http://webomatica.disqus.com/Entertainment and Tech DigestenTue, 10 Mar 2009 16:52:34 -0000http://www.webomatica.com/wordpress/2006/11/05/movie-notes-on-her-majestys-secret-service/#comment-7080001On Her Majesties Secret Service (George Lazenby) – Half of everyone hates this movie, but what I find a little crazy is that George Lazenby was actually good when it began, and that I scoffed at my mom warning me that the Bond Movie was the equivalent of poo. But that didn’t last long. Within 45 minutes of the movie I stopped watching. The next time I picked it up, it was family movie night. My sister wanted to watch it. Needless to say, the greatest and most unexpected part of the movie was when the end credits started to roll; the movie seemed to last all night. On an end note, the opening song sequence’s backround was a CARTOON! Give me a break. But what’s really bad is the fact that none of this is the directors fault, except for the title sequence. What caused this movie to stink were the actors. Everyone says George Lazenby was bad, and he was, and he looked like a pig, but I also think that the main Bond girl (gosh, I can’t even remember her name) was pretty bad, too. And Bond should never have gotten married. It’s not exactly right for his character. I think that he should have said he loved her, and then she should have died before they got married.annoymously geniusTue, 10 Mar 2009 16:52:34 -0000http://www.webomatica.com/wordpress/2006/11/05/movie-notes-on-her-majestys-secret-service/#comment-1748681Well yes, we can only wonder how this movie might have turned out had Connery been along for the trip. He wasn't, though, and so we have the movie we have. For my money, Lazenby was fine, just a little stiff, perhaps, but then Roger Moore took a while (too long!) to settle into the role. Had he not been a stereotypically headstrong Aussie Larrikin, Lazenby could have gone on to combine the credible action of Connery with the suave charm of Moore to become THE Bond of the 1970s (of course, there may well have been the same varying quality of script). Anyway, OHMSS is a top three Bond movie, mostly for eschewing the by-then rampant sci-fi/superhero cliches and presenting a streamlined (if a little bit 'Our Man Flint') narrative with the emphasis on character. There is also a stark, visceral grittiness which has more in common with 'Dr No' and the down-to-earth 1970s than the intervening phantastic psychedelic 1960s. Going back to conjecture, it is tempting to see the 1960s Bond movies as a canon unto themselves, with credible 'naivety-to-disillusion' bookending episodes. Connery's subsequent reprisal of the role was a mistake; he was far too old to be a believable Bond. The ensuing Moore movies were an increasingly-cartoonish retreat from 'real' violence and suffered badly in comparison with edgier contemporaries like 'Dirty Harry', 'Mean Streets', 'Scarface' or even TV shows like 'The Sweeney'. OHMSS was an curious one-off, and an excellent, though premature 'farewell' to the 1960s 'superhero' Bond, which posited a tantalising set of indications as to how the franchise could have progressed.SlammerwormTue, 16 Oct 2007 19:24:39 -0000