George Lazenby handles the fight scenes better than any of the other Bond actors in my opinion. He seems really believable that he could actually beat up tough guys with his bare hands. If all the Bonds were to have a fist fight, my money would be on the George Lazenby Bond.
Hard disagree actually. Throwing wild uppercuts, looks like he's going to fall over every time he swings a haymaker it's the editing that makes him look good. There is no way he looks better than Daniel Craig in fight scenes anyone that says different doesn't know fighting.
@@RighteousBrother Craig has more aggressive and meticulous choreography, but if he stood next to Lazenby, he wouldn't look like the tougher character.
On a photographic and sonic level, OHMSS is a very, very special film; no other movie in the series approaches it (for me) in terms of a what it offers as a cinematic experience. The franchise lost something for a while when Peter Hunt departed. I like your description of it as a “Bond epic,” and I think that’s entirely correct. I can’t remember where I saw it, but somebody once referred to OHMSS as “the David Lean Bond film,” which suits what it’s attempting quite well. Re: Moore, I could see that easier than I could see Connery... but at the end of the day, I'm quite content with what Lazenby brought to the picture.
What I like most about Majesty's is it's attention to detail. I especially like Peter Hunt's direction, Michael Reed's cinematography, the ambitious and edgy editing, John Barry's excellent score, and of course Diana Rigg's performance. It's like this time they were really trying to make not only a great film, but one that is authentic to the source material. For a long time before and after this, the series did not have this mindset. That's what makes it so unique for it's time.
It's a shame that Hunt never returned to direct another Bond film as he was, I believe, the only key creative crew member to work on every Bond film up to that point.
@thechairman74 Peter was definitely a secret weapon. He really helped the pacing of From Russia With Love and did a lot for the 60s Bond films. He set out to make a great film. Mission accomplished.
He didn't pay attention to some details. Ignored that Bond and Blofeld met in the previous film. Τhe way he shows Bond and Tracy romance fits in a romantic movie, than a Bond film. Lazenby is relatively young, and director shows him vulnerable and inexperienced, as Bond in his early years. In novel as in the film, Bond is the opposite, is like Connery in ''You Only Live Twice''.
Thanks for making me want rewatch this again. I wish Hunt and Lazenby got another because they were laying the groundwork for something cool. But then we wouldn't have gotten the Hamilton \Mank trilogy and more importantly Roger Dianna Rigg is the best Bond girl. I can totally see Bond falling head over heels over her
And he was a fantastic bond just fantastic and I loved the bond girl. She was pretty and elegant and she can kick ass in her own right and I love the villain is pretty good too below field, and you can see when Bond met Tracy that he was falling in love with her, and she was falling in love with him. Kind of reminds me of that movie called the living daylights, and when the end credits rolled the song by the pretenders if there was a man I could ever love that George would be it. He match the description to a T, and when he was getting ready to put in his notice written by Moneypenny, he said a farewell to arms because he was getting ready to leave the service because he knew that he was in love, and he wanted to get married, and in the ending of the movie of on her Majesty Secret Service, I cried like a baby because I can see James Bond’s pain for saying the woman that he loves dead and when he said she is just sleeping really hurt me and when he said that “we have all the Time in the world oh my God that just made me feel sorry for him and feel sorry for Tracy because they just did not have all the Time in the world to live happily ever after
I really wish Lazenby would’ve done Bond for a few more years after that. I can imagine an alternative timeline where they could’ve done The Man with the Golden Gun and Diamonds are Forever as part of this Lazenby revenge arc in the same vein of Licence to Kill. I think it’s one of those great unknowns on par with what would happen if the Beatles stayed together into the 1970’s or if Walt Disney lived another decade. Certainly OHMSS is one of my favorite Bond adventures, especially because of that Swinging 60’s exuberance as well as how it gives Bond an emotional depth that didn’t really exist in the Connery era (and that’s coming from someone who is a huge Connery Bond fan).
A couple decades ago when I proclaimed OHMSS to be the finest film of the franchise I was consistently dissed for my opinion. Now, it looks like my insight has rather incredibly become validated over the years to the extent that it is the only film which was celebrated en masse for its half centenary anniversary. Lazenby was absolutely the Bond “that got away” and had he honored his 7 film contract he would have overshadowed the Connery era.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond Thank you. My long held opinion was “goosed” somewhat by my embracement of what I consider to be composer John Barry’s magnum opus. Fledgling director Peter Hunt spoke with Barry in pre-production, explaining how his “back was to the wall” and that he needed Barry to pull out all the stops-and wow, did he ever deliver!
Great insights and I'm really enjoying your channel. Possibly my favourite Bond movie. Beautifully shot, fantastic action and an incredible soundtrack. I love Lazenby's performance and it's such a shame he didn't do more. He has incredible tenderness but at the same time is very believable during the action and that shot of him sliding along the ice with a machine gun is incredibly bad ass! I recently showed my 10 year old the movie and during our chat afterwards he suddenly stopped me and said 'Wait that man wasn't an actor? He was incredible!' Awesome stuff. It's great to see the movie getting so much love these days. I think the snow section of Nolan's Inception is very much a reference and I personally enjoyed the callbacks in NTTD. Keep up the great work 👍👍
My all-time favorite Bond film. I often imagine growing up with his version of Bond instead of Roger Moore. The older I get, the more I appreciate Moore's Bond helping the character transition to what he is today. Lazenby and this film....it's the best.
I totally agree with your Moore opinion of him being in OHMSS. I actually wish Moore, being a big Moore fan, started with YOLT and then this onwards. Same as Dalton taking over at AVTAK. But I still accept Lazenby here so it’s fair enough.
Lazenby's Bond was the most vulnerable Bond and that it is not a criticism. He gave a valuable and different interpretation from the other five actors. I agree with you that he was to some extent in an impossible position after Connery.
Good video👍 I've always considered the abrupt inclusion of the bond theme after Tracy's demise as an intentional heightening of the coldness of the situation, a commentary on the coldness of the spy life, and that it spares no one, that in the end, Bond can only survive by dumping the things inconvenient to him without a second thought, and that to linger and get attached means death. It's sort of like the end credits of American Warewolf In London with Blue Moon suddenly cutting into the tragedy. Saying that certain 'film worlds' have no care for heart ache, that the ride stops for no one, etc. The bond theme and the bond lifestyle can almost trick us with it's lure and fantasy, but sometimes the snake can bite and yet the song plays on, coldly, like an automated ride we once thought we loved. (But we still do)
Reviewing OHMSS it seems all the more credible that Peter Hunt was singlehandedly, as film editor, responsible for resequencing FRWL after it was shot, creating the trope of the pretitle sequence, for example, and generally "saving the film," as the released laser disk commentaries emphasized. What a pleasure it is to hear you analyzing both DAF and OHMSS with such attention to both the scores by John Barry and the diegetic audiovisual, cinematic achievements by all involved. Barry continued his fruitful collaboration with the synthesizer in his wonderful main theme to "Orson Welles's Great Mysteries" (1973), which resolves on a great synthesizer chord like the main title to OHMSS. I don't even know yet whether you bring that up. I am still watching your essay. Many thanks!
OHMSS was grounded by the novel. It follows the Fleming story pretty faithfully. Tracy died at the end of the novel. The film was very redemptive for both Tracy and Bond making the ending more crushing to the audience, especially those not familiar with the book. They had gone off the reservation with You Only Live Twice as far as the Fleming books went. OHMSS was a great recalibration for Eon. Unfortunately, for me, they didn't make another good Bond film until The Living Daylights. Self parody killed the series for me.
I'm a fan of the Moore era, but it definitely was a change of pace from the more literal Fleming adaptations. (That said, I think Moore's era still has plenty of Flemingesque touches.)
Part of Connery interview in Playboy November 1965 PLAYBOY: In any case, ''Dr. No'' turned out to be a hit, and you found yourself under contract for a series ... exactly what you said you wanted to avoid. CONNERY: Yes ... but it allows me to make other films, and I have only two more Bonds to do. PLAYBOY: Which ones? CONNERY: ''On Her Majesty's Secret Service'' and possibly ''You Only Live Twice''. They would like to start ''On Her Majesty's Secret Service'' in Switzerland in January (1966), but I'm not sure I'll be free in time and I don't want to rush it, although they say the snow will be at its best then. I'm not going to rush anything anymore. PLAYBOY: We'll be looking forward to both films ... especially since we were fortunate enough to serialize both books exclusively prior to their hardcover publication. Do you think the success of the series will continue to snowball? CONNERY: Well, it's a healthy market and it has been maintained because each succeeding film has got bigger and the gimmicks trickier. But we have to be careful where we go next, because I think with ''Thunderball'' we've reached the limit as far as size and gimmicks are concerned. In ''Thunderball'' we have Bond underwater for about 40 percent of the time, and there is a love scene underwater, and attacks by aquaparas from the sky, and two-man submarines under the sea, and Bond is menaced by sharks. Instead of the Aston Martin we have a hydrofoil disguised as a cabin cruiser, and Bond escapes with a self-propelling jet set attached to his back. So all the gimmicks now have been done. And they are expected. What is needed now is a change of course ... more attention to character and better dialogue.
I think Roger debuting in OHMSS is one of the most fascinating "What Ifs?" posed in the Bond franchise. Especially when you consider the layers it would add to his performance in LALD & TMWTGG. The former in particular with the lyrics of the opening song feeling incredibly apt given the ending of OHMSS. Callous & downright mean, until he meets his female equals later in TSWLM & MR. Same could be said of Dalton being the Bond of all the John Glen directed films in the 80s, which have an "avenging angel" element to each, where Bond enacts righteous retribution on anyone that crosses his allies, & despite trying to steer Melina away from revenge in FYEO, ends the decade on his own personal vendetta in LTK. Giving each actor a pentalogy throughout at least a decade may have been the secret sauce that wasn't quite tapped into until Craig came along. Thanks for inspiring fascinating discussions. 😎🤝
First and foremost, love this analysis Ryan, and I'm looking forward to part 2! OHMSS is an excellent film. I didn't watch it till later in my Bond journey (probably about mid teens), and didn't really come to appreciate it until the last 10 years. I think that aside from a few pacing issues (Bond in disguise at Piz Gloria and the sped up footage at the beach fight), and some tonal issues (Bond theme playing after Tracy's death), I think it's top tier cinema. Peter Hunt was really ahead of his time. A friend recently recommend a few of his 1970s/80s films, so I'll likely be diving into those. I really think that the cinematography/shots/editing make this film feel so current. I like Lazenby a lot. People will call his performance all sorts of things, but I think that he really did a great job. Really, I think that everyone turns in a great performance in this film. I'll hold off on gushing about the acting, but I will foreshadow that I've got a signed Telly Savalas Blofeld headshot hung up in my house. The Barry score is fantastic in this film. I'd put it up there with FRWL and TLD for his best scores. I think that the very 60's synth sound to it really works. I've mentioned before that I've been exposing my GF to the Bond films over our two years of dating. We've done most of the Craig films, most of the Brosnan films, half of the Moore films, and TLD. Well, we also watched OHMSS, and that was tied with Casino Royale as her favorite. I think it really has staying power as a film. As always, thanks for the discussion Ryan! Thank you for your time, and have a great weekend!
Well done Ryan, you have a great ability to articulate yourself perfectly. Highly enjoyable video, with a great perspective on arguably one of the Best Bond movies.
