YOLT: All style and no substance?

1234689

Comments

  • edited December 2015 Posts: 4,622
    Delete
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 4,412
    Cary Fukunaga has spoken about how YOLt is a visual inspiration for NTTD. I can it....

    Even though YOLT is a bit of a narrative mess. It has epic style.....

    God bless Ken Adam and Freddie Young

    you-only-live-twice-1.png
    you-only-live-twice-143.png
    you-only-live-twice-34.png
    you-only-live-twice-177.png
    you-only-live-twice-246.png
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 3,327
    I find YOLT fairly similar to DAF. Both feature an ageing Connery who appears to be playing Bond in a very different manner to the first 4 films, and both surprisingly enjoyable in parts, despite many flaws (special effects and screen backdrops are horrendous, probably the worst in the franchise).

    Both films depart radically from the Fleming books, and introduce the more OTT silly and slapstick elements of the franchise.

    They also both have a very different hippy retro sound by John Barry, which belongs more in the circa late 60's/early 70's era, more aligned to the likes of Walkabout and Midnight Cowboy.

    The first half of YOLT works best for me. Great fight scenes, nice seeing Connery strolling around Tokyo, cool 60's vibe, but once Bond gets married and turns Japanese, I'm lost and tune out every time.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,484
    I recall Roald Dahl saying the producers told him Bond must bed this many women, have this many action sequences, etc. In other words the producers were looking at the previous films and doing a formula piece. As a result this became the template for many future Bond films. TSWLM and MR both have YOLT in their DNA. First film without Maibaum being involved in the script. I wonder if he would have been able to produce a better script. Although with Cubby and Harry demanding certain things I doubt it.

    I enjoy the spectacle of this film. Ken Adams sets are just a wonder to behold. The crane shot of Bond fighting the thugs on the rooftop is just a wonderful moment. John Barry's score is lush and a perfect addition to the story. I'm not quite a fan of Pleasance's portrayal of Blofeld but he doesn't have much to work with.

    There is very little substance to this movie. They have a nice story with Bond and Aki and then as soon as she's killed she coldly forgotten and Bond is trying to jump into bed with another woman. But I guess the producers wanted their quota of shagging! LOL
  • Posts: 1,927
    Something I've long been curious about if some of our experts can answer: Why was Maibaum absent from the screenplays for YOLT, LALD and MR?
  • Posts: 11,425
    YOLT is awesome. One of my favourites. Give me Connery on "auto pilot " any day.
    And if this is style over substance then I'm all for it.

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited April 2020 Posts: 7,593
    I find the film, aside from the end, forgettable. The book, exquisitely the opposite.

    I have no problems with any ridiculousness.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Getafix wrote: »
    YOLT is awesome. One of my favourites. Give me Connery on "auto pilot " any day.
    And if this is style over substance then I'm all for it.

    Connery and Moore could do autopilot Bond all day long, and still be the best thing to appear on screen.

    All the other Bond actors had to work damn hard to replicate that instant onscreen charisma and presence, including Craig.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,484
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Something I've long been curious about if some of our experts can answer: Why was Maibaum absent from the screenplays for YOLT, LALD and MR?

    I am not an expert by any means. But your question got me digging a bit. I see Maibaum was credited with "additional dialogue" in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang which was also written by Roald Dahl. Maybe he needed a break from Bond after TB. As he had written 4 movies in 4 years. Incredible when you think of the productivity, granted the films were still closely tied to the books in this period.

    Funny how Cubby and Harry seemed to go through phases with writers. That has continued to Barbra and Michael with their allegiance to Purvis and Wade. Although I would argue that they weren't as prolific as Maibaum.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 3,327
    thedove wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Something I've long been curious about if some of our experts can answer: Why was Maibaum absent from the screenplays for YOLT, LALD and MR?

    I am not an expert by any means. But your question got me digging a bit. I see Maibaum was credited with "additional dialogue" in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang which was also written by Roald Dahl. Maybe he needed a break from Bond after TB. As he had written 4 movies in 4 years. Incredible when you think of the productivity, granted the films were still closely tied to the books in this period.

    Funny how Cubby and Harry seemed to go through phases with writers. That has continued to Barbra and Michael with their allegiance to Purvis and Wade. Although I would argue that they weren't as prolific as Maibaum.

