Let's look at the good, the bad, and the meh:
The good: Jayne Seymour's in it! Still gorgeous, still talented. The Chapter titles are cute and a hoot. The breaking of the fourth wall is amusing as is the overdubbing by Lazenby. Much of the interview with Lazenby is thoughtful and engaging, so much so that one wonders why they didn't just leave this "documentary" as a series of interviews.
The bad: The actor playing Harry Saltzman (Jeff Garlin) looks and sounds nothing like him. He does look and sound like the father from the Goldbergs which is who he is.
And speaking of not looking or sounding like the original, Josh Lawson, aside from a chin dimple, is barely passable as Lazenby. His hair looks horrible throughout (is that a paint brush hanging from the back of his head?). He does an OK job with acting the part, but the more they put up original footage of Lazenby, the worse he fairs by comparison. Some of the period details are awful, too. What is that yellow Honda doing there? Twice!
Do you enjoy scenes with farting and diarrhea? You're in luck because there's one that goes on forever (one thing the Bond films of this era excelled at was editing!!!! - not so here). And there's one tasteless threesome sex scene that made me cringe. Doesn't matter if it happened in real life or not. Some things are best left to the imagination (if there!).
The meh: There is little sense of time or place. We don't even here of 007 or the Beatles or anything else "60s!" until 3/4s of the way through. Speaking of period correctness, John Piscitello's score is serviceable for catching the mood of the situations but there's no 60s spy-vibe to it a la Laurie Johnson, Edwin Astley, or (eh hem) John Barry.
In closing there is very little of Lazenby becoming Bond at all, just enough to whet the viewer (work on his accent and walk, for example). There's no mention of the reasons Lazenby left the film. First, he was not treated well on set with orders given not to speak to him directly (Peter Hunt had an assistant address the actor). And two, he was told by people he trusted that the Bond craze was just about finished anyway and he shouldn't be shackled to a has-been character. Not touching on these is like a bio on Napoleon that neglects Waterloo.
I still like George Lazenby so the film didn't ruin that, but it did ruin itself.
The good: Jayne Seymour's in it! Still gorgeous, still talented. The Chapter titles are cute and a hoot. The breaking of the fourth wall is amusing as is the overdubbing by Lazenby. Much of the interview with Lazenby is thoughtful and engaging, so much so that one wonders why they didn't just leave this "documentary" as a series of interviews.
The bad: The actor playing Harry Saltzman (Jeff Garlin) looks and sounds nothing like him. He does look and sound like the father from the Goldbergs which is who he is.
And speaking of not looking or sounding like the original, Josh Lawson, aside from a chin dimple, is barely passable as Lazenby. His hair looks horrible throughout (is that a paint brush hanging from the back of his head?). He does an OK job with acting the part, but the more they put up original footage of Lazenby, the worse he fairs by comparison. Some of the period details are awful, too. What is that yellow Honda doing there? Twice!
Do you enjoy scenes with farting and diarrhea? You're in luck because there's one that goes on forever (one thing the Bond films of this era excelled at was editing!!!! - not so here). And there's one tasteless threesome sex scene that made me cringe. Doesn't matter if it happened in real life or not. Some things are best left to the imagination (if there!).
The meh: There is little sense of time or place. We don't even here of 007 or the Beatles or anything else "60s!" until 3/4s of the way through. Speaking of period correctness, John Piscitello's score is serviceable for catching the mood of the situations but there's no 60s spy-vibe to it a la Laurie Johnson, Edwin Astley, or (eh hem) John Barry.
In closing there is very little of Lazenby becoming Bond at all, just enough to whet the viewer (work on his accent and walk, for example). There's no mention of the reasons Lazenby left the film. First, he was not treated well on set with orders given not to speak to him directly (Peter Hunt had an assistant address the actor). And two, he was told by people he trusted that the Bond craze was just about finished anyway and he shouldn't be shackled to a has-been character. Not touching on these is like a bio on Napoleon that neglects Waterloo.
I still like George Lazenby so the film didn't ruin that, but it did ruin itself.