Director George Seaton to actor Edmund Gwenn lying in his death bed: “This must be terribly difficult for you.” Gwenn's famous response: "Dying is easy; comedy is hard."
I purchased Raymond Benson's "James Bond Bedside Companion" in 1985, and he wrote very favorably of OHMSS. Several months later, ABC ran OHMSS, and I loved it the first time I saw it. The main thing I like is how close it was to Ian Fleming's novel.
Really glad to have shared with you my thoughts on this movie and it to me being kinda the Empire Strikes back of the series for it having a more down to earth story and an unlikely ending. Also, both movies have locations set in a snowy area :) 15:37 YEEEES, its certanly feels like it wants to go back to that, especially after having 3 big action movies, rather than going bigger, theyve earned them selves to do something different. Infact.......Imagine if Terrance Young came back and did this movie ;) 20:33 I love where this is going, BRILLIANT!!!! I mean the movie like a few other Bond movies deserves to be in the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress, as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" and yes 19:25 I agree, hahah takes me out of the moment sadly
Great video as always! I like your Roger Moore idea - I see that, that would have been great! Interestingly I think this was the first point that a young Timothy Dalton was approached about the role…George is excellent in the final scene, but it’s a mixed bag before then for me…but it’s a really difficult role and the dubbing during the 60’s sex comedy section doesn’t help, and I think he struggles during the protracted “I am Bond - no really I am - look at my props while I try and resign” section…great that by Living Daylights we can just have a push in on a windswept hillside and we KNOW that’s Bond. I find it a slightly tragic irony that Connery always spoke of the films getting too outlandish and no longer about the character - and he ended up leaving just as he could have gone back to something closer to the earlier films with more of the obvious acting stuff that actors get excited about…and ended up returning in the film some refer to as the first Roger Moore Bond - Diamonds Are Forever…Anyhoo - look forward to part 2!
And… Once again, you have nailed it. I have to say I’ve watched I think every video you’ve posted and I’ve only disagreed with you once. I did not comment on my disagreement with you because you are very thoughtful and I completely understood where you were coming from. So there was no point in that one case. However, you are solidly back on track with this response! This has always been and will always be one of my favorite Bond movies of all time. It is so true to the book. I think this one, Casino, Royale, and Thunderball are the closest to the books you will ever get in a movie. I’m actually glad This movie was so underrated for so long because I picked up an original movie poster for On Her Majesty’s Secret Service at a Star Trek convention of all places for $11!! It’s now worth well let’s just say a lot and I’m so glad I have it. I actually also like the fact that he’s really not a movie star. James Bond is a secret agent! In the books, the fact that he’s able to blend into the background in so many situations is what makes him so cool. But the 60s were wild and the Austin Powers movies were right in lampooning that aspect of ridiculous over-the-top nonsense. The only other person I can see having played this part is Timothy Dalton. He had been offered the role many years before he finally played the role and himself turned it down because he thought he was too young. But just an interesting thought to throw out there. I loved this movie. Thank you for this review. About four or five years ago, I got a chance to see this in the theater in Glendale, and it was hosted by George Lazenby himself. Along with an author who wrote a book about all the James Bond movie scores and I’m sorry I can’t remember his name, but it was a fantastic evening. To see that movie on the big screen with that bigger than life soundtrack playing very loudly in the theater is something I will never forget. Thanks for doing this review. Yes you need to do a part two and maybe even a part three!! One final fantasy thought and this is a total joke but if they run out of titles, they can now use On His Majesty’s Secret Service. Cheers once again Ryan good work!
My personal favorite James Bond movie and actually one of my favorite movies of all time. There are other Bond movies that I think may be better made or have better elements but this is the one I can enjoy over and over again without fail. I remember the first time I saw this on TV as a kid and I thought it was great at the time. Every time I see it I only appreciate it more despite some flaws. The brutal ending made me understand Bond’s character better than any other film (of the pre-Craig era)
My Top 10: 1965, 1967, 1969, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1995. * Great video, as always! OHMSS(1969) is definitely a very unique James Bond film! 1969 was a remarkable year in itself! And George Lazenby was a great James Bond! * By the way, ironically, I don't love OHMSS(1969) necessarily because of that love/marriage stuff. I love primarily direction(Peter R. Hunt), cinematography(Michael Reed. One of the best looking Bond movies ever), music, even editing... And of course: action! Superb scenes: "Gumbold's Safe", "Arrival to Piz Gloria", "Dinner in the Alpine Room", "Bond meets Blofeld", "Attacking Piz Gloria". * But yes, that marriage is... how to say correctly: IRRESPONSIBLE!!! I don't think a secret agent should ever get married! Hey: what happened to Della in LTK(1989)!? Felix didn't learn from Bond's mistakes either... It's one thing to risk your own life, but it's much worse to put your loved ones in danger....................
I'm a hardcore Connery fan, but I loved OHMSS the first time I saw it in 1969 (thanks in no small part to John Barry's wonderful score). It eventually became one of my two favorite Bond films (along with FRWL).
I wish I watched this in London and I could have talked to you about it in person but so busy. I saw OHMSS very late, in the mid 90s, and my delay was because of my prejudice towards Connery. When I finally did see this film on recommendation of a Bond buddy, I was blown away! It instantly became one of my favorites but for Lazenby himself. I loved the film, hated him for years because of all of the reasons you just stated on how he was not Connery... And then I read the book during the covid lockdown and I was again blown away because it became quite clear that he was not doing Connery's Bond but actually doing Fleming's Bond. Hunt had him portraying the character almost exactly as he was in the book and my opinion of Lazenby's performance completely flipped! Now I don't think he was the best Bond by far but I know realize he doing a very different portrayal and I was able to see some of the brilliant dramatic moments he was able to pull off. You are absolutely right about his dramatic acting and although some of the jokes were awkward, tonally he was always on point as the young playboy Bond that Fleming had in all the books prior to this one when Bond starts his slow decent into darkness. Also this film needed a younger Bond to make the romance with Tracy more believable. I too feel that although older, Roger Moore might have been able to pull this film off as well. As usual great analysis and this I agree with you on all points! I know, boring...
Thank you, my friend! I am glad you didn't take time to distract yourself from your trip with my video! I can't compete with what that weekend had to offer.
I've always seen "This never happened to the other fella" as George Lazenby speaking to the audience not James Bond. As for the pacing, there is a large middle section where there is no action but when the action comes its pretty much non stop. This is my favourite Bond movie by a country mile and I enjoyed your analysis.
Shame they didn’t decide to have the wedding in the UK as Blofeld and Bunt wouldn’t have been able to get into the country. I think though having the death being in the first scene in the next movie might still have taken some of the spark off the previous movie (OHMSS) or worse, it’s the same day/event so it’s the same scenario as the real movie as you know the day doesn’t have a happy ending but don’t even see it in the movie. Totally agree about the Bond music immediately hitting at the end. It’s like telling you to move on emotionally from what you’ve just witnessed because you’ve got another entertaining Bond mission on the way, bit harsh.
Since I almost always watch the Bond films in their dubbed German version, I get a different actor "playing" Bond on top of the original performance each time. That can worsen the act but also smooth out some of the rougher edges. It can even make an actor seem better! So when English speakers say that Lazenby's line delivery was off or wooden - I trust their word for the original version, sure - but it's not the perfomance I saw. 😄
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond Well... unique, so long as we exclude the other six million or so Germans, who will watch a Bond flick every once in a while. 😉
The Bond movies were played on TV so much when I was younger too. Majesty's was often forgotten about and didn't get nearly as many showings. Diamonds and Never say Never also fall into that category but weren't quite as ignored. We had most of the Moore ones recorded off TV so I could watch them on a whim. Lazenby did make Bond his own, he didn't try to emulate Connery and that has to be respected. As well as him being his own Bond this movie had a different tone and rhythm. I'm not sure how to interpret the props from the Connery movies, perhaps this is a more modern and cynical way of looking at things to say it was an unnecessary or even forced appeal to nostalgia. Nostalgia probably isn't the best word as it hadn't been long enough. Lazenby deserved a second shot but I'm not sure if the Bond era was ready to move down a darker path at that time. Dalton had that grittier edge and I thought Bond was ready for that. Though both of Dalton's movies were solid movies, Licence to Kill really capitalised on that darker tone. These videos and the points you raise are so stimulating.
I can only remember one time OHMSS was run on ABC-TV, which had the exclusive rights to the Bond movies. It was split into two parts, and opened with the ski chase from Piz Gloria. Then Bond (via a Connery-sounding voice over) started telling the audience how he was in a tough spot, and here's how he got there, leading to an extended flashback. So far as I know, it wasn't shown in its original form until the cable era.
My number 1 favorite Bond film 💯 percent. The first one to really break and shake up the formula, and be severely penalized for it before redemption. Yes, even I was jarred by this film when I first saw it as a kid. I liked it, but had a difficult time figuring it out. Bond movies are supposed to have a set of formulaic rules, and this one broke several of them. It's equivalent to assembling puzzle pieces, and you come across that one piece that seems it doesn't fit anywhere, when in actuality, it does, and it guides you to cracking the rest of the frame, lol. With Lazenby, some fans still believe he was too similar to Connery, a straight up clone. But that's too much of a dismissive critique. Connery influenced all his predecessors of course, but so did Lazenby. He was the first to show extensive anger and defiance to M (something the later three Bonds would do frequently), the first to show true tenderness and strong emotional attachment to a Bond girl (you see it variously in Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig), and the first Bond to cry (Craig, and arguably Dalton with Felix and Della). Lazenby's also, imo, the best fighter of all the Bond actors. He has a very athletic, ballet-like flow to his movements (helped no doubt by being a trained martial artist in real life 🥋). Yes, he can come across as awkward in some scenes, but most of the Bond actors do in the first outing (Brosnan sometimes does in a few scenes in GoldenEye for example). And like thos others, George would've found his footing in more films. But you're right Ryan that Lazenby totally nails it in the last scene when cradling Tracy's corpse. You definitely feel the gravity of it all. Even if I watch that scene alone, I start to well up, lol. The back-to-basics of Diamonds Are Forever certainly robbed us of a great revenge flick. Could Connery have pulled it off? Maybe, and it still would depend on his mood at the time for the films, regardless of this one being grounded and without the "hardware." I'd use "Robin and Marian" as evidence. And Moore could have as well, I agree. "The Man Who Haunted Himself" shows that Roger had remarkable range. But this film really does belong to George, and it's great people are seeing that both he and the movie have influenced countless other films, both within and outside the series.
Sure, it would have been a great movie with Connery....but we got Connery's polar opposite, and that's the reality. But people love to salvage things that were discarded by the unwashed...
I thought I read somewhere that, in some EU work, Bond eventually tracks down and kills her. But I'm not sure; I haven't found anything to confirm that.
Irma Bunt turns up in the novel of “You Only Live Twice” which details the fallout from Tracy’s death. The films shot themselves in the foot by adapting YOLT before OHMSS. Elements of the YOLT novel turn up in “No Time To Die”
I was born in 1994, and when I was young I would sometimes hear that the film wasn’t entirely liked, but I always felt that it was excellent, and even though it isn’t my favorite, I still think it is the greatest of the franchise.
