BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Kingslaay On Her Majesty's Secret Service was an excellent novel, one of Fleming's finest Bonds. The production got a great Bond girl, villain, henchman and other characters to make this a classic. There was only one problem, Bond himself. Since this is a James Bond film it is also the biggest problem. George Lazenby was terrible and unable to portray 007 in this adaptation. What makes it worse is his predecessor, Sean Connery, is arguably the best portrayal of the spy so there was a high bar. Lazenby was a car salesman and not an actor which should not prevent him from portraying the agent but sadly it did, he couldn't act. He lacked charisma and struggled to play the role. His accent and delivery of lines was terrible and laughable. Not surprised this was his first and last portrayal of Bond. A number of viewers and critics over the years have praised this film. Like I said earlier this was an excellent novel and plot with all the ingredients. So it is easy to appreciate the film for these elements but Bond on his own was disastrous and while the film had great stand alone elements its main element to tie it together was terrible. This story was perhaps better than Thunderball or You Only Live Twice however when it came to film an exceptional actor hit it out of the park. It is a big shame and big wasted opportunity that such a great novel was adapted and portrayed by Lazenby. Ion Productions and MGM are not in the habit of remaking a film in the franchise due to its legacy so it is a real shame such potential was wasted. What if Connery had played this one or it was left unused to be played by Daniel Craig with 21st century CGI that would worked beautifully in the snow locations? We can dream of the potential of what could have been but sadly it was ended when an inexperienced actor decided to wear shoes that were far too big for him. I compare Lazenby's one stint at Bond to the portrayal of Batman in the 1960s, while the elements for a great vigilante exist in fiction and literature it was hilariously portrayed. Every great series has period where it was weirdly and badly dramatized. The same elements and sources for Batman have been used to make iconic Batman movies like Nolan's trilogy. The same applied to Daniel Craig's great portrayal of Bond in Skyfall to make a script or screenplay so much more than what it it is.

connorbbalboa Most modern critic reviews say that this Bond film was under-appreciated when first released and that it has held up better over the years. While I certainly don't dislike On Her Majesty's Secret Service, I must say that I don't think it's as good as those critics and Bond fans make it out to be. Everyone says it was an attempt to make Bond more emotionally-sensitive and serious than previous films, but it comes off to me as more of a half-hearted attempt. It's more like a prototype for later Bond films that would try this like Casino Royale.To get it off my chest, I will say that George Lazenby, while he does put in a very good effort, is no Sean Connery or Daniel Craig. My first problem is that (not to sound racist) he looks too American for a British Secret Service agent. Also, a lot of his performance seems to be mimicking Connery's, trying to replicate a suave personality, but lacking the ruthlessness that Connery was able to pull off. Although to be fair, in the scene where Lazenby's Bond reacts to his wife Tracy's (Diana Riggs) death, he pulls it off very well; he also can fight good, it seems.Here, the plot is that Bond is offered a considerable sum of money from a European crime lord if he marries his daughter, Tracy. While Tracy is reluctant at first, she and Bond get to know each other, and, after preventing an evil scheme by famous Bond baddie Blofeld (Telly Savalas), get married after it seems that Bond is ready to give up being a ladies man secret agent with a license to kill, until Tracy is murdered that is. The idea that Bond would want to get married and give up being a secret agent who beds any woman he pleases is a very good idea, but unfortunately, for a considerable amount of time after getting to know one another, the Bond/Tracy relationship is tossed to the side in favor of Bond tracking down Blofeld, and it seems that Bond declares his love for Tracy too early. Others have pointed this out as a criticism and I agree with those people. Really, after the scene with Bond and Tracy at the bull-fighting ring, all we get is a montage of them being happy together before Bond has to find Blofeld.Blofeld is not a very good villain here. While he does try to kill Bond himself at points, unlike previous entries in the series, he makes some very stupid decisions, such as leaving Bond in a room where he can find a way to escape after revealing his secret plan and falling for the ploy where Tracy's father and Bond, via radio communication from a helicopter, say that they are carrying blood for the Red Cross. I don't expect a smart Bond villain to fall for such a thing. Blofeld in You Only Live Twice, while having an underwhelming and rushed first meeting with Bond, was able to see through the scheme involving his fake death.The action scenes are shot very well most of the time, although a couple of them are shot more in the manner of the "shaky cam" of some of today's action films, and it can get very confusing. Another gripe I have is that while the director, Peter Hunt, said repeatedly that he wanted his Bond film to be different, he must not have been confident in this objective because in the first several scenes, mainly, there are quite a few references to the previous films with Connery that don't fit at all. The opening credits sequence features footage from the previous films, Lazenby's Bond, after seeing Tracy drive away from him during their first meeting, says "This never happened to the other fellow (referencing Connery's Bond)," and there is even a pointless scene where Bond tries to resign so we can get a look at objects from three of the previous films, which I doubt he would have been able to keep as souvenirs. It's like the filmmakers were too afraid of people wondering what happened to Connery and decided to make references that acknowledged that his Bond and Lazenby's Bond are the same character.Despite the negative criticism I've given, I do acknowledge what this film has tried to do with Bond. However, it cannot be completely excused of its flaws that keep it from working completely. A storyline about an emotionally-sensitive Bond stripped down to his core was done much better in Casino Royale nearly forty years later. In my mind, if you're going to try to make Bond more of a serious character in his films, go all the way, or don't go for it at all.

LeonLouisRicci Contains more Controversy and Division among James Bond Fans than any other in the Series.To fill Sean Connery's Role, the Producers chose an Australian with No Acting Experience. A Part-Time Model named George Lazenby. He was given the Thankless Task of making the Transition Seamless in a Movie Franchise Second to None.Up to this point, Connery did Five Films, all being Well Received, except one, actually He did Return for one more (about as disappointing as this one), "You Only Live Twice" (1967) which was Below Average, a Disappointment, with Silly Stuff Galore.Lazenby does a Good Job, considering and was asked to Return after this, but Refused the Long Term Contract offered. The Movie, believe it or not, has some Die Hard James Bond Fans saying it's the Best Ever. It was, without doubt, the closest Rendition on Film of the Ian Fleming Novels.On its Own, the Film has more "Heart" than the Previous Pictures, with Bond Falling in Love, and almost No Gadgets. The Action Sequences are Top-Notch and Edge of Your Seat, and there are Plenty to Please Fans.Telly Savalas as Blofeld and Diana Rigg as the most Personally Resonant Bond Girl to Date and Fights along side the Secret Agent with Grace and Aptitude. Rigg adds a Great Deal to the Films Appeal among Bond Fans that consider this a Winner. Now a Cult Film, because it is Divisive and Different.A Fine Film outside the Controversies, and is Entertaining, Exciting, and Emotional.Underrated.

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.