On Her Majesty's Secret Service 1969

Out with the old, in with the new. Sean Connery quit the Bond role in the last film, so George Lazenby was hired to step in on this sixth film in the franchise.

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is a good film marred by a couple of serious problems. First; Lazenby is not a good actor. He doesn’t suit the role very well and is generally awkward on screen. This is to the extent where it ruins the film, and makes it probably the worst one in our marathon so far.

Second; there are so many sloppy technical elements it’s distracting. Dubbing usually works well enough but here it’s risible; at times sound comes out when people’s mouths are shut. The bigger crime is that these silly edits never add any value to the film, they just serve to make a crap joke or to fill a gap. There are also lots of terrible special effects, tragically spliced into otherwise great scenes.

Third; the costumes are ridiculous and again, we are found laughing at the film rather than with it.

The plot doesn’t quite make sense either. Bond is sent to Blofeld’s lair in the Alps, posing as a genealogist. The two had an encounter at the end of the last film so it seems strange that here they don’t know each other. There’s also a love story that ends up with Bond getting married. It’s a nice thought but Lazenby isn’t up to the task and it never feels like he really connects with his fiancée (Diana Rigg).

That brings us to the better aspects of the film. For starters, Rigg shines through and makes a lot out of her role as the daughter of a crime boss, offered up to Bond in marriage in exchange for cash. It’s not easy when your role relies on interacting with Lazenby, but she manages to make something of it.

What also stands out is the technical wizardry at work. At its best, at least visually, this film is the best of the lot so far. Director Steven Soderbergh* thinks this is the only Bond worth coming back to. I wouldn’t go that far but I can largely agree with what he says on the visual artistry. Of course at it’s worst, it doesn’t get much worse.

John Barry’s soundtrack is also a real winner. It’s sinister, exciting, fits the action well and is so memorable it’s become part of the ‘standard issue’ James Bond music. He ties it into the original theme whilst still making it its own thing.

The things to like about On Her Majesty’s Secret Service are tragically overshadowed by the weaker elements of it. The awkward lead, the very long run time and sloppy attention to detail are too much despite Hunt’s best efforts.

*http://extension765.com/sdr/2-most-irrelevant-no-1

From my site: http://benoliver999.com/film/2015/05/27/onhermajestyssecretservice.html

aka George Lazenby's "How To Get Away With Lying On Your CV".

A movie so bad, the title sequence would rather show clips from the previous 007 flicks. It's quite a surprise that out of all the flaws this movie has, Lazenby's acting is far, far from the worst of them. Sure it's obvious he hasn't got the experience for such a high budget, super hyped film such as Bond; he hasn't got the acting range required for the character, although with high exception for the really dark, sad ending. Production-wise, we've gone back to one fake punch per shot that was in Dr No and Thunderball, which seriously ruins what could have been an excellent first fight scene for Lazenby's Bond. Story is pretty barebones; it's just Bond chasing after Blofield despite M's wishes which... means nothing. Granted they do make an effort to make is like this film's Bond Girl Tracy which are the parts of the movie that saves it from crapness. It's good to see an actual relationship between Bond and the girl rather than "Bang me because plot says so" or the wonderfly aged "Bang me or I'll tell on you". This film wasn't a painful experience, just a boring one.

The black sheep of the James Bond catalog, for just about every reason under the sun. I suppose we can start with Bond himself, played for the first (and only) time by George Lazenby. An extremely green, unseasoned actor, Lazenby just hasn't the chops to do anything with the character. He's certainly got the right look for the part, and he shines especially bright in the punch-outs, which seem far more vivid and realistic than the fisticuffs of the late Connery era, but in terms of intangibles he's all wrong. He lacks the unspoken confidence and worldliness I expect from 007, the charm and charisma that makes this character who (or what) he is. Like Telly Savalas, who struggles to fit in as the villainous Ernst Blofeld, Lazenby may have fit well enough into a similar film, but here he's totally out-of-place.

The plot deserves points for poking in new directions, granting Bond a tangible sense of vulnerability and (of all things) an actual conscience. Alas, I'm afraid that only compounds its problems. The frosty scenery is nice, as are the rampant chase scenes aboard an odd cluster of mixed vehicles, but I don't have kind things to say about much else. That the series darted straight back to the old, familiar mess of silly names, bad puns and dense rivers of cheese in the follow-up, Diamonds Are Forever, is really no surprise. Still, I can't help but wonder what might have been if Eon had stuck to their guns and pressed on through this particular set of growing pains.

The forgotten Bond. Or should I say the unwanted, unrecognized Bond.