I also watched OHMSS a little later because it was that black sheep, and a bit of ignorance on my part thinking well George Lazenby only got one movies so it must not have been that good a blip in the usual pattern like Never Say Never Again, the David Niven Casino Royale or Diamonds are Forever. However, I was pleasantly surprised it was sweeping as you say we get to see a lot of Bond in different situations, I love the romance between him and Tracy from start to finish. I especially love the scene where he is in a difficult situation and suddenly Tracy appears to save him. The main part where this movie falls short is in the villain story. The sudden swing of the film to the villain, having George play Bond pretending to be some heritage expert and the fact Blofeld doesn't immediately recognize him is a little too much. I do like the mountainous setting/lair but I feel the whole charade of Bond going undercover could have been done differently and used Tracy in some way.
I like the movie. Gives the best reason for him to never want to marry. Also…I like George Lazenby way better than Roger Moore as Bond. Yeah, I said it
Great film- well analysed- picking up on your point on unevenness In this film which you also highlighted in Moonraker- I couldn't agree more with you that it doesn't spoil your enjoyment of a film . Many critics seem to get hung up on it. It's good to hear someone else articulate this.
In the early 80s, the only way I could watch Bond films is when they played on the ABC network. I remember one night skipping out on a Boy Scout event so I could watch On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I was a beyond disappointed 10 year old. The whole film felt weird to me. Plus, who was this guy playing Bond? He wasn't very good! 40-something years later, OHMSS is one of my absolute favorite Bond films! It follows the Fleming book fairly closely. It is also the first "non-fun" Bond film. Not saying that it lacks cool action sequences, but this is the first Bond film that approaches him like a more 3-dimensional character. He falls in love! For audiences more used to the Connery era, OHMSS may be a bitter pill to swallow. That said, it really presaged the Daniel Craig era of Bond. In 1969 audiences were probably not ready for that. They wanted to fun, quip-dropping, martini-drinking ladies man to take them on an escapist adventure for a couple of hours. Probably the film's biggest weakness is Lazenby's lack of acting ability. This was his first film, and you can tell that Diana Rigg totally outclasses him in the acting department. It is kind of telling, she's literally been knighted for her contributions to stage and screen, while Lazenby was a male model prior to Bond, with no acting experience. You could tell he struggled next to her. Now, where does this film sit inside of Bond canon continuity? You'd think that Blofeld (who suddenly became American) would recognize that "Sir Hilary Bray" is simply Bond with some fake eyebrows. Not once does Blofeld mention "So, you were that guy who blew up my Japan volcano and ruined my plan to start a nuclear war two years ago." Neither does Bond mention, "How's the volcano, Earnst?" This really implies that OHMSS exists in its own isolated timeline, where Bond has yet to meet Blofeld. But, in 1977's The Spy Who Loved Me and 1981's For Your Eyes Only, it is established that the events from this film happened in the main timeline. My response is, it's just a movie series....don't think too hard about it!
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond To make things more awkward, Diamonds Are Forever ignores the events of this film totally. It's more a direct sequel to You Only Live Twice. To paraphrase MST3K, "Just repeat to yourself it's just a movie, I should really just relax."
I would have loved a Roger Moore OHMSS. Considering his work in The Saint as you said, I feel like he would genuinely pull it off. If you haven't seen it. The last episode of Season 2 shows some very very good range for Moore and having a romantic interest. Seeing Moore in The Saint makes me wish we did see a more consistently harder edge Moore Bond.
(The following comment is to be read in the vouce of Sean Connery). "i am delighted to learn there are others who have love for this film... even if these others insist on pronouncing 'Aluminium' and 'lever' incorrectly!" 🇬🇧😉🇺🇲
It is my favourite Bond movie and has always been (my first time seeing Bond in the cinema was Goldfinger). I have also always liked George Lazenby in the role. I think he pulled it off better than any of the other Bond actors could have, except perhaps for Timothy Dalton.
It would be with peak Connery. Yes, I tried to watch the whole thing over and over again, but there was always some point where I was so annoyed by his acting that I stopped watching. Last time was the moment when he, disguised as a noble Snoob, bores for a eternity about heraldry.
By 1967, Sean Connery was really fed up. I like YOLT(1967) very much. But you can clearly see, that Connery is operating at 50% capacity. So, Connery in OHMSS(1969)? I don't know... I have "accepted" George's participation. I didn't like George in the past(even 20 years ago). But now I see: he's a damn good James Bond!❤
@@renekauts8323 I mean the Dr. No Connery for this movie. But what a good moive it would be if Bond was played there, by Brosnan. I always look at it from that perspective. Ok it must be in a 90s version of this.
@@renekauts8323 Connery who was really fed up and operating at 50% capacity, is the character of Bond here. An agent tired of his job, finds happiness in love and marriage.
I agree with you. I don't relate to the (mostly) recent love for this movie. Tough to watch in one sitting. For me, it's a middle of the road Bond at best.
It made about as much money as FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE did, but on a significantly higher budget. It was definitely a big dip in the series' box office trajectory that indicated something of a lukewarm audience reception.
In an alternate universe...OHMSS and YOLT would have been adapted (from the novels) as a _two-parter_ - in order of publication, of course (Connery most definitely would have been capable of portraying a quasi-sensitive iteration of Bond; he showed that part of his repertory in Marnie, after all).
Re: MARNIE - to a point. He's a predatory character there. But Connery certainly had it in him to be romantic. I'm just not sure how well that pivot would've worked immediately following GOLDFINGER or THUNDERBALL.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond I don't believe that would've worked after ''Goldfinger'' or ''Thunderball''. O.H.M.S.S. comes at the right time. After the very innovative effects in ''You Only Live Twice'' - like ''For Your Eyes Only'' after ''Moonraker'' - and mainly when the messages are ''make love, not war'' and ''all you need is love''. Has the right actors to the other roles (better for Blofeld is Yul Brynner), but not in Bond. Here Bond is not relatively young, vulnerable and infinite, but a mature man with experience, like the actors to the other roles. Connery in ''You Only Live Twice'' is the character of Bond here. An agent tired of his job, finds happiness in love and marriage. Peter Hunt did a great job, but plot is more like a romantic movie, and ignored Bond and Blofeld metting in previous film. With Connery, Bond and Tracy romance would be like him and Bardot in ''Shalako''. After Connery here, I believe to Stanley Baker. th-cam.com/video/vstr-jhCjVY/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/cw95BwoB0zE/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/Q1EADjxkIUs/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/EL6NSDUEqtM/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/6EewkHMgYsg/w-d-xo.html
Most things about this film are splendid - except for the lead role (mirror image of Licence to Kill; the lead and his sidekicks are splendid, whereas production value is subpar)🎥🤔
Saw this film as a kid, always remember liking it. However, when I got the bluray a while back, I was disappointed with the ending scene I remembered vs the one on the disc; I think it was a special cut for television broadcast, but after bond says "we have all the time in the world..." It freeze cuts on the bullet whole in the windshield and the slow theme song of the same name plays as the credits roll over that frame. It's poignant. The official ending where it cuts to the Union Jack and the bond brassy fanfare comes on seems very jarring and inappropriate by comparison. Wish they used the tv ending on the Blu-ray.
Although Lazenby received much support from Broccoli and Saltzman, he had a less easy ride from the board of United Artists who were none too keen to see him take over the mantle of Bond. On 7 July 1968, test footage of Lazenby and Rigg had been sent to United Artists in New York - and the were less than impressed by what they saw. On 23 September 1968, UA's head man David Picker even flew into London, desperate to tempt Connery back into the fold. But Connery was adamant that he wasn't coming back - EON and UA had made him a star and Connery was now a major player, capable of picking only the roles that interested him. And at this moment, Bond simply didn't interest him at all. It was only reluctantly that UA accepted EON's recommendation that Lazenby be given the part (ΜΙ6 Production Notes - On Her Majesty's Secret Service).
Most of Lazenby's quips were clearly added in ADR. Either his face isn't visible when they are spoken, or his lips don't sync or even move. Did Hunt want a more sober, serious Bond, but either Broccoli / Saltzman or United Artists insist that the traditional one liners be added? When I was young I thought Lazenby was a poor stand-in for Connery, but as the decades have passed I have to admit that he's often very good for someone who had never acted before. I now think Lazenby certainly had real potential in the role. I'm just not convinced he had the focus and discipline (like Errol Flynn) to mine that potential in subsequent Bond films.
I agree with you and many other Bond fans that I have come to enjoy OHMSS and to really like it despite a lot of awkwardness both in terms of how it fits into the overall Bond canon. It is brought down by some story and writing problems, in addition to Lazenby's acting inexperience. However that inexperience does become a strength in that he sells the romance with Tracy much more strongly than Connery would have. it's a benefit that he's a new Bond and he happens to meet the only woman whom he marries. We aren't weighed by Connery's experiences and his past approaches to women. Lazenby is younger than Connery and his Bond just seems younger and more open to marriage, while Connery's never seemed to. Also, one benefit is that Lazenby's lower profile allowed Savalas to ham it up and chew scenery as he is wont to do, and it would have been far more awkward to do with Connery. Now the scenes would have been great but I don't know if they would felt the same.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond So here's the interesting thing. The original plan was to film OHMSS after Thunderball. In the end credits of TB, it even says that James Bond will return in OHMSS and then in YOLT. They were going to stick with the Blofeld trilogy that Fleming wrote. However, I think some problems with not enough snow in the Alps or the wrong season or something caused them to change plan and go with YOLT. The problem is that they broke up the trilogy and OHMSS feels like a more natural follow up to TB. Both films follow the books closely with OHMSS the more faithful, whereas YOLT has no resemblance to the book other than the Japan setting and a few characters. Plus YOLT book has the revenge aspect whereas the revenge for Tracy's death now falling awkwardly onto the returning Connery. Connery probably didn't want to have anything to do with picking Lazenby's story. In fact if you never knew about OHMSS and went straight from YOLT to DAF, you could be forgiven for assuming Bond was just looking for Blofeld because he's Blofeld.
Well he’s my favorite 007, for the simple reason that he emulated Ian Fleming’s fictional super spy better than anyone, with the possible exception of Timothy Dalton.
I went into OHMSS about as hostile as you can, I love Connery and I remember hearing Lazenby talking smack about Connery calling in the stuntmen for everything, so going in I was pretty primed to be pissed. But, I think it's a fine Bond Film and one I suspect will grow on me as time goes on. The Score alone is amongst the very best in the series, if not the best. Lazenby is the weakest part but I don't know if Connery's Bond could believably fall in love. Dalton or Brosnan could have fit nicely in a serious romance. As for Moore, if this had been his first outing, I think he would have done quite well and who knows it may have sent Moore's Bond and the series as a whole in a very different direction.
Saying this as a 60 year old, and Bond watcher all my life, OHMSS was most certainly considered the best in show even when I was young. True, it was not considered the smash success of those before and after it, but to Bond movie aficionados, even in the 1970’s and ‘80’s the film was up there with From Russia With Love as the most interesting, even finest all around outing, even while Lazenby was no one’s favorite 007..
Regarding the sorrowful conclusion of the film, well this WAS 1968, post-Blow Up/Bonnie and Clyde, and for years afterwards so many, if not most, films had sad and/or enigmatic finales (Cool Hand Luke, Planet of the Apes, Midnight Cowboy, Love Story, The French Connection, The Godfather, on and on and on…even a romantic comedy like The Sterile Cuckoo. Happy endings really had to earn it, unlike movies of the past 30 years or so. So not surprising that even a James Bond popcorn movie reflected that serious period of “New Wave” cinema
I think the music score is arguably the best in the whole series, the first ski chase in the series and hands down the best Bond leading lady. So GL was just a model. But he was okay. He would have made a good JB had he stuck to it. This was a good movie. Not a DB5 btw. It was a DBS. Ironically that car was also a transition model for Aston Martin. It has the old inline 6 cylinder from the DB4/5/6 in the V8 body but before the intended engine was ready. Cheerio!
