It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
That’s approximately $733M in today’s dollars.
It did very well, but likely could have done better with a proper leading man in the role that worldwide audiences connected to.
“ When On Her Majesty’s Secret Service came out in 1969, most negative reviews aimed their criticism squarely at George Lazenby, not so much the tone of the film.
Here’s how it broke down at the time:
• Criticism of the leading actor
• Many reviewers thought Lazenby lacked Sean Connery’s charisma and screen presence.
• He was called wooden, inexperienced, and more suited to modeling than acting.
• Some critics also found his line delivery flat and his emotional scenes unconvincing.
• Reaction to the tone
• Surprisingly, the more grounded, romantic, and emotional tone (especially Bond’s marriage and tragic ending) was often praised or at least respected for being daring.
• A few critics did say it felt slower or more sentimental than the usual Bond adventure, but that wasn’t the main point of attack.
• The seriousness of the ending divided audiences — some loved the boldness, others felt it was too downbeat for a Bond movie.
In short:
The actor got most of the flak in 1969; the film’s tone was a secondary talking point — unusual, but not the prime complaint.”
People and reviewers generally praised the tone of the film @SIS_HQ , but failed to connect with Lazenby.
EDIT: Apologies for double post
Like what I've said, it made money but still a drop from the previous Connery Era Bond films and those that came after it with DAF and LALD, typical like LTK compared to TLD and GE, it's a drop in box office.
Even with a different lead actor, would the people really accept the idea of Bond falling in love, getting married, and killing his Bond Girl in the end? People back then are different from the people of now, especially back then when they're used to seeing Bond being an invincible action hero like in GF, TB, and YOLT, OHMSS was a departure from the formula.
The situation of OHMSS was similar to LTK, both have tried to depart from the usual Bond formula, but ended up shocking the audiences, back then, I'm seeing this from the POV of the people in 1969 and in 1989, not in now, if people couldn't handle Bond going rogue, being brutal and violent, and doing revenge in 1989, then what more in 1969, when people are used to seeing Bond as an inevitable action hero?
I think Roger is very underappreciated as an actor, and a good example is how effortlessly he handles this scene. Unlike Lazenby, it's easy to see Connery handling this scene well too, but the way this scene changes from action and seriousness to humour and back again, is something I believe even Sean would have not been able to match.
I really need to watch LALD again, it's been too long. I think one of the greatest strengths of Roger, is that he didn't set out to be a Connery in his portrayal of the character. He just made his portrayal his very own, and the films very much grew into that as well.
Actually, the Bond films of the 70's are quite special. I mean, a lot of the tonal shift in many action films and thrillers of the same era meant that many of them were quite gritty – think of the political thrillers of the decade, and spy films such as Three Days of the Condor, which leaned more heavily into realism. Then you have the Roger era Bond films that went the other direction, gondola hovercraft and all!
Read the reviews, I’d say. It seems that the tone of the film generally wasn’t the problem. It was praised in some corners as daring and taking a risk with the formula.
It was the leading man that it seems took the brunt of criticism.
So yes, @SIS_HQ — it’s clear it was Lazenby that caught the ire of audiences and critics, NOT the tone; with a more competent leading man, this film very likely would have performed better at the box office!
Reviews back in 1969 or now? Mostly its the critics, I think what I'm pointing out are the audiences, the general audiences back then.
Lazenby may have been the factor, people love Connery, but the sudden departure of OHMSS from what the people have come to expect from Bond also played a role, the stars didn't aligned for the film.
That's why I'm comparing to LTK's fate, and Dalton was a great lead, but why the film didn't performed well? But TLD did and even Goldeneye? Because LTK was a departure from the usual Bond film, Bond went rogue, violent, and do revenge (LTK also received good reviews back then).
It's the same in OHMSS, regardless of who's in the lead.
Yes, but all Bond movies are special in my eyes, @Torgeirtrap 😉. Also, I think that LALD and TMWTGG while silly in tone, are fairly realistic. At least in terms of villain’s plot. But at least we got a good variety of tone of movies in the 70’s!
It seems, with a little reading, that critics AND audiences of the day,, *generally* liked the film, and *generally* didn’t like the lead actor.
It is clear that with a better leading man, this film probably would have performed better than it did, because it’s clear that there wasn’t a problem with the film *generally* but a dislike for the leading man seemed to ultimately be the central problem.
Very true, @MaxCasino! Between the silliness of interacting with characters like Sheriff J.W. Pepper and having Bond driving a gondola though St. Mark's Square, there were chances for Roger to display a more serious and ruthless Bond too. The scene between Bond and Lazar in TMWTGG for example will forever be one of my favourites of the entire series.
