There always seems to be two camps in the Bond world. Those that prefer the characterization and tone of the films to be closer to Flemings creation; Dr No, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK, CR, QOS, SF and those whose preference is the comic-strip, lighthearted Bond; TSWLM, MR, OP, AVTAK and those the ones that fall between; YOLT, LALD, TMWTGG, GE, TND, TWINE, DAD and SP.MrMisery wrote:Great film posters, thank you keninlincs!Greystoke wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:52 pmIt's easy to appreciate and understand why there was little faith in Lazenby, because nobody would have gone to see a film starring George Lazenby under other circumstances. Bond was a draw as a character and as a franchise even at this stage, and whilst knives were sharpened beforehand, it was warranted. In respect to him, at least.ForeverElvis wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:52 pmOHMSSGreystoke wrote:The problem with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is the fact that George Lazenby wasn't an actor. He was badly miscast in what was actually one of the better written Bond films, other than a misjudged wink to the audience at the start of the film. Although, with Bond having become so successful and iconic with Connery, there was surely a lot of uncertainty about moving on. Including doubts about how or whether audiences would accept somebody new in the role.ForeverElvis wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:06 pmI’ve been a Bond nut since seeing “You Only Live Twice” on TV in 1975, I was 11. “Spy” was my first 007 I saw in the theatre.Greystoke wrote:I'm almost due another run through all of the Bond films. The Spy Who Loved Me is a favourite of mine, too. I'm not so fond of Moonraker, but it has its moments. The Blu-rays are great.keninlincs wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:41 pmLast night i watched Roger Moore in 2 of his outings as James Bond,first up was "The spy who loved me" this was followed up with "Moonraker " both still very enjoyable,althouh quite dated now.I was always a fan of the Bond films so nice to see them again,the blurays have a wealth of special features too.
“Spy” is the best 007 film of the 1970’s, so much better than Moore’s first two outings; 1973’s “Live and Let Die” and 1974’s “The Man With the Golden Gun” - and Connery’s last, 1971’s “Diamonds Are Forever”.
When I was a kid you were either a Connery Bond fan or a Moore Bond fan, Connery was my preference even though I hadn’t seen “Dr No” or “From Russia With Love” at that juncture. When I was 14 I loved the spectacle of Moonraker on the big screen.
Around 20yrs old I had established my favorites 007 films; Connery in the first 4 films, Lazenby in “Secret Service, Moore in “Spy” and “For Your Eyes Only”. These haven’t changed much over the years, just with the addition of favorites from Dalton, Brosnan and Craig.
The other thing that hasn’t changed is my choice for the worst 007 film, “A View to a Kill” and the film that has plummeted the most down my ranking, “Moonraker”. What I enjoyed as a kid is far less enjoyable as an adult.
“Moonraker” is a really well made film that is everything Bond isn’t supposed to be. The best part is the first 20 minutes or so, up until Drax’s assistant is killed by the dogs in the forest. It gets sillier from there with the gondola drive in Venice, the double-take pigeon, Jaws’s girlfriend, the Close Encounters and Magnificent Seven score rip-offs. The final insult - Jaws becomes good.
John Barry’s score is very good.
The two most underrated films of the series, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and “Licence to Kill”.
It benefited from stellar production values and despite what Lazenby was lacking, he was well directed and so was the film. The action sequences are stellar. It's witty. And the ending is certainly bold. It's unfortunate that Connery decided to leave the role, with that what ultimately became Diamonds are Forever being compromised as a true sequel when Lazenby done the same.
Whoever took over the role from Connery at that time was in the terrible position of being compared to Connery at every turn. Even before the film came out Lazenby received a fair amount of bad press.
The marketing department didn’t appear to have a lot of faith in him, his name not appearing above the title on the film poster, just the characters’ name.
But Broccoli/Saltzman must have had faith, offering an extended deal to appear as 007. The only person who screwed that up was George himself, acting in part, on bad advice from his agent.
Watching now, Lazenby is wooden at times, but not in every scene. His eyes are expressionless, exposing his inexperience. He is fantastic in the physical scenes, doing a lot of his own fights, the fist-fight in the hotel is very memorable and rivals anything in the series.
I don’t see Lazenby as a problem, that’s a historical bandwagon. He is good at times, wooden in others. The filmmakers wisely populated the film with strong co-stars in Rigg and Savalas that could carry the film so Lazenby wouldn’t have to.