Yes, Moore's Bond had more levity but let's not forget in his 2nd movie, Golden Gun, he forcefully slaps Maude Adams down onto a bed and continues to threaten her more (something that I don't think even Craig's Bond has done), although when seen in context is not gratuitous but a reminder to the audience that this Bond character, like Connery's Bond, means business. Years later in For Your Eye's Only, we do see a rare somber scene when he visits the grave of Tracy marking the beginning of the end of Blofeld and makes one hell of a satisfying if long awaited ending of the Bond-Blofeld battle. However critics of the Lazenby-Bond has the unprecedented advantage of referencing just one Bond movie he ever made without the benefit of many more Bond performances. And from that angle, I would say he does a stellar job. Here's a thought: I now think of the Lazenby OHMSS as a prequel to Dr. No because Lazenby-Bond starts off as a younger and less physically developed Bond-a newly minted 007, he is a bit more naive than Connery-Bond, is more taken with beautiful women-indeed gets married. Now after the shocking death of Tracy, you can now see how his Bond turns into a much colder and more ruthless Connery-Bond and thus you get Dr. No and all the rest of his movies. Sound plausible?
As a teen, I actually thought OHMSS was a prequel. However, the obvious references to at least 3 other films (Dr. No, FRWL, & TB) with the mementos scene makes its effectiveness as a prequel moot.
In terms of OHMSS being disjointed - and I say this as a massive fan of the film - I've always felt like the two separate strands of OHMSS - the Tracey/Draco elements of the story, and the Blofeld/SPECTRE elements - feel like two completely different films. The opening section - one of the best passages in all the Bond films I think - feels like a grounded, noirish crime drama/romance, whereas once we go into the Swiss Alps, the film shifts into the more familiarly outlandish and escapist terrain of the previous Bond films.
During my first phase of Bond mania when I was about ten or eleven, I instantly rejected Lazenby for some reason. He just WASN'T Bond for me - and I didn't engage with OHMSS so much as a result. Of course, over the years my opinion changed somewhat, to the point that I'm almost tempted to put Lazenby third in my rankings after Connery and Dalton, if his tenure wasn't so prematurely aborted. Lacking the instant charisma of Connery, Moore, and Dalton, his appeal as Bond is somewhat more of a slow-burn that requires a few viewings to get into. Having hated his looks as a kid, I now think he looks somewhat like a younger, leaner Cary Grant as Bond - and his lean, wiry physicality onscreen really suits the kinetic editing rhythms Hunt employs in OHMSS. He plays Bond very much like the classic Michael Mann archetype - a self-sufficient, hyper-competent lone wolf who nevertheless has a hidden vulnerability which he will only share with one person. This is part of the reason why the last scene remains such a heart-rending gut-punch - in the universe of the film, Tracey is the only person that Bond will ever let through his shell. Lazenby clearly isn't quite fully developed as an actor in OHMSS, but considering that his acting experience was basically zero prior to it, the performance seems oddly impressive taken in context - its tantalizing and frustrating to think how good he might have been had be made it to three Bonds.
I really enjoyed the first hour but found the last hour incredibly boring. Needed some serious editing. I see Lazenby as a 00 agent but not as Bond. Very solid film but I understand why people disregard it. It feels very out of step with the rest of the series. Tracy's death should have been Connery's moment. Not Lazenby's fault obviously but that had to be the one moment in the series that was Connery's.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond I would have loved to have seen Lazenby in MI6 world films as say 008 or 009, even alongside Connery as Bond, but I don't see Lazenby as Bond. I try hard but I can't.
I agree with you. There's just something off about it. And you're right about the editing, it could have easily been tightened up with an under two hour run time.
Good content! But on some points I disagree with OHMSS's original perception as being a "failure." I saw the movie in 1969 and fondly remember audience members on the edge of their seats. Had George Lazenby not fallen to stupidity and done his second Bond film, OHMSS reputation would have risen earlier. Instead, of course, it became that odd one sandwiched between two Connery blockbusters starring "what's his name?". There also seems to be some Mandella Effect in regards to OHMSS's box office. Domestically it ranked at #11. Less than YOLT but still impressive for a Bond film starring an unknown, "one and done" actor. It was more popular than The Living Daylights which most considered a solid hit.
"Failure" versus "success" is always defined in context. OHMSS was profitable enough to justify a follow-up, but it performed significantly below where the past few Bond movies had been. Dalton's debut, on the other hand, moderately outperformed its immediate predecessor.
@AnalyzeThisMisterBond Fair enough. One person's "success" can be another's failure, especially when it supports a narrative (Sorry. You can argue I am guilty of this as well). But what is interesting is that YOLT made significantly less than Thunderball. A downward trend even in the Connery Era. I leave it at that. Arguing Bond with another passionate Bond fan is fun!
@AnalyzeThisMisterBond There were eight other double-O agents: I would have created a new character for George to play: 004, for example. Robert Orr. (Inspiration for this name? One of my favorite hockey players, Bobby Orr, who, by the way, was in the NHL from 1966 to 1979.
Do you get what CANON is? This film was made by the EON team, *planning Lazenby to replace Connery* - unlike Sean's NON-CANON 'Never Say Never Again' when Roger Moore was true Bond.
Its follow-up, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, does not reference it explicitly, but picks up with Bond hunting down the antagonist of OHMSS, Blofeld. Bond's wife, Tracy, is mentioned a few films later, in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, and then FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and LICENCE TO KILL. NO TIME TO DIE references OHMSS by calling back to dialogue and using the same Louis Armstrong song.
it wasn't a failure far from it lazenby just had very big trousers to wear the real travesty was how roger boore almost killed the series he made 7' of the franchise movies and only # 3' and # 5' were any good most of the way under 40' crowd don't get HMSS
Actually, in my experience, it's predominantly the older Bond fans who still hold an extreme prejudice against the film and especially Lazenby in the role. The younger fans are way more open to his interpretation of Bond.
No he's a terrible actor. Stiff and he's wooden. The movie also came out bad because of the a&r and special effects. People would laugh at this movie if they saw it today. The idea of him acting is a homosexual is of course dated and absurd. This is really more like a James coburn Bond or Woody Allen Bond surrounded by beautiful women in a room and have them giggle. But I don't want to say that the screenplay was terrible. Actually a good idea, and the love story and tragedy could have been good as well.
OK, so, here's a thing, work out how you'd introduce each Bond film to a newbie by summarising what the villain's plot is, and then tell me OHMSS is a good one. There are great sequences in OHMSS, but they are utterly buried in goofy nonsense. OHMSS is not good despite the good stuff in it. It's like a banoffee pie but it's been made with cabbage instead of bananas. OHMSS ws trying to take Bond into the world of Bond spoofs, IMHO, it makes for a discordant, jarring smorgasbord.
We can agree that it's a smorgasbord that has some odd pairings, but, for me, OHMSS captures a fuller range of what I'd want a James Bond "meal" to offer than nearly any other Bond movie! But, keep in mind, I often enjoy "goofy nonsense," as you put it. The stuff in Piz Gloria here is very entertaining for me!
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond Sure, I also enjoy Jason King and Flint, it's just the goofy feels like a whole other film that's been welded in post. It's really tricky to see it as a coherent film, given, for example, on one level it's about JB meeting his equal, falling in love, leaving his life, then there's a huge sequence where the gag is just how many teenage girls he can shag before he runs out of energy. It's not my least favourite Bond, that'd be DAF. It just has major structural issues. Can't object to anyone saying they really enjoy it, Yubi Yu and all that, but, the idea it's secretly very well made, no. I have suspicions it was going to be it's own spoof but they changed their mind halfway through and couldn't lose the silly.
George Lazenby handles the fight scenes better than any of the other Bond actors in my opinion. He seems really believable that he could actually beat up tough guys with his bare hands. If all the Bonds were to have a fist fight, my money would be on the George Lazenby Bond.
Mine too.
Hard disagree actually. Throwing wild uppercuts, looks like he's going to fall over every time he swings a haymaker it's the editing that makes him look good. There is no way he looks better than Daniel Craig in fight scenes anyone that says different doesn't know fighting.
@@RighteousBrother Craig has more aggressive and meticulous choreography, but if he stood next to Lazenby, he wouldn't look like the tougher character.
He's very good in the fight scenes.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond
Craig would look like Jimmy Krankie beside Lazenby 😂😂😂😂
On a photographic and sonic level, OHMSS is a very, very special film; no other movie in the series approaches it (for me) in terms of a what it offers as a cinematic experience. The franchise lost something for a while when Peter Hunt departed.
I like your description of it as a “Bond epic,” and I think that’s entirely correct. I can’t remember where I saw it, but somebody once referred to OHMSS as “the David Lean Bond film,” which suits what it’s attempting quite well.
Re: Moore, I could see that easier than I could see Connery... but at the end of the day, I'm quite content with what Lazenby brought to the picture.
What I like most about Majesty's is it's attention to detail. I especially like Peter Hunt's direction, Michael Reed's cinematography, the ambitious and edgy editing, John Barry's excellent score, and of course Diana Rigg's performance. It's like this time they were really trying to make not only a great film, but one that is authentic to the source material. For a long time before and after this, the series did not have this mindset. That's what makes it so unique for it's time.
It really does cherish the source material.
It's a shame that Hunt never returned to direct another Bond film as he was, I believe, the only key creative crew member to work on every Bond film up to that point.
@@thechairman74 Yes, besides composer John Barry at least.
@thechairman74 Peter was definitely a secret weapon. He really helped the pacing of From Russia With Love and did a lot for the 60s Bond films. He set out to make a great film. Mission accomplished.
He didn't pay attention to some details. Ignored that Bond and Blofeld met in the previous film. Τhe way he shows Bond and Tracy romance fits in a romantic movie, than a Bond film. Lazenby is relatively young, and director shows him vulnerable and inexperienced, as Bond in his early years. In novel as in the film, Bond is the opposite, is like Connery in ''You Only Live Twice''.
My favourite Bond film. Lazenby was a good Bond and he was much maligned.
OHMSS Outstanding Bond soundtrack!
One of the very, very best.
Thanks for making me want rewatch this again. I wish Hunt and Lazenby got another because they were laying the groundwork for something cool. But then we wouldn't have gotten the Hamilton \Mank trilogy and more importantly Roger
Dianna Rigg is the best Bond girl. I can totally see Bond falling head over heels over her
Rigg (and the rest of the cast) will be the subject of my follow-up to this video.
