YOLT: All style and no substance?

12345679»

Comments

  • Posts: 7,500
    I appreciate YOLT for it's visual qualities more than anything. Japan is made for Bond! I hope they will go back there in future films. Seems well overdue at this point...
  • Posts: 1,883
    My “theory” on Bond films is that every incumbent actor in the role is always declared as “The Best since Sean Connery”, then once their era is over, and we’ve moved onto a new actor, there seems to be a lot of retroactive criticism, at least that’s what I’ve seen. The Brosnan era was loved back (by the fandom, and by the mainstream audience) in its day, but it seems like ever since the Craig era started, it seems to be the case that more and more people find flaws with Brosnan’s films. I can’t bring myself to “hate” the era like some others do, because he was my first Bond. I suppose my love of Brosnan comes heavily rooted in Nostalgia, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Like I mentioned, I love Goldeneye. It sits comfortably at #3 in my rankings. Tomorrow Never Dies is decent. I personally love The World Is Not Enough despite its flaws. While I agree that Die Another Day is a terrible misfire.

    That trend of "Best since Connery" really only began with Brosnan. I don't recall any of that talk for any of his successors, although there was a lot of anticipation in moving on from Moore. Audiences longed for Connery's return through Lazenby and Moore's tenures.

    Consider me ahead of my time as I never bought the Brosnan era from his announcement taking over for Dalton. I thought the Dalton era was unfinished business and Brosnan's hybrid of his predecessors, something to please everybody but not improve on them, did no favors. Never hated him, appreciated him helping popularize the series once again, but never left the theater stunned and looking forward to more.

    TND was the only one I had true fun with because it was just trying to be an entertaining Bond film and not an attempted deep dive into a shallow pool in trying to probe Bond's psyche and all that, which is where TWINE is the prime offender.

    I'm also a rare breed who actually enjoys DAD for what it is and find TWINE a much bigger failure in failing to entertain while introducing half-baked ideas that never come off as they should.
  • edited December 2020 Posts: 2,059
    BT3366 wrote: »
    My “theory” on Bond films is that every incumbent actor in the role is always declared as “The Best since Sean Connery”, then once their era is over, and we’ve moved onto a new actor, there seems to be a lot of retroactive criticism, at least that’s what I’ve seen. The Brosnan era was loved back (by the fandom, and by the mainstream audience) in its day, but it seems like ever since the Craig era started, it seems to be the case that more and more people find flaws with Brosnan’s films. I can’t bring myself to “hate” the era like some others do, because he was my first Bond. I suppose my love of Brosnan comes heavily rooted in Nostalgia, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Like I mentioned, I love Goldeneye. It sits comfortably at #3 in my rankings. Tomorrow Never Dies is decent. I personally love The World Is Not Enough despite its flaws. While I agree that Die Another Day is a terrible misfire.

    That trend of "Best since Connery" really only began with Brosnan. I don't recall any of that talk for any of his successors, although there was a lot of anticipation in moving on from Moore. Audiences longed for Connery's return through Lazenby and Moore's tenures.

    Consider me ahead of my time as I never bought the Brosnan era from his announcement taking over for Dalton. I thought the Dalton era was unfinished business and Brosnan's hybrid of his predecessors, something to please everybody but not improve on them, did no favors. Never hated him, appreciated him helping popularize the series once again, but never left the theater stunned and looking forward to more.

    TND was the only one I had true fun with because it was just trying to be an entertaining Bond film and not an attempted deep dive into a shallow pool in trying to probe Bond's psyche and all that, which is where TWINE is the prime offender.

    I'm also a rare breed who actually enjoys DAD for what it is and find TWINE a much bigger failure in failing to entertain while introducing half-baked ideas that never come off as they should.

    There must have been people who thought Dalton was the best since Connery back then. He reignited the franchise will TLD, which even though it wasn’t the most successful Bond film, it was still loved by the fandom, and still is today. LTK is also a pretty good, and interesting Bond film too.

    I agree that Brosnan took elements from his predecessors, and the fact that he was the 5th actor really helped him out too. But at the same time I feel like that’s why I think he’s great. Everybody talks about how nobody since Connery has been able to capture all elements of “ideal” Bond performance; the ruthlessness, the charm, the humor, the physicality, and the sex appeal. Yet I think Brosnan does and does it all well. With the exception of Goldeneye, all of the scripts for the Brosnan era are underdeveloped. TWINE is particular, a film I personally love, was full of underdeveloped ideas, but when you compare that film to the likes of DAF, TMWTGG, MR, AVTAK, DAD, QOS, and SP, TWINE looks like a masterpiece in comparison. I just think this “Brosnan bashing” is a bit popular bandwagon to hop on, just as it was popular for a while to trash the Roger Moore years for their excesses. It just disappoints me that people pin the blame on Brosnan himself, and not the producers/script writers. They’re to blame if anything.

    BTW, is this weird glitch of replies/comments in the “quotations window” going on for anyone else? Or is it just for me and the fellow above?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    YOLT is a solid, iconic, entertaining and very good Bond film.

    Yes, I wish it were a bit more faithful to Fleming’s novel, but it’s still a great film.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,493
    I feel the same, @suavejmf . The set alone is a work of genius and I always turn to this outing over TSWLM when I want some escapism.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    peter wrote: »
    I feel the same, @suavejmf . The set alone is a work of genius and I always turn to this outing over TSWLM when I want some escapism.

    Agreed. I also like TSWLM. However, the comic elements were taken too far in TSWLM. But this isn’t the case with YOLT.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,493
    suavejmf wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I feel the same, @suavejmf . The set alone is a work of genius and I always turn to this outing over TSWLM when I want some escapism.

    Agreed. I also like TSWLM. However, the comic elements were taken too far in TSWLM. But this isn’t the case with YOLT.

    Absolutely... I also find the 60s a more "magical" time than the 70s, if that makes sense; we get Connery, the style of clothing and cars, Japan.... Just for me, a better bang for my buck.

    And I like the dry humor better; I'll take a "good evening", when Bond is revealed in Osato's office, which leads to a great fight, than having Bond punch Jaws and grab his hand like a cartoon, or; having a threatening henchman, like Jaws, dropping a large stone on his foot (also cartoonish and takes away the danger for me).
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    peter wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I feel the same, @suavejmf . The set alone is a work of genius and I always turn to this outing over TSWLM when I want some escapism.

    Agreed. I also like TSWLM. However, the comic elements were taken too far in TSWLM. But this isn’t the case with YOLT.

    Absolutely... I also find the 60s a more "magical" time than the 70s, if that makes sense; we get Connery, the style of clothing and cars, Japan.... Just for me, a better bang for my buck.

    And I like the dry humor better; I'll take a "good evening", when Bond is revealed in Osato's office, which leads to a great fight, than having Bond punch Jaws and grab his hand like a cartoon, or; having a threatening henchman, like Jaws, dropping a large stone on his foot (also cartoonish and takes away the danger for me).

    I agree with every word of this @peter. Exactly.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited December 2020 Posts: 4,109
    suavejmf wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I feel the same, @suavejmf . The set alone is a work of genius and I always turn to this outing over TSWLM when I want some escapism.

    Agreed. I also like TSWLM. However, the comic elements were taken too far in TSWLM. But this isn’t the case with YOLT.

    Absolutely... I also find the 60s a more "magical" time than the 70s, if that makes sense; we get Connery, the style of clothing and cars, Japan.... Just for me, a better bang for my buck.

    And I like the dry humor better; I'll take a "good evening", when Bond is revealed in Osato's office, which leads to a great fight, than having Bond punch Jaws and grab his hand like a cartoon, or; having a threatening henchman, like Jaws, dropping a large stone on his foot (also cartoonish and takes away the danger for me).

