GetPapa
Far from Perfect, Far from Terrible
Brendon Jones
It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.
Kien Navarro
Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.
Nicole
I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.
Aodhanrooney
George Lazenby was not a bad Bond nor was the casting decision. The script is well written and paced and offers new surprises for a new Bond thrill-ride adventure! Also, I plaud the decision to use make a Bond movie without the use of gadgets and tricks up Bond's sleeve. Like the Sean Connery Bond movies, the excitement is just as enlightening and satisfactory without with these elements. Prior excitement of gadgets like the Aston Martin DB5 was satisfying and enjoyable, but future Bond movies starring Roger Moore relied heavily on gadgets and fans grew tiresome of this. While the performances and casting is noteworthy - as is the well written story - the biggest let down of On Her Majesty's Secret Service is poorly edited action scenes. The movie opens with Bond rescuing main character Tracy from an attempted suicide on the beach, in which Bond decisively rescues her only to be followed by a brief intrusion of two opponents - followed by a weakly edited fight scene, which looked fake and unalarming. Other additional fight scenes in which Bond encounters Draco for the first time and another before Bond escapes Blofeld's fortress in the Swiss Alps, are lazily edited and not great.All criticism aside, On Her Majesty's Secret Sevice is nothing short of amazing and delivers non-stop thrills, spectacular drama and a joyful ski chase. Also, filming locations are still incredible and inspirational, making this instalment a fun choice for the closure of the 60's.
SimonJack
If this weren't a James Bond 007 film, it might rate a notch higher. But no more than that. This is an interesting plot, and the film has some of the usual great scenery and camera work. An unusually higher caliber of cast (Diana Rigg and Telly Savalas) raise it a level. But it has a few things against it. The biggest minus is that it drags in several places. It has short bursts of boredom with little action or interest. The second problem is George Lazenby as James Bond. Again, if he wasn't James Bond but someone else, it would be OK. But, he doesn't have the Bond persona. George is a nice guy, a gentleman, even a little down to earth and humble. But he's not a very good actor. His fight scenes have the slightest pause in them, so they seem contrived or staged. James Bond, on the other hand, is supposed to be tough and macho. He's an overly self-confident, even a little conceited character. That's James Bond, but not George Lazenby. And the third thing wrong with this plot is Bond getting married. I don't think any fans were ready for that at that stage of the Bond character. Again, if the hero was anyone other than Bond, it would be OK for a film. But not here. And Diana Rigg's warming up to him after a while just isn't very convincing. Lazenby didn't go over back then, and the search was on for another actor to play James Bond. We would see Sean Connery return two more times. This was Lazenby's first starring role after just appearing in a TV series. He has stayed in the movies and on TV, but couldn't hold up in leading man roles.
josephkinion
On her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) starts George Lazenby as James Bond He is a very underrated bond because he never acted before he took on the role of James Bond. George is Ian Fleming's James Bond. George Lazenby added Something New to the Franchise The fight scenes in this film were better than the fight scenes in Sean Connery films. Bond Fans criticize George Lazenby because he Never acted before. They always ranked at the Bottom of as James Bond 007. I think this unfair. I wish Stan on As Bond in one more film. I wanted George to be in the next film Diamonds Are Fore (1971) Sean Connery was Lured back to play Bond one more time. This film suits Roger Moore more than Connery. This film also starts Telly Savalas as Ernst Stravro Blofeld the Head of Spectre. This film is different than the five previous Sean Connery films. I Read The bond novels in high school . The Best Bond films are the ones that follow The Novels written by Ian Fleming. John Berry Did the music to this film. Richard Maibaum wrote the Screenplay for this film. This was directed by Peter Hunt he was the previous editor of the previous five Sean Connery films. This is the best looking film in the Franchise. This is the first emotional Bond Film. So of The films follow the novels some of them do not.
JohnHowardReid
Some of the sharpest editing ever seen in a motion picture adds breath- taking excitement to what is actually a seemingly endless variety of fantastic stunts and fabulous action. An attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor is made by Simon Raven's additional dialogue. This is not always successful, although there are three or four extremely witty rejoinders. But often all these humorous touches seem to have been dubbed in as an afterthought. The main action is gripping enough in itself and really needs no support of contrasting comic relief. Lazenby looks the part better than Sean Connery and acts with reasonable assureness and skill. No expense has been spared and all the money has been wisely invested in superlative sets and eye-catching location lensing, plus a faultless support cast.