27 replies to this topic

[zencat]

Think about what it must have been like to be a hardcore Bond fan going to see YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE for the first time in 1967. Up until then the previous films, DR. NO, FRWL, GOLDFINGER and THUNDERBALL had all pretty much been adaptations of the Fleming books. Or, as in the case of the last two films, different, but still recognizable. The novel YOLT was still fresh in your mind, having been released only 3 years earlier. There was no Internet, or fan clubs, to tell you what to expect. Maybe you knew their was a helicopter chase in it, but so what?

But then you get a villain in a volcano and scenes set in outerspace and a film that had NO resemblance whatsoever to the book. A flim swamped by technology and gadgets. James Bond in a spacesuit!? As a Bond fan would you have walked out of the theater shaking your head and thinking the series had gone completely off the rails?

WAS YOLT THE MOONRAKER OF 1967?

I ask this because we now think of YOLT as one of the Connery Classics and very Bond. In fact, I sometimes think YOLT has replaced GOLDFINGER as the Bond prototype. Austin Powers, and affectionate send-up of Bond, parodies YOLT much more than it does any other Bond film. And just as Cubby pulled back the reigns post-Moonraker and delivered a conscious return to Fleming with FYEO in 1981; he did much the same thing in 1969 with OHMSS. Was it for the same reason? Did fans cry out the YOLT went too far?

Interesting, no?

For the record, this post is not meant to slam MOONRAKER. One day I think MOONRAKER will indeed be thought of a Bond Classic, much like...YOLT.

[rafterman]

good points zencat....as a fan I would have been horribly annoyed simply because YOLT is my favorite Fleming book and the film is nothing like it......YOLT does seem to be the standard when it comes to things like Austin Powers....the volcano, the little bald Blofeld....these things are almost iconic, much like Moonraker's Bondola or Jaws....maybe Moonraker will be considered a classic, but while YOLT has classic elements, it's easily my least favorite of the entire series and Moonraker is near the top.....

[zencat]

I wanted to selfishly put this back up on the "today's posts" page. I posted this before the big shut down and I'm not sure people saw it.

[Mister Asterix]

I really love You Only Live Twice. To me it is the farthest Bond has successfully gone 'over the top'. And for some reason the film You Only Live Twice feels very Fleming to me. Maybe it's because despite the change in plot the Fleming characters are so dead on to their literary counterparts. Or maybe it's that the film managed to maintain the book's subtext (There's that word again). Whatever it is, I feel there is much more of Fleming's novel in the film than meets the eye.

As for Moonraker. For the record, I personally rank Moonraker low on my list of Bond favourites, but not for all of the same reasons that many others complain about. I loved Bond going in space, Drax's space station, and the space marine assault. To me the character of Drax wasn't believable. The villain could have been twice as strong had they simply removed the line about the Eifel Tower. The gondola scene was terrible, though it did succeed on making me laugh on first viewing. And my bigest problem with the film was the final, final climax were Bond sits in the bad set of a shuttle cockpit and uses a joystick to shoot flowers on the screen. I'm sure that scene worked in the script but it looked like Bond playing video games. And we know that doesn't work in a Bond film, don't we Kevin?

[IrishCrown]

I saw the posting and I disagree. I think You Only Live Twice is way better than Moonraker. Twice is actually a Bond movie all the way through. Moonraker self destructs once they get to the space shuttle going into orbit. I hate that part. Roger Moore lost all of his credibility as Bond at that point. Connery still had his all the way through Twice.

[Turn]

I always thought Moonraker resembled Thunderball in many ways as far as going all out. That may be a separate interesting comparison some day.

But for the question at hand, yeah, it probably did disappoint the hard-core people in '67. But the more money that EON had flowing in probably gave them carte blanche to get more outrageous.

Besides, the thing here was to attract the people who wanted the cinematic Bond, not necessarily those who connected through Fleming. They likely figured they would hook the Fleming fans regardless. That was a given. The key was to get Joe moviegoer back with the interesting new stuff. And with the other campy Flint movies and things of the time, they have felt obligated to get wilder, although the other films were meer imitators of what the Bonds had already began. Or something like that.