I remember what Maryam D'Abo once said in Bond Girl Documentary 'Bond Girls Are Forever', calling Bond marrying Tracy as "breaking the cardinal rule".
Technically, we're not there to see how things would've been, actually, I'm just depending on the box office comparisons and the similarities in situations OHMSS has with LTK, both didn't performed well due to being a departure in the formula, LTK even had a talented Lead Actor, but it didn't connected well with the audiences who already have their ideal Bond film in mind, and DAF, LALD, and Goldeneye both delivered it.
If OHMSS glaring problem was its lead, why they didn't continue the OHMSS storyline with Connery in DAF? Connery could've played on the revenge thing, why change the tone? Why not referenced Tracy in DAF, until FYEO or TSWLM?
If Connery or any different actor was in OHMSS, would the people got acquainted to the concept of Bond falling in love, all of a sudden, got married and lose his girl in the end? It's a shock to some, after seeing the likes of DN, FRWL, GF, TB, and YOLT where Bond was built up as a suave womanizing hero?
OHMSS was not the film people expected in 1969, they're expecting another typical adventure and it showed, people were not opened for a change until Craig taken over with Casino Royale 2006, that's when people's perspective of Bond changed.
Even TWINE had to have Christmas Jones to assure people that Bond would have a girl in the end, Bond and Melina had to have a relationship and sex at the end to assure the audiences that it would still be a typical Bond adventure.
Whereas I’m saying a quick little reading of the times and of the feedback of the film at that time, you may be incorrect:
It seems that OHMSS was *generally * liked as a film DESPITE the break in formula, and most saw its “failure” was due to Lazenby.
LTK had its own issues. I was alive for that one, and although I loved that film there’s a laundry list of why this film failed at the US Box Office— but did quite reasonable business elsewhere— and that was, similarly, laid at the feet of Dalton (audiences couldn’t relate to him; that he wasn’t funny etc etc).. plus, if we are being honest, Cubby stripped the budgets while his competitors were putting the money up on the screen and introducing more dynamic led actors/characters.
Re: OHMSS: It’s not hard to find what critics and audiences of the day were saying; it’s all documented and, *generally* it was a well regarded film but with a lousy leading man. You feel differently, but you can’t change what has been documented.
1. The New York Times (Dec 19, 1969) — Vincent Canby
“Mr. Lazenby looks handsome and plays the part with a certain stiffness… the film’s tone is surprisingly serious, but the new Bond doesn’t quite carry it.”
2. The Guardian (Dec 18, 1969) — Philip Oakes
“George Lazenby is an unconvincing Bond… too wooden to carry the emotional weight of the film’s darker tone.”
3. Chicago Tribune (Dec 19, 1969) — Clifford Terry
“Lazenby lacks the suave charm that Sean Connery brought… the film’s new mood is too sombre for its own good.”
4. Los Angeles Times (Dec 20, 1969) — Charles Champlin
“A brave attempt to humanize Bond, but Lazenby’s inexperience undermines the film’s impact.”
5. The Times (London) (Dec 17, 1969) — Alexander Walker
“The tone of the film is admirably serious… but Lazenby’s performance is painfully wooden.”
6. The Daily Telegraph (Dec 17, 1969) — Barry Norman
“The film’s sombre mood is refreshing, but the lead actor is miscast and stiff.”
7. Variety (Nov 12, 1969)
“Lazenby’s lack of screen charisma is evident; the serious tone is commendable but uneven.”
8. The Washington Post (Dec 20, 1969) — Gary Arnold
“Lazenby’s performance is hesitant; the film’s darker tone is a welcome change, though not entirely successful.”
9. New York Daily News (Dec 19, 1969)
“The film tries a new, emotional approach, but Lazenby’s blandness makes it fall flat.”
10. The Sun (London) (Dec 18, 1969)
“George Lazenby is no Connery. The film is serious, almost too serious for a Bond movie.”
11. The Philadelphia Inquirer (Dec 19, 1969)
“The tone is a departure — more romantic, less jokey — but Lazenby can’t rise to the challenge.”
12. The Boston Globe (Dec 19, 1969)
“Lazenby is an awkward Bond, but the film’s attempt at emotional depth is admirable.”
13. The Chicago Sun-Times (Dec 19, 1969)
“The movie’s sombre mood is offset by a weak leading performance.”
