Critics’ reviews

You Only Live Twice (1967)

11 reviews from 11 publications. Critics’ score 56: 4 positive, 3 mixed, 4 negative.

Back to our review of You Only Live Twice

56
Positive
4
Mixed
3
Negative
4
Radio Times
★★★★★ · Andrew Collins
100

One of the best Sean Connery Bond films, with a great villain in Donald Pleasence's Blofeld; director Lewis Gilbert keeps the pace up and the script is suitably arch, though production designer Ken Adam's secret volcanic base is the real triumph.

Read the full review →
Empire
3 March 2006 · Ian Nathan
85*

The critic hails the film as the pinnacle of the Bond series for its flamboyance and scope. They single out Roald Dahl's script and Ken Adam's volcano lair for particular praise.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
14 June 1967
70*

The review calls it a bag of good Bond fun mixing science-fiction with the series' bright bravado, despite Connery seeming slightly bored and minimal sex. Lovely Japanese scenery and supporting players add to the entertainment value.

Read the full review →
Variety
1 January 1967 · Variety Staff
70*

The review notes Connery plays 007 with his usual finesse in this expensive production. Supporting players like Akiko Wakabayashi and Tetsuro Tamba register well, with Donald Pleasence suitably menacing as the heavy.

Read the full review →
Film Comment
1 May 2017 · Mark Harris
50*

The critic views the film as a product of franchise pressures rather than a classic, noting its low box office and the series' shift toward spectacle amid competition from parodies. He singles out Ken Adam's production design, the Blofeld reveal, and the Nancy Sinatra title song for praise while criticizing cultural insensitivity.

Read the full review →
Time Out
30 August 2012 · NF
50*

Agent 007 travels to Japan to thwart Blofeld's scheme involving hijacked space capsules; Roald Dahl's implausible script is padded with exotic locations, stunts and trickery.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
19 June 1967 · Roger Ebert
30*

The critic finds the film top-heavy with gadgets but weak on plotting, failing to recapture the magic of earlier Bond entries like Goldfinger. Connery labors to maintain the illusion amid over-the-top hardware and underdeveloped characters.

Read the full review →
Sight and Sound
1 August 1967
30*

The critic finds the film no better or worse than its Bond predecessors but less enjoyable overall, as the formula has grown mechanical with a predictably indestructible hero and no compensating individuality or elegance in direction.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
17 June 1967 · Penelope Gilliatt
30*

The review observes that the cheery self-parody of earlier films has coarsened, with the sense of play lost amid gadgets and violence. Bond appears inert and deflated, more a vehicle for production ideas than a compelling character.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
12 June 2019 · Max Williams
60*

The critic calls it the first epic Bond film with memorable set pieces and the iconic volcano lair but finds the writing lazy, characters two-dimensional, and Connery disengaged. He singles out the pre-credits 'death' sequence and Little Nellie for praise while criticizing the Bond girls and Blofeld's limited role.

Read the full review →
Film Stories
12 May 2022 · Mark Harrison
30*

The critic sees the film as both the most iconic and risible of Connery’s Bond outings, a weak ending to the original golden age marked by missteps and gimmicks that undermine it. He singles out its self-undermining parody elements and excessive travelogue style for complaint while noting its original box-office success.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate