 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OHMSS is one of the best Bond films, no doubt about it. I wish Lazenby was a little better, and I hate the lengthy dubbing of his voice by another actor (when he is undercover as Sir Hilary), but apart from that it's terrific.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lazenby had the looks, but what he lacked was a certain gravitas that would have benefited the role. Especially in this film.
Also, I'm not surer he was directed all that well. For instance when he does his "My name is Bond...James Bond" line in the teaser, he does it with a huge grin on his face, even though he just pulled a lady out of the water.
For much of the picture Lazenby is just a little too light weight. Though he actually does do quite well in the films more emotional scenes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 26, 2015 - 4:51 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MusicMad
(Member)
|
Second only to Thunderball as my favourite JB007 film ... and so much better/enjoyable than the current efforts.
Not everything is perfect - far from it - but the sum of the parts far outweighs the weaker elements and I, for one, am glad that Sean Connery was absent ... the story would not have worked had he played the role in the same manner.
On high-definition TVs (I've yet to watch the Blu-Ray) the back projection skiing/bob-sleigh sequences do look poor - they didn't on the big screen - but I still prefer this to modern-day CGI~animation.
An enjoyable, involving story, fabulous scenery, good - excellent acting throughout (and yes I do include George Lazenby) and the best leading lady of the series to date (Eva Green is very good but doesn't get close, IMHO) ...
... incredible cinematography (what scene in the last three films comes anywhere close?), witty dialogue, a villain who is threatening (the latest one was less frightening than Blofeld's cat) and a story with a start, middle and an end.
And a fabulous music score.
Daniel Craig may be a better actor than George Lazenby but I'm not too taken with his portrayal, especially in the last one, and I struggle to find anything else about the recent films which are an improvement on this classic.
Mitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 26, 2015 - 10:12 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
BobJ
(Member)
|
With no ill will intended, to answer the OP question, this is hands done one of the worst Bond films there is. Absolutely nothing works in it. The editing is choppy and almost nonsensical at time. The ski chase and toboggan fight being the worst. Studio set, to live action, to rear-screen projection... what an unholy mess. The main threat comes to no resolution what-so-ever after being subjected to a long, boring series of scenes with Bond going undercover as a Scott in what plays out more like bad comedy. The hypnotized women end up playing no part in the end of the film. Well, thank goodness we spent all that time with them, huh?
There are just so many other things I could harp on, but I'll skip most like Da Brooklyn Blofeld, the dumb call backs in Bond's office (he has an office?), or the over-sized safe cracker and get to the scene I hate the most... the opening.
What starts of interesting, turns dumb, fast. But skipping past all of that, Bond chasing after the girl, then looking up and saying,"this never happened to the other fellow" just shows the ineptitude of what is about to unfold in front of us for the rest of the films torturous duration. They don't just break the forth wall with this film, they crush it with sledge hammer.
And last in ever sense, is Lazenby... a talentless man that honestly is not really guilty of anything other than wanting a job... then betraying everyone around him because of greed. Not that there wasn't plenty of that going around mind you. But his status as a never was, is well earned.
It is without doubt the ending that has kept this train wreck afloat all these years, and it is only good because of the character. Not the script, nor the acting, nor even the directing are what makes this compelling in any way. It is our beloved hero torn apart in the midst of potential happiness that kills us all in those last few memorable moments.
This, and this alone is what makes this a Bond film, and that to me is almost more tragic than the film itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My thoughts on this film have for the most part been previously encapsulated in my praise for Peter Hunt's remarkable contribution to the series up to and including this film, his first as a director. The article has a link on this board pertaining to Hunt here:
http://thecinemacafe.com/the-cinema-treasure-hunter/2015/3/23/exploring-the-artifacts-8-the-gem-cutter-capturing-a-golden-moment-10
I did enjoy reading Storyteller's critique although I suppose it's the antithesis of mine. I think the main reasons for the wide gap between this film's detractors and its supporters lies in how seriously one takes the series in general and the shock of seeing someone other than Connery in the role for the first time. One thing that Hunt said was that he thought the filmmakers should take things seriously but that the audiences shouldn't. It was this distinction that provided this installment a greater fidelity to Fleming's book. But let's face it, the whole Bond franchise is a spoof of what spies really do. (Compare any Bond to say The Spy Who Came In From the Cold). It's what spies would LIKE to do or certainly what we would FANTASIZE they do, but obviously know better.
So I guess I'm asking its detractors to what standard are they holding OHMSS? Bond #7: Diamonds are Forever? That had Connery and it added so much forced humour it became a spoof of ITSELF, the main plot was marginalized and practically incidental to its oddly arranged set pieces. At least OHMSS had a very clearly defined plot that progressed with that in mind first and foremost. Film critic Pauline Kael wrote that a main disappointment was Hunt's absence.
Yes Lazenby does have that line of "the other fella" in the opening. But please remember, this was Bond 6! One expected Connery. He was Bond. So the filmmakers addressed it. They needed to show some respect to us for not trying to hide it, which they cleverly did there and then carried on. I liked that. Bond is about style. It's not about substance although Hunt provided both with his unique editing technique and action choreography and the manner he handled the relationship between Lazenby and Rigg.
