Dissapointing Lazenby (Page 1 of 2)

I think he is only like this because a lot of people don't really consider him a Bond, and even if people do consider him Bond his performance isn't appreciated.

I have no problems accepting Lazenby as 007 in OHMSS - the best film in the series in my opinion. He seems a tad bored at times (first meeting with Draco) but he looks great and is very physical. When I used to subscribe to the printed version of 007 Magazine, Lazenby featured several times as a guest at events and, according to Graham Rye & co, always signed endless autographs and seemed happy that people remembered his brief stint as Bond. His low profile of late is due to personal problems that are probably best left alone.

What autobiography? The Scotland book does have a picture of him running across the DAF moon buggy site, complete with unconvincing caption about 'lunatic escapades'...

Ever noticed it's people who either aren't Bond fans, or people who haven't seen OHMSS that knock Lazenby? I thought he was alright. He could certainly have gone on to do more. The film could have been better - a tad slow in places. But the ending makes me shiver every time - certainly more sad than that stroppy fridged Vesper in CR!

He's an acquired taste imo. Can't do the jokes for toffee... gets better as the movie goes on but a bit too smarty pants in the early scenes. Fans like his movie because it's close to Fleming and takes the thing seriously, and to be fair it's the film that's dated least of the 1960s efforts, it's astonishingly contemporary on the big screen.

Well, he is called Blofeld.... 

That's not true. I'm a huge Bond fan and I've seen OHMSS, and I knock him. I thought he was superb in terms of his physicality, but I didn't like his acting. I thought he looked extremely uncomfortable and I'm not convinced that he could have improved. Interestingly enough, I loved his handling of the final scene, but that probably was because he was able to handle it naturally and being a non-star, he didn't have any hang-ups going into it. Although Connery was IMO the greatest actor to ever play Bond (and *quite possibly the greatest to appear in a Bond film), I don't think that Connery could have handled the final scene better as I'm not sure he would have been as willing to appear 'un-macho.' Anyway, other than the physicality and his handling of the final scene, Lazenby was IMO a major flaw of the film.

*I'm not entirely certain as Robert Shaw could certainly give Sir Sean a run for his money.

Last edited by Dan Same (6th Jul 2009 18:30)

I like George fine but Connery could've given us all a shiver down the spine with OHMSS, if he really wanted to.  He probably wouldn't have wept openly, but it could have been the best understated cool anguish since McQueen's comrade in the Sand Pebbles.

No Bond Actor has had as tough an assignment as Lazenby did taking over from SC. Even with the slight break that SC was clearly bored and a bit portly by YOLT Lazenby still had a hell of a hill to climb. For me he is a success, not perfect, but his shortcomings would have been solved by more experience. He represents a huge amount of promise, and it's a shame that he dcided not to do more.

I think only Dalton, and Craig could have pulled off the final scene as well, which as they are both fine actors is a real coup for the 'non-actor' Lazenby.

I might have been a bit hard on old Sean - don't get me wrong, he is probably my favourite Bond after all. I just find a lot of factors of DAF that annoy me. Connery is old and implausable to my mind, certainly not fit enough looking to be a double 0. But the film lacks the previous polish and appears cheap. Las Vegas was never going to add an element of class, and Felix is played like some old street weary cop turned PI - certainly it's hard to believe that Bond could ever have become friends with Felix. There are some good bits, and great characters like all Bond films. I certainly don't hate any of the films. (Well, maybe Moonraker...)
But we're off track here, this is about Lazenby. He was alright, good enough to defend in my opinion. Whether he could have got any better, we'll never know. Connery set the bar, and nobody could have walked right into the role without forty years of flak.

I think Lazenby's perceived innocence might be the principal weakness in his overall performance.  Bond was never supposed to be innocent; in the OHMSS novel, he falls for Tracy despite a lifetime of surviving danger and duplicity, and a sardonic fatalism on display in each and every literary adventure prior to that one.  And I liked that: no one, in spite of their life experience or philosophical outlook, is immune from falling unexpectedly in love, and IMO this magnified the tragedy of the story's finale.  I believe that OHMSS is Fleming's greatest work.

I also happen to believe that Lazenby could have matured in the role.  He carried himself very well, and gave an inspiring account of himself in every fight scene.  His performance in the oft-mentioned final scene gives us a glimpse at what his potential might have been.  But this history has been written: he's an enigma with unfulfilled promise.

Agree with Loeffs and DS. And the script in OHMSS calls for Bond to be worldly and knowing, ie Connery's Bond. When he calls Tracy 'Countessa' he is basically taking the mickey in Mellors the gamekeeper style, it's the wry, yanking of her chain, her supposed superiority in class... perfect for Bond. But Lazenby doesn't have that string to his bow. He just sounds a bit painful.

Another snag. How or why do they fall in love? I don't really see how it happens. Ditto with Vesper to be honest. There has to be that clincher moment where the jigsaw fits. Okay, the shower scene in CR did kind of have it, though again I sense the relationship got shoehorned to accommodate Haggis' final act in Venice, a rewrite.