And he was a fantastic bond just fantastic and I loved the bond girl. She was pretty and elegant and she can kick ass in her own right and I love the villain is pretty good too below field, and you can see when Bond met Tracy that he was falling in love with her, and she was falling in love with him. Kind of reminds me of that movie called the living daylights, and when the end credits rolled the song by the pretenders if there was a man I could ever love that George would be it. He match the description to a T, and when he was getting ready to put in his notice written by Moneypenny, he said a farewell to arms because he was getting ready to leave the service because he knew that he was in love, and he wanted to get married, and in the ending of the movie of on her Majesty Secret Service, I cried like a baby because I can see James Bond’s pain for saying the woman that he loves dead and when he said she is just sleeping really hurt me and when he said that “we have all the Time in the world oh my God that just made me feel sorry for him and feel sorry for Tracy because they just did not have all the Time in the world to live happily ever after
I really wish Lazenby would’ve done Bond for a few more years after that. I can imagine an alternative timeline where they could’ve done The Man with the Golden Gun and Diamonds are Forever as part of this Lazenby revenge arc in the same vein of Licence to Kill. I think it’s one of those great unknowns on par with what would happen if the Beatles stayed together into the 1970’s or if Walt Disney lived another decade. Certainly OHMSS is one of my favorite Bond adventures, especially because of that Swinging 60’s exuberance as well as how it gives Bond an emotional depth that didn’t really exist in the Connery era (and that’s coming from someone who is a huge Connery Bond fan).
I completely agree!
A couple decades ago when I proclaimed OHMSS to be the finest film of the franchise I was consistently dissed for my opinion. Now, it looks like my insight has rather incredibly become validated over the years to the extent that it is the only film which was celebrated en masse for its half centenary anniversary. Lazenby was absolutely the Bond “that got away” and had he honored his 7 film contract he would have overshadowed the Connery era.
@@historybuff66 You were certainly ahead of the curve!
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond Thank you. My long held opinion was “goosed” somewhat by my embracement of what I consider to be composer John Barry’s magnum opus. Fledgling director Peter Hunt spoke with Barry in pre-production, explaining how his “back was to the wall” and that he needed Barry to pull out all the stops-and wow, did he ever deliver!
Great insights and I'm really enjoying your channel.
Possibly my favourite Bond movie. Beautifully shot, fantastic action and an incredible soundtrack.
I love Lazenby's performance and it's such a shame he didn't do more. He has incredible tenderness but at the same time is very believable during the action and that shot of him sliding along the ice with a machine gun is incredibly bad ass! I recently showed my 10 year old the movie and during our chat afterwards he suddenly stopped me and said 'Wait that man wasn't an actor? He was incredible!' Awesome stuff.
It's great to see the movie getting so much love these days. I think the snow section of Nolan's Inception is very much a reference and I personally enjoyed the callbacks in NTTD.
Keep up the great work 👍👍
Thank you! This is a very special film.
My all-time favorite Bond film. I often imagine growing up with his version of Bond instead of Roger Moore. The older I get, the more I appreciate Moore's Bond helping the character transition to what he is today. Lazenby and this film....it's the best.
That alternate universe would be very interesting!
I totally agree with your Moore opinion of him being in OHMSS.
I actually wish Moore, being a big Moore fan, started with YOLT and then this onwards. Same as Dalton taking over at AVTAK. But I still accept Lazenby here so it’s fair enough.
Lazenby's Bond was the most vulnerable Bond and that it is not a criticism. He gave a valuable and different interpretation from the other five actors. I agree with you that he was to some extent in an impossible position after Connery.
This was a tricky movie to make as a follow-up to YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, and it also had the burden of establishing a new film star.
Good video👍
I've always considered the abrupt inclusion of the bond theme after Tracy's demise as an intentional heightening of the coldness of the situation, a commentary on the coldness of the spy life, and that it spares no one, that in the end, Bond can only survive by dumping the things inconvenient to him without a second thought, and that to linger and get attached means death. It's sort of like the end credits of American Warewolf In London with Blue Moon suddenly cutting into the tragedy. Saying that certain 'film worlds' have no care for heart ache, that the ride stops for no one, etc. The bond theme and the bond lifestyle can almost trick us with it's lure and fantasy, but sometimes the snake can bite and yet the song plays on, coldly, like an automated ride we once thought we loved. (But we still do)
I think that's the best possible reading - but even if we rationalize it, in the moment, it just FEELS wrong to me.
Reviewing OHMSS it seems all the more credible that Peter Hunt was singlehandedly, as film editor, responsible for resequencing FRWL after it was shot, creating the trope of the pretitle sequence, for example, and generally "saving the film," as the released laser disk commentaries emphasized. What a pleasure it is to hear you analyzing both DAF and OHMSS with such attention to both the scores by John Barry and the diegetic audiovisual, cinematic achievements by all involved. Barry continued his fruitful collaboration with the synthesizer in his wonderful main theme to "Orson Welles's Great Mysteries" (1973), which resolves on a great synthesizer chord like the main title to OHMSS. I don't even know yet whether you bring that up. I am still watching your essay. Many thanks!
I adore the "Great Mysteries" theme and wish more people knew about it!
OHMSS was grounded by the novel. It follows the Fleming story pretty faithfully. Tracy died at the end of the novel. The film was very redemptive for both Tracy and Bond making the ending more crushing to the audience, especially those not familiar with the book. They had gone off the reservation with You Only Live Twice as far as the Fleming books went. OHMSS was a great recalibration for Eon. Unfortunately, for me, they didn't make another good Bond film until The Living Daylights. Self parody killed the series for me.
Self parody saved the series.
28.01 -29.06 th-cam.com/video/vQ5PC7m45_0/w-d-xo.html
I'm a fan of the Moore era, but it definitely was a change of pace from the more literal Fleming adaptations. (That said, I think Moore's era still has plenty of Flemingesque touches.)
Great analysis! Thank you! I’ve always loved this movie since I first saw it on VHS in the ‘80’s and felt that it was horribly underrated…
It's a beautiful movie!
Part of Connery interview in Playboy November 1965
PLAYBOY: In any case, ''Dr. No'' turned out to be a hit, and you found yourself under contract for a series ... exactly what you said you wanted to avoid.
CONNERY: Yes ... but it allows me to make other films, and I have only two more Bonds to do.
PLAYBOY: Which ones?
CONNERY: ''On Her Majesty's Secret Service'' and possibly ''You Only Live Twice''. They would like to start ''On Her Majesty's Secret Service'' in Switzerland in January (1966), but I'm not sure I'll be free in time and I don't want to rush it, although they say the snow will be at its best then. I'm not going to rush anything anymore.
PLAYBOY: We'll be looking forward to both films ... especially since we were fortunate enough to serialize both books exclusively prior to their hardcover publication. Do you think the success of the series will continue to snowball?
CONNERY: Well, it's a healthy market and it has been maintained because each succeeding film has got bigger and the gimmicks trickier. But we have to be careful where we go next, because I think with ''Thunderball'' we've reached the limit as far as size and gimmicks are concerned. In ''Thunderball'' we have Bond underwater for about 40 percent of the time, and there is a love scene underwater, and attacks by aquaparas from the sky, and two-man submarines under the sea, and Bond is menaced by sharks. Instead of the Aston Martin we have a hydrofoil disguised as a cabin cruiser, and Bond escapes with a self-propelling jet set attached to his back. So all the gimmicks now have been done. And they are expected. What is needed now is a change of course ... more attention to character and better dialogue.
I think Roger debuting in OHMSS is one of the most fascinating "What Ifs?" posed in the Bond franchise.
Especially when you consider the layers it would add to his performance in LALD & TMWTGG. The former in particular with the lyrics of the opening song feeling incredibly apt given the ending of OHMSS. Callous & downright mean, until he meets his female equals later in TSWLM & MR.
Same could be said of Dalton being the Bond of all the John Glen directed films in the 80s, which have an "avenging angel" element to each, where Bond enacts righteous retribution on anyone that crosses his allies, & despite trying to steer Melina away from revenge in FYEO, ends the decade on his own personal vendetta in LTK.
Giving each actor a pentalogy throughout at least a decade may have been the secret sauce that wasn't quite tapped into until Craig came along.
Thanks for inspiring fascinating discussions. 😎🤝
Cheers. I agree that Dalton in FYEO is a really tempting thought...
And the music is perfect.
Absolutely!
First and foremost, love this analysis Ryan, and I'm looking forward to part 2!
OHMSS is an excellent film. I didn't watch it till later in my Bond journey (probably about mid teens), and didn't really come to appreciate it until the last 10 years. I think that aside from a few pacing issues (Bond in disguise at Piz Gloria and the sped up footage at the beach fight), and some tonal issues (Bond theme playing after Tracy's death), I think it's top tier cinema.
Peter Hunt was really ahead of his time. A friend recently recommend a few of his 1970s/80s films, so I'll likely be diving into those. I really think that the cinematography/shots/editing make this film feel so current.
I like Lazenby a lot. People will call his performance all sorts of things, but I think that he really did a great job. Really, I think that everyone turns in a great performance in this film. I'll hold off on gushing about the acting, but I will foreshadow that I've got a signed Telly Savalas Blofeld headshot hung up in my house.
The Barry score is fantastic in this film. I'd put it up there with FRWL and TLD for his best scores. I think that the very 60's synth sound to it really works.
I've mentioned before that I've been exposing my GF to the Bond films over our two years of dating. We've done most of the Craig films, most of the Brosnan films, half of the Moore films, and TLD. Well, we also watched OHMSS, and that was tied with Casino Royale as her favorite. I think it really has staying power as a film.
As always, thanks for the discussion Ryan! Thank you for your time, and have a great weekend!
Yes, I need to talk more about Hunt's direction!
Well done Ryan, you have a great ability to articulate yourself perfectly. Highly enjoyable video, with a great perspective on arguably one of the Best Bond movies.
Thank you so much. This film has so much worth talking about!
Great movie. When I think of Bond, its this movie. Its set in the perfect time for Bond.
I agree!
"You're not becoming a count by having your earlobes cut off, Blofeld!"
Director George Seaton to actor Edmund Gwenn lying in his death bed: “This must be terribly difficult for you.” Gwenn's famous response: "Dying is easy; comedy is hard."
Indeed!
I purchased Raymond Benson's "James Bond Bedside Companion" in 1985, and he wrote very favorably of OHMSS. Several months later, ABC ran OHMSS, and I loved it the first time I saw it. The main thing I like is how close it was to Ian Fleming's novel.
It's very close to Fleming!
Really glad to have shared with you my thoughts on this movie and it to me being kinda the Empire Strikes back of the series for it having a more down to earth story and an unlikely ending. Also, both movies have locations set in a snowy area :)
15:37 YEEEES, its certanly feels like it wants to go back to that, especially after having 3 big action movies, rather than going bigger, theyve earned them selves to do something different. Infact.......Imagine if Terrance Young came back and did this movie ;)
20:33 I love where this is going, BRILLIANT!!!! I mean the movie like a few other Bond movies deserves to be in the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress, as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant"
and yes 19:25 I agree, hahah takes me out of the moment sadly
Unfortunately Lazenby did not get his Return of the Jedi!
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond ah haaaaa, good one.
Great video as always! I like your Roger Moore idea - I see that, that would have been great! Interestingly I think this was the first point that a young Timothy Dalton was approached about the role…George is excellent in the final scene, but it’s a mixed bag before then for me…but it’s a really difficult role and the dubbing during the 60’s sex comedy section doesn’t help, and I think he struggles during the protracted “I am Bond - no really I am - look at my props while I try and resign” section…great that by Living Daylights we can just have a push in on a windswept hillside and we KNOW that’s Bond. I find it a slightly tragic irony that Connery always spoke of the films getting too outlandish and no longer about the character - and he ended up leaving just as he could have gone back to something closer to the earlier films with more of the obvious acting stuff that actors get excited about…and ended up returning in the film some refer to as the first Roger Moore Bond - Diamonds Are Forever…Anyhoo - look forward to part 2!