    Maybe he wanted to to take a break from Bond occasionally, just like Barry did.

    One thing is for certain, Maibaum was just as crucial to the success of Bond as Fleming, Barry, Young, Connery, Adam, Cubby, Binder, etc.

    We still haven't found a writer since Maibaum left who could fill his shoes. Like Barry, the work they did, the stamp they put on the franchise have made them irreplaceable. Big shoes to fill, possibly too big. P&W aren't fit to even tie their laces.
  • Posts: 11,425
    P&W are a disgrace. The Babs era films (and I include the Craig screenplays) are turgid and leaden compared to what came before.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,484
    I only wish the script allowed for some character development. When they had to re-cast Blofeld during the shooting did that change anything with his reveal. It was a build up for 6 years and I find the whole payoff rather under whelming. Blofeld is hidden for much of the picture.

    Poor Jan Werich being fired from the picture. I don't know why Gilbert thought he looked proper. In the pics I have seen he looks suitable. To me Blofeld didn't need to be over the top villainous. I picture Jan with Eric Pohlmann's voice and think it would have been an awesome Blofeld.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Pleasance is pretty iconic
  • Posts: 1,927
    thedove wrote: »
    I only wish the script allowed for some character development. When they had to re-cast Blofeld during the shooting did that change anything with his reveal. It was a build up for 6 years and I find the whole payoff rather under whelming. Blofeld is hidden for much of the picture.

    Poor Jan Werich being fired from the picture. I don't know why Gilbert thought he looked proper. In the pics I have seen he looks suitable. To me Blofeld didn't need to be over the top villainous. I picture Jan with Eric Pohlmann's voice and think it would have been an awesome Blofeld.

    Agreed. I'd almost go so far as to say YOLT has the least interesting cast and characters in the series or at least the most underwhelming. It's a good thing it's so pretty to look at and moves so quickly. Blofeld is a big part of that.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Pleasance is pretty iconic

    But probably for the wrong reasons such as the Austin Powers parody being the fly in the ointment, so to speak. Can you imagine being somebody who saw a Powers movie first and then watched YOLT?

    I'm not sure how fans in '67 felt about the Pleasance portrayal of Blofeld after the buildup of the previous films. Author John Brosnan of James Bond in the Cinema put it very well and expressed disappointment at Pleasance and Bond's initial meeting with him instead of saying "We meet at last" and suggesting it would've been cool to launch into Bond in a rage and say "This is for Dr. No and this is for Largo..." and other things he'd done to damage SPECTRE projects in the past. All we get is mild sneering and cocky threats.

    I really think the Pleasance version is overrated. I used to think it was good, but over time it's gotten less and less interesting. I put a lot of this on Roald Dahl, who seemed to treat Blofeld as just another villain. This is a case where Maibaum's input was sorely missed. Cubby and Harry were just interested in how good the film looked and that when Werich was replaced they made Pleasance look bizarre to distract from the part being underwritten. I don't blame Pleasance as he had a reputation as a good villain, just not one of the iconic status of Blofeld.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,484
    Agree with you @BT3366 there is no tension or even a big moment between the two. I think it could have been done better. It has very little payoff when you look at the hatred that Blofeld would have surely had for Bond. Instead we get "They told me you were assassinated in Hong Kong." "Yes, this is my second life."

    I agree that the scar on Pleasance was to make him appear more evil. Similar to the eye patch given to Largo. The article I read quoted Pleasance as saying "I came did my three weeks work and ran!" Almost like it was a glorified cameo role. DN showed how you could still make the villain strong and not appear on screen.

    I love when Dent in DN says "I came here to warn you." "Warn me?" the voice and tone conveys so much. But in this script we get "They told me you were assassinated in Hong Kong." But earlier he had identified Bond as the only man who carries a Walther PPK.

    Yes I agree Maibaum would have greatly improved this script. Or at least know how to treat Blofeld a bit better then Dahl does.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    I don't think Blofeld is the kind of person to seek vengeance for the deaths of operatives that he himself would have executed for their failures, so I'm glad we didn't get anything like that. He sees Bond as a pest, an inconvenience. The only thing he takes personally is the fact that Bond disrupted his operations. Even in FRWL, the idea of framing Bond is as much to do with stirring up conflict that can gain from and embarassing British intelligence as a whole than just Bond himself.

