It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I really should start watching some more Bond films - especially since we are still pretty far off from Bond 25. TMWTGG was nice; I think I'll be watching a few here and there in the next few weeks.
Yeah, admittedly, his delivery of this line is weak. Reminds me of him trying to get the woman to open the train door in Skyfall. Bad stuff. Fortunately, in Spectre, he fares much, much better with the cheeky lines in the rest of the movie.
I have given the films a break up until yesterday, a Bondathon is definitely on the cards including another TB rewatch. I think I may watch the films from SP backwards this time...
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Craig's delivery of "open the door" in the train scene in Skyfall?
@Minion, in my experience You Only Live Twice is best experienced at random and out of sequence. If I make the mistake of watching it after all the other early Connery, as I did when I reviewed all the 60s films, it really hurts it almost to an unfair degree because it just can't be that good. Which is why I haven't made a full blog post of my review for it yet as I have for Dr. No to Thunderball, and am instead waiting to go back and watch it again so that I can get an impression of how it feels while watching it in sequence, but also how it feels when you watch it outside of the chronology. It's one of those Bond films that can feel drastically different depending on how you watch it, which is interesting.
It's very much a "smorgasbord" of things, and doesn't really know what it is; a space based thriller, a Cold War spy film, an over the top action spectacle, a bizarre comedy, etc. I think the tone is helped by it being a 60s film, which almost justifies it because of the period, but at times it doesn't come off and by the time a Scotsman is turned Japanese you wonder how we got there.
It definitely has great stuff there to make it nothing close to an unwatchable film, however. Freddie Young's photography is simply next level, capturing Japan unlike I've ever seen it, the first half has some great sequences with a "dead" Bond finding his feet in Asia on his first trip there and of course the finale at the volcano set is just one of those iconic moments that made the Bond series a technical and logistical giant that was doing big blockbuster action ahead of its time. Very few flawed films have so many exceptional or interesting elements to offset those negatives.
A definite point in You Only Live Twice's favor is that Bond has Blofeld right under his nose for the end of the second half. Of course this same thing happens in Diamonds Are Forever, where for an even longer period of time Bond is not only unaware that Blofeld really isn't dead after the PTS, but in Vegas he still doesn't know that Whyte isn't really in control of the Whyte empire until he reaches the tower; those two simultaneous moments of trickery and the theme of doubles or duplicity in the film really adds something to it all. I find that kind of content, and Bond's face-off with Blofeld in the tower, to be a wondrous contrast to the very lifeless interactions the pair have in the previous film. It doesn't help that Sean and Pleasence had little interaction on set and most of the former's lines with the villain were said to camera when another man was cast as Blofeld.
I was referring specifically to the setting of the showdown, but your point stands regardless. It's a cheap and easy (and effective) way to drum up some dramatic tension by placing your villain and hero in close proximity with one or both unaware of that fact.
In YOLT in particular, it helps to rein in some of the wackier and more elaborate sequences. The training, for example, would be extremely boring were it not for the fact that we know the scale of what awaits. That knowledge gives context to what would otherwise seem meandering minutiae.
Never heard that before!
@Torgeirtrap Yes! Precisely. YOLT is very much 'Bond goes Eurospy.'
Whether this is an intentional stylistic choice or the franchise's first competitive bid at adapting to then-current trends in cinema, I'm not sure. I suspect the latter. Regardless of the intent, however, that YOLT does evoke Eurospy points to one certainty: this is the first Bond film in which the franchise is aware of its own success (and what that success wrought).
It's interesting to note in this regard the various points during YOLT in which on-screen characters themselves observe through in-world video screens parts of the film the viewer previously saw as the film — in Tanaka's office, Bond watching himself chase Aki; Aki and Bond driving, watching the car dangling from the helicopter.
Not saying it's intentional, but a nice illustration nevertheless of the self-aware state the franchise was in at the time.
I think they brought some of the old school style back with the last two Mendes films (at least in terms of the wide angle) but then went and spoiled it in SP with the mood filter. The last film also wasted so many beautiful locations. Case in point, when Bond is on his way to Altausee. There were a few establishing shots (which were also used in the trailer) and that's it. What a waste. At least in SF Bond and M got out of the Aston and soaked in the atmosphere in Scotland for a few minutes.
I feel much the same about the Brosnan films, even CR. QOS and SF justified their use in my opinion. SP was a weird one. Certain parts (Mexico, Rome) justified it but other parts (the Alps, as you said bondjames) didn't. The filter indeed ruined it all the way through, anyway.
Yes, atmosphere should definitely be a much bigger part of Bond than it is currently. I think currently they are preoccupied with rushing to the next action scene, or the next indoor sit down. There's no time for, say, the pyramid sequence from TSWLM in the modern landscape. It's one of the reasons I think Nolan would be perfect - he movies seem to operate on a highened sense of mood. That mood was very foreboding for the Bat films, because it fit those films. If he were to approach Bond, I'm sure it could be adapted to fit also.
Agree! Do feel like there is quite of self-awareness with YOLT, and it's like they weren't trying to tone it down either, just riding along with the superspy craze of the mid to late 60's. And who could judge them? After all, they had the most bankable movie franchise to play with, and the result - even though it's not as good as the previous films, it is still very, very entertaining.
Can't say I agree at all there. That element can be magic, as it is in all of From Russia with Love with Bond and Grant just missing each other. It's a prime element on the Orient Express too, and why that sequence is so dramatic. You know what Bond is walking into, but he doesn't.
It's far more effective to me than hiding the villain to the last second, as that gives little time to develop them or give context to what Bond is facing/fighting all movie.
Yes, if they're going to use a wide angle set up, actually shoot with that in mind. Approach the scenes with the view to limit the cuts and film as much as possible within the same shot. That includes dialogue, action, movement etc.
You seem to have misunderstood me. By cheap, I'm meaning from a production standpoint. I don't mean narritively lazy, if that's how you are reading it. I mean thifty.
Your comment referred to that approach creating "dramatic tension" cheap and easy, and that seems to be a narrative issue that has nothing to do with the logistics of a production to me.
It does create dramatic tension cheap and easy, but there's nothing wrong with that. Perhaps "efficient" is a better way to put it?
I don't even know what we're discussing at this point. I pointed out what I didn't agree with that you said, then you said you meant the production issue and not a narrative one, and when I replied you agreed with what I said originally and didn't address what you found to be the problem with that approach when it comes to the production of the film.
Maybe I need a nap.
It could of course use it elements far better. In fact, this is perhaps the film with the best premise but is let down by everything else.
For what it is it's enjoyable. Moore was such a class act. I can't do anything but adore that man and his presentation of the character.