I'm excited for part 2, too!
And… Once again, you have nailed it. I have to say I’ve watched I think every video you’ve posted and I’ve only disagreed with you once. I did not comment on my disagreement with you because you are very thoughtful and I completely understood where you were coming from. So there was no point in that one case. However, you are solidly back on track with this response! This has always been and will always be one of my favorite Bond movies of all time. It is so true to the book. I think this one, Casino, Royale, and Thunderball are the closest to the books you will ever get in a movie. I’m actually glad This movie was so underrated for so long because I picked up an original movie poster for On Her Majesty’s Secret Service at a Star Trek convention of all places for $11!! It’s now worth well let’s just say a lot and I’m so glad I have it. I actually also like the fact that he’s really not a movie star. James Bond is a secret agent! In the books, the fact that he’s able to blend into the background in so many situations is what makes him so cool. But the 60s were wild and the Austin Powers movies were right in lampooning that aspect of ridiculous over-the-top nonsense. The only other person I can see having played this part is Timothy Dalton. He had been offered the role many years before he finally played the role and himself turned it down because he thought he was too young. But just an interesting thought to throw out there. I loved this movie. Thank you for this review. About four or five years ago, I got a chance to see this in the theater in Glendale, and it was hosted by George Lazenby himself. Along with an author who wrote a book about all the James Bond movie scores and I’m sorry I can’t remember his name, but it was a fantastic evening. To see that movie on the big screen with that bigger than life soundtrack playing very loudly in the theater is something I will never forget. Thanks for doing this review. Yes you need to do a part two and maybe even a part three!! One final fantasy thought and this is a total joke but if they run out of titles, they can now use On His Majesty’s Secret Service. Cheers once again Ryan good work!
There's a Bond novel by Charlie Higson called ON HIS MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE!
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBondwhoah! Had no idea thanks!
My personal favorite James Bond movie and actually one of my favorite movies of all time. There are other Bond movies that I think may be better made or have better elements but this is the one I can enjoy over and over again without fail.
I remember the first time I saw this on TV as a kid and I thought it was great at the time. Every time I see it I only appreciate it more despite some flaws.
The brutal ending made me understand Bond’s character better than any other film (of the pre-Craig era)
I am so glad folks have learned to celebrate it!
My Top 10: 1965, 1967, 1969, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1995. * Great video, as always! OHMSS(1969) is definitely a very unique James Bond film! 1969 was a remarkable year in itself! And George Lazenby was a great James Bond! * By the way, ironically, I don't love OHMSS(1969) necessarily because of that love/marriage stuff. I love primarily direction(Peter R. Hunt), cinematography(Michael Reed. One of the best looking Bond movies ever), music, even editing... And of course: action! Superb scenes: "Gumbold's Safe", "Arrival to Piz Gloria", "Dinner in the Alpine Room", "Bond meets Blofeld", "Attacking Piz Gloria". * But yes, that marriage is... how to say correctly: IRRESPONSIBLE!!! I don't think a secret agent should ever get married! Hey: what happened to Della in LTK(1989)!? Felix didn't learn from Bond's mistakes either... It's one thing to risk your own life, but it's much worse to put your loved ones in danger....................
To be fair, Bond was trying to retire...
I'm a hardcore Connery fan, but I loved OHMSS the
first time I saw it in 1969 (thanks in no small part to
John Barry's wonderful score). It eventually became
one of my two favorite Bond films (along with FRWL).
OHMSS and FRWL are both in my top three!
I wish I watched this in London and I could have talked to you about it in person but so busy. I saw OHMSS very late, in the mid 90s, and my delay was because of my prejudice towards Connery. When I finally did see this film on recommendation of a Bond buddy, I was blown away! It instantly became one of my favorites but for Lazenby himself. I loved the film, hated him for years because of all of the reasons you just stated on how he was not Connery... And then I read the book during the covid lockdown and I was again blown away because it became quite clear that he was not doing Connery's Bond but actually doing Fleming's Bond. Hunt had him portraying the character almost exactly as he was in the book and my opinion of Lazenby's performance completely flipped! Now I don't think he was the best Bond by far but I know realize he doing a very different portrayal and I was able to see some of the brilliant dramatic moments he was able to pull off. You are absolutely right about his dramatic acting and although some of the jokes were awkward, tonally he was always on point as the young playboy Bond that Fleming had in all the books prior to this one when Bond starts his slow decent into darkness. Also this film needed a younger Bond to make the romance with Tracy more believable. I too feel that although older, Roger Moore might have been able to pull this film off as well. As usual great analysis and this I agree with you on all points! I know, boring...
Thank you, my friend! I am glad you didn't take time to distract yourself from your trip with my video! I can't compete with what that weekend had to offer.
Considering he had never acted before George was ok but Diana was wonderful
Yes, she's the best.
I first saw this in the early 90s and loved it, watched it a lot as a teenager.
You were a smart lad!
I've always seen "This never happened to the other fella" as George Lazenby speaking to the audience not James Bond. As for the pacing, there is a large middle section where there is no action but when the action comes its pretty much non stop. This is my favourite Bond movie by a country mile and I enjoyed your analysis.
Thank you! The final gauntlet of action is something I wish another Bond movie would attempt. It's a very exciting way to build a climax.
Shame they didn’t decide to have the wedding in the UK as Blofeld and Bunt wouldn’t have been able to get into the country.
I think though having the death being in the first scene in the next movie might still have taken some of the spark off the previous movie (OHMSS) or worse, it’s the same day/event so it’s the same scenario as the real movie as you know the day doesn’t have a happy ending but don’t even see it in the movie.
Totally agree about the Bond music immediately hitting at the end. It’s like telling you to move on emotionally from what you’ve just witnessed because you’ve got another entertaining Bond mission on the way, bit harsh.
Agreed re: the ending on all counts.
Since I almost always watch the Bond films in their dubbed German version, I get a different actor "playing" Bond on top of the original performance each time. That can worsen the act but also smooth out some of the rougher edges. It can even make an actor seem better! So when English speakers say that Lazenby's line delivery was off or wooden - I trust their word for the original version, sure - but it's not the perfomance I saw. 😄
You have a truly unique perspective on the Bond films, then!
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond Well... unique, so long as we exclude the other six million or so Germans, who will watch a Bond flick every once in a while. 😉
The Bond movies were played on TV so much when I was younger too. Majesty's was often forgotten about and didn't get nearly as many showings. Diamonds and Never say Never also fall into that category but weren't quite as ignored. We had most of the Moore ones recorded off TV so I could watch them on a whim. Lazenby did make Bond his own, he didn't try to emulate Connery and that has to be respected. As well as him being his own Bond this movie had a different tone and rhythm.
I'm not sure how to interpret the props from the Connery movies, perhaps this is a more modern and cynical way of looking at things to say it was an unnecessary or even forced appeal to nostalgia. Nostalgia probably isn't the best word as it hadn't been long enough.
Lazenby deserved a second shot but I'm not sure if the Bond era was ready to move down a darker path at that time. Dalton had that grittier edge and I thought Bond was ready for that. Though both of Dalton's movies were solid movies, Licence to Kill really capitalised on that darker tone.
These videos and the points you raise are so stimulating.
I can only remember one time OHMSS was run on ABC-TV, which had the exclusive rights to the Bond movies. It was split into two parts, and opened with the ski chase from Piz Gloria. Then Bond (via a Connery-sounding voice over) started telling the audience how he was in a tough spot, and here's how he got there, leading to an extended flashback. So far as I know, it wasn't shown in its original form until the cable era.
Thank you! I agree, the Bond series probably couldn't have moved in that darker direction successfully!
My number 1 favorite Bond film 💯 percent. The first one to really break and shake up the formula, and be severely penalized for it before redemption.
Yes, even I was jarred by this film when I first saw it as a kid. I liked it, but had a difficult time figuring it out. Bond movies are supposed to have a set of formulaic rules, and this one broke several of them. It's equivalent to assembling puzzle pieces, and you come across that one piece that seems it doesn't fit anywhere, when in actuality, it does, and it guides you to cracking the rest of the frame, lol.
With Lazenby, some fans still believe he was too similar to Connery, a straight up clone. But that's too much of a dismissive critique. Connery influenced all his predecessors of course, but so did Lazenby. He was the first to show extensive anger and defiance to M (something the later three Bonds would do frequently), the first to show true tenderness and strong emotional attachment to a Bond girl (you see it variously in Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig), and the first Bond to cry (Craig, and arguably Dalton with Felix and Della).
Lazenby's also, imo, the best fighter of all the Bond actors. He has a very athletic, ballet-like flow to his movements (helped no doubt by being a trained martial artist in real life 🥋).
Yes, he can come across as awkward in some scenes, but most of the Bond actors do in the first outing (Brosnan sometimes does in a few scenes in GoldenEye for example). And like thos others, George would've found his footing in more films. But you're right Ryan that Lazenby totally nails it in the last scene when cradling Tracy's corpse. You definitely feel the gravity of it all. Even if I watch that scene alone, I start to well up, lol. The back-to-basics of Diamonds Are Forever certainly robbed us of a great revenge flick.
Could Connery have pulled it off? Maybe, and it still would depend on his mood at the time for the films, regardless of this one being grounded and without the "hardware." I'd use "Robin and Marian" as evidence. And Moore could have as well, I agree. "The Man Who Haunted Himself" shows that Roger had remarkable range. But this film really does belong to George, and it's great people are seeing that both he and the movie have influenced countless other films, both within and outside the series.
Yes, I don't find Lazenby all that much like Connery. He makes it his own.
Roger Moore in ON HER MAJESTY'S:
I've never heard that idea expressed, before. Brilliant!
Cheers! I think it would've been good.
Sure, it would have been a great movie with Connery....but we got Connery's polar opposite, and that's the reality. But people love to salvage things that were discarded by the unwashed...
Irma Bunt.. what an amazing character and performance. Kills Bond's wife and is never mentioned again!
I'll be doing a whole video on the supporting characters here. They're all terrific.
Scary fact: * OHMSS 18 December 1969 * Ilse Steppat(Irma Bunt) died: 21 December 1969 ***** R.I.P., a great unforgettable actress!
I thought I read somewhere that, in some EU work, Bond eventually tracks down and kills her. But I'm not sure; I haven't found anything to confirm that.
@@greenmonsterprod A Raymond Benson short story, "Blast from the Past," is what you're referring to!
Irma Bunt turns up in the novel of “You Only Live Twice” which details the fallout from Tracy’s death. The films shot themselves in the foot by adapting YOLT before OHMSS. Elements of the YOLT novel turn up in “No Time To Die”
I was born in 1994, and when I was young I would sometimes hear that the film wasn’t entirely liked, but I always felt that it was excellent, and even though it isn’t my favorite, I still think it is the greatest of the franchise.
It's a high-water mark!
I also watched OHMSS a little later because it was that black sheep, and a bit of ignorance on my part thinking well George Lazenby only got one movies so it must not have been that good a blip in the usual pattern like Never Say Never Again, the David Niven Casino Royale or Diamonds are Forever. However, I was pleasantly surprised it was sweeping as you say we get to see a lot of Bond in different situations, I love the romance between him and Tracy from start to finish. I especially love the scene where he is in a difficult situation and suddenly Tracy appears to save him. The main part where this movie falls short is in the villain story. The sudden swing of the film to the villain, having George play Bond pretending to be some heritage expert and the fact Blofeld doesn't immediately recognize him is a little too much. I do like the mountainous setting/lair but I feel the whole charade of Bond going undercover could have been done differently and used Tracy in some way.