    That's not to say that the script for YOLT doesn't have issues - it absolutely does. But I don't have too much to fault with Bond and Blofeld's interactions. There's a lot that goes unsaid in those moments that gets their rivalry across.
  • Posts: 11,425
    BT3366 wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    I only wish the script allowed for some character development. When they had to re-cast Blofeld during the shooting did that change anything with his reveal. It was a build up for 6 years and I find the whole payoff rather under whelming. Blofeld is hidden for much of the picture.

    Poor Jan Werich being fired from the picture. I don't know why Gilbert thought he looked proper. In the pics I have seen he looks suitable. To me Blofeld didn't need to be over the top villainous. I picture Jan with Eric Pohlmann's voice and think it would have been an awesome Blofeld.

    Agreed. I'd almost go so far as to say YOLT has the least interesting cast and characters in the series or at least the most underwhelming. It's a good thing it's so pretty to look at and moves so quickly. Blofeld is a big part of that.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Pleasance is pretty iconic

    But probably for the wrong reasons such as the Austin Powers parody being the fly in the ointment, so to speak. Can you imagine being somebody who saw a Powers movie first and then watched YOLT?

    I'm not sure how fans in '67 felt about the Pleasance portrayal of Blofeld after the buildup of the previous films. Author John Brosnan of James Bond in the Cinema put it very well and expressed disappointment at Pleasance and Bond's initial meeting with him instead of saying "We meet at last" and suggesting it would've been cool to launch into Bond in a rage and say "This is for Dr. No and this is for Largo..." and other things he'd done to damage SPECTRE projects in the past. All we get is mild sneering and cocky threats.

    I really think the Pleasance version is overrated. I used to think it was good, but over time it's gotten less and less interesting. I put a lot of this on Roald Dahl, who seemed to treat Blofeld as just another villain. This is a case where Maibaum's input was sorely missed. Cubby and Harry were just interested in how good the film looked and that when Werich was replaced they made Pleasance look bizarre to distract from the part being underwritten. I don't blame Pleasance as he had a reputation as a good villain, just not one of the iconic status of Blofeld.

    Yeah right! Tiger Tanaka. Definitely one of the lamest characters in the entire franchise.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited April 2020 Posts: 6,387
    Getafix wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    I only wish the script allowed for some character development. When they had to re-cast Blofeld during the shooting did that change anything with his reveal. It was a build up for 6 years and I find the whole payoff rather under whelming. Blofeld is hidden for much of the picture.

    Poor Jan Werich being fired from the picture. I don't know why Gilbert thought he looked proper. In the pics I have seen he looks suitable. To me Blofeld didn't need to be over the top villainous. I picture Jan with Eric Pohlmann's voice and think it would have been an awesome Blofeld.

    Agreed. I'd almost go so far as to say YOLT has the least interesting cast and characters in the series or at least the most underwhelming. It's a good thing it's so pretty to look at and moves so quickly. Blofeld is a big part of that.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Pleasance is pretty iconic

    But probably for the wrong reasons such as the Austin Powers parody being the fly in the ointment, so to speak. Can you imagine being somebody who saw a Powers movie first and then watched YOLT?

    I'm not sure how fans in '67 felt about the Pleasance portrayal of Blofeld after the buildup of the previous films. Author John Brosnan of James Bond in the Cinema put it very well and expressed disappointment at Pleasance and Bond's initial meeting with him instead of saying "We meet at last" and suggesting it would've been cool to launch into Bond in a rage and say "This is for Dr. No and this is for Largo..." and other things he'd done to damage SPECTRE projects in the past. All we get is mild sneering and cocky threats.

    I really think the Pleasance version is overrated. I used to think it was good, but over time it's gotten less and less interesting. I put a lot of this on Roald Dahl, who seemed to treat Blofeld as just another villain. This is a case where Maibaum's input was sorely missed. Cubby and Harry were just interested in how good the film looked and that when Werich was replaced they made Pleasance look bizarre to distract from the part being underwritten. I don't blame Pleasance as he had a reputation as a good villain, just not one of the iconic status of Blofeld.

    Yeah right! Tiger Tanaka. Definitely one of the lamest characters in the entire franchise.