    I agree with every word of this @peter. Exactly.

    Me too. Plus while YOLT’s pacing maybe off, TSWLM’s pacing is really bad in the third act. It feels among one of the slowest buildups in the series.
  • DaltonFanDaltonFan California
    edited December 2020 Posts: 69
    When I was younger there were a lot of theaters who ran Thunderball and You Only Live Twice would be run as a double feature. And say what you want about this film, even Bond fans who don't like YOLT have to admit that the battle inside of the volcano is incredible and the set is some of Ken Adam's finest work.
  • Posts: 7,500
    DaltonFan wrote: »
    When I was younger there were a lot of theaters who ran Thunderball and You Only Live Twice would be run as a double feature. And say what you want about this film, even Bond fans who don't like YOLT have to admit that the battle inside of the volcano is incredible and the set is some of Ken Adam's finest work.

    The set is pure pornography! The action inside it drags on for a bit too long though...
  • jobo wrote: »
    DaltonFan wrote: »
    When I was younger there were a lot of theaters who ran Thunderball and You Only Live Twice would be run as a double feature. And say what you want about this film, even Bond fans who don't like YOLT have to admit that the battle inside of the volcano is incredible and the set is some of Ken Adam's finest work.

    The set is pure pornography! The action inside it drags on for a bit too long though...

    I think the action is runs long enough. It’s just such an amazing such set that to see all that action perfectly executed is like a cherry on top.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,976
    jobo wrote: »
    DaltonFan wrote: »
    When I was younger there were a lot of theaters who ran Thunderball and You Only Live Twice would be run as a double feature. And say what you want about this film, even Bond fans who don't like YOLT have to admit that the battle inside of the volcano is incredible and the set is some of Ken Adam's finest work.

    The set is pure pornography! The action inside it drags on for a bit too long though...

    I think the action is runs long enough. It’s just such an amazing such set that to see all that action perfectly executed is like a cherry on top.

    I agree. YOLT boasts perhaps the best-paced army-against-army finale. "Evacuate the controls! Evacuate the controls!" "Impregnable?" Etc.
  • edited December 2020 Posts: 2,059
    echo wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    DaltonFan wrote: »
    When I was younger there were a lot of theaters who ran Thunderball and You Only Live Twice would be run as a double feature. And say what you want about this film, even Bond fans who don't like YOLT have to admit that the battle inside of the volcano is incredible and the set is some of Ken Adam's finest work.

    The set is pure pornography! The action inside it drags on for a bit too long though...

    I think the action is runs long enough. It’s just such an amazing such set that to see all that action perfectly executed is like a cherry on top.

    I agree. YOLT boasts perhaps the best-paced army-against-army finale. "Evacuate the controls! Evacuate the controls!" "Impregnable?" Etc.

    Agreed, although I also think Draco’s forces vs Blofeld’s forces at the end of OHMSS rivals the YOLT battle
  • Posts: 1,883
    A couple of things to add on recent comments:

    -The YOLT final battle probably tops the others (props to OHMSS as stated above). TSWLM's is positively pedestrian in comparison with poor pacing during that battle. The ninjas with the swords and throwing stars in addition to the guns help things stand out even more in YOLT. It's also refreshing Bond doesn't have to rescue the girl and she's self-sufficient.

    -Both TB and YOLT convey a sense of actual world-wide panic and alarm, there's something at stake. We see and hear periodically throughout the concerns from the leaders. I don't get that in any of the others, particularly TSWLM. Not to say there's not some dramatic tension in those, but the sense of relief of having accomplished the mission in TB and YOLT seems more urgent. When Bond hits the button to blow up the intruder craft followed by the "repeat, not imminent" line is quite effective. Then it's still not over when Blofeld reappears to blow up the base.

    -Not related, but what became of the Russian and American astronauts? They help Bond knock out the guards to help Bond impersonate the astronaut, but are they discovered and punished or what?
  • DeathToSpies84DeathToSpies84 Haydock, England
    Posts: 254
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.

