Wherever you like this particular film or not, you CAN'T say Lazenby acted poorly or was not convincing.
I feel that many poeple just keep on saying he was a "bad actor" or "not convincing" just beacuse they read it somewhere...
If you do think he was "bad", can you please give us an example or a particular scene ?
I agree. Lazenby was a one hit wonder as Bond and never really got a chance to shine further. He's underrated as 007 and he should've returned in DAF. Connery returning in the next film is where the continuity messes up within the films. Also...Lazenby was lethal in the fight scenes and very convincing. Had he made another Bond film maybe people would've given the guy a break. He would've been tied with Dalton at 2 films. People just jump the wagon when it comes to Lazenby being the "worst" Bond or a "bad actor."
shareWas George Lazenby's interpretation actually closer to Ian Fleming's 007 than Sean Connery's? It's just that Connery was too firmly established in the move audience's mind.
shareYes, he did a terrific job - I really rate him and the film.
People always knock him but Bond films are well-known for their knockers.
Think George was given a lot of pressure to live up to Sean Connery.
shareI must agree with the lot of you, George was not half bad playing 007. I think the main reason he was always tainted with humility is because OHMSS was the only film where 007 gets defeated in the end. It would have made perfect sense for him and Telly Savalis to return in DAF.
shareInteresting footnote: in the Fleming novels, Bond is defeated and killed at the end of From Russia, With Love. Elsa Klebb does him in with the poisoned knife in her shoe. Fleming was bored with writing about Bond; but the public uproar over 007’s death eventually forced Bond’s resurrection. The movie version of From Russia—arguably the best Bond film so far, with Sean Connery and Robert Shaw knocking the toadstools out of each other on that speeding train—clearly had a different ending.
As for Lazenby, he was fine. One of my favorite Bond films, and one that was very faithful to the source novel. Dame (the female version of Sir) Diana Rigg is a legend, and the best Bond Woman to date.
Where George Lazenby I think, shined the most was in the action sequences. He was quite possibly, the best action Bond, especially in the hand-to-hand fight scenes. His physicality really made it look like you were seeing a legit, knock down, hard-hitting brawl. Lazenby actually really injured a stunt man when he was doing his screen test for OHMSS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQX_dXGq0zo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy2lbEyYqcs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1oE90l5C9c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJUaCxfC_Ow
I don't think he was bad at all. I quite liked him. Maybe not the movie, but I like George.
shareHe is so good in this, that only after a short while I don't even think about it any more. And I think it's that way for a lot of folks.
That took some doing, and he pulled it off with flying colors.
I like him a lot in this film, my favorite Bond film. He was a guy with very little acting experience, or any real reason to get the part other than his looks and his physicality in the auditions, and suddenly he's playing James Bond. Right after Connery, whom everyone in the world would have preferred to have back. If there is any merit to the performance--and I think there is quite a bit--I guess I would have to say that George gets by on natural, untrained, unready ability, which hopefully would have been polished up if he had the smarts to stay with the role. I might agree with the nitpick that his voice is not quite right for James Bond (ironically, he's dubbed for a good bit of the film).
I have watched this film many many times, and Lazenby will always seem a bit of an odd duck, because he only did the one film, and it's the first version of doing a Bond film with a strong emotional hook that humanizes the character and makes him feel real pain in the gut. But he has become "my" Bond. I'm not sure I can side with the folks who say "Connery wouldn't work in this film, anyway", but I would say that they may have re-written parts of the film if Connery was doing it. That's all kind of moot; Lazenby is what we get with OHMSS, and for a guy coming from modelling work and chocolates commercials, it's quite amazing to watch him do so well in the role. He is amazing in the scenes with Diana Rigg, considering his "professional credits" up to that point.
I thought he was good. And could have been great if he had stuck around for longer.
It would have been a very different movie with Sean in the role. Parts of the script, or the whole screenplay , would have to be rewritten. I just can't see Sean doing the more emotional stuff. Connery's Bond seemed more flippant than Lazenby's
As great as Connery is. He looked tired and uninterested in both DAF, and YOLT. He would also have been 9 years older than Diana Rigg. I doubt the attraction would have worked. Diana and George were very close in age so they seemed more natural together.
For a guy who never acted before George did a stand out job. Far better than a lot of actors in movies these days.
He could also do action really well. Connery got to the point where he never seemed afraid, and almost invincible.
George was tough, but could also show fear.
It's a pity that George didn't stick around. Because I think the series would have been better in the 70's with Lazenby.
He could have stopped at Moonraker, then have Dalton start with For Your Eyes Only.
I think he does once he goes undercover, and the comedy comes more into the picture, and I love him later on (especially waving goodbye to Moneypenny) but he's pretty terrible in the opening stages of the movie. He's got nowhere near enough charm to pull off the things he's saying and doing.
They've got cars big as bars, they've got rivers of gold
I would say that "perfect" is stretching it a bit, but he did fine and he certainly did NOT deserve the absolute deadpanning that the critics gave to him.
His offense was that he was not enough like Connery. But it was not his job to play Connery, it was his job to play BOND !! And he did a fine job of it.
I have always enjoyed George Lazenby as Bond. He has admitted that he acted bad and it was his fault he did not do more Bonds. It's amazing how good he was in the film, considering it was his first movie. I just hated the ending where Diana Rigg's character is killed. It's just puts a damper on the whole film.
shareLazenby had all the charm and style of an over matched college freshman.
Zero sense of danger or worldliness. No match for the effervescent Ms. Rigg.
He mostly delivered his lines like a second rate straight man.
Admit the horrible script and rotten direction weren't his fault.