Anyway, the build-up to topping the previous effort was the pattern.

[Loomis]

The novel YOLT was still fresh in your mind, having been released only 3 years earlier. ... But then you get a villain in a volcano and scenes set in outerspace and a film that had NO resemblance whatsoever to the book.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop right there. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is actually MUCH more faithful to the spirit of the Fleming novel than it's usually made out to be (as well as a far better film than it's usually portrayed as by both critics and fans - quite why its vastly inferior remake, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, gets all the glory while YOLT is often relegated to the dustbin of 007 history is beyond me).

Don't let the fact that YOLT boasts "a villain in a volcano and scenes set in outerspace" blind you to the ways in which the film either follows the source novel or (when it can't follow it) pays sly homage to it. As Mister Asterix puts it, there is much more of Fleming's novel in the film than meets the eye.

Let's address this business of sly homages first:

In the book, Bond becomes a father (without knowing it). For obvious reasons, the movie couldn't use that bit. Oh, sure, it could have ended with a "several months later" shot of the pregnant Kissy Suzuki, but, well, it wouldn't really have worked as well as it does on the printed page, Fleming having created a moving but doomed relationship between the amnesiac 007 and the Japanese woman. So what did the filmmakers do instead? Well, they gave Bond a different kind of life-changing romantic experience: marriage! (Okay, he gets hitched purely to help his cover, but, hey, getting hitched is getting hitched!)

Here's something else that "kind of" references the novel: Fleming's Henderson is not an effeminate, artsy-fartsy Englishman, but a rough, tough, foul-mouthed, beer-swilling, ultra-macho Aussie (is there any other kind? ). Hard to believe that the filmmakers didn't deliberately make the screen Henderson more or less the polar opposite of the literary one, as a lil' joke aimed at viewers who had read the novel.

But forget the astronauts and so on - for the most part, film follows book fairly closely (Bond goes to Japan - Bond meets Tiger - Bond becomes Japanese - Bond hooks up with Kissy - Bond and Kissy set off by boat for the foreign baddie's remote lair), and the filmmakers occasionally do an outstanding job of conjuring the atmosphere of the novel (think of the fishing village scenes). Much of Fleming's "You Only Live Twice" is travelogue, and an enthusiatic (indeed, almost reverential) examination of Japanese culture - happily, the same is true of the Eon film.

Impossible (obviously) to know what Fleming would have thought of this picture, but it seems likely that he would have enjoyed the sophisticated humour injected - one presumes - by his good friend Roald Dahl. Some regard it as a goof when Henderson gives Bond a stirred-not-shaken vodka martini and asks him if he's got it right, and 007 doesn't reply: "Well, no, actually, I like them shaken-not-stirred." No way is it a goof - even more amusing than the fact that Henderson gets it wrong is Bond's immediate, unthinking decision to play by the rules of politeness observed by upper class English society, which dictate that it would be terribly bad form for him to do anything other than agree that his favourite tipple had been prepared perfectly by his host. *Sigh* If only the jokes in the current Bond films were as subtle. Nowadays it's all crude quips about being a cunning linguist and knowing where to put cigars.

I sometimes think YOLT has replaced GOLDFINGER as the Bond prototype. Austin Powers, and affectionate send-up of Bond, parodies YOLT much more than it does any other Bond film.

I agree that YOLT has replaced GOLDFINGER as the Bond prototype - did so a long, long time ago, many years before Austin Powers was even a glimmer in Mike Myers' eye. Which makes the collective unconcerned shrugging over YOLT all the more baffling.

BTW, aren't the fight scenes in YOLT the best of the entire series? Bond has never come across as a tougher customer than when duking it out with the Japanese thug and with Hans.

As for MOONRAKER, I'm one of those Bond fans who firmly believes it's an absolutely splendid 007 outing rather than a stinking embarrassment that ought to be, well, shot into outer space. But it doesn't touch YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

You know what? I'm beginning to believe there's a strong and convincing case to be made that, just as "You Only Live Twice" is the best Bond novel, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is the best Bond film. YOLT boasts:

- Connery, impossibly charismatic even in a performance often slammed as lazy.