    For me the Brosnan era is a forgettable stain on the franchise, a horrible blip. Its one I instantly skip over. For me the franchise ends with LTK, and starts again with CR (both brilliant films, IMO.)

    Too harsh. The last two are tough to defend, but GE is excellent, and TND is watchable.

    I agree, too harsh. But all the Brosnan films are average to the worst IMO. GE is the most overrated film of the series alongside SF.

    Both decent, but not in my top 10.

    I agree with you regarding most of the Brosnan era, but disagree with your opinion on GE. It's a fine film that at least gave a bit of a spark to the then floundering franchise.

    It was certainly popular, but I honestly think GE is inferior to TLD and LTK. Which I loved as a Fleming purist.

    I watched GE as an underwhelmed 13 year old, who had watched all the Bond films on Video/ TV/ SKY and expected more from the first Bond film I was able to watch at the Cinema.

    GoldenEye is Brosnan’s one and only good outing as Bond. TND at least tried to be entertaining in terms of piling action set piece upon action set piece every second or so, but after that, it got progressively worse in terms of scripts.

    However, I will be brutally honest: As much as I would of loved to have seen the Dalton version of GE (I’m firmly in the "Dalton should of done two more" camp), I don’t think GE would of had the same impact at the box office had he signed on. Brosnan brought the franchise into the 90’s after a long period of uncertainty.

    The same can be said for the main villain. The prospect of Anthony Hopkins as Augustus Trevelyan would of been enticing, but his scheme to steal six billion dollars from the World Trade Center and then set off said satellite over New York in the first draft is your basic terrorism plot.
  • Posts: 1,883
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.

    For me the Brosnan era is a forgettable stain on the franchise, a horrible blip. Its one I instantly skip over. For me the franchise ends with LTK, and starts again with CR (both brilliant films, IMO.)

    Too harsh. The last two are tough to defend, but GE is excellent, and TND is watchable.

    I agree, too harsh. But all the Brosnan films are average to the worst IMO. GE is the most overrated film of the series alongside SF.

    Both decent, but not in my top 10.

    I agree with you regarding most of the Brosnan era, but disagree with your opinion on GE. It's a fine film that at least gave a bit of a spark to the then floundering franchise.

    It was certainly popular, but I honestly think GE is inferior to TLD and LTK. Which I loved as a Fleming purist.

    I watched GE as an underwhelmed 13 year old, who had watched all the Bond films on Video/ TV/ SKY and expected more from the first Bond film I was able to watch at the Cinema.

    GoldenEye is Brosnan’s one and only good outing as Bond. TND at least tried to be entertaining in terms of piling action set piece upon action set piece every second or so, but after that, it got progressively worse in terms of scripts.

    However, I will be brutally honest: As much as I would of loved to have seen the Dalton version of GE (I’m firmly in the "Dalton should of done two more" camp), I don’t think GE would of had the same impact at the box office had he signed on. Brosnan brought the franchise into the 90’s after a long period of uncertainty.

    The same can be said for the main villain. The prospect of Anthony Hopkins as Augustus Trevelyan would of been enticing, but his scheme to steal six billion dollars from the World Trade Center and then set off said satellite over New York in the first draft is your basic terrorism plot.

    But even in the final script there's still yet another piece of space hardware threatening to extort money that makes it a basic terrorism plot. Add the whole revenge thing for the Cossack parents that becomes even more muddled given Trevelyan's age and the timeline and all that.

    The only real fresh angle was having a former 00 as the villain and able to counter Bond's moves. And Brosnan was anticipated by a good many people and obviously well received.
  • Posts: 3,279
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    YOLT is a solid Bond film.

    Style over substance describes 1995 to 2002 IMO.

