George Lazenby as James Bond - So Under-rated!

R

Ricardodaforce

Self requested ban
Suspended / Banned
Messages
18,340
Edit My Images
No
I've just ordered the Bond movies on Blu and it got me thinking about this. I have always loved O.H.M.S.S.. A truly classic Bond film. Great story, editing, a score to die for, and of course George Lazenby as James Bond. BUT he's always been regarded as rubbish compared to the others. What about you guys? Is there anyone else out there that rates O.H.M.S.S. and Lazenby?
 
I don't not like it/him but would have hoped he would have had more than one film to prove if he was a good choice.
 
Sorry, but he's a bit of a wet lettuce compared to most of the other Bonds.
Just my opinion of course!
 
It's a pretty good film and he is not bad. I have all the bond films aside from last 2 and have seen them all many times. IMO the best bonds in this order are:

Connery and Moore - cant separate these. Moore did The humour well, and Connery was just excellent.
Lazenby - not bad at all
Brosnan - again, not bad but a bit dull?
Dalton - so so
Craig - rubbish. Seriously. Maybe it's the quality of the film but his ones are not bond films to me.
 
Can't beat Connery for me, it's that little lilt :D
 
George (IMHO) was a great Bond. Didn't have the looks I guess? :shrug:
My fave was More...added a bit more humour than the others. Piers was great too. Never liked that cat before him though...can't even remember his name.
 
On the Huh said:
George (IMHO) was a great Bond. Didn't have the looks I guess? :shrug:
My fave was More...added a bit more humour than the others. Piers was great too. Never liked that cat before him though...can't even remember his name.
Click to expand...

I liked him alot, but I always though he played him with a little to many feelings
 
It is up there with Bond films and GL certainly was a good Bond. It is a shame the special effects were not up to much in those days. The book is a good read too. Boys own stuff.
 
I think that's half the problem with the later Bond films, too much reliance on special effects and not enough storyline. That's Hollywood of course but also probably down to only being able to tell basically the same story in a finite number of ways before the ideas dry up and the effects take over.

Maybe something more true to life for the next one? Bond sits in his open plan office watching the bad guys on cctv while filling out endless H&S forms so he can take his gun out of the safe. Trying to get the HR department to authorise funds for the use of public transport so he can go confront the baddies. The film ends with him locked up in a suitcase by persons unknown and only missed weeks later when HR don't get a reply to their demands for him to produce his London transport receipts.


oh..Sean Connery for me, can't act to save himself but succeeds well at just being Sean Connery.
 
Steep said:
oh..Sean Connery for me, can't act to save himself but succeeds well at just being Sean Connery.
Click to expand...

His return film, Diamonds are Forever, is one of the weakest of the series. Very poor. In my opinion of course!
 
Ricardodaforce said:
His return film, Diamonds are Forever, is one of the weakest of the series. Very poor. In my opinion of course!
Click to expand...

Really? I would argue its better than any of the brosnan, dalton and Craig ones. It's pretty decent, IMO of course.
 
My least favourite is the one with Teri Hatcher in......awful plot, can anyone imagine Mr R Murdoch being the same as Jonathan Pryce's villain?
 
I think the Craig films are meant to be more like Bourne/Taken action flicks, in that respect he is excellent for the role, the way the films were made suits him better than the old style. Brosnan wasn't a good era, his bond was too cocky and the films over reliant on effects rather than story and character
 
The problem with OHMSS was his co-star hated him, didnt think he was a serious/good actor and had no real chemistry between them despite the fact they were supposed to be in love and married, sad ending though. Thought the film was ok and he was good enough.
Matt
 
OHMSS was the best Bond story with the worst actor. Lazenby couldn't act the goat if he tried.

Connery IS Bond....he made the role and was apparently Ian Fleming told Cubby Broccoli that he was his choice for Bond and that he walked like a panther !?! So if Fleming thought so who are we to argue?
 
Technically, Connery was the best.
Moore was my favourite as were those films (a lot think he made the weakest of the series)...think it might depend on the era you grew up with or were old enough to be in the era when those films were repeated often?:thinking:

Moore - The Man with The Wooden Delivery:D (nevermind Bond, get Spitting Image back:lol:)

The books are a bit different, a bit darker than any of the films IMO, and oddly enough I prefer the films.
Don't think the latest films are anything special though, good actions films, but not 'Bond' :shake:

Watch a Moore Bond when I'm in the mood, even though Octopussy etc are pretty weak:D:lol:
 
O.H.M.S.S was a great film and even though i think he made a good bond the producers didnt think he was good looking enough.
 
actualy i stand corrected he was infact offered a seven film contract but his agent convinced him that the secret agent would be archaic in the liberated 1970s so he left the series after the OHMSS came out.
 
pepi1967 said:
actualy i stand corrected he was infact offered a seven film contract but his agent convinced him that the secret agent would be archaic in the liberated 1970s so he left the series after the OHMSS came out.
Click to expand...

Exactly, one of the worst professional decisions ever made!
 
Wasn't David Niven considered by Flemming as his first choice but the producers said he was too old?
 
well Bob Holness made a good bond but that was before Connery :P

anyway connery is excellent, no doubt about it for Bond.
the problem is that GL didn't get a decent look in, which was a shame. I thought his was okay.
Dalton had a real problem. it was grittier than the previous Bonds, less tongue and cheek and more about a killer/spy that you wouldn't cross...but it suffered because the world wasn't ready for that after Moore and 90's syndrome kicked in.
Brosnon was excellent I thought in Goldeneye, great comeback I thought, then they got weak with dodgy casting, teri hatcher anyone? urrgh, and a multimedia baron. Real shame they were weak. THe least said about invisitble astons and surfing an arctic tsunami the better...sheesh!
Moore wasn't my cup of tea, too smug and tongue in cheek but having said that, some of the bonds he was in were great, moonraker and the spy who loved me sticks in my head.
Craig I think is a good bond, as a reboot. because he becomes the king of suave it's more visceral and yes...Bourne-like. Much needed I think.
Casino Royale was good but the 2nd wasn't a bit weaker. Looking forward to skyfall. will see how that turns out.
 
joxang said:
Tim Dalton is the darkest Bond, with character flaws that match the 007 of the Fleming books. That makes him the greatest in my eyes.
Click to expand...

Lazenby showed more emotion than the others. The true fear Bond experienced during the ice rink scene. The death of Tracy. He was anything but wooden. If he'd had taken up the offer to continue he'd have owned that roll. Whilst I like the pre O.H.M.S.S. films, I can't see how anyone can deny Connery was rubbish in Diamonds Are Forever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top