- Arguably the finest cinematography of the series (and best use of widescreen).

- Arguably the the most impressive sets of the series.

- Arguably the best score and title song of the series.

- Probably the best use of locations of the series, making for a film rich in travelogue detail.

- Arguably the greatest "epic feel" of the series.

- An "iconic" Blofeld (who talks like a Fleming Bond villain ought to talk).

- The "element of the bizarre" (obscure Japanese poisons, piranha fish, etc.).

- Excellent casting.

- Superb action scenes.

- Sophisticated wit, snobbery and connoisseurship.

- A fair amount of sadism and eroticism.

- A refusal to take itself seriously (I find THUNDERBALL a bit po-faced).

Etc. The best Bond flick ever? Why not?

[CharlieBind]

I'd probably agree with Loomis, if not the best, YOLT is a great Bond movie and it is this version of Bond that sticks in the public's folk memory.

GOLDFINGER probably has the edge but in places YOLT betters it. Hard core Fleming fantics understandbly hate this movies, but to be honest those people are seldom the intended audience of the Bond films.

I'd also say that THUNDERBALL is Connery's MOONRAKER, as both movies were their respective Bond's biggest boxoffice hit, yet both are relatively fogotten.

Edited by CharlieBind, 26 October 2004 - 05:06 PM.

[Loomis]

Hard core Fleming fantics understandbly hate this movies

This is my point, though: hardcore Fleming fanatics should love YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, since underneath all the astronauts and gadgets there's bags and bags of "Fleming" and a movie that's actually very faithful to the spirit of the book.

The same is true of MOONRAKER - there's plenty for Fleming lovers to love, if they'd only look.

[doublenoughtspy]

I'll take my Fleming adaptations literal, ala FRWL & OHMSS thank you.

Loomis - there is a reason Connery's performance in YOLT is cricized as lazy. From the day he got to Japan (sans toupee and criticizing Japanese women as unsexy - smart move) - he made it very obvious that he did not want to be there.

Have you seen the Wicker's World YOLT special? Connery is not a happy man. And it shows in his performance.

Back to Fleming - while I agree that there were many things that couldn't be filmed, and would have made no sense if they were (since OHMSS had not been filmed yet) - it still is such a far cry from the book. Read Dahl's article in the YOLT Playboy - he says he was told to throw everything out of the book except the women.

And speaking of the women - there is a reason why one of them threatened suicide in order to remain in the film - they can't act to save their lives.

I don't think making Henderson a polar opposite of the way he is described in the book is a reverse pychology "homage". It just ignores the book.

Now on to the laundry list. You state:

- Connery, impossibly charismatic even in a performance often slammed as lazy.

It's slammed for a reason. It's the truth.

- Arguably the finest cinematography of the series (and best use of widescreen).

Sorry. James Chapman (Licence to Thrill) and Alan Barnes & Marcus Hearn (Mr Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) and the Lincoln Film Center (Widescreen Retrospecitve) and I say OHMSS.

- Arguably the the most impressive sets of the series.

Agreed.

- Arguably the best score and title song of the series.

While the title song is haunting and beautiful - OHMSS' score is consistently described as Barry's best Bond work.

- Probably the best use of locations of the series, making for a film rich in travelogue detail.

Just like LTK has all tropical locations, YOLT has all Asian locations - not a globe hopping adventure that Bond should be.

- Arguably the greatest "epic feel" of the series.

I would say Thunderball - but that may just be the marketing.

- An "iconic" Blofeld (who talks like a Fleming Bond villain ought to talk).

I agree that Pleasence's Blofeld is iconic and had a great impact - but he is nothing like Fleming described in the book. And Peter Hunt had to edit him by just using close ups - he waddled like a duck and appeared too comic to be threatening.

- The "element of the bizarre" (obscure Japanese poisons, piranha fish, etc.).

I agree.

- Excellent casting.

A couple gems.

- Superb action scenes.

A few.

- Sophisticated wit, snobbery and connoisseurship.

OK.

- A fair amount of sadism and eroticism.

OK.

- A refusal to take itself seriously (I find THUNDERBALL a bit po-faced).

A little lighter than Tball, yes.

