In many ways, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (OHMSS) is very similar to Casino Royale (2006). Both You Only Live Twice (the Bond film preceding OHMSS) and Die Another Day (the Bond film preceding Casino Royale) were overwrought, expensive spectacles, more akin to sci-fi movies than real spy thrillers. The gadgets, the girls, the cheeky dialogue, the invincibility of James Bond, had taken over and replaced the wit and sophistication that we had come to expect from the franchise. As a result the producers took the next film in the opposite direction, and the first thing they did was get someone new to play Bond. Now George Lazenby is no Sean Connery, but he holds his own. And just like Daniel Craig, he was a controversial choice to fans who thought Sean Connery would always be James Bond. However, just like Casino Royale, OHMSS turned out to be a fantastic movie, one of the highlights of the franchise, even if it is frequently overlooked. OHMSS portraits James Bond as a real person, with real emotions, and capable of real love. Much like Casino Royale, the action takes a backseat to the Bond’s experiences and his growth as a character. That doesn’t mean that there is no action, just that in this Bond film they can do things that you will not see in any other film of the franchise. For this reason, OHMSS is a worthy Bond movie to watch, and it is a shame that the franchise did not continue with this style of movie, instead reverting back to the goof for much of the 70’s.
Synopsis: James Bond meets the troubled Tracy Di Vicenzo, the daughter of a mob boss. When he saves her from committing suicide, her father wishes James to marry her in order to keep her safe, even offering him a large sum of money to do it. Instead, James agrees to do it in exchange for information about the infamous Blofeld. Using this information, James goes undercover to find out why Blofeld is hiding in the Swiss Alps. When he finds out what is really going on, he is torn between his loyalty to MI6 and to Tracy….
Acting: Those of you who think that James Bond should be an unstoppable killing machine who can have sex with any woman he wants will not like George Lazenby. He is a little aloof, has a soft side, and lacks the charm that other actors who played Bond had. Still, he is perfect for the role. His Bond is the most realistic until Daniel Craig, and he has a purposeful, determined demeanor about him, and I think he creates a character that is the closest to Ian Flemming’s title character. Likewise, Diana Rigg as Tracy and Telly Savalas as Blofeld are not the typical actors to be cast in their respective roles either. Both of them bring the film to a level that is believable and never over-the-top, a feat which even beloved Goldfinger can not claim to have achieved. Good (24/25)
- George Lazenby: Good
- Diana Rigg: Great
- Telly Savalas: Good
- Supporting Cast: Good
Script/Plot: Likewise, those of you who think that a James Bond film should be all about the action, fast cars, beautiful women, and totally devoid of the e-word (emotion), then you will also be disappointed by this movie. The pacing and action is more akin to From Russia With Love than Thunderball, as James spends much of the movie doing actual spy work (getting information), rather than blowing things up or shooting people. A considerable portion of the plot is also given to the relationship between James and Tracy, (just like Casino Royale spends some time on his relationship with Vesper), but the movie really picks up towards the end. I feel that this is the type of story and plot structure that is fitting for a spy movie, even if it is a little long for a typical Bond flick. Good (24/25)
- Dialogue: Good
- Script: Good
- Plot: Good
- Themes/Messages: Good
Direction: The direction, though, is edgier than you are used to seeing in a Bond flick. Director Peter Hunt gives the film an artistic flair that is not really seen again in the franchise until Quantum of Solace. The light contrast is high, which gives the movie an almost film-noir affect. The most impressive use of Hunt’s style and poise is the opening sequence, which sets the tone for the rest of the movie even if the film is not as stylized past this point. Still, in whole the movie rings true to the style and feel of films from the 60’s, including the action sequences which suffer a bit from shaky overlay backgrounds and sped-up-film (but again that was the norm in the 60’s). Overall, a very vivid and smart look to a smart movie. Good (24/25)
- Professionalism: Great
- Flow: Good
- Editing: Okay
Special Effects: While not spectacular, the special effects and stunt work make for some very memorable action sequences. Bond’s first ski chase is gripping, and there is a good car chase bit too. But where the movie lacks in quality, it makes up for in clarity. It is very easy to tell what is happening, as all of the fight sequences are excellently choreographed and filmed (something that cannot be said about Quantum of Solace‘s choppy action). Finally, the sound track is one of the best in the series, being both memorable and innovative (this was one of the first films to use a synthesizer for its score). Some of the music was even used for Pixar’s Incredibles because it personified the spy film sub category so well. Good (23/25)
- Special Effects: Okay
- Music: Great
- X-Factor: Great
The Verdict: (95/100) = A (A must see)
- What’s Good: Finally a Bond film that feels like a spy movie with an intelligent script that’s more realistic, favorable acting from a new lead, a touch of class from the director and score, and of course some fun action bits.
