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
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
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)?
Hopkins made a Bond-esque movie and It was... weird.
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.
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.
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.
For all the faults that I see, I know I’d still rather watch him, and I do watch him more, than certain other Bond films and certain actors in the role. It’s a two things, or more, can be true at the same time, type of situation for me.
And the discussion I was having was more based on the argument that it wasn’t Lazenby that turned off the audiences in 1969, but more the tone of the film— and I strongly disagree with that perspective, and I think the general evidence would also back me up. That’s all. No offence was meant, especially for those who love George in the role.
In that case, I'm sorry that I overreacted. When it comes to George and Tim, the two most underrated 007's in my book, I can get perhaps a bit too passionate ;)
In any case, I'd say you're right about the audience's reaction, which you indeed did back up with articles to prove that point :)
So I fully understand where you’re coming from. No need to apologize!
No matter how much I adore this flick— and that ain’t hyperbole— I’d never take away someone else’s experience or try and force what I love about it onto anyone else.
I’ll defend my passion for it. But not to change one’s mind, but only to express what I feel and why I feel it.
In the end, all of this is subjective and based on personal truths, and that’s all.
All very true, @peter! I almost didn't bring this up in the thread because it's at least a slight bit off topic, but it just struck me so much by surprise that I had simply put the film in the drawer, so to speak, until now. But that's the charm with movies too, I guess. You find those films you adore and put on again and again, then there's the ones that disappoint you, and then there are the ones that you simply find forgetful. That was NTTD for me.
Fingers crossed for the next one!
Do you mean his Alastair McLean movie "When Eight Bells Toll"?
I think it's very good, not up to Bond standards, but very respectable for the time period it was made, and I was interested to see how Anthony would go in such a role.
Easily in the top half of Alastair McLean movies made, (which might not be saying that much)
The Guns of Navarone
Where Eagles Dare
When Eight Bells Toll
Puppet On A Chain (mainly for the boat chase)
Force 10 From Navarone
The Secret Ways
Fear Is The Key (for the car chase alone)
Ice Station Zebra
Golden Rendezvous
The Satan Bug
Caravan To Vacares
Bear Island
I mean, I can very much understand having fun with DAD (I actually don't think it's the worse Bond film or even as bad as some make it out to be, even if I can very much acknowledge its flaws!)
I wouldn't necessarily say it's a complete tonal departure, although it's a very 'unique' film in terms of the way it's made (ie. the occasional bizarre, slowed down shots and strange edits - very early 2000s I guess).
I personally think there's a great Bond film in there. Maybe a bit 'out there' with things like the gene therapy (although if done right I think that's a great idea for a villain) and invisible car. But it's not dissimilar to things we've seen in Bond before and since. The idea of Bond getting captured, tortured, and having to figure out what's happened on his own is a great concept for a Bond movie.
The first half is peak Bond and peak Brosnan with the exception being Madonnas song. Its when it gets to Iceland is when it becomes a CGI infused almost parody. And this is coming from someone who has MR as my 3rd favorite film in the series.
Yeah there are elements that I like about the film - it’s a weird one because of its editing, the Easter eggs, and some of the casting but I can’t say that I wasn’t entertained by the film overall. It’s kind of amusing that NTTD even references the film and has similar over the top elements - which I don’t think is a bad thing in Bond. It’s nice to have adventures that can be either down to earth/gritty, fantastical, or even a mixture of both!
You're not wrong, but I think that works for the character to be honest (well, not the accent, but it's hardly the only dodgy accent in Bond! :D ). I think she remains quite likeable and memorable in the film. I'd argue that Holly in the next movie is much better acted, and yet somehow much more forgettable. I think Bach has a bit of presence.
Sorry, I said Bianchi and I was actually thinking of Claudine Auger. You're right, Bianchi is good.
Although you can see Hopkins basically playing Bond in When Eight Bells Toll (it's on YouTube for free) and he makes a decent job of it. Kind of Richard Burton in Where Eagles Dare-ish performance.