- Etc. The best Bond flick ever? Why not?

YOLT is an entertaining Bond film, but Bond is not in Britain at ALL in the film - a cardinal sin. Connery looks bored, the women can't act, and just because they spent more on the volcano than the entire budget of Dr No - that doesn't make it a great film.

Yes, SWLM borrows heavily from YOLT - but it does so with a panache that it predecessor can't match.

Peter Hunt would later say it isn't really a proper Bond film. While I wouldn't go that far - Its definitly waaay down the list.

And to go back to Zencat's original post, I imagine it would have been a bit of a shock from Fleming fans.

[Loomis]

I'll take my Fleming adaptations literal, ala FRWL & OHMSS thank you.

I prefer a bit more creativity on the part of the filmmakers. Otherwise, one might as well just read the books, no?

Loomis - there is a reason Connery's performance in YOLT is cricized as lazy. From the day he got to Japan (sans toupee and criticizing Japanese women as unsexy - smart move) - he made it very obvious that he did not want to be there.

Have you seen the Wicker's World YOLT special? Connery is not a happy man. And it shows in his performance.

Okay, I'm not saying that Connery gave 100%, but my point is that Connery is still fantastic as Bond even on an "off day". This is not intended as a swipe at Lazenby, Brosnan or anyone else, BTW.

No, I haven't seen the Alan Whicker thing. I hope it'll be one of the special features on the forthcoming DVD reissue.

And speaking of the women - there is a reason why one of them threatened suicide in order to remain in the film - they can't act to save their lives.

Oh, come now, they're fine for the material. I wouldn't say the performances of Akiko Wakabayashi and Mie Hama are amazing, but I don't think they deserve a slagging.

- Arguably the finest cinematography of the series (and best use of widescreen).

Sorry. James Chapman (Licence to Thrill) and Alan Barnes & Marcus Hearn (Mr Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) and the Lincoln Film Center (Widescreen Retrospecitve) and I say OHMSS.

If we're wheeling out the "Bond experts", Raymond Benson opines in his "Bedside Companion" that YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE boasts the best cinematography of the series (or maybe the most beautiful - can't remember, and I no longer own a copy of the book, so I can't check; amounts to the same thing, I guess - can't recall whether or not he cites it as the best use of Panavision).

- Arguably the best score and title song of the series.

While the title song is haunting and beautiful - OHMSS' score is consistently described as Barry's best Bond work.

I find it tough to choose between the scores of YOLT and OHMSS - both are utterly superb.

Just like LTK has all tropical locations, YOLT has all Asian locations - not a globe hopping adventure that Bond should be.

Wait, what's wrong with all-Asian locations? And who says a Bond adventure should be globe-hopping? Does DIE ANOTHER DAY deliver in the backdrop department more than YOLT does because it zips from North Korea to Hong Kong to Cuba to London to Iceland to South Korea and back to North Korea? Better to stick with just one or two locations and use them well than to zing about chalking up stamps in Bond's passport just for the sake of it, surely?

Bond is not in Britain at ALL in the film - a cardinal sin.

It's not a cardinal sin, in fact it's a refreshing change. Besides, Bond doesn't belong in Britain. He's British, yes, but he doesn't belong in grey, dull Britain. He belongs on Caribbean beaches, in casinos in the south of France, in exotic world capitals. I hate Bond in Britain! I want him to take me all over the globe, to exciting places I'll probably never visit in reality. Isn't that one of the main selling points of James Bond? It's probably for that reason that I've never really liked Fleming's "Moonraker".

[Mister Asterix]

Bond is not in Britain at ALL in the film - a cardinal sin.

It's not a cardinal sin, in fact it's a refreshing change. Besides, Bond doesn't belong in Britain. He's British, yes, but he doesn't belong in grey, dull Britain. He belongs on Caribbean beaches, in casinos in the south of France, in exotic world capitals. I hate Bond in Britain! I want him to take me all over the globe, to exciting places I'll probably never visit in reality. Isn't that one of the main selling points of James Bond? It's probably for that reason that I've never really liked Fleming's "Moonraker".

