What Am I Missing?


I've been re-watching the Bond films and was hoping that I had overlooked OHMSS, but still consider it one of the worst in the series. I found George Lazenby very bland as Bond and the pacing and plot so dull that I was distracted. The direction and flow of the film is all over the place and the scenes where Bond goes undercover in Blomfeld's clinic are almost like a James Bond parody or Carry On Bond. I agree that Diana Rigg was a decent Bond girl and the final scene is moving, but I am genuinely surprised this is considered by some to be one of the best Bond films. I'd be interested to know why others rate it so highly.

reply

I found George Lazenby very bland .


I think he was good and acted very well.

The direction and flow of the film is all over the place


I disagree. I think it's a very simple story, with a real spy plot.

I'd be interested to know why others rate it so highly


I think this is a real spy thriller movie, and not a cartoonish movie like many other Bond films.
Here we have a serious secret agent, with his psychological fears, unconfident, able to fall in love and being scared.
I like it because it's very realistic.

He wants to arrest Blofeld, the biggest criminal on earth, and work hard to find out his whereabouts.
He meets a great girl, who's not a fighter, a FBI agent or the villain's mistress : she's a great character with a deep ans painful background.

Blofeld here is not just a weird guy with a cat, but a real danger to the world.
There's a lot of tension as Bond is trapped in that machine room, trying to escape or when he breaks into Gunbold's office.

It's exotic (Switzerland, Portugal, Alps), but no too much, as they didn't try to find some excuses to go to the Bahamas, then in Paris, then in Jamaica before going back to Africa with a stop in India.

Realistic is the key word.

And don't get me started on the score, which is the best in cinema history.

reply

How did you find Lazenby bland? Lazenby trained the Australian military in hand to hand combat and when you watch OHMSS you can easily tell that Lazenby was the real deal, no stunt double necessary for the fight scenes. All the fight scenes in this movie are brutal.

reply

The biggest issue, as far as I can tell, is that you have allowed your opinions to obstruct an objective appraisal; the film is not to your tastes, this is clear. But simply because you didn't like it, this does not mean the film is bad; do you see how that works? Regrettably, as the film's reputation continues to improve (especially in light of the more recent films, which owe much to this one), your appraisal will likely become ever more an opinion of the minority.

The film was a big box-office success in its day, indicating that it, its star, his acting, the action, pacing, and storyline, were all readily accepted by Bond fans of the era. That the later films of the series, festooned with gadetry and gimmickry, broad comedy and, ultimately, greater pop appeal, rapidly outshone this film, is understandable; that the citical merits of this film are now being re-appreciated, and its position as one of the best of the series now being consolidated, rather vindicates the original viewers of its era. Sorry about that.

The Bond portrayed in this film is more accurate to the novels than most of the rest of the series; this is a major plus to fans of the novels, as those are generally seen as too dark, too violent, and too perverse for the popular taste. James Bond, as originally written, has a cruel streak, and his outright disdain for foppery, pretentiousness, and self-importance are well portrayed in this film. Bond's portrayal of Sir Hilary Bray is simply brutal, making cruel fun of a cloistered academic living in a bygone century, who still insists on payment in guineas for his services. It should also be noted that actor George Baker, who plays Bray, was author Ian Fleming's original choice for James Bond. Thus even the author couldn't see the counterintuitive sense of his superspy played by some clothing model from Australia. Oh, well.

The real story of the film is Bond's pathological obsession with Blofeld, and the extremes, and ultimate tragedy to which it will take him. Willing to sacrifice his career to facilitate this quest, Bond makes us wonder: will he become some sort of mercenary, or simply a lone-wolf killer, having turned his back on his country's secret service? Having agreed to court a gangster's mentally-traumatized daughter to get close to his arch-enemy, Bond falls in love with her, having finally compromised his own psychological armour and allowed what remains of his humanity to bleed out; the right move, but for Bond a bad one.

So what are you missing? Well, nothing, probably. But your opinions are definitely getting the better of you, and should be considered unnecessary to any critical appraisal of... just about anything. You didn't like the film, and that's just fine. Think of it like 'Tosca'... it's not for everybody. But that doesn't mean it's a bad film, and, unfortunately, no amount of explanation, or special glasses from Q Branch, will likely ever change that.

reply

It's all a matter of opinion.

I wasn't even born when this was made. As I grew up I slowly got into the films because of my Dad. Eventually when I was an Adult I bought the entire collection on DVD. I now have them all on Blu ray. I'd heard so many bad things about OHMSS and having only seen bits and pieces on tv before getting the DVD I didn't know whether they were true or not. Having now seen it in its entirety I think it's brilliant. I thought Lazenby was a great Bond and more fool him for not doing anyone. It's such a shame he never made anymore.

My opinion is it is a great Bond film. Definitely not the worst, personally I think some of Connerys were bad after he became jaded with the role. As time goes on more and more fans will appreciate this more.

reply

I won't really dispute Lazenby being bland. He's the only flaw in the movie for me and keeps it from being perfect. I wouldn't say he was terrible or anything though.

It's slower than other Bond films (I would say because it is more faithful to the novel it is based on than the others) but why is that a bad thing? I've never been bored during the many times I've watched it. The first and last acts focus on the best love story in the series, and in the middle act you've got great action and my favorite Bond villain in Savalas' Blofeld. Nothing to complain about for me.

reply