Controversial opinions about Bond films

Torgeirtrap

Daniela Bianchi might not have been that much of an actress, but I think they got the best out of her in FRWL.

QBranch

She shows a bit of range during her meeting with Klebb.

Seve

SIS_HQ wrote: »

Now, at least it's changed, but still, whenever the word Bond Girls are coming up, the first word that may come to the people's minds are their looks, and their appearances more than their capabilities or whether if the actresses are good in their roles, which is a bit sexist to me, unlike the villains and Bond Actors where they're talking about them seriously and considering how much they've carried the role.

On the other hand it's not like they were casting an ugly guy as James Bond either

There have been many who have suggested George Lazenby was chosen for his looks and criticised his acting ability or experience

Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan have also had their detractors on the acting front

While respected thespians like Anthony Hopkins and Peter O'Toole were never asked to audition for the role

peter

It’s film. A visual medium. People don’t want to see or hear what they see every day.

Sexist? Or human nature (in most cases, people like looking at pretty things, whether a location, a leading woman, a leading man, a sexy car, a beautiful home)?

DEKE_RIVERS

Seve wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

Now, at least it's changed, but still, whenever the word Bond Girls are coming up, the first word that may come to the people's minds are their looks, and their appearances more than their capabilities or whether if the actresses are good in their roles, which is a bit sexist to me, unlike the villains and Bond Actors where they're talking about them seriously and considering how much they've carried the role.

On the other hand it's not like they were casting an ugly guy as James Bond either

There have been many who have suggested George Lazenby was chosen for his looks and criticised his acting ability or experience

Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan have also had their detractors on the acting front

While respected thespians like Anthony Hopkins and Peter O'Toole were never asked to audition for the role

Hopkins made a Bond-esque movie and It was... weird.

peter

GoldenGun wrote: »

Haven't seen such a crusade against George since 1999, but one thing is for sure: he is the only man in the role who made me cry.

My thoughts remain that Laz suffers more for not being Connery than anything else. He's convincing as a charmer, convincing as a man in love, and the best of the lot when it comes to fisticuffs.

I don't think the infallable Bond of the previous five entries, or the foolproof one of the next eight, however entertaining they obviously were, could have fit OHMSS quite as well as Lazenby's Bond.

I honestly don't see what he's supposed to be doing so badly here, but hey to each their own. For me Lazenby has always been an excellent Bond. There's a pathos he brings to the role that I think works very well.

Not a crusade, but more showcasing, discussing, debating, that whatever one may see as OHMSS failing at the box office, it’s pretty clear it wasn’t the tone of the film (in fact, the course change for this film was generally praised!), but it was the leading man.

And no matter how much I love OHMSS, the weakest link, by far, is the emptiness of Laz. Was he fine in some scenes— yes. But he was out of his depth, uncomfortable in too many others, and audiences saw that on the big screen.

But by no means was this a crusade, lol. Just a discussion debating whether it was the tone of the film that turned off audiences in 1969, or was it the leading man.

I think the evidence would suggest that audiences didn’t connect with Lazenby.

And i understand those reasons.

Torgeirtrap

I think one of the reasons I like OHMSS, all it's greater aspects and it's lesser aspects aside, is probably the fact that it's a one-off. We only had this Bond once, which makes the film a novelty and it benefits from it.

echo

Ludovico wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

peter wrote: »

There wasn't a lot going on behind Lazenby's eyes. Which is fine for a hook-up, but to fall in love with?...

I say this as someone who loves OHMSS, 😂. The gravitas of the film starts and stops with a terrific novel, script, vision of Hunt, and two actors: Rigg and to a lesser extent, Savalas.

+Ilse Steppat and Gabrielle Ferzetti. I think those two performances are great as well.

Oddly I’d argue it’s some of Bernard Lee and Lois Maxwell’s best performances in Bond too.

It’s a frustrating thing with OHMSS - it’s lead doesn’t do it justice even if he has his moments. I love it by the way, and can also acknowledge it has flaws on a creative/filmmaker level (Nolan and Soderbergh be dammed - I don’t believe this is the best Bond film by any measure). Great film though.

My controversial opinion about Moneypenny in OHMSS: the movie gave us the greatest Moneypenny moments. In a way, the character never truly recovered from it.

I also think this is the correct take. Moneypenny kind of became superfluous after OHMSS. It might have been the right move to move to Goodnight with DAF.

GoldenGun

peter wrote: »

GoldenGun wrote: »

Haven't seen such a crusade against George since 1999, but one thing is for sure: he is the only man in the role who made me cry.

My thoughts remain that Laz suffers more for not being Connery than anything else. He's convincing as a charmer, convincing as a man in love, and the best of the lot when it comes to fisticuffs.

I don't think the infallable Bond of the previous five entries, or the foolproof one of the next eight, however entertaining they obviously were, could have fit OHMSS quite as well as Lazenby's Bond.

I honestly don't see what he's supposed to be doing so badly here, but hey to each their own. For me Lazenby has always been an excellent Bond. There's a pathos he brings to the role that I think works very well.

Not a crusade, but more showcasing, discussing, debating, that whatever one may see as OHMSS failing at the box office, it’s pretty clear it wasn’t the tone of the film (in fact, the course change for this film was generally praised!), but it was the leading man.

And no matter how much I love OHMSS, the weakest link, by far, is the emptiness of Laz. Was he fine in some scenes— yes. But he was out of his depth, uncomfortable in too many others, and audiences saw that on the big screen.

But by no means was this a crusade, lol. Just a discussion debating whether it was the tone of the film that turned off audiences in 1969, or was it the leading man.

I think the evidence would suggest that audiences didn’t connect with Lazenby.

And i understand those reasons.

Fair enough. I don't see all of that in his performance, which I think was excellent.

But you are quite right that it was the leading man, not being Connery, that made it hard for people to connect with this entry.

So regardless of our differing opinions on Lazenby, I do think you are right that it's his presence, or rather the absence of Connery, that OHMSS suffered from.