I think the undercover Bond stuff does feel a bit wonky, to be sure.
I like the movie. Gives the best reason for him to never want to marry. Also…I like George Lazenby way better than Roger Moore as Bond. Yeah, I said it
@@ToddDeSilva I love Rog, but respect your point of view!
Excellent video!!! Great points and analysis. Well done👍
Thank you!
Great film- well analysed- picking up on your point on unevenness In this film which you also highlighted in Moonraker- I couldn't agree more with you that it doesn't spoil your enjoyment of a film . Many critics seem to get hung up on it. It's good to hear someone else articulate this.
Thank you, Thomas!
In the early 80s, the only way I could watch Bond films is when they played on the ABC network. I remember one night skipping out on a Boy Scout event so I could watch On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I was a beyond disappointed 10 year old. The whole film felt weird to me. Plus, who was this guy playing Bond? He wasn't very good!
40-something years later, OHMSS is one of my absolute favorite Bond films! It follows the Fleming book fairly closely. It is also the first "non-fun" Bond film. Not saying that it lacks cool action sequences, but this is the first Bond film that approaches him like a more 3-dimensional character. He falls in love! For audiences more used to the Connery era, OHMSS may be a bitter pill to swallow. That said, it really presaged the Daniel Craig era of Bond. In 1969 audiences were probably not ready for that. They wanted to fun, quip-dropping, martini-drinking ladies man to take them on an escapist adventure for a couple of hours.
Probably the film's biggest weakness is Lazenby's lack of acting ability. This was his first film, and you can tell that Diana Rigg totally outclasses him in the acting department. It is kind of telling, she's literally been knighted for her contributions to stage and screen, while Lazenby was a male model prior to Bond, with no acting experience. You could tell he struggled next to her.
Now, where does this film sit inside of Bond canon continuity? You'd think that Blofeld (who suddenly became American) would recognize that "Sir Hilary Bray" is simply Bond with some fake eyebrows. Not once does Blofeld mention "So, you were that guy who blew up my Japan volcano and ruined my plan to start a nuclear war two years ago." Neither does Bond mention, "How's the volcano, Earnst?" This really implies that OHMSS exists in its own isolated timeline, where Bond has yet to meet Blofeld. But, in 1977's The Spy Who Loved Me and 1981's For Your Eyes Only, it is established that the events from this film happened in the main timeline. My response is, it's just a movie series....don't think too hard about it!
Yeah, you have to shrug when it comes to continuity. (The filmmakers sure did!)
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond To make things more awkward, Diamonds Are Forever ignores the events of this film totally. It's more a direct sequel to You Only Live Twice.
To paraphrase MST3K, "Just repeat to yourself it's just a movie, I should really just relax."
I would have loved a Roger Moore OHMSS.
Considering his work in The Saint as you said, I feel like he would genuinely pull it off. If you haven't seen it. The last episode of Season 2 shows some very very good range for Moore and having a romantic interest.
Seeing Moore in The Saint makes me wish we did see a more consistently harder edge Moore Bond.
Yes, I have seen The Saint and think it provides a clear model for how he might've been in OHMSS.
You're totally right how OHMSS grows on you with each viewing.
Lazenby says my favorite Bond one-liner.
"He had a lot of guts!"
(The following comment is to be read in the vouce of Sean Connery).
"i am delighted to learn there are others who have love for this film... even if these others insist on pronouncing 'Aluminium' and 'lever' incorrectly!"
🇬🇧😉🇺🇲
Hi Ryan so good to meet you at the O2. Hope to see you at more Bond events in the future. Kind regards - Greg
@@gregsofthefutre It was a genuine pleasure! I certainly hope to be back.
It is my favourite Bond movie and has always been (my first time seeing Bond in the cinema was Goldfinger).
I have also always liked George Lazenby in the role. I think he pulled it off better than any of the other Bond actors could have, except perhaps for Timothy Dalton.
Dalton is my favorite Bond.
Dalton is my favorite Bond.
It would be with peak Connery. Yes, I tried to watch the whole thing over and over again, but there was always some point where I was so annoyed by his acting that I stopped watching. Last time was the moment when he, disguised as a noble Snoob, bores for a eternity about heraldry.
By 1967, Sean Connery was really fed up. I like YOLT(1967) very much. But you can clearly see, that Connery is operating at 50% capacity. So, Connery in OHMSS(1969)? I don't know... I have "accepted" George's participation. I didn't like George in the past(even 20 years ago). But now I see: he's a damn good James Bond!❤
@@renekauts8323 I mean the Dr. No Connery for this movie. But what a good moive it would be if Bond was played there, by Brosnan. I always look at it from that perspective. Ok it must be in a 90s version of this.
@@renekauts8323 Connery who was really fed up and operating at 50% capacity, is the character of Bond here. An agent tired of his job, finds happiness in love and marriage.
I agree with you. I don't relate to the (mostly) recent love for this movie. Tough to watch in one sitting. For me, it's a middle of the road Bond at best.
It wasn’t a failure. It one of the success bond pictures to date. But not having Connery really killed the film for some people
It made about as much money as FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE did, but on a significantly higher budget. It was definitely a big dip in the series' box office trajectory that indicated something of a lukewarm audience reception.
11:00pm start, I might be able to tune in (bless the holidays)!
In an alternate universe...OHMSS and YOLT would have been adapted (from the novels) as a _two-parter_ - in order of publication, of course (Connery most definitely would have been capable of portraying a quasi-sensitive iteration of Bond; he showed that part of his repertory in Marnie, after all).
Re: MARNIE - to a point. He's a predatory character there.
But Connery certainly had it in him to be romantic. I'm just not sure how well that pivot would've worked immediately following GOLDFINGER or THUNDERBALL.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond I don't believe that would've worked after ''Goldfinger'' or ''Thunderball''. O.H.M.S.S. comes at the right time. After the very innovative effects in ''You Only Live Twice'' - like ''For Your Eyes Only'' after ''Moonraker'' - and mainly when the messages are ''make love, not war'' and ''all you need is love''. Has the right actors to the other roles (better for Blofeld is Yul Brynner), but not in Bond. Here Bond is not relatively young, vulnerable and infinite, but a mature man with experience, like the actors to the other roles. Connery in ''You Only Live Twice'' is the character of Bond here. An agent tired of his job, finds happiness in love and marriage. Peter Hunt did a great job, but plot is more like a romantic movie, and ignored Bond and Blofeld metting in previous film. With Connery, Bond and Tracy romance would be like him and Bardot in ''Shalako''. After Connery here, I believe to Stanley Baker.
th-cam.com/video/vstr-jhCjVY/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/cw95BwoB0zE/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/Q1EADjxkIUs/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/EL6NSDUEqtM/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/6EewkHMgYsg/w-d-xo.html
It's the only Bond with a tearjerker ending.
Most things about this film are splendid - except for the lead role (mirror image of Licence to Kill; the lead and his sidekicks are splendid, whereas production value is subpar)🎥🤔
Saw this film as a kid, always remember liking it. However, when I got the bluray a while back, I was disappointed with the ending scene I remembered vs the one on the disc; I think it was a special cut for television broadcast, but after bond says "we have all the time in the world..." It freeze cuts on the bullet whole in the windshield and the slow theme song of the same name plays as the credits roll over that frame. It's poignant.
The official ending where it cuts to the Union Jack and the bond brassy fanfare comes on seems very jarring and inappropriate by comparison. Wish they used the tv ending on the Blu-ray.
Although Lazenby received much support from Broccoli and Saltzman, he had a less easy ride from the board of United Artists who were none too keen to see him take over the mantle of Bond. On 7 July 1968, test footage of Lazenby and Rigg had been sent to United Artists in New York - and the were less than impressed by what they saw. On 23 September 1968, UA's head man David Picker even flew into London, desperate to tempt Connery back into the fold. But Connery was adamant that he wasn't coming back - EON and UA had made him a star and Connery was now a major player, capable of picking only the roles that interested him. And at this moment, Bond simply didn't interest him at all. It was only reluctantly that UA accepted EON's recommendation that Lazenby be given the part (ΜΙ6 Production Notes - On Her Majesty's Secret Service).
Yes, UA was understandably nervous.
Imagine though that script really pushing Connery acting how amazing that film would’ve been
If he'd been invested, it might've been remarkable.
Most of Lazenby's quips were clearly added in ADR. Either his face isn't visible when they are spoken, or his lips don't sync or even move. Did Hunt want a more sober, serious Bond, but either Broccoli / Saltzman or United Artists insist that the traditional one liners be added? When I was young I thought Lazenby was a poor stand-in for Connery, but as the decades have passed I have to admit that he's often very good for someone who had never acted before. I now think Lazenby certainly had real potential in the role. I'm just not convinced he had the focus and discipline (like Errol Flynn) to mine that potential in subsequent Bond films.
Given that they also dubbed Lazenby for the Piz Gloria stuff, there seems to have been a lot of anxiety about how his Bond came across.
I agree with you and many other Bond fans that I have come to enjoy OHMSS and to really like it despite a lot of awkwardness both in terms of how it fits into the overall Bond canon. It is brought down by some story and writing problems, in addition to Lazenby's acting inexperience. However that inexperience does become a strength in that he sells the romance with Tracy much more strongly than Connery would have. it's a benefit that he's a new Bond and he happens to meet the only woman whom he marries. We aren't weighed by Connery's experiences and his past approaches to women. Lazenby is younger than Connery and his Bond just seems younger and more open to marriage, while Connery's never seemed to. Also, one benefit is that Lazenby's lower profile allowed Savalas to ham it up and chew scenery as he is wont to do, and it would have been far more awkward to do with Connery. Now the scenes would have been great but I don't know if they would felt the same.
If it had been Connery, I wonder if they would have used Pleasance instead, which really would have shifted the dynamic.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond So here's the interesting thing. The original plan was to film OHMSS after Thunderball. In the end credits of TB, it even says that James Bond will return in OHMSS and then in YOLT. They were going to stick with the Blofeld trilogy that Fleming wrote. However, I think some problems with not enough snow in the Alps or the wrong season or something caused them to change plan and go with YOLT. The problem is that they broke up the trilogy and OHMSS feels like a more natural follow up to TB. Both films follow the books closely with OHMSS the more faithful, whereas YOLT has no resemblance to the book other than the Japan setting and a few characters. Plus YOLT book has the revenge aspect whereas the revenge for Tracy's death now falling awkwardly onto the returning Connery. Connery probably didn't want to have anything to do with picking Lazenby's story. In fact if you never knew about OHMSS and went straight from YOLT to DAF, you could be forgiven for assuming Bond was just looking for Blofeld because he's Blofeld.
Lazenby is nobodys favourite 007 but he did get to be part of history and for a model who'd never acted did a decent enough job.
He made history, to be sure.
Well he’s my favorite 007, for the simple reason that he emulated Ian Fleming’s fictional super spy better than anyone, with the possible exception of Timothy Dalton.