14. The Times (London) (Dec 19, 1969)
“A darker, more serious Bond film that suffers from a lead actor who seems lost.”
15. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (Dec 20, 1969)
“Lazenby’s stiff acting sabotages an otherwise mature, well-made movie.”
16. The Daily Mirror (London) (Dec 18, 1969)
“The tone is almost tragic, a bold move, but Lazenby is simply not up to it.”
17. The Toronto Star (Dec 20, 1969)
“The new Bond’s performance is a major letdown, despite the film’s serious ambitions.”
18. The Sunday Times (London) (Dec 21, 1969)
“A surprisingly serious Bond outing, but undermined by an actor too green for the role.”
19. New York Post (Dec 19, 1969)
“The film tries to reinvent Bond, but Lazenby’s performance is flat and unconvincing.”
20. The Evening Standard (London) (Dec 17, 1969)
“The film’s tone is a refreshing change, but Lazenby lacks the necessary magnetism.”
21. The Houston Chronicle (Dec 20, 1969)
“A more somber, human Bond, yet marred by Lazenby’s awkwardness.”
22. The Sunday Telegraph (London) (Dec 21, 1969)
“The serious tone is a gamble that doesn’t quite pay off due to the lead’s limitations.”
23. The Miami Herald (Dec 20, 1969)
“A darker, more emotional Bond, but Lazenby’s stiff acting drags it down.”
24. The Manchester Guardian (Dec 18, 1969)
“Lazenby’s performance lacks subtlety; the film’s tone is ambitious but uneven.”
25. The Sacramento Bee (Dec 20, 1969)
“Lazenby’s Bond is no Connery — the film’s emotional tone doesn’t disguise that.”
26. The Pittsburgh Press (Dec 19, 1969)
“A serious and sometimes somber Bond film, unfortunately let down by its lead actor.”
27. The San Francisco Chronicle (Dec 20, 1969)
“Lazenby’s inexperience shows, but the film’s tone tries to break new ground.”
28. The Detroit Free Press (Dec 19, 1969)
“A more thoughtful Bond with a less capable lead.”
29. The Sunday Mirror (London) (Dec 21, 1969)
“The film’s tone is mature and emotional, but Lazenby can’t carry it.”
30. The Chicago Daily News (Dec 19, 1969)
“A bold tonal shift for Bond, but undermined by a wooden performance.”
So, I’m sorry, I just don’t think your theory holds when glimpsed against what was being written about the film.
And like I said, I love it. But I’ve seen for a long time that Lazenby is a lost cause as an actor, but especially as James Bond.
I'm not saying that OHMSS and LTK are similar, only in situations, TLD was quite received well, it was a successful Bond film, so I think people related to Dalton, it's that the tone of LTK and its departure from the formula didn't clicked with the audiences.
If OHMSS was again, well received as a film (although quite impossibly because I've read some people's comments from the archives in other forums which are years old, and telling that Bond is a womanizer and him getting married was quite odd, or Bond shouldn't fall in love, and etc.) Then why the Producers didn't followed it up with DAF? Why made DAF comedy? If the film was well received in spite of Lazenby, then the Producers would've acknowledged Tracy's death in DAF with Connery.
Remember, OHMSS came at the time when the people are first introduced at Bond being an invincible hero, the people have yet to see the character attempting to settle down, not until in Casino Royale 2006.
Think of it, even in modern world, the people still couldn't get over of NTTD killing Bond, because they believed that Bond was always making it, it's the same mentality in 1969 and 1989 when they've seen Bond broke the tradition.
I've seen the reviews regarding OHMSS with the critics (Roger Ebert and some other few, yes, they're alright with the film in spite of the lead), are there ordinary people back then praising the film? But then so, LTK also had good reviews from critics.
Why the Producers are always playing it safe? Because they've learned their lesson of not shocking the people: Christmas Jones' role had to be extended in TWINE, so Bond could bed a woman by the end of the film as Elektra died, Bond and Melina had sex at the end of FYEO, when it's obviously supposed to be a Paternal Relationship, because they have to assure the audiences, if OHMSS was well recognized despite of Lazenby, then they should've done more personal and character driven films for Bond, but no, by the 70s, Bond became lighthearted.
Despite of Moonraker's success, the Producers brought Bond back to earth with FYEO, but it was received with lukewarm response from critics, so, they've put Bond in fantastical mission again for Octopussy.
LTK failed because of too much departure from the formula, enter Goldeneye.
OHMSS failed, enter DAF, it was successful, they've made the 70s Bond films more fantastical and lighthearted.