    I have a soft spot for Aki so the first half of the film works well for me, and the volcano set gets me through the second half. The score, of course, does a lot of the heavy lifting.

    The script's problem is Kissy. She's just...there. Diving for pearls, marrying Bond...my God, just the (non-)reveal of her name, all of that was ripe for the plotting and it just didn't land or even happen, for whatever reason.
  • Posts: 1,927
    Aki started out fine. She was very independent and capable of taking on Bond on her own and saving him several times, a forerunner to all those Bond equal women we'd get a decade later.

    Agree with echo on Kissy, she's basically Aki reincarnated. Anybody else think her voice sounds like Speed Racer's kid brother Spritel, especially when she says "It's going down, into the volcano!"

    I like Tanaka fine, but he's a disappointment in relation to the book character, who really gives Bond some attitude whereas the film Tanaka merely busts chides him about girls. He's more like a Bond contemporary, but I like that he does participate in the final battle.

    I could mistake Osato for Hai Fat, they seem that similar in terms of character makeup. Miss Brandt is just a less successful Fiona Volpe copy.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,868
    BT3366 wrote: »

    Agree with echo on Kissy, she's basically Aki reincarnated. Anybody else think her voice sounds like Speed Racer's kid brother Spritel, especially when she says "It's going down, into the volcano!"

    @BT336. Well at least she didn’t sound like Chim-Chim. In the end, Ms. Hama was dubbed by Nikki van der Zyl.

    I’ve raised this question before (without success), but why (beyond the obvious 😊). were Akiko Wakabayashi and Mie Hama cast? Did EON look at other Toho actresses before deciding, and – if so – who were those other actresses? Not even “Some Kind of Hero” gives an answer. Generally, I like them and the roles of Aki and Kissy, but I can see why many fans find them lacking.

    If I had to guess, Mie Hama was cast because she was coming off a similar “Kissy” roles in Bond rip-offs like called “Key of Keys” (1965) (later dubbed as “What’s up, Tiger Lily”) and “Ironfinger” (1965). In the later, she spends a good deal of time running around in a red bikini – as opposed to the white one of YOLT.

    Similarly, according to various quotes in “Monsters Are Attacking Tokyo” (1998, Stuart Galbraith IV), Ms. Wakabayashi was more known for her physical attributes than her acting ability. The generally accepted theory, is that there weren’t a lot of Japanese actresses in that period that could do “western style” sexiness. Kumi Mizuno, being one of the few exceptions.

    BTW: Corinne Orr – who voiced Mom Racer, Spritle, and Trixie on the old speed racer cartoon is still with us.

  • Posts: 4,617
    Just my 2 pence worth - there is a child like quality with the movie that places it in a certain time. This is space travel without cost, knowledge or the danger, just glamour. Launch a rocket from a volcano? Why not. Launch a rocket from under a swimming pool? why not? This movie and Thunderbirds are from the same era and they are both perfect if you were from the right era. Pure escapism. It has not aged well but, in context, it's enormous fun. (Tracy Island would have been a great villain's lair)
  • Posts: 1,927
    YOLT did have a lot of great eye candy that attracts you when you're a kid. I remember my brother and I had some kind of Spider-Man web things shaped like the ninja stars we pretended they were after watching YOLT and fashioning other gadgets out of toys we had. We also had a Spider-Man dart gun that strapped to your wrist we acted like was the MR wrist dart gun.

    Growing up in the '70s, I never saw Thunderbirds, whereas other imports like Ultraman and Speed Racer were shown. I'd have probably loved it. The only Gerry Anderson shows we had where I lived were UFO and Space 1999, which were syndicated.
  • Posts: 4,617
    I'm assuming that the spin off industry was not as advanced as it is now? A toy rocket/volcano base with Little Nellie and bad guys helicopters - surely on any boy's list to Santa?
    (PS just realised that the villain in Thunderbirds is also bald)
  • edited December 2020 Posts: 4,412
    4376.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=2df1c562a96faee293672dce681ce07f

    I watched this again yesterday evening, it's seriously entertaining. It's pretty dumb and childish in comparison to the Daniel Craig films, but this YOLT is the movie for you if you want an impeccably-made, charming and mischievous 1960's action film.

