MovieChat Forums > On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) Discussion > Controversial: Lazenby was a better Bond...

Controversial: Lazenby was a better Bond than Craig


Lazenby lacked the charisma of Brosnan, Connery, and Dalton, (Brosnan still tops out as the most charismatic Bond), but he certainly came across as more charming, stealthy, intuitive, and guileful than Craig's Bond.

Also, physically, I have to say that Lazenby was the most proficient Bond of them all. I really loved Connery's Bond for willing to go head-to-head in fisticuffs any chance he got, but Lazenby was so much more proficient. You could literally see his military and expert martial arts background shine through in the choreography.

He was very adept at utilizing his surroundings, and thinking quick on his feet. He's one of the few Bonds that actually followed through with takedowns and combos instinctively, but he wasn't a super man. His choreography also made a lot of sense and it was a well ahead of the time for 1969... in fact, choreography wouldn't see a significant improvement until the kung-fu classics of the 1970s, due in large part to Bruce Lee. So in that regard, Lazenby was way ahead of the times.

Even while some of his line delivery was stilted due to being an acting neophyte, I felt like Lazenby was actually a far better Bond for his first time out than a lot of people gave him credit for. In fact, I avoided this movie so often because I mistakenly read all the critics reviews mostly trashing Lazenby and calling the film middling, even though this was certainly one of the more grounded Bond films with a realistic villainous plot (threatening the release of diseases and selling the treatment for profit *cough* current day Big Pharma*cough*).

Seeing the film outside the critical lens of biased critics and apart from comparisons to Connery, I actually thought this was a really, really, really good espionage spy film. Lazenby's Bond also actually went undercover as someone completely different than himself, and nearly fooled his foes. The cover was also pretty good, and the dialogue they wrote for him was top notch as a genealogist.

I can't even remember if Craig's Bond was ever properly sent undercover? Or was ever undercover as a convincing pseudonym?

It's easy to forget that Craig's Bond is even supposed to be a spy at times, he did so very little spy work compared to Lazenby's depiction.

I would even venture to say that Lazenby's Bond would certainly be adept enough to kill Craig's Bond. He was quick on his feet, good with his hands, and actually avoided being conspicuous (his Assassin's Creed-style blending in with the crowd at the ice rink was a nice cover until he could think of a way to get out).

I have to rank this easily as one of my favorites. I think I'm glad I waited to see it because I have a much better appreciation for it now than perhaps if I had seen it years ago and compared it to the more bombastic Bond films I grew with up. A shame Lazenby didn't return to the role, he was perfectly handsome for Bond, had a good face for the role (and he practically looked like Clive Owen), was one of the better technical fighters out of the all the other Bond actors, and portrayed Bond as smart, cunning, witty, and very easily likable.

When you think of a secret agent, Lazenby really nailed the traits well.

reply

Mike Myers was better than Craig. Craig was a sad/mad/conflicted/pouty/introspective/complex/vindictive Bond. Not what I want in Bond.

reply

"Lazenby lacked the charisma of Brosnan"

Stopped reading right after this.

reply