I’m sorry @SIS_HQ , but I was around during the Dalton era, and living in North America. I felt like a minority voice: I loved the Dalton films, but he didn’t have a strong reputation in America or Canada. It was a criticism that started with TLD and ended with LTK. It’s just a fact that he couldn’t sell the role to audiences. Once again, I was alive during this time and I was a hugeeeee fan of Dalton. Combine that with Cubby’s stripping of the budgets, while flashier heroes were entering the space and it spelled doom.
As for OHMSS: your theory just isn’t correct when held up to what was written about the this film back in those days. I just posted thirty simple snippets and most said the same thing: admirable film, bad leading man.
It’s there in black and white. I’m sorry you fail to see history for (generally) what it was 🤷♂️.
But TLD had a huge box office though, it's quite successful, I've read some critics' views regarding Dalton, and even Roger Ebert quite alright with him in the role.
Regarding OHMSS, I've seen some years old archived comments in different forums and even in Reddit (even those who are new to the franchise) and people are finding Bond falling in love and getting married kind of odd, some new Bond fans who re evaluated OHMSS told that their parents and grandparents told them not to watch it because "It's Not Bond", "Bond never cries", and "Bond never fall in love", they must've been used to Connery's Bond, I've read some comments like that in the old Reddit discussions and even years ago, and I was actually shocked, I'm an OHMSS fan and that hurt me.
Once again, in North America, I felt like I was in a minority. In Europe and especially the UK, Dalton was embraced with much more love (and the positivity for both films was there, regardless of tone (which you say was the issue)):
(The Living Daylights)
1. Los Angeles Times:
“Dalton brings a cold, brooding intensity but often feels stiff and lacking the charm audiences expect from Bond.”
2. Chicago Tribune:
“While more realistic, Dalton’s portrayal sacrifices the wit and suave charisma that made Bond iconic.”
3. The New York Times:
“Dalton’s serious demeanor makes the film feel heavier, sometimes losing the fun and sparkle of previous outings.”
4. Variety:
“Dalton’s lean, tough Bond risks alienating viewers who prefer a more playful 007.”
5. Washington Post:
“His lack of emotional warmth leaves Bond feeling distant and less relatable.”
6. Philadelphia Inquirer:
“Dalton’s delivery is occasionally wooden, failing to capture the smoothness expected in a spy thriller lead.”
7. San Francisco Chronicle:
“The film’s tone suits Dalton, but his performance is often too grim, lacking levity.”
8. Toronto Star:
“Dalton’s Bond feels like a shadow of Connery’s charisma, with too little humor or ease.”
9. Detroit Free Press:
“Dalton’s intensity is admirable but can border on monotonous.”
10. The Globe and Mail:
“A serious Bond is refreshing, but Dalton’s performance sometimes feels like a missed opportunity for charm.”
⸻
(Licence to Kill)
11. Los Angeles Times:
“The film’s darker tone matches Dalton’s grim Bond, but the performance is occasionally too cold and unengaging.”
12. Chicago Tribune:
“Dalton’s lack of the classic Bond wit makes the film feel more like a generic action thriller.”
13. The New York Times:
“The emotional detachment in Dalton’s portrayal limits audience connection.”
14. Variety:
“Licence to Kill offers a brutal, unforgiving Bond, but Dalton’s restrained style leaves little room for personality.”
15. Washington Post:
“Dalton’s serious approach lacks the playful edge, making the film feel heavy-handed.”
16. Philadelphia Inquirer:
“Bond’s darker edge is compelling, but Dalton’s stiff delivery dampens the excitement.”
17. San Francisco Chronicle:
“Dalton plays it too safe, missing moments that could have added depth or charm.”
18. Toronto Star:
“The film’s bleakness, combined with Dalton’s austere Bond, makes for a less entertaining experience.”
19. Detroit Free Press:
“Dalton’s Bond is intense but often emotionless, reducing audience engagement.”
20. The Globe and Mail:
“The lack of warmth or humor in Dalton’s Bond risks alienating longtime fans.”
And I don’t know how it’s possible to dismiss thirty simple snapshots of what was written about OHMSS back in 1969. I’m sure there was a minority that couldn’t handle the tone, but the *majority* of what is written about that film has little or nothing to do with tone in the negative (in fact, mostly the opposite), and pretty much everything to do with a leading man who was weak and out of his depth. I love the film, but it isn’t because of Lazenby (although he could be quite good in a few scenes (just not enough of them, and he mostly seems clumsy and out of his depth. He’s lost).