[mra]I agree with you there, Loomis. If Bond is supposed to be in Britain wouldn

[Loomis]

[quote name='doublenoughtspy' date='26 October 2004 - 18:30']Back to Fleming - while I agree that there were many things that couldn't be filmed, and would have made no sense if they were (since OHMSS had not been filmed yet) - it still is such a far cry from the book.

[doublenoughtspy]

I am not saying the film has to have the majority of screen time in Britain, but it should have some, because, oh I don't know...HE'S BRITISH?

Every Fleming Bond novel has Britain scenes - why do you object to them in a film?

"Your tiny little island hasn't even been threatened" - Rather than a UK centric perspective - the majority of Bond film goers are from the US and the rest of the world outside the UK - and to them Britain is an exotic location.

And while DAD may have gone a little globe crazy - I think you need a happy medium.

Take Goldfinger - plenty of UK, a little bit of Europe, and some America.

YOLT is all Asia, all the time - and there is a visual sameness that hurts the film. Now if you are an orientalphile like Benson - then yes, I'm sure you'll love how the film looks.

You say in response to my wanting literal adaptations:

I prefer a bit more creativity on the part of the filmmakers. Otherwise, one might as well just read the books, no?

Are you implying that Terence Young in FRWL, and Peter Hunt in OHMSS were not creative? You are a blasphemer.

So you don't like Fleming, you don't like Britain. Um, why exactly are you a Bond fan at all?

[Loomis]

I am not saying the film has to have the majority of screen time in Britain, but it should have some, because, oh I don't know...HE'S BRITISH?

Every Fleming Bond novel has Britain scenes - why do you object to them in a film?

"Your tiny little island hasn't even been threatened" - Rather than a UK centric perspective - the majority of Bond film goers are from the US and the rest of the world outside the UK - and to them Britain is an exotic location.

I've explained this: Bond doesn't belong in Britain. He's British, yes, but he doesn't belong in grey, dull Britain. He belongs on Caribbean beaches, in casinos in the south of France, in exotic world capitals. ... I want him to take me all over the globe, to exciting places I'll probably never visit in reality. Isn't that one of the main selling points of James Bond?

And while DAD may have gone a little globe crazy

Don't you mean, studio set crazy? Crikey, at least concede how wonderful it is that YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE boasts extensive location shooting. We'd be very lucky to get even half as much real filming in Japan in a Bond flick today.

YOLT is all Asia, all the time - and there is a visual sameness that hurts the film. Now if you are an orientalphile like Benson - then yes, I'm sure you'll love how the film looks.

Well, yes, I have a great interest in that part of the world, but, come on, you're surely not suggesting that you have to be passionate about Japan/the Far East in order to appreciate the cinematography of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE?

I don't agree that there's "a visual sameness that hurts the film". The Tokyo/Kobe scenes (which include quite a variety of sets and locations) look very different to the rural Japan scenes, and the volcano set obviously has a look of its own. I don't see that YOLT looks any more "samey" than any other Bond flick.

Are you implying that Terence Young in FRWL, and Peter Hunt in OHMSS were not creative? You are a blasphemer.

No way am I dissing Young or Hunt. I'm simply saying that it's sometimes possible to improve on Fleming - take the way in which the makers of GOLDFINGER had the villain planning to contaminate the gold at Fort Knox rather than steal it.

So you don't like Fleming, you don't like Britain. Um, why exactly are you a Bond fan at all?

Where exactly have I written that I don't like Fleming? Or that I don't like Britain? It's true that I don't believe the best adaptations of Fleming are always the most literal ones (perhaps you feel that GOLDFINGER would have been a better film if it had stuck more closely to the novel?), and it's true that I don't care for Bond in Britain, but to state that I dislike Fleming and Britain and ask me why I'm a Bond fan is going a little far.

[doublenoughtspy]

You say:

Bond doesn't belong in Britain

Hmm. So the times we see Bond's flat - you are thinking "God I wish he were somewhere else".

The times we seen him in M's office - you are thinking "This is intolerable - he should be on a beach somewhere"

The times he has been in Q's workshop - you are thinking "Oh when will this end - he should be at a casino in France!"