- What’s Bad: This is a Bond film that strays from the formula; Bond may not be as fun since he’s not as invincible, the movie is pretty long, and some of the special effects are laughable.
- The Verdict: For one show only! See James Bond as he was meant to be!
My previous review: Rated: A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Other James Bond films I have reviewed: Rated: The Man With the Golden Gun (1974) , Rated: Quantum of Solace (2008)
Remember to become a fan of GSP Movie Reviews on Facebook!
While I can appreciate the points you make about bringing out the softer side of Bond, I really can’t take seriously the idea that this film was well plotted or scripted. The main plot, that Blofeld wants to wreak havoc by brain-washing 10 women and having them unleash a deadly virus upon the world, is as hackneyed and pathetic as they come. No amount of edgy direction or tradition-breaking can save it.
I agree Mike. I think that the new Bond films with Daniel Craig have been more quality filmwork. It is one of the primary reasons I am so excited about the new one that Sam Mendes is directing. The direction that the new Bond movies have been going in has been much more thoughtful and complex. Even “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” can’t compare, in spite of its attempts to step outside the norm.
I agree that looking back 40 years on the film, it is a silly premise. However, consider that in 1969 this was probably the first time that many people had even heard of viral warfare, and to them it would have been cutting edge. The same phenomena is true with literally all of the Bond films, including Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. Bond is a staple of pop culture, and as such, the writing is embedded in the time period the film was made in.
Also, keep in mind that movies of today are written (and made) much differently than in 1969.
Obviously films are made differently 40 years down the line, but a silly premise is a silly premise, no matter when it was released. With all due respect, I think if this film had been made in 1939 it would still have been a stupid plot.
Were you alive to see this movie when it came out in 1969?
I think its plot is perfectly fitting for that time period. Not to mention it follows the book almost exactly. I think that it is interesting that despite all the controversial aspects of this film that this is the thing that irks you the most. Face it, all the Bond movies are pretty silly, but you have to give them credit. They’ve come up with 22 unique ideas and all of them are written based around a current event or problem at the time. Its quite an accomplishment, and if they’ve lasted this long you know they’re doing something right.
But again, there’s “I’m a drug dealer on a Caribbean island” silly and there’s “I’m the leader of an international terrorist organisation who wants to hypnotise women with allergies in my Alps resort and have them release a deadly virus” silly.
You’re quite right that I wasn’t alive in 1969 to see this film’s release, but that doesn’t take away my right to criticise a film that was made in that year. I’m not blind to the historical context of the time, but if your argument is that OHMSS somehow captured the feeling of the time, then not only do I not believe you, but you missed an interesting talking point out from your own review. Frankly, I just think that you’re making an argument from authority – you were alive at the time, and I wasn’t, so your opinion must be of greater value.
To suggest that the Bond films have come up with unique ideas that are written based on current events or problems is facile. I suppose “The Man with the Golden Gun” is relevant to 1973 because it’s based around the energy crisis? And what an in-depth analysis it provides, introducing some technological macguffin for both Bond and the villain to want. “Live and Let Die”? Plays on the underlying white fear of every black man standing on a street corner? “Die Another Day”? Fear of the…ummm….demilitarised zone in Korea being destroyed by a giant ray gun? Let’s face it – the unique and relevant ideas that Bond films use are usually flimsy plot devices to differentiate one mad villain’s scheme from the last one. Frankly, I think they do a better job when the bad guy just wants money or revenge, like in “Licence to Kill” and “Goldeneye”, becasue these are believable concepts that I can get behind. Whenever they bring in your relevant plot device, it’s always a half-hearted effort to hide the fact that the script basically calls for another mad millionaire to want to hold everyone on the planet for ransom.
I agree that the Bond films are better when they do have a believable villain or plot. Although I will admit that I enjoy the more extravagant affairs just because of the fact that they are so ridiculous. I’m not saying that I would consider Moonraker, Die Another Day, Diamonds are Forever, etc. as good movies, but they are fun to watch. Each is a time capsule of ideas and trends of the time; some laughably bad and offensive (Live and Let Die, Man With The Golden Gun, Octopussy), some fitting and arguably thought-provoking (Goldfinger, License to Kill). The point is that above all, these films show what was entertaining at the time, and that is what I think the true value of Bond is to cinema, because each addition to the series is that time period’s interpretation of the Bond formula, first given to us in written form by Ian Fleming. OHMSS is just another entry into the series, and even if it is goofy or just plain dumb at times it is 1969’s interpretation of that formula. I wasn’t alive then to see it either, but we can’t call it stupid if we don’t know how it was received when released. All we can do is look back on it from our perspective today, and yes, it is a dumb plot, but it is characteristic Bond and I found it entertaining. I can’t say that it ruins the credibility of the movie, because I don’t know what was credible or acceptable in 1969, when it was released.