Which films have received the biggest reappraisal since release?

DraxCucumberSandwich

YOLT is a film that seems to be have on a downward trend in terms of its reputation for a good long while.
When I was first getting into Bond (early 80s) this was a much loved movie. Since then i feel it doesn’t seem to have as much love thrown it’s way, and the criticisms often outweigh the praise.

It’s odd because it’s still seen as an ‘iconic’ entry in the franchise. This may actually be one of its problems. Some elements of the movie have been chopped up and rehashed by other Bond movies (TSWLM, MR, TND, NTTD come to mind), whilst others have been mercilessly lampooned by the likes of Austin Powers or co-opted by films like The Incredibles.
Then there are the direct criticisms that have come to accompany discussions of the film: Connery not as engaged as he’d previously been; Kissy Suzuki is literally an anonymous Bond girl; the ridiculous and unnecessary ‘turning Japanese’ charade; Brandt a Fiona Volpe knock-off and Hans a (first of many) Red Grant knock-off

Personally I love this movie, for many reasons, but I can see the flaws. I’d acknowledge that it maybe loses its way in the 2nd half a little bit, but it’s still a movie I love dearly.

JamesCraig

Leon12 wrote: »

QoS seems to have gone through a major re-appraisal with many now saying it is a cracking Bond film, I think it's great, it's stripped down action, with a Bond overcome with rage and grief and is shown as a borderline alcoholic

I've always said that QOS has the best performance of Craig as Bond, but other than that it's a bit messy, with one of the worst villains in the entire series and some of the worst editing I've ever seen in a "blockbuster film".

That doesn't make it as bad as DAD or AVTAK, but it lacks in substance. Something that NTTD, CR and "teh hated by de troo Bondfanz" SF have.

Feyador

Perhaps I'm reaching a little too far here, but I rather enjoy the "messiness" of QOS as it seems to well represent the Craig-Bond mindset at play throughout the film. Even the adrenaline rush of the supposedly too-quick editing can be seen as representative of a young man in Bond who's prone to acting a little rashly at times ....

ColonelAdamski

I have a theory about QOS. It's so quickly edited and it's quite short, so no-one has the time to get bored on a re-watch. So it's looked upon quite favorably by people who like to spend a few hours every week or so, watching a James Bond movie.

Venutius

I've never understood the criticisms of QOS. It's the least Bondlike in some ways, but its only actual flaw is that there's not enough of it! ;)

NickTwentyTwo

DraxCucumberSandwich wrote: »

YOLT is a film that seems to be have on a downward trend in terms of its reputation for a good long while.
When I was first getting into Bond (early 80s) this was a much loved movie. Since then i feel it doesn’t seem to have as much love thrown it’s way, and the criticisms often outweigh the praise.

It’s odd because it’s still seen as an ‘iconic’ entry in the franchise. This may actually be one of its problems. Some elements of the movie have been chopped up and rehashed by other Bond movies (TSWLM, MR, TND, NTTD come to mind), whilst others have been mercilessly lampooned by the likes of Austin Powers or co-opted by films like The Incredibles.
Then there are the direct criticisms that have come to accompany discussions of the film: Connery not as engaged as he’d previously been; Kissy Suzuki is literally an anonymous Bond girl; the ridiculous and unnecessary ‘turning Japanese’ charade; Brandt a Fiona Volpe knock-off and Hans a (first of many) Red Grant knock-off

Personally I love this movie, for many reasons, but I can see the flaws. I’d acknowledge that it maybe loses its way in the 2nd half a little bit, but it’s still a movie I love dearly.

It's my favourite book, and I keep trying to watch this film with an open mind and heart, but I just can't like it.

Every time I read a post like yours, though, I feel the desire to revisit it, so I might soon. We'll see.

RogueAgent

I think without a doubt it has to be OHMSS? Especially considering the score from NNTD?

Birdleson

RogueAgent wrote: »

I think without a doubt it has to be OHMSS? Especially considering the score from NNTD?

That is a great way of looking at it. In it's 55 year lifespan, OHMSS has gone from bearing the mantel of the ugly stepchild, the "failure", the one that wouldn't/couldn't be acknowledged for a decade, the one deemed so horrible that ABC felt the need to completely recut it for it's television debut (my first viewing), to now reemerging as the shining light of the franchise in every respect. EON secures its bets on it's costliest venture, celebrating the 25th entry in the series and the exit of their beloved Daniel Craig, by hitching it thematically, overtly, and even desperately to the wayward son returned.

RogueAgent

Birdleson wrote: »

RogueAgent wrote: »

I think without a doubt it has to be OHMSS? Especially considering the score from NNTD?

That is a great way of looking at it. In it's 55 year lifespan, OHMSS has gone from bearing the mantel of the ugly stepchild, the "failure", the one that wouldn't/couldn't be acknowledged for a decade, the one deemed so horrible that ABC felt the need to completely recut it for it's television debut (my first viewing), to now reemerging as the shining light of the franchise in every respect. EON secures its bets on it's costliest venture, celebrating the 25th entry in the series and the exit of their beloved Daniel Craig, by hitching it thematically, overtly, and even desperately to the wayward son returned.

Hopefully it will encourage more people to revisit OHMMS? I really do think George got a pretty rough deal, although his advisors at the time have a lot to answer for?