    The first act is very fleet-footed and, also, rather uneven. There are some seriously standout moments. Such as Bond doing some spy shenanigans at the sumo wrestling, meeting Henderson, the car chase and the scene-stealing Little Nellie. Also a very special shout-out has to go to the fight between Peter Maivia and Sean Connery. Woah...That was a seriously brutal and scrappy number. Brilliant sequence.

    tumblr_p78hd2EExg1wltejzo1_640.gifv

    There are some wonky moments in that first act. Namely, Mr Osato being the most cartoony villain imaginable (does he really think he can gun down a man in front of his own building? Come on, man!) and perhaps there is one set-piece too many (remember that plane sequence? No? Because it literally happens in a flash, Connery never breaks a sweat whilst facing impending doom and is eventually of no consequence).

    But this opening has serious pace and mischief to boot. For example, the villain's entire scheme is first unravelled due to an admin error found on a photograph in Osato's safe (it's a bit embarrassing to know that Blofeld's filing team is more efficient than mine). YOLT is certainly closer to pastiche, but it has charm in spades.

    Then you have the second act; which basically exists to set up the third act! You find out where the villain is holed-up and the heroes have a ninja army. This is where the pacing really slooooooows doooooooown. YOLT loses all its pace and becomes a bit of a drab travelogue. Did we really need all that filler at a Japanese wedding?! I get that the bride's costume is pretty, but do we need 20 minutes of that? The answer is: No.

    Also, during the film YOLT makes the unforgivable move of killing Aki! She's a cool 60's babe who rides a Toyota 2000GT like a beast! Then they kill her off and literally replace her without a moment's notice (even though the killing is elegant filmed). I almost didn't forgive the film for this and was ready to turn against it. But Mie Hama is damn cute and a joy to watch....Plus there's that scene where Bond stays up to ensure no one comes to kill Kissy. Which was a subtle nod to Aki's preventable death. I liked that touch.

    EjKdWodXYAEGPcQ?format=jpg&name=large
    450?cb=20170613075416&path-prefix=fr

    But this second act exists to ensure audiences can appreciate the full carnage of act three. By far the strongest and most visually amazing of YOLT. Firstly, the set is bananas and feels so conceivable and real (it even has a functional helicopter pad!). Today that would be about 40% built and extended by 60% using CGI. Just look at the Star Wars films for comparison.

    c62bda6c51a0e9131622090b2194afab.jpg

    However, in 1967 you built the set for real and blow it up for real and have an siege sequence within it! not just any siege sequence at that, one with NINJAS and ROCKET GUNS! Holy hell, I'm in.....I don't care how many times you've seen YOLT, this sequence will not get old.

    You get to meet Blofeld and he's so campy and hilarious. In fact, it's criminal that there isn't more Blofeld and clearly Pleasance was only just flexing his muscles. If you think of the history of Bond baddies, he was really the first one to play up the effete weirdness. It's a terrific little cameo. But I wanted more.

    aa0e9494c21b0a9e2ddae9985d09d365ba5ccf71.gif

    Plus Connery looks damnnnnnnn fine in that finale. He's as cool and charismatic as ever (especially in act one). He's cool and does the zingers after death really well, unlike Moore who leaned into them to much. But the dodgy script lets him down in act two by placing him in that ugly Japanese farmer outfit. Also, it's getting a little more inscrutable by YOLT if Connery can really get the women as easily as he does here. Jus'sayin.......

    However, despite Connery's name being on the poster the real stars are John Barry, Freddie Young, the Japanese scenery and this guy....

    Eoyrvx1W4AAKGRR?format=png&name=small

    There may not be much logic at play, but it's a wild, exotic movie that has spectacle and ambition. You have Sean Connery fighting with ninjas in a volcano with everything exploding. This film is too iconic to hate on much.

    ⭐⭐⭐⭐/5
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,227
    To answer the question on the title thread: The style is the substance, and that’s how it should always be approached. This isn’t a plot driven film like FRWL, it’s pure spectacle and never pretends to be otherwise. The kind of film Michael Bay would have made if he were making movies in the 1960s.
  • edited December 2020 Posts: 2,296
    As a kid I absolutely adored You Only Live Twice. I think it may have been the 2nd or 3rd Connery Bond film that I saw. I have such vivid memories of seeing Donald Pleasances version of Blofeld, which for me is significant in two ways.

