Thomas Clement (Mr. OpEd) 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.

ricibrida Was not expecting this. Although not my favorite bond or movie, I still compelled to watch this and find out why he only did the one Bond movie. Its an often funny story, badly acted sketches but ends with a sadness thinking why did he do it? What made him take these incredible final decisions? Made me a new George Lazenby fan and itching to watch again On her majesties secret service.

crussel-98619 I am 52 years old so I remember the old bond movies as a kid. I personally never liked Sean Connery's version and frankly my first clear memories is of Roger Moore as James Bond. George's version is one I barely remember but now after watching this hilarious documentary I want to watch Of Her Majesty's Secret Service with an open mind again.

thplatypus I saw "Becoming Bond" as someone who isn't even a Bond fan, and hasn't seen half the films. The unlikely story of George Lazenby is told so entertainingly and engagingly, however, that Lazenby's solitary Bond flick "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" is now on top of my Netflix queue. The filmmakers brilliantly turned Lazenby's own magnetic (and at times hard-to-believe) retelling of his life into a hilarious drunk-history-style re-creation that also manages to inspire. Great film.