All of those scenes happen in Britain, where according to you, Bond doesn't belong.

And yes, I agree that a selling point of the James Bond film is to take you to exotic places. But you never answered my point - that there are a lot more people outside the UK than in it that will see a Bond film - and to them - the UK is an exotic location.

Re: orientalphile to enjoy the cinematography & locations of YOLT. No, you don't have to be, but it helps. Let's take the pre-credit sequence for instance. They set it in Hong Kong. Why? They knew the rest of the film would take place in the Orient - why not do a Goldfinger or SWLM and have the pre-credit sequence set in a part of the world different than the rest of the film?

Speaking of Goldfinger, did you know they brought in Paul Dehn to punch up Maibaum's script because it wasn't British enough? And so he wrote the Bank of England scene, among other things. Do you dislike that part because it takes place in England?

And while I am a Fleming purist, I will be the first to admit that his work can be improved upon, or updated. But is changing Goldfinger's heist from stealing the gold to irriadating it really the most important thing about the movie and what everyone remembers? I would say not.

Let's look at the iconic imagery of the film:

Oddjob with deadly hat- in the Fleming novel

Girl suffocated in gold paint - in the Fleming novel

Bond on the laser table - variation of Bond on saw table in the Fleming novel

Now let's look at the iconic imagery of YOLT

Hollowed out volcano - not in Fleming's book

Little Nellie - not in Fleming's book

Spacesuits, space ships, etc. - not in Fleming's book

I agree with Turn - by YOLT they had abandoned Fleming - and just as Peter Hunt predicted, they were imitating their imitators.

[David Somerset]

Yes, I agree that YOLT is the MR of the sixties or vice versa. Funny thing about YOLT is that Bond never puts a tux on in this film and it doesn't bother me at all and yet if I had to say one thing that must happen in any Bond movie is that bond must be seen in black or white tux at some point. I've strayed from the point here but it just crossed my mind.

[Loomis]

You say:

Bond doesn't belong in Britain

Hmm. So the times we see Bond's flat - you are thinking "God I wish he were somewhere else".

The times we seen him in M's office - you are thinking "This is intolerable - he should be on a beach somewhere"

The times he has been in Q's workshop - you are thinking "Oh when will this end - he should be at a casino in France!"

All of those scenes happen in Britain, where according to you, Bond doesn't belong.

And yes, I agree that a selling point of the James Bond film is to take you to exotic places. But you never answered my point - that there are a lot more people outside the UK than in it that will see a Bond film - and to them - the UK is an exotic location.

Fair point. My own point of view is UK-centric, but I make no apology for that, and neither do I apologise for holding preferences re: Bond locations. Perhaps I'm wrong to state that Bond doesn't belong in Britain - maybe I ought to have written: I prefer to see Bond outside the UK.

Let's take the pre-credit sequence for instance. They set it in Hong Kong. Why? They knew the rest of the film would take place in the Orient - why not do a Goldfinger or SWLM and have the pre-credit sequence set in a part of the world different than the rest of the film?

And I say: why not set it in Hong Kong? Perhaps the filmmakers felt that British territory was the obvious place to have the plot to fake Bond's death and funeral? The authorities can be in on the scheme, and 007 can be bundled onto a British sub that has every right to be where it is.

I agree with Turn - by YOLT they had abandoned Fleming - and just as Peter Hunt predicted, they were imitating their imitators.

I still contend that there are plenty of Fleming elements in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. Is it as faithful an adaptation of a Fleming work as ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE? Of course it isn't; but I do not agree that YOLT is a Fleming-free zone, or even a travesty of the novel on which it is based. A film like THE SPY WHO LOVED ME abandons Fleming (yes, I know that the filmmakers were in that instance unable to use the story of the book, but that was no excuse to chuck Fleming's Bond and most of the great aspects of Fleming's novels out of the window, which is what they did, IMO). YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE doesn't.

doublenoughtspy, which Bond films do you consider worse than YOLT?

[doublenoughtspy]

Loomis,

It is hard for both of us to not view Bond from the prisim of where we live. As you are a UK native, I can understand you wanting Bond to venture outside of your backyard.