    1. The first time I watched YOLT was immediately after watching FRWL during a James Bond Marathon on TV, and during FRWL, I can remember being so intrigued by Blofeld. It absolutely captivated me, this faceless man calling all the shots, and remaining hidden in the shadows. So the “shock” really captivated me when I watched YOLT for the very first time, and seeing his face. That memory will always stick with me.

    2. I watched YOLT before seeing any of the Austin Powers films, which I guess you could say is pretty significant seeing as how I’m a 23 year old guy born during the age of Brosnan/Austin Powers. I have a small, vivid memory of seeing Dr. Evil on TV, but that surely didn’t intrigue me the way seeing Blofeld did. Although I will say that I showed a very good friend of mine FRWL, and his reaction to the faceless Blofeld was exactly as followed; “Its hard for me to take a villain with a white cat seriously”, so in a way, I can attest to the fact that Dr. Evil, and all of the other parodies really harmed the image/impact of the Blofeld character.

    Having said all that, as an older viewer who has now experienced all of the Bond films, I can firmly say that YOLT sits in the middle of the rankings for me, specifically somewhere between my 13th-15th favorite entry. If I was to give the film a a rating, it’d be 7.5/10. My issues primarily come down to Connery’s lack of enthusiasm, the reveal of Blofeld (which in my opinion doesn’t hold up when compared to the mysterious and intriguing figure seen in both FRWL and Thunderball), and the fact that I just genuinely wish they had chose to film something else for the 5th Bond film. I strongly believe YOLT should’ve followed on from OHMSS, the way Fleming intended. I know a lot of other factors enter that conversation (would Lazenby/Savalas have returned; what if Isle Steppet hadn’t passed away), but I always felt that if they went from Thunderball, which was very much a big, extravaganza, to something smaller in scale like Diamonds are Forever, maybe Connery would’ve put in a better performance, maybe the franchise could’ve had a better handle on how not to go to far into the realm of ridiculousness, maybe we could’ve gotten another appearance from the Dawson/Pohlmann Blofeld (one with more scenes inserted into the film), but alas that wasn’t how things went. But I still enjoy YOLT for what it is. I love Aki as a character, I think Ken Adams sets are the best work he’s ever done for the series, love Tanaka as a character. But still it’s my issues with the film that prevent it from being ranked higher than it already is.
  • R1s1ngs0nR1s1ngs0n France
    Posts: 2,161
    I adore YOLT. Objectively speaking it is arguably the weakest of the first six entries but it still remains my fourth favorite Bond film.
    For starters, it boasts the best ever Bond theme song and its soundtrack's greatness is only matched by OHMSS.
    Then there's the setting and amazing cinematography - everything just oozes class and sophistication, so much so that I am willing to look past Connery's ludicrous 'Japanesation' and over the top silliness pervading through the movie.
    Blofeld's volcano/private chambers is still the greatest set ever built for a Bond film.
    Love the Kobe Dock rooftop fight, love Helga's being fed to piranhas and I love Blofeld's reveal.
    And last but not least, we have the wonderful Donald Pleasance as the big cheese himself. I still vividly remember the first time I watched this film (I was probably 7 or 8) and even before his piercing stare and horrific scar completely freaked me out, I was already unsettled by his chilling voice and intonation. Even to this day, after all the parodies and various nods based on his interpretation, I find his performance utterly brilliant and iconic - he shall forever remain my favorite ESB.
    Despite this entry featuring a mildly interested Connery, along with far less engaging characters (Aki and Tiger are fine; I could live without Kissy), it is one of a select few Bond movies (along with GF and DN) that I can watch at any given moment, no matter what mood I'm in.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,387
    After catching up with all of the Bond movies in the early '80s, and waiting for my local video store to get new titles, the last two I watched, appropriately enough, were:

    OHMSS, followed by YOLT
  • Agent_47Agent_47 Canada
    Posts: 330
    To answer the question on the title thread: The style is the substance, and that’s how it should always be approached. This isn’t a plot driven film like FRWL, it’s pure spectacle and never pretends to be otherwise. The kind of film Michael Bay would have made if he were making movies in the 1960s.

    I love this post! Well said.
Sign In or Register to comment.