    I take it your not a Brosnan fan then. As a Brosnan fanboy, I only partly agree with that statement. Goldeneye had lots of substance, loved the dynamic between Bond and Trevelyn, loved Natalya, loved Onnatop, Boris, and Ourumov as well. It has all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, while also setting the stage for the future Bonds that follow. Tomorrow Never Dies is meh, not the worst, nor the best. I personally liked The World Is Not Enough, all elements except Denise Richards I think work very well. Die Another Day I think is the worst of all the Brosnan films, if anything that’s too much style over substance.

    I agree about GE. It's a Bond film that has a lot of good stuff--substance if you will--to deliver, and not merely style.

    DAD is just an overproduced film. But not necessarily in a bad way. It's Brosnan's Moonraker, the closest thing to a video game cut scene montage in the series so far. But I don't mind that we have such a Bond film in the collection too. Variety is the spice of life.

    I think DAD suffers from bad direction honestly. Tamahori, aside from Marc Forster, is the most unfit choice to direct a Bond film. I don’t think he had the tongue in cheek style of Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert to pull off the ludicrous things they were going for in that film, it all seems like balls to the wall action, with little else to offer. I feel ashamed admitting this, but as a kid I loved that film because it was the first Bond film I owned on DVD, and one of the first Bond films I’ve ever seen. It is Brosnan’s Moonraker, hell it may even be Brosnan’s YOLT/DAF, but without the tongue in cheek qualities that make those films entertaining despite their flaws. I also feel like because of how bad DAD was, the film reflected on the entire Brosnan era of Bond in a way, which I think is kind of unfair. As I said, GE and TWINE are pretty good films in my book, TND is a bit generic, but DAD’s reputation seems to dragged down the Brosnan era with it, or so it appears.

    DAD will always anchor Brosnan's era down, somewhat. But TWINE is just as bad, in a different way. The most frustrating thing about DAD is, with a bit of script editing and a more restrained director, it would have actually been a pretty good Bond film.

    The problem with TWINE is, on paper it has a decent script, apart from the odd dodgy one liner. It had a well respected, restrained director. It had two excellent actors in the villain roles. But it was still crap.

    For me the Brosnan era is a forgettable stain on the franchise, a horrible blip. Its one I instantly skip over. For me the franchise ends with LTK, and starts again with CR (both brilliant films, IMO.)

    Too harsh. The last two are tough to defend, but GE is excellent, and TND is watchable.

    I agree, too harsh. But all the Brosnan films are average to the worst IMO. GE is the most overrated film of the series alongside SF.

    Both decent, but not in my top 10.

    I agree with you regarding most of the Brosnan era, but disagree with your opinion on GE. It's a fine film that at least gave a bit of a spark to the then floundering franchise.

    It was certainly popular, but I honestly think GE is inferior to TLD and LTK. Which I loved as a Fleming purist.

    I watched GE as an underwhelmed 13 year old, who had watched all the Bond films on Video/ TV/ SKY and expected more from the first Bond film I was able to watch at the Cinema.

    GoldenEye is Brosnan’s one and only good outing as Bond. TND at least tried to be entertaining in terms of piling action set piece upon action set piece every second or so, but after that, it got progressively worse in terms of scripts.

    However, I will be brutally honest: As much as I would of loved to have seen the Dalton version of GE (I’m firmly in the "Dalton should of done two more" camp), I don’t think GE would of had the same impact at the box office had he signed on. Brosnan brought the franchise into the 90’s after a long period of uncertainty.

    The same can be said for the main villain. The prospect of Anthony Hopkins as Augustus Trevelyan would of been enticing, but his scheme to steal six billion dollars from the World Trade Center and then set off said satellite over New York in the first draft is your basic terrorism plot.

    I do think there would also have been an unused Fleming scene or two thrown into the script, as this was the trend and route they were taking at that time, and was something Dalton himself was constantly insisting on.

    It appeared this trend was firmly thrown out when Brosnan came on board for GE.
Sign In or Register to comment.