As an American, I cringe when Bond visits America because I think he belongs in Europe.

As for what films I consider worse than YOLT - DAF, MWGG, AVTAK, LTK, and TND immediately spring to mind.

And yes, I know that those films have plenty of Fleming elements.

And you have convinced me that YOLT is not a Fleming-free zone. By the same token - I hope you can understand why someone who is not that interested in the orient, and like Connery does not find Asian women that attractive, might not put it in the same light you do.

At least we agree on Clive Owen

[Loomis]

Yes, Owen's by far the best choice for Bond. I'll be very disappointed if he isn't Brosnan's replacement. If they're really determined to get a guy between the ages of 28 and 32, Jack Davenport's the man.

DAF, MWGG, AVTAK, LTK, and TND, eh? I'm with you on DAF, AVTAK and TND.

It's true that it's "hard for both of us to not view Bond from the prisim of where we live" - as a Brit, whenever I see Bond in the States I think: "Cool! An exotic location!" And, yes, whenever he's in England I think: "Oh, just get on with it and get on a plane to somewhere!"

Perhaps I overrate YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN - objectively, I'd say they're inferior as films to, say, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, but then I guess when I choose a Bond DVD to watch I normally just go with my own subjective likes and dislikes. Nonetheless, I honestly feel that YOLT, TMWTGG and LTK (another "flawed" Bond film that I tend to champion) are very impressive and interesting pieces of work that don't deserve to be swept under the carpet, in the way that many critics and viewers used to dismiss OHMSS, a film you and I both love.

[Tarl_Cabot]

YOLT has Sean Connery(albiet Bored but still looking good),style and atmosphere and an Asian setting not common in mainstream films then...It's very much a pure Bond but a bigger, spashier film than the previous four. I say it delivers great entertainment and is bigger than life but not as ridiculous as the fun but cheesy Moonraker. Any Bond fan then should have been pleased but I'll agree it's an outlandish film compared to, say, From Russia With love.Still a 'Connery classic' despite it's decadence. I love it.

[Bondian]

I have to say that I like them both, but YOLT is more of a classic in my mind because it was made when I was too young to go and see it. Moonraker I went to see at the "Classic Cinema" In Westcliff-on-Sea Essex at the end of it's run. In fact I watched TMWTGG in 1973, but I bunked in for that.

Connery to me is the one and only cinematic James Bond with Roger Moore very close to the Novels.

Cheers,


Ian

[mtonline]

id love for tanaka of the movie (and/or the book (The Man With The Red Tattoo) to be in the next bond movie.

him and bond r cool together.

M_T

[Scottlee]

The original post has a fair point, but personally I've always grouped YOLT in the same pairing as TSWLM rather than MR, because of the similarity in plotting, which matters far more to me than whether or not a Bond was "over the top", or "Strayed from the novel".

[CharlieBind]

YOLT is all Asia, all the time - and there is a visual sameness that hurts the film.  Now if you are an orientalphile like Benson - then yes, I'm sure you'll love how the film looks.

Sorry, but I don't think that you need to be an orientalphile to appreciate that YOLT is perhaps the best looking Bond of all. The locations are stunning.

[Jim]

In fact I watched TMWTGG in 1973, but I bunked in for that. 

Did you? Blimey.

[Harmsway]

YOLT was, for many years, my favorite Bond film. I have to agree with Loomis on this one, YOLT is an exceptional piece of Bond entertainment, as is the finest epic film to come to the screen. I'd kill to see another Bond film that so successfuly balances atmosphere and excitement!

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, cooler than a hollowed out volcano for an evil lair (check out Pixar's The Incredibles for an awesome homage to the volcano lair, and epic James Bond films in general).

If only EON was willing to go so splendidly epic again, just willing to shake off any need they feel to stay within the bounds of realism. I'm not suggesting they go do a Moonraker, because that film, albeit very enjoyable, really becomes somewhat of a joke in its ridiculousness. YOLT is just an all-around terrific piece of tongue-in-cheek escapism.

[Genrewriter]

I think Die Another Day came close to that kind of film in the second half but it was really too much of a "personal vendetta" type Bond film in the first half to get up to that level.