But it's not Lazenby who's the problem. I mean, he may be part of it but he might have gotten criticism anyway because he had rather large shoes to fill. In the end he never got a real chance.
No, the main problem is the horrible script. It's cheesy and dull and there isn't much at stake. The movie felt off from the start with now Theme Song and flasbacks from the other Bond movies in the opening credits. There was no excitement going into it. I mean, there is an evil plot by Blofeld to destroy all plant and animal life on Earth. How ingenius is that ? (attention, sarkasm). And everything just so he'll be accepted as a Count ? And was that the same Blofeld as in "You Only Live Twice" I wonder ? He didn't seem to recognize Bond but he was asked how many millions he wants "this time". Which sounds like he was the same. Now, logic was never a strong suite of bond movies but this feels like a gaping hole. And the whole romantic angle ? That felt like a totally different movie. And it didn't fit. It felt completely hollow and constructed and it made no impact at the end. There isn't much more to say about that.
I also blame the director as he seem to have no idea how to get good performances out of his cast. Of course Hunt knew how to make movies as he was an editor for the first four. But knowing how to make a movie and making one are different things. Horrible German accents and weird, funny sound effects during the fights only add to the pile. And the movie was way, way too long. I checked the time after what I thought must be already two hours and I was just halfway in.

No, this was not a good movie at all. Bond or otherwise. Such a shame Diana Rigg threw away "The Avengers" for this one off appearance. And that after only being third choice for the role (after Bardot and Deneuve).

For one of the older James Bond movies, this was actually quite enjoyable. Granted (as is the case with all older movies) some of it was quite outdated and parts of the film were laughingly far-fetched but all in all, this was probably my favorite of the Bond movies since Dr. No in 1962. I found it (again, this is by today's standards and I'm an old-fashioned guy anyway) a bit reprehensible that Bond professed to truly "love" Tracy (played by a very cute - and the most attractive Bond flame thus far! - Diana Rigg) yet he had no problem throwing himself around like a cheap gigolo when he was surrounded by other women with his "true love" nowhere around. (Hint, Tracy: There are better catches out there. Move on…) Not sure why this was the only James Bond film ever portrayed by actor George Lazenby, as I found him a refreshing change from Sean Connery's character (and I'm a fan of Sean Connery, by the way). Lazenby seemed to have a smoother, less offensive way with the ladies…charming them without forcing himself on them. Additionally, his entire character just seemed much more relaxed as Bond; maybe it was just this particular story but he was definitely a great James Bond and I would love to have seen him play the Bond character in more films. Apart from that, this was another typical James Bond story, albeit a bit muddled (for me, anyway) at the first as I wasn't sure what the story was about. You get some lines from Bond's overseer "M" and a bit of dialogue between the two of them at the beginning of the movie, but not much was said that clarified what the entire story was about. In that regard, it was difficult to follow the story until well into it and even then it wasn't the easiest to follow. LOTS of stunts in this one (and yes, the speed-framing was hilariously evident but still fun) that made it even more appealing for an older film and the ending - even though you knew it was coming - was still very touching. I would give this one high marks just for George Lazenby's portrayal but overall the movie is definitely worth watching. Keep in mind, it's still a very dated film but I definitely found it a great movie.

More of an outlier than the non-Eon Never Say Never Again...

Though Lazenby clearly isn't as good an actor as Connery, he isn't awful. I'm sure he suited the posters more than the reality of being Bond but he is better in the action sequences than the dramatic ones.

What harms this film is apparent when you cast Connery in the role... The plot, the mingling of good guys and bad guys, the courtship, the strange Blofeld genealogy ruse... I can't imagine any Bond actor being able to stand up to the strangeness of the plot.

And the production pacing is a mess. The first 30 minutes is hectic. The last 20 are also. There's action sequences that are chopper than a Bourne movie. And there are long boring stretches at the ski resort that don't pay off as well as they are intended.

There's another review here that asks what would have happened if Eon had stuck out the Lazenby decision. They already had Diamonds Are Forever lined up and that would have hopefully been a more traditional film for him...

Alas we'll never know. And it would be almoat two decades before they were brave enough to cast another bond who forged his own take on the iconic character - Timothy Dalton.

It's the worst of the series so far but not necessarily for the reasons you would expect. It deserves a watch regardless.

6.25/10

OHMSS is the least "Bond" of all the Bond movies, but still manages to be more faithful to the source material than most, if not all, of the other entries into the series. This makes it a rare entry into a universe that is filled with rather a lot of "silliness" at times. Being the only appearance of George Lazenby as Bond also contributes to it being rather unusual. Lazenby did a good job as Bond, and it makes you wonder where the franchise would have gone if he had a few more appearances as our favorite secret agent.

OHMSS is a good movie but ends up being a bit odd to me. Not just because of the lack of the quintessential Bond-ness, but also because it's severely toned down from Sean Connery's Bond movies. Diana Rigg also plays an unusual Bond "girl", in the fact that she is more a sparring partner and a love interest than just a woman to conquer. In short...they made James Bond much more human, and I'm not sure if that is what people wanted out of the series at that time...or now for that matter.

Don't get me wrong though. I didn't like OHMSS when I was a kid, but over the years it has grown on me, and now it's actually one of the standouts in a series that rarely disappoints me.