The problem I’ve always had is the horrible dubbing of Lazenby with George Bakers voice when 007 is impersonating Sir Hillary Bray in a significant part of the film. Story-wise, totally unnecessary as Bray hadn’t met Blofeld or anyone from his clinic, only communicating by letter.
I saw OHMSS on a large theatre screen about 3 years ago. I saw details I’d never picked up on before, it was like watching it for the first time, a wonderful experience. Lazenby came across better than he does when seeing the film at home.
Financially, “Secret Service” was not a bomb. It finished ranked #11 with $9.1 million in rentals in North America in 1969-1970. But It was a setback for EON, taking in half of “You Only Live Twice”, which finished 7th with $18 million in rentals in North America in 1967. The series rebounded in 1971 when “Diamonds are Forever” finished 3rd with $19.7 million. Undoubtedly due to Connery’s return as 007 because, it wasn’t the better film.
It was a tumultuous time for Eon with three different Bond actors over three successive films, finally hitting their stride again with “Spy” in 1977.
If Lazenby had done “Diamonds Are Forever” the pre-title sequence and gimmick of plastic surgery for Blofeld might have resonated better. But these were gimmicks, the bond series before Craig were never story continuations. Each film was a separate mission in 007’s career that might have occurred before or after the last mission.
With regards to the dubbing sequence, this is something that was of its time. It's stupid and hokey, but it was done for the same reasons in more film this one. Physically, I think he was passable in some of the action sequences. But little more than that. Especially with a story that required more than Lazenby had to offer. The producers fumbled on this one, even though replacing Connery was going to be challenging in many respects.
With regards to Diamonds are Forever, or a follow-up to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, this originally was planned as a continuation, with Bond seeking revenge for the murder of his wife, but it went through numerous rewrites and changes of plot, location, altered sequences, etc. Moving from Southeast Asia to London, with scenes on a Victorian steam train, a showdown at a hydroelectric power plant all written, then rewritten. And the film does have an uneven quality, hinting at how many directions the screenplay was being pulled in.
I used to be a big Bond-fan until the end of the Brosnan-era. After Craig took over, the fascination ended abruptly... My favorite Bond-movie is "Goldfinger". If Connery would have played in "On Her Majesty’s Secret Service" this would be my absolute number one. Lazenby was not that bad, but he couldn't fill these big footsteps - and they didn't let him. From the first second he was a replacement only, although I absolutely love his first line: "That wouldn’t happen with the other guy...". In the German version he even was dubbed by the same voice actor than Sean Connery: G.G. Hoffmann (one of - if not THE - best German voice actor of all time, he also dubbed William Shatner as Captain James T. Kirk).
I'm glad, that they chose a total different type of actor to take Bond to the 70s. Roger Moore was perfect for this time period and I really enjoy his Bond movies with all this excitement, exotic places, bond gimmicks, stunning girls (Britt Ekland ), crazy bad guys (Jaws!) and all this British humor. They don't make them like this anymore. Dalton was okay in his first movie and terrible in his second. "License to kill" was a stupid experiment to transform a Bond-movie into a serious thriller - it was a sure flop.
Thanks god, they returned to the old formula with Brosnan as Bond. Brosnan was the perfect choice, a mixture of Connery (coolness but also cruelty) and Moore (humor and adventurousness) and such a womanizer (with Bond-Girls like Izabella Scorupco, Denise Richards, Rosamund Pike, Halle Berry, and many more...), too. "Goldeneye" was the first bond-movie I saw on the big screen - this was excitement pure, it will always be one of my favorite bond-movies ever. Unfortunately after that it became less and less enjoyable. "Die Another Day" was a terrible mistake and put an end to the lighthearted Bond-movies.
But it became worse: they cast Daniel Craig - who would be absolute perfect as the "bad guy" but not at all as British secret agent Commander James Bond (I'm not talking about the books, but the on-screen-legend created by Terence Young, Sean Connery and Roger Moore)... They accomplished what they failed to do before with "License To Kill": turning Bond into a run-of-the-mill dark thriller like "Jason Bourne". They tried hard to bring back some Bond elements in the last outings (if I remember correct, Craig asked them to do so), but for me it's not the same anymore...
Movies are subjective and Bond is not immune. All the films are well-made and well intentioned but there are more misfires during the Moore era than at anytime, Imho of course.
And I must disagree Licence to Kill is one of the very best in the series as is Casino Royale and Skyfall.