I went into OHMSS about as hostile as you can, I love Connery and I remember hearing Lazenby talking smack about Connery calling in the stuntmen for everything, so going in I was pretty primed to be pissed. But, I think it's a fine Bond Film and one I suspect will grow on me as time goes on. The Score alone is amongst the very best in the series, if not the best. Lazenby is the weakest part but I don't know if Connery's Bond could believably fall in love. Dalton or Brosnan could have fit nicely in a serious romance.
As for Moore, if this had been his first outing, I think he would have done quite well and who knows it may have sent Moore's Bond and the series as a whole in a very different direction.
I'm glad you agree with me re: Moore!
Saying this as a 60 year old, and Bond watcher all my life, OHMSS was most certainly considered the best in show even when I was young. True, it was not considered the smash success of those before and after it, but to Bond movie aficionados, even in the 1970’s and ‘80’s the film was up there with From Russia With Love as the most interesting, even finest all around outing, even while Lazenby was no one’s favorite 007..
Regarding the sorrowful conclusion of the film, well this WAS 1968, post-Blow Up/Bonnie and Clyde, and for years afterwards so many, if not most, films had sad and/or enigmatic finales (Cool Hand Luke, Planet of the Apes, Midnight Cowboy, Love Story, The French Connection, The Godfather, on and on and on…even a romantic comedy like The Sterile Cuckoo. Happy endings really had to earn it, unlike movies of the past 30 years or so. So not surprising that even a James Bond popcorn movie reflected that serious period of “New Wave” cinema
I think the music score is arguably the best in the whole series, the first ski chase in the series and hands down the best Bond leading lady.
So GL was just a model. But he was okay.
He would have made a good JB had he stuck to it.
This was a good movie.
Not a DB5 btw. It was a DBS. Ironically that car was also a transition model for Aston Martin. It has the old inline 6 cylinder from the DB4/5/6 in the V8 body but before the intended engine was ready.
Cheerio!
Yeah, the DBS in this is the best Aston of them all.
Lazenby was great and only going to get better. But this film has always been one of my top 3
And rightly so!
Lazenby got some BAD advice from his agent.
No kidding!
Not bad for a 29-year-old guy who had never acted before....................
Very much agreed!
It was a great James Bond film.😊
Completely agreed!
Timothy Dalton Was Suggested By Bond Producers, After Connery Had Left .Timothy Dalton Said That He Felt To Young, For The Role.
Once he got into it George Lazenby was quite good. You just have to get over the fact that he was not Conery.
Yes, Moore's Bond had more levity but let's not forget in his 2nd movie, Golden Gun, he forcefully slaps Maude Adams down onto a bed and continues to threaten her more (something that I don't think even Craig's Bond has done), although when seen in context is not gratuitous but a reminder to the audience that this Bond character, like Connery's Bond, means business. Years later in For Your Eye's Only, we do see a rare somber scene when he visits the grave of Tracy marking the beginning of the end of Blofeld and makes one hell of a satisfying if long awaited ending of the Bond-Blofeld battle.
However critics of the Lazenby-Bond has the unprecedented advantage of referencing just one Bond movie he ever made without the benefit of many more Bond performances. And from that angle, I would say he does a stellar job. Here's a thought: I now think of the Lazenby OHMSS as a prequel to Dr. No because Lazenby-Bond starts off as a younger and less physically developed Bond-a newly minted 007, he is a bit more naive than Connery-Bond, is more taken with beautiful women-indeed gets married. Now after the shocking death of Tracy, you can now see how his Bond turns into a much colder and more ruthless Connery-Bond and thus you get Dr. No and all the rest of his movies. Sound plausible?
As a teen, I actually thought OHMSS was a prequel.
However, the obvious references to at least 3 other films (Dr. No, FRWL, & TB) with the mementos scene makes its effectiveness as a prequel moot.
Excellent film with an excellent Bond ❤
I agree!
between this film and a view to a kill, my favourite bond movie lay. i love this movie lots and lots
It's a movie that's worthy of love!
Moore's era had not yet come. Αfter Connery here, I believe to Stanley Baker.
In terms of OHMSS being disjointed - and I say this as a massive fan of the film - I've always felt like the two separate strands of OHMSS - the Tracey/Draco elements of the story, and the Blofeld/SPECTRE elements - feel like two completely different films. The opening section - one of the best passages in all the Bond films I think - feels like a grounded, noirish crime drama/romance, whereas once we go into the Swiss Alps, the film shifts into the more familiarly outlandish and escapist terrain of the previous Bond films.
The last hour needed some serious editing. I'm talking cutting away 15 minutes editing. Truly ironic because Peter Hunt was in the director's chair.
Yes, it definitely feels like two separate movies at times.
Roger Moore Made A Movie Crossplot, Similar Action Movie. Bond Producers Felt Unhappy And Divided With Roger Moore's Validation To Be Bond.
There was more protest to Lazenby's self-centred petulance than to his acting.
During my first phase of Bond mania when I was about ten or eleven, I instantly rejected Lazenby for some reason. He just WASN'T Bond for me - and I didn't engage with OHMSS so much as a result. Of course, over the years my opinion changed somewhat, to the point that I'm almost tempted to put Lazenby third in my rankings after Connery and Dalton, if his tenure wasn't so prematurely aborted. Lacking the instant charisma of Connery, Moore, and Dalton, his appeal as Bond is somewhat more of a slow-burn that requires a few viewings to get into. Having hated his looks as a kid, I now think he looks somewhat like a younger, leaner Cary Grant as Bond - and his lean, wiry physicality onscreen really suits the kinetic editing rhythms Hunt employs in OHMSS. He plays Bond very much like the classic Michael Mann archetype - a self-sufficient, hyper-competent lone wolf who nevertheless has a hidden vulnerability which he will only share with one person. This is part of the reason why the last scene remains such a heart-rending gut-punch - in the universe of the film, Tracey is the only person that Bond will ever let through his shell. Lazenby clearly isn't quite fully developed as an actor in OHMSS, but considering that his acting experience was basically zero prior to it, the performance seems oddly impressive taken in context - its tantalizing and frustrating to think how good he might have been had be made it to three Bonds.
If only he had been able to continue in the role!
I really enjoyed the first hour but found the last hour incredibly boring. Needed some serious editing. I see Lazenby as a 00 agent but not as Bond. Very solid film but I understand why people disregard it. It feels very out of step with the rest of the series. Tracy's death should have been Connery's moment. Not Lazenby's fault obviously but that had to be the one moment in the series that was Connery's.
I do struggle to imagine Connery in it, to be honest!
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond I would have loved to have seen Lazenby in MI6 world films as say 008 or 009, even alongside Connery as Bond, but I don't see Lazenby as Bond. I try hard but I can't.
I agree with you. There's just something off about it. And you're right about the editing, it could have easily been tightened up with an under two hour run time.
Good content! But on some points I disagree with OHMSS's original perception as being a "failure." I saw the movie in 1969 and fondly remember audience members on the edge of their seats. Had George Lazenby not fallen to stupidity and done his second Bond film, OHMSS reputation would have risen earlier. Instead, of course, it became that odd one sandwiched between two Connery blockbusters starring "what's his name?".
There also seems to be some Mandella Effect in regards to OHMSS's box office. Domestically it ranked at #11. Less than YOLT but still impressive for a Bond film starring an unknown, "one and done" actor. It was more popular than The Living Daylights which most considered a solid hit.
"Failure" versus "success" is always defined in context. OHMSS was profitable enough to justify a follow-up, but it performed significantly below where the past few Bond movies had been.
Dalton's debut, on the other hand, moderately outperformed its immediate predecessor.
@AnalyzeThisMisterBond Fair enough. One person's "success" can be another's failure, especially when it supports a narrative (Sorry. You can argue I am guilty of this as well). But what is interesting is that YOLT made significantly less than Thunderball. A downward trend even in the Connery Era. I leave it at that. Arguing Bond with another passionate Bond fan is fun!
It is one of the best Bond films!
I totally agree!
Classic Bond Film.
Indeed!
He was a model not an actor. It showed.
I think that George L had a charm similiar to a young Cary Grant. Even the accent, and speaking style is a bit like Cary G.
I can see it!
@AnalyzeThisMisterBond
There were eight other double-O agents:
I would have created a new character for George to play:
004, for example. Robert Orr. (Inspiration for this name? One of my favorite hockey players, Bobby Orr, who, by the way, was in the NHL from 1966 to 1979.
Do you get what CANON is? This film was made by the EON team, *planning Lazenby to replace Connery* - unlike Sean's NON-CANON 'Never Say Never Again' when Roger Moore was true Bond.
@@arnesahlen2704 I'm not sure what comment in my video you're responding to.
For one not very familiar with this movie, how about one example of how the next movie references this one?
Its follow-up, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, does not reference it explicitly, but picks up with Bond hunting down the antagonist of OHMSS, Blofeld.
Bond's wife, Tracy, is mentioned a few films later, in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, and then FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and LICENCE TO KILL.
NO TIME TO DIE references OHMSS by calling back to dialogue and using the same Louis Armstrong song.
it wasn't a failure far from it lazenby just had very big trousers to wear the real travesty was how roger boore almost killed the series he made 7' of the franchise movies and only # 3' and # 5' were any good most of the way under 40' crowd don't get HMSS
I love Roger Moore!
Actually, in my experience, it's predominantly the older Bond fans who still hold an extreme prejudice against the film and especially Lazenby in the role. The younger fans are way more open to his interpretation of Bond.
Interesting.
It’s a bit rubbish. Gorgeous cinematography though
And a pretty good soundtrack. But it's middle of the road Bond for me.
No he's a terrible actor. Stiff and he's wooden. The movie also came out bad because of the a&r and special effects. People would laugh at this movie if they saw it today. The idea of him acting is a homosexual is of course dated and absurd.
This is really more like a James coburn Bond or Woody Allen Bond surrounded by beautiful women in a room and have them giggle.
But I don't want to say that the screenplay was terrible. Actually a good idea, and the love story and tragedy could have been good as well.
OK, so, here's a thing, work out how you'd introduce each Bond film to a newbie by summarising what the villain's plot is, and then tell me OHMSS is a good one.
There are great sequences in OHMSS, but they are utterly buried in goofy nonsense. OHMSS is not good despite the good stuff in it. It's like a banoffee pie but it's been made with cabbage instead of bananas. OHMSS ws trying to take Bond into the world of Bond spoofs, IMHO, it makes for a discordant, jarring smorgasbord.
We can agree that it's a smorgasbord that has some odd pairings, but, for me, OHMSS captures a fuller range of what I'd want a James Bond "meal" to offer than nearly any other Bond movie!
But, keep in mind, I often enjoy "goofy nonsense," as you put it. The stuff in Piz Gloria here is very entertaining for me!
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond Sure, I also enjoy Jason King and Flint, it's just the goofy feels like a whole other film that's been welded in post. It's really tricky to see it as a coherent film, given, for example, on one level it's about JB meeting his equal, falling in love, leaving his life, then there's a huge sequence where the gag is just how many teenage girls he can shag before he runs out of energy. It's not my least favourite Bond, that'd be DAF. It just has major structural issues. Can't object to anyone saying they really enjoy it, Yubi Yu and all that, but, the idea it's secretly very well made, no. I have suspicions it was going to be it's own spoof but they changed their mind halfway through and couldn't lose the silly.
@@Belzediel Bond is not leaving his life before the marriage. He's on dangerous mission and goes with the girls because also needs information.
@@ΜακηςΛ-ε5ρ XD Sure thing, buddy.