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.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …