FRWL vs OHMSS vs CR vs SF

135

Comments

  • FRWL #4
    OHMSS #7

    Both great films, but Connery shines among a host of star performances and Lazenby just barely gets by. The cast, script, Peter Hunt, John Barry, etc are why OHMSS is a great film.
  • Posts: 1,364
    Great to OHMSS getting so much love.
  • jka12002jka12002 Banned
    Posts: 188
    Has Connery ever cried in a movie? Because i doubt it he would give as much emotion Lazenby did in the ending of OHMSS
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,480
    jka12002 wrote:
    Has Connery ever cried in a movie? Because i doubt it he would give as much emotion Lazenby did in the ending of OHMSS

    Not that I can think of, but nobody else could play the solemn pain of Bond as he did, along with Dan.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 1,497
    jka12002 wrote:
    Has Connery ever cried in a movie? Because i doubt it he would give as much emotion Lazenby did in the ending of OHMSS

    Not that I can think of, but nobody else could play the solemn pain of Bond as he did, along with Dan.

    I can't think of a moment when Connery displayed solemn pain in a Bond film though...any time there was a death he seemed to merely brush it off and move on.

    Other Bonds however have displayed this emotion: the Dalton scene in TLD with the balloon comes to mind, or Brosnan on the beach with Natalya, both reflect an inner conflict. DC has also had a few of these moments for sure: bathroom fight and the mirror shot after the stairwell fight.

  • edited February 2013 Posts: 3,494
    jka12002 wrote:
    Has Connery ever cried in a movie? Because i doubt it he would give as much emotion Lazenby did in the ending of OHMSS

    Not that I can think of, but nobody else could play the solemn pain of Bond as he did, along with Dan.

    I can't remember if Sir Sean cried in "Robin And Marian", but even if he didn't, saying Lazenby would have been better in any measure of acting is laughable. Sean's mere presence would have made OHMSS even better, and maybe the best Bond ever.

  • Bond (Connery) didn't seem too upset at the loss of 'his' brother in Diamonds are Forever you could say, but I think that's merely a humor Bond release above anything else and poles apart from the straight faced and serious attitude that made him such a great James Bond in the early to mid 1960s, Goldfinger apart

    I would of taken George Lazenby over Connery in On Her Majestys Secret Service though. The australian did once again, a very good job of it, and after Connery's lacklustre performance and general disinterest of You Only Live Twice, I think it was for the best that Lazenby did the part. And didn't he do a good job
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 3,494
    Bond (Connery) didn't seem too upset at the loss of 'his' brother in Diamonds are Forever you could say, but I think that's merely a humor Bond release above anything else and poles apart from the straight faced and serious attitude that made him such a great James Bond in the early to mid 1960s, Goldfinger apart

    I would of taken George Lazenby over Connery in On Her Majestys Secret Service though. The australian did once again, a very good job of it, and after Connery's lacklustre performance and general disinterest of You Only Live Twice, I think it was for the best that Lazenby did the part. And didn't he do a good job

    Sure he did ;)

    Q- What do George and Mike Madsen have in common other than appearing in a Bond film?
    A- Hack acting.

  • Posts: 11,425
    Very difficult choice actually. I'm surprised by how difficult I find it to decide. OHMSS is a wonderful movie and Laz really isn't that bad. In fact I'm going to fess up and admit I think he made a really good stab at the part. So may be, today, even though Sean is the best IMO, I'm gonna say OHMSS.
  • DB5DB5
    Posts: 408
    This discussion was featured on pages 60-61 of this thread http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/2274/bond-movie-a-vs.-bond-movie-b-casino-royale-vs.-skyfall
    FRWL won over OHMSS by an impressive margin: 27 to 10!
  • @db5 I think we're maybe wasting time highlighting already existing threads or places that can accomodate, as most turn a blind eye and continue regardless, as this thread has once again demonstrated, but that margin, while not a landslide victory, seems conclusive enough and it's only right that Russia is the winner between these two releases. Lazenby does well, but no-one can really compete with Connery's Bond of 1963 for greatness, and only Dalton can stand up and challenge, and OHMSS just seems like a seasonal Bond above all else, you can put on for the end of year holidays, whereas From Russia With Love is a great watch all year round. At least that's how I feel about it
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    edited February 2013 Posts: 28,480
    JBFan626 wrote:
    jka12002 wrote:
    Has Connery ever cried in a movie? Because i doubt it he would give as much emotion Lazenby did in the ending of OHMSS

    Not that I can think of, but nobody else could play the solemn pain of Bond as he did, along with Dan.

    I can't think of a moment when Connery displayed solemn pain in a Bond film though...any time there was a death he seemed to merely brush it off and move on.

    Other Bonds however have displayed this emotion: the Dalton scene in TLD with the balloon comes to mind, or Brosnan on the beach with Natalya, both reflect an inner conflict. DC has also had a few of these moments for sure: bathroom fight and the mirror shot after the stairwell fight.

    Are you joking?

    Sean's Bond felt a deep care for his allies/friends and was hurt when they passed.

    *When Quarrel is killed Bond is disgusted and has even more incentive to get Dr. No.

    *Kerim's death makes Bond speechless and solemn, and he grabs Kerim tight on the arm, now with all the rage in the world focused on Grant. Bond's rough and brutal killing of Grant was partly vengeance for Kerim's memory.

    *Jill's death astounds his Bond and M even threatens to kick him off the mission and put 008 on it if he doesn't get revenge off of his mind. He is also shaken up over Tilly's cold death.

    *He isn't happy to hear that Paula took her cyanide.

    *He was shaken at Aki's death.

    This isn't the image of a man who merely brushes death off:
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-64aMgU0INFo/T0FbpUhXM7I/AAAAAAAADSA/lq5eq64DRuY/s1600/kinopoisk_ru-from-russia-with-love-920248.jpg
    http://screenmusings.org/Goldfinger/images/Gf_208.jpg
    http://screenmusings.org/Goldfinger/images/Gf_211.jpg
    http://screenmusings.org/Goldfinger/images/Gf_212.jpg

    I seriously think some people on here need to revisit the 60s Connery films, because it isn't pragmatic or rational to say he brushes off his allies's deaths when it is clear to see he gets quite bitter over them.
  • I still think you'd be hard pressed to say that Connery showed more solemn pain than Lazenby. Lazenby had a more emotional film though so it's a bit of an unfair contenst.
    Sean's mere presence would have made OHMSS even better, and maybe the best Bond ever.

    Sean would've been on his way to how he was in DAF. Maybe the script would've inspired him but with him being bored behind the scenes and gaining weight, I'm glad we got Lazenby.
  • No surprise that the two best Bond books make for two of the best movies.
    If this question had been asked a couple of months ago I'd have gone for FRWL without thinking. Having watched both again recently, FRWL still gets it but only by a nose.
    OHMSS is an excellent film and is a testimony to how much better the whole series would have been if Fleming's source material had been fully respected throughout.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,274

    Sean would've been on his way to how he was in DAF. Maybe the script would've inspired him but with him being bored behind the scenes and gaining weight, I'm glad we got Lazenby.

    Ah yes the old what if Connery had been in OHMSS debate. I agree with you that I wouldn't want 1969 Connery in that movie either. But what if they had made the movie earlier when Connery was in his Bond prime? I think that most people would be, at the very least, curious to see how that would've turned out. I know I sure would be.
    However I also love OHMSS just the way it is. Having good ol George in there as his one and only performance in the role makes this movie unique and makes me like it even more. Lazenby also had that vulnerability that was desperately needed to make this story believable. Could Sean have pulled it off? Probably. He was a damn good actor. I don't know. I guess I have mixed feelings on it.
  • Posts: 140
    pachazo wrote:

    Ah yes the old what if Connery had been in OHMSS debate. I agree with you that I wouldn't want 1969 Connery in that movie either. But what if they had made the movie earlier when Connery was in his Bond prime? I think that most people would be, at the very least, curious to see how that would've turned out. I know I sure would be.

    If I recall correctly, the original plan was to do On Her Majesty's Secret Service right after Goldfinger, with Sean Connery and Bridget Bardot. They ended up going with Thunderball, however, because of that pesky McClory.

    As it is, I tend to agree that OHMSS is fine the way it is. If Connery had done it, I suspect that it would have been a wildly different film, bearing about as much resemblance its the source novel as You Only Live Twice.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,480
    I still think you'd be hard pressed to say that Connery showed more solemn pain than Lazenby. Lazenby had a more emotional film though so it's a bit of an unfair contenst.
    Sean's mere presence would have made OHMSS even better, and maybe the best Bond ever.

    Sean would've been on his way to how he was in DAF. Maybe the script would've inspired him but with him being bored behind the scenes and gaining weight, I'm glad we got Lazenby.

    That's not the point I am trying to make. Some pretend Sean's Bond has no emotions, and I am trying to show them evidence that proves he clearly does.
  • Tough call...can't decide.
  • I still think you'd be hard pressed to say that Connery showed more solemn pain than Lazenby. Lazenby had a more emotional film though so it's a bit of an unfair contenst.
    Sean's mere presence would have made OHMSS even better, and maybe the best Bond ever.

    Sean would've been on his way to how he was in DAF. Maybe the script would've inspired him but with him being bored behind the scenes and gaining weight, I'm glad we got Lazenby.

    That's not the point I am trying to make. Some pretend Sean's Bond has no emotions, and I am trying to show them evidence that proves he clearly does.

    That bugs me too. Everyone just makes the assumption Sean was disgruntled, therefore he would have approached OHMSS like DAF. Sean has already made his mind up not to do the film for well documented reasons, and when he agreed to come back DAF was like stealing money for him. It was a fun type of script with little seriousness to it and he treated it exactly as such, it hardly called upon him to do any more than he did. I have ZERO doubt that he had agreed to take a million for OHMSS, he was professional enough to see that it was a challenge to his acting skills and he would have taken it as such. And he would have make George look like the rank amateur he was if we would have a Connery version to compare, there's no question of that either.

  • Posts: 4,746
    CLEARLY From Russia with Love! I mean let's be honest here, FRWL keeps you awake, while OHMSS is grade A material for being put to sleep just before a surgery!
  • Posts: 140
    And he would have make George look like the rank amateur he was if we would have a Connery version to compare, there's no question of that either.

    While I agree about Connery's superiority over Lazenby (see some of my earlier posts in this thread), I simply feel that OHMSS would have been taken in a radically different direction if it had been Sean's sixth instead of George's first. The gang at EON would have felt unnecessary pressure to up the ante from YOLT, using a shooting script that did not stick as closely to Fleming, and loading the movie with outlandish gadgets, elaborate sets along the line of the volcano lair, etc., etc.

    We'll never know for sure, but I strongly suspect that the only reason they went with the Back-to-Basics approach for OHMSS is because they were starting over with a new lead actor. Thus, I'm happy it turned out as it did.

    That said, I still prefer FRWL by a slim margin, largely because of Sean Connery.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,274
    00Ed wrote:
    The gang at EON would have felt unnecessary pressure to up the ante from YOLT, using a shooting script that did not stick as closely to Fleming, and loading the movie with outlandish gadgets, elaborate sets along the line of the volcano lair, etc., etc.

    We'll never know for sure, but I strongly suspect that the only reason they went with the Back-to-Basics approach for OHMSS is because they were starting over with a new lead actor. Thus, I'm happy it turned out as it did.

    That is a very interesting point that I had never thought of. It would have even been more jarring if they had kept the Bond meets Blofeld for the "first time" encounter in the script as Sean had just done that in the previous film!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,480
    I still think you'd be hard pressed to say that Connery showed more solemn pain than Lazenby. Lazenby had a more emotional film though so it's a bit of an unfair contenst.
    Sean's mere presence would have made OHMSS even better, and maybe the best Bond ever.

    Sean would've been on his way to how he was in DAF. Maybe the script would've inspired him but with him being bored behind the scenes and gaining weight, I'm glad we got Lazenby.

    That's not the point I am trying to make. Some pretend Sean's Bond has no emotions, and I am trying to show them evidence that proves he clearly does.

    That bugs me too. Everyone just makes the assumption Sean was disgruntled, therefore he would have approached OHMSS like DAF. Sean has already made his mind up not to do the film for well documented reasons, and when he agreed to come back DAF was like stealing money for him. It was a fun type of script with little seriousness to it and he treated it exactly as such, it hardly called upon him to do any more than he did. I have ZERO doubt that he had agreed to take a million for OHMSS, he was professional enough to see that it was a challenge to his acting skills and he would have taken it as such. And he would have make George look like the rank amateur he was if we would have a Connery version to compare, there's no question of that either.

    Yeah, I think Sean would have nail it, too.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited June 2013 Posts: 21,092
    Two films are added to the list. You can now vote again, this time choosing between FRWL, OHMSS, CR and SF.

    A poll was added.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    OHMSS.

    While acknowledge when on form Connery until (for me anyway) Skyfall that in FRWL was the pinnacle of Bond performance, Connery's performance was very lazy and lacklustre in YOLT and as for DAF it was like a different actor was playing the part compared to the actor that appeared in TB.

    I also find that some will over exaggerate Connery's abilities as an actor to argue their point of OHMSS being with no doubt the best Bond film if he'd have starred in it. It's like those who seem to think Brosnan proposed 5th film would have been more down to earth and grounded. With all likelihood OHMSS would have been a very different film if Connery had been Bond.

    I don't believe they would have all of a sudden made his Bond sensitive and emotional when the cold fish, suave, deadpan approach is what made audience love his Bond. Having a different actor play the part was the only way to film OHMSS as close to the novel as possible, Connery's Bond would have had to seem utterly different to what had gone before for the emotional weight of the story to work.

    No Lazenby is no Dalton or Craig but he offers a vulnerability that would have just looked jarring had Connery attempted it, so no OHMSS would not have been the best Bond with Connery, it's more likely it would have been a radically different tailored to Connery's persona as trying to change that element would have not made any sense at all. You can't take an actor well and truly established and then change his personality to suit the storyline, anyone thinking OHMSS would have just been the same film with Connery playing the role is being incredibly naive.
  • edited June 2013 Posts: 11,175
    Well Comnery DID have some moments of vulnerability and emotion in his films. Not many but a few so who's to say he couldn't pull off 'sensitive' if he wanted to. He's excellent in GF when he finds Mastersons body on the bed and when he finds Grant in FRWL.

    I haven't entirely made up my mind on the debate and have sometimes moved back and fourth with my opinions on this in the past - but it would at least have been 'interesting' to see an Ohmss starring Connery. The suave cool secret agent we'd all grown to love and aspire to suddenly brought to his knees by a good woman.

    Either way Ohmss called for a more experienced actor in the part. Laz had his moments in the film but even he feels it wasn't a good film to start off with.
  • Those who doubt Connery could do sensitive don't know his catalog. "Robin And Marian" showed me this was well within his range of talent. One more thing about this being a radical departure from his known character- love changes a man and can evoke a side of him no one would believe he had. There are many examples of men who enjoy brutally killing another human being, yet with those they love they are remarkably tender, especially with their wife and children.
  • edited June 2013 Posts: 533

    FRWL vs. OHMSS is a hard decision for me. But in the end, I'll choose OHMSS. SF doesn't matter to me, as far as I'm concerned.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,436
    Close for me, either FRWL or SF and I am going with SF.
  • Posts: 533
    Either way Ohmss called for a more experienced actor in the part. Laz had his moments in the film but even he feels it wasn't a good film to start off with.


    George Lazenby did just fine in OHMSS. In fact, he did remarkably well for a beginning actor.
Sign In or Register to comment.