BECOMING BOND (2017) **

George Lazenby is a fascinating pop culture footnote.  He was plucked from obscurity to replace Sean Connery in the James Bond series, quickly garnering a reputation for being difficult, stubborn, and independent.  He then passed on an opportunity of a lifetime to continue to portray the role in future installments.  Somebody could’ve made a terrific documentary on the subject.  Unfortunately, director Josh (Barb and Star Go to Vista Del Mar) Greenbaum isn’t that filmmaker.

It starts out well enough with George front and center telling us the story of his life.  As his tale unfolds, we hear his narration over recreations of his various life-shaping events.  Almost out of the gate, the movie falters.  It’s not that the recreations (which are mostly there for comedic effect) are bad (although they aren’t exactly “good”).  It’s just that they pale in comparison to the man himself.  When we see Lazenby speak, there’s always a touch of regret, embarrassment, or fondness for whatever subject he’s going on about.  There is none of that during the flashback sequences, which mostly play out like a cross between Unsolved Mysteries and Drunk History.  We can sort of buy the illusion when the characters are played by unknowns, but that goes out the window once recognizable faces such as Jeff Garlin, former Bond girl Jane Seymour, and Dana Carvey (who “plays” Johnny Carson, but merely trots out his old standby impression again) enter the mix in the third act.

Some of Greenbaum’s story decisions are baffling at best and embarrassing at worst.  Lazenby's lengthy diatribes about his early sexual conquests take up almost as much screen time as his quest to land the role of Bond, which is strange.  Heck, Greenbaum spends as much time on Lazenby’s bouts of diarrhea as he does on filming the iconic gun barrel scene.

Also, I think it would’ve been nice to see some of Lazenby’s life AFTER Bond.  I know, I know, it’s called “Becoming” Bond, but I would’ve liked to have heard him talk about all the Kung Fu movies and action quickies he made in the ‘70s and ‘80s.  Maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.

I can’t really review a movie for what it SHOULD have been.  However, I can tell you that Greenbaum could’ve made a decent film using either approach.  Having the two storytelling devices in the same movie (they occasionally overlap, which is kind of annoying) doesn’t quite work.  It’s a shame too because George deserves better. 

If another filmmaker wants to give George’s story a go, they have all the time in the world to do it.