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).
It was an odd group that seemed to be in the final rounds.
Did the producers purposely go smaller, lesser known actors? And if so, why? Was it because they believed Connery and his new star-status was too much trouble and they wanted to keep a thumb on the next actor, and keep him there?
I don’t know, but these actors didn’t seem to be an overwhelming bunch(?).
Back then, the standards for the Bond role are high, the same for the villains, but why for Bond Girls, they stuck with models and beauty queens? Is it because even if the girls can't act but just looking beautiful and it's okay?
And people loved it too, although I'm glad that we have people praising the likes of Honor Blackman, Diana Rigg, Jane Seymour casting, but the thing is, people tend to overlook the issue with some of the Bond Girls' acting because they're beautiful, for example, Daniela Bianchi, people have no issue about her performance despite of her being dubbed and didn't have an acting experience prior, or again, Barbara Bach, she's too wooden, but people tend to overlook or even defend her because she's beautiful (still couldn't believe that Deneuve had been rejected by Cubby over Barbara Bach, the latter is a genuine actress, Bach is just a model).
Looking for the next Bond Girl casting and suggestions, the pictures are always either about posting sexy pictures, people are always about beauty when talking of Bond Girls, but not their acting ability when I think it should be both, just like with the Bond actor and Bond villains.
Just an observation.
This surely is a controversial thought, but it's a question I wanted to clarify, because I think it's a bit sexist.
Thankfully the Craig Era at least changed that, we have now the likes of Eva Green and Lea Seydoux.
1) The downbeat ending. OHMSS was apparently designed to be a change of pace for Connery, which would have worked out better, and which, judging by DAF, would have maintained a similar plateau of earnings to YOLT, but probably wouldn't have taken Bond back to the giddy financial heights of TB. Artistically, as a Connery vehicle it's percieved darker tone or slower pace would have been tolerated or appreciated more and gained greater acceptance, because it was a Bond actor in his 6th outing.
2) Lazenby. His inexperience would not have been exposed as much in a movie like YOLT or DAF and he might have been able to get some traction and possibly have gone on to be a success in the part.
Put the two things together and the result was evidently underwhelming for many.
Interesting points, and I agree with #2.
but again, I don't think people would've still fully accepted the concept of Bond settling down, after seeing Bond being a womanizer in the previous films, it's as bold as killing Bond off in NTTD, that's how bold OHMSS was at the time, hence, the change of tone in DAF and the 70s Bond films, and the fact that OHMSS was not explicitly recognized or referenced until in FYEO (the TSWLM one was more like a blink and miss moment, but it took three films before.
OHMSS went against of what the people expected at the time from a Bond film, especially as YOLT continued the fantastical elements that was started in Goldfinger, and much more bigger, OHMSS came all of a sudden, too early, sorry, but OHMSS came and arrived at the wrong time.
OHMSS could've probably worked in the later years, let's say in 90s or in the Craig Era, or maybe in the early 80s (think of FYEO), where people are more open minded about a change of pace in Bond, but not at the 6th film too early when people are just getting used to the idea of Bond as an inevitable hero, a male fantasy, an alpha male wish fulfillment.
Imagine if we have OHMSS in 1981, instead of FYEO (and FYEO was quite a success despite of the critics' response), it would've been more successful.
People in 1969 saw OHMSS as showing things that are perceived back then as an 'out of character' for Bond.
Yes, this is indeed an interesting and potentialy controvercial topic...
I might suggest that these days women with more voluptuous figures are the ones being penalised?
Dare I suggest that actresses like Caterina Murino / Gemma Arterton / Berenice Marlohe are more likely to be relegated to secondary Bond girls roles, rather than the Eva Green / Lea Seydoux type lead Bond girl roles, because modern specs dictate that a Bond girl should not look like a glamour model, or that girls with generous figures do not look intellegent or studious enough? (OK Ana de Armas and Lashana Lynch kind of blow my theory out of the water in many ways, but on the other hand they are not really secondary Bond girls, only fellow agents. There's also Camille Montes, but Craig-Bond doesn't sleep with her either)
BTW and apropos of nothing, I just read that Gemma Arterton was born with six fingers on each hand. Ideal qualifications to be cast as a Fleming-esque Bond villain rather than Strawberry Fields?
Gemma says “I was born with two extra fingers. There were no bones in them, just the fingers and the fingernails"
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.
I guess it’s fairly notable that despite the 70s Hamilton films arguably being the nadir of the series’ sexism, the actual female actors hired for those three were amongst the most talented to that point, they’re all good actors.
It's not that the more sexier ones are being sidelined, but often more that now, acting skills now more matters in Bond Girls than looks alone compared in the classic era that if they looked goo, whether they could portray the role well or not, they would get cast.
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.
She didn't have any facial expressions, her delivery of dialogues are one note, she delivered them as if she's reading the script straight while moving, and she's just flat throughout, her accent didn't sounded very Russian, just odd sounding, watching TSWLM, I think it all takes a one step and she's already a mannequin.
In terms of the character on paper, the only fault of it was that, the Anya Amasova character didn't do much, and was pretty much a damsel, but she's still interesting in that there's the revenge for her dead boyfriend angle, and I think it could've been portrayed more, but the complexity was never played well.
There's a lot of (female) Russian characters in the Bond series that I think played well like Xenia Onatopp, Natalya Simonova, Rosa Klebb, even Pola Ivanova, sure, there's that certain coldness, but not flat as Bach's portrayal of the character, Bach was certainly hired for her looks.
I agree about the Hamilton films, Jane Seymour, Britt Ekland, Jill St. John, Honor Blackman, all talented actresses, the other two are not given some decent materials to worked with (St. John and Ekland) but nonetheless, they've done all of what they could do to play what's written on the script.
She has great chemistry with Connery. The scenes where they pretend to be husband and wife are brilliant.