I'd read so many bad things about Lazenby's acting and OHMSS itself that when I finally saw it, I thought, "Well, he wasn't THAT bad. The movie itself has problems, but I've certainly seen worse." The thing to keep in mind about Lazenby is that, back then, Connery was HUGELY successful -- and typecast -- as James Bond, and audiences were NOT used to (or as used to) having a wildly popular leading character be replaced by a different actor in a sustained film franchise. (I'm not talking about stuff like Tarzan movies, which were made by different producers and studios throughout the years, or low-budgeters like the Charlie Chan serials.) As has been noted elsewhere, the Bond films really were the Star Wars or Indiana Jones series of their day, and there was a lot of press and pressure on the new guy. Now, something like 5+ decades after OHMSS, we're used to seeing many actors assaying the 007 role, some more successful than others, as well as seeing a string of different actors successively playing a leading man character in different franchises, like Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, Bale, et al. as Batman. But back in 1969 -- ehh, not so much.