Skip to main content

As you can see, I am about to inaugurate a little war.


You Only Live Twice
(1967)

Thunderball marked a shift in approach for the Bond series. Plots now appeared to be structured around how much money was available, with the overriding ditctat of putting it all up there on screen. From action sequences to set design, the films relied on being able to announce, “The biggest yet”. Despite this, the jet-setting of the series remained limited. The previous film was located mainly in the Bahamas, and this one would set up shop in Japan.


Connery, quite understandably, had become tired with the series (and, more especially, the press attention he received at every turn). Gaps between releases were slowly but surely lengthening (15 months between Goldfinger and Thunderball, 18 months and two calendar years between Thunderball and this). On screen, the Scotsman can’t hide that his enthusiasm for the role has waned. Reportedly, the actor’s fee was raised to sweeten the YOLT deal, and even though he was contracted for one more outing, the producers released him from this obligation (ironic, as the next would have seen him go out on an all-time high).


Director Lewis Gilbert would go on to call the shots on two of the most self-conscious Moore films, but it’s fair to say he didn’t prove to be the most dynamic of action directors. The spectacle, when it comes, has little momentum or sense of purpose to it. Geography is vague, even though long shots abound. In contrast, as an actor’s director, he was in his element when it came to more intimate dramas on a manageable scale (Alfie and Educating Rita stand out). The approach taken by the Bond producers appeared to be that a unified vision didn’t really matter as the Second Unit (here being handled by editor Peter Hunt) would take care of the action. They may be slowly learning their lesson, following muddled results in more recent years (including The World is Not Enough and Quantum of Solace).


On the plus side the theme song, sung Nancy Sinatra, is one of the most luxuriant of the series (sampled by Robbie Williams on Millennium). YOLT was (very loosely) based on the twelfth Fleming novel, and boasted a screenplay from Roald Dahl. Unfortunately there’s little evidence of Dahl’s fertile imagination on screen (he opined that it was assembled to the producers’ prescribed formula). YOLT is a leaden affair, rarely displaying wit or verve in plotting and characterisation. Where Goldfinger sparkled so brightly, YOLT sinks like a stodgy pudding.


Donald Pleasance pulls a nice turn out of his hat as a little man with a Napoleon complex (his Blofeld follows Largo – who sported an eyepatch – as one of the many Bond villains with physical impediments; here there is facial scarring about his right eye and cheek). Pleasance was a last-minute replacement for Jan Werich (who completed a week of filming before it was decided he wasn’t right for the role). And he is granted Bond-syle observational skills (rather than noting failings in etiquette as 007 does, he spots Bond due to the latter's lack of knowledge of astronaut equipment). But mostly character takes a back seat to dubious commentary on cultural differences (Bond’s first line is “Why do Chinese girls taste different from all other girls?”) and seems to rehearse a fantasy version of the “Instant Japanese” phrase book that Moneypenny offers Bond.


The pre-credits sequence combines a rocket heist by SPECTRE (although the various nations suspect each other; had they not seen From Russia with Love?) with Bond canoodling in Hong Kong and then, apparently, being killed. This has become a curious obsession of the writers/producers; three of the four films featuring a pre-credits sequence have used it to toy with the idea of 007’s mortality.


Mike Myers appears to have borrowed most liberally from YOLT for Austin Powers, both in the appearance and tics of Dr Evil and the rocket heist imagery. The space scenes are well-rendered, even if SPECTRE’s space vehicle of choice looks a bit daft. In contrast, the killing of Bond is turgid stuff. Reportedly it played on the speculation of Connery leaving, although the theme of mortality is in the novel (Fleming having suffered a heart attack prior to writing it).  When we reach the point of Bond’s at sea burial, and retrieval, the elaborate scheme moves beyond the plausible. Particularly since Bond is successfully off SPECTRE’s radar for very limited time (and one wonders if it would have made any difference if he wasn’t).


Indeed, when it comes down to it, the vital key to finding SPECTRE’s base is an off-the-cuff remark from Kissy Suzuki about a big cave. It’s this lack of narrative integrity that makes YOLT seen so slipshod and lazy.

Tiger: For a European, you are exceptionally cultivated.

Tiger, played with some wit by Tetsuro Tamba (the "I... love you" code phrase is unsubtle but amusing) but dubbed by Robert Rietty, is, it seems, impressed by Bond’s cultural awareness. You see, despite being the last bastion of the British Empire, Bond respects other cultures. Why, he took a First in Oriental Languages at Cambridge (this is his first visit to Japan, however) and he knows the precise temperature for serving sake.


If his appreciation of foreigners is a surprise, 007’s eye for the ladies is now being exaggerated with each escapade. Tiger offers him the pick of his “very sexiful” ladies, who “always come second” to the man (“I just might retire here” comments James). It is this film (rather than OHMSS) where Bond, as Mr Fisher, first marries. Much casual conversation occurs about how Bond’s bride to be has a  “face like a pig”.  Charming.


In one of the stupidest sequences seen in a Bond film, 007’s cover is protected by Tiger by turning him Japanese. Tiger runs a ninja training school, naturally.

Tiger: First, you become a Japanese. Second, you train hard and quickly to become a ninja like us. And third, to give you extra special cover, you take a wife.

Connery looks patently ridiculous “made up” as Japanese. But he might successfully audition as The Wolfman. Bond also learns ninja techniques in double quick time. Maybe this is what you get for employing a children’s author to thrash out your plot. I could quite see Moore making this palatable with a quizzically raised eyebrow, but there’s no self-consciousness on display.


As with Thunderball, ‘60s gadgetry is shoehorned into the story on the whim of whoever saw it and thought it to be neat and sufficiently Bondian. So, Little Nellie, a micro-helicopter, is Bond’s vehicle of choice (or Q’s choice) to investigate the SPECTRE lair. Apparently this is the only Bond film where 007 doesn’t drive. I’m unsure whether this indicates anything about the film as a whole, except that something is always left off a shopping list.


Whenever anyone discusses YOLT mention of the $1m volcano set is inevitable, as if this is somehow evidence of the film’s quality. But, as with the climax of Thunderball, the overall effect of the barrage of explosions and fighting is deathly dull. There’s a limited relief from finally getting to see Blofeld, and Bond’s exploding cigarettes, but the villain’s nefariousness was better illustrated earlier when he fed Helga Brandt to his vicious mutated sea trout. Sorry, piranhas. Which in itself is an obvious steal from the sharks in Thunderball. The grand climax is flabby and excitement-free until the point Bond presses the button and blows up the enemy spacecraft. And if you’re left wondering what the point of it all was, it’s been lost in lumpen, lazy plotting by that point.


Aficionados long nostalgically for the halcyon days of Connery, when Bond films were made with care and the result was always classy. But this is only really true of the second and third entries in the series. There is much that is positive to say about Connery’s return in Diamonds are Forever, but wherever you stand on that one it’s a very different beast. As it is, You Only Live Twice is one of the low points in the canon, iconic for a number of reasons (Blofeld, the space snatches) but bloated and charmless in the cold light of day.




Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There