And please let the detractors say one little negative thing about Barry's music who also "upped the ante" so to speak because of Connery's absence. Go ahead. I dare you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 27, 2015 - 10:24 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Richard-W
(Member)
|
Second only to Thunderball as my favourite JB007 film ... and so much better/enjoyable than the current efforts.
I agree, the current efforts don't measure up, neither as entertainment nor as cinema nor as Bond films. My top three are DR. NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE followed by THUNDERBALL with GOLDFINGER bringing up the rear. I also like the two Richard Maibaum-penned thrillers FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and LICENCE TO KILL despite the fact that EON turned them into misguided comedies.
Not everything is perfect - far from it - but the sum of the parts far outweighs the weaker elements and I, for one, am glad that Sean Connery was absent ... the story would not have worked had he played the role in the same manner.
While I agree that the sum of the film's parts outweigh minor imperfections, you're wrong about Sean Connery. Maibaum tailored the writing for Sean Connery's strengths as an actor long before anyone knew he wouldn't be playing the part. Connery's range and experience had grown immensely by 1969. Just look at his emotional range in MARNIE, WOMAN OF STRAW, THE HILL and A FINE MADNESS. He would have easily risen to the occasion and nailed it.
Of the minor imperfections, there are fashion faux paux's. The Carnaby street clothes didn't last long and date the film rather obviously. I cringe at the ascot ties, the ruffled collars and the kilt -- that damn kilt is the only reason Scotland doesn't rule the world. Also, who would try to drown themself in an elegant, weighty peacock-style gown? There is no earthly reason for Tracy not to be casually topless both on the beach in the pre-title and later in Bond's hotel room when she comes to "pay her bill." The film is so adult in its romantic business, a little female nudity was called for. I wish that Lazenby had not been revoiced during his impersonation as Sir Hilary Bray. In the long run it never pays for a film to call attention to itself as a film, and not just because the audience is momentarily taken out of the drama. That fourth-wall breaker at the opening -- "This never happened to the other fellow" -- got a cheap laugh in 1969 but think how much stronger the scene would be if it had ended with Bond holding up her shoes, looking up and saying nothing.
On high-definition TVs (I've yet to watch the Blu-Ray) the back projection skiing/bob-sleigh sequences do look poor - they didn't on the big screen - but I still prefer this to modern-day CGI~animation.
If anything, modern-day CGI looks even more fake than the old opticals. But take another look. There's very little back-screen projection, perhaps only 3 or 4 shots lasting less than a minute. Blofeld's "branching off" is the most obvious "faked" shot. The rest is real, sometimes with an expert skier skiing backward with a handheld camera to capture the action. OHMSS was widely praised at the time for the authenticity of the skiing and tobaggen sequences. The downhill fight with Blofeld enthralled audiences when the film was new, and it still does when the film is screened theatrically. Lazenby does 99% of his own action scenes and his own stunts, and he does so with confidence, agility and physical grace.
An enjoyable, involving story, fabulous scenery, good - excellent acting throughout (and yes I do include George Lazenby) and the best leading lady of the series to date ....
Most Bond films coast along on mediocre to cruddy script writing, especially the current efforts. The writing is so important, especially to the Bond films. OHMSS has the most literate and intelligent script of the entire series. it is character-driven, with all the emotional business of the characters expressed through action. That's what happens when the producers are loyal to the source material.
... incredible cinematography (what scene in the last three films comes anywhere close?), witty dialogue, a villain who is threatening (the latest one was less frightening than Blofeld's cat) and a story with a start, middle and an end.
Telly Savalas is the only Blofeld who is not afraid of Bond and takes him on personally. When the tables are turned, Blofeld puts on the skis and hunts Bond. But he's threatening befor that. Savallas portrays Blofeld as a "cultivated barbarian" to quote someone's description of him. This is a man who knows no limits. His good manners are a put-on. He'd rather hurt you. This is a villain audiences could believe in in 1969. Very intimidating.
The story goes through movements as character arc progresses. It's a real script, and a real story, courtesy of Ian Fleming, who is the secret to the film's merits.
And a fabulous music score.
Yeah! The instrumental title theme with guitars cascading down the scale is irresistible. John Barry reached a creative peak with three Bond scores in a row: YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (1967), ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE (1969) and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (1971). These scores are so definitive of James Bond. Magnificent scores.
Daniel Craig may be a better actor than George Lazenby but I'm not too taken with his portrayal, especially in the last one, and I struggle to find anything else about the recent films which are an improvement on this classic.
Mitch
I've changed my mind about Craig. I used to say he was an excellent actor who was miscast and giving the wrong performance. But after considering and reconsidering SKYFALL, I can't say that anymore. He's certainly very capable. But he's a one-note actor, and that note is morose. He is morose, and I would add intellectually clueless. The two ladies making the decisions at Columbia and EON wanted an actor who could make a fool of James Bond, who would lend himself to a deconstruction, and Craig was just what they were looking for: a pug-ugly, all muscle no brain.
In contrast, although George Lazenby was inexperienced, he understood James Bond instinctively. Lazenby is the better actor.
I said Lazenby is the better actor.
I reiterate: Lazenby is the better actor.
One more time: Lazenby is the better actor.
Craig blew it three times in a row, probably four times now, whereas Lazenby gave the right performance his first time out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
