cuts and it just shows the antagonists having at each other without the editor cutting it to pieces. The style used in OHMSS isn't due to lack of a steadicam or any dated technology - its just the style the director and editor decided to use. I think a lot of your dislike of the film can be traced to it's director. He was totally different from Terence Young's directoral style. Thats whay I dislike
some of the Bonds - its in large part because I didn't like the direction. You'll noticed Peter Hunt wasn't given the chance to direct another Bond film! It's interesting that he was the editor on all the other films up to OHMSS, so it seems interesting that he allowed the editor on this film to use a different style than he used before. One wonders if he and the editor had "disagreements" while editing! However, in the end its always the directors final decision, so it's his responsibility on how the end product looks. You right, though, what a difference between - say, the fight with Durval in the beginning of Thunderball and the fights in OHMSS. Same editor - different director.
As for the "firsts" in the film and other aspects canceling out any flaws for its big fans due to sentimentality - well that probably is a large part of it. At the end, it still all boils down to a matter of taste, regardless of how objective a film is reviewed on the merits of how its made. There are many, many films that are extremely popular with audiences that I personally don't get how they merit this appeal, particularly since I have made films myself, have been involved in the making of others (just the "film shorts" type one sees at festivals), and hence know exactly what it takes to make a film.
As far as any fans being mad at the translation of OHMSS from novel to screen. You are right - you need to read the novel first. If you don't particularly like the plot of the film itself, then you won't probably like the novel. It really is the closest they came to sticking to the novel when writing the screenplay, next to FRWL, Goldfinger and Thunderball. It was probably closer with FRWL, though shoving SPECTRE in the plot really got my gourd. It just overcomplicated the thing for me. I know they were trying to not make the Soviets look like villains then, but it's a movie, not the United Nations. At least they kept it close to the book because Fleming was still alive and they knew he would see it (though I'll bet he wished they had did as good a job on the first film).
As far as getting a "Bond feeling" out of the film, it may be due to the story. Again, when Fleming wrote OHMSS, he was trying to take a different angle on Bond's life from his previous stories, which is why it is so different and why YOLT is also so different (almost jarringly so for me - because it was obvious he wanted it to be the last novel). Blofeld was to Bond like Professor Moriarty was to Sherlock Holmes - the yin and yang, evil vs. good mythology. Fleming wanted to have a powerful, evil villain for Bond to sacrifice his life to in order to rid the world of the evil, and also in order to not write any more Bond novels, as Doyle did when he wanted to end Sherlock Holmes.
I like Dalton as well. God, what a breath of fresh air...finally, someone like Fleming's Bond. I don't get how any think LTK is the worst of the films. To me, it seemed like a Fleming novel, and Dalton was trying to play Fleming's Bond. It reminded me A LOT of his novel TMWGG (and I agree it's probably his weakest story, next to TSWLM). In fact, I think they used a lot of TMWGG for reference when they did the LTK screenplay. I think a lot of fans dislike it because it's TOO real - drug lords and Central American revolutionaries, etc. (remember IRAN-CONTRA?), instead of super villians with satellites and volcanoes, etc. (aka Austin Powers). However, the reality of how it is done IS what makes it appealling to me. And, that I think that showdown with Bond and the villain at the end in the wreck of the tanker and Bond dispatching him with the cigarette lighter seems like pure Fleming for me.
I just wish someone would write a "Making of"....oh wait.