Never Say Never Again

Rating:
Summary: Not as graceful an exit as Mr. Bond deserves
Review: Sean Connery is without a doubt the best Bond ever. But by the time this movie was made, the formula which made him such was lost, and only recently has Pierce even come close. The movie follows the same basic formula as some of Moore's cheesiest bond titles (aka View to a Kill), using high tech gadgets and special effects to make up for a lack of panache and storyline. As has been said before, aim for Thunderball... the story is similar, but the classic bond flair and style are there. In truth there is no comparision

Rating:
Summary: Sean Connery's Best
Review: Call me nuts, but I think that Never Say Never Again is the best of the Bond films (yes, even slightly better than Goldfinger and Tomorrow Never Dies.) The thing that makes this film so interesting is Connery's portrayal of Bond. Unlike Roger Moore, who played Bond like a virile teen despite being in his fifties, Connery gives us an older Bond on the verge of retirement. He is fed up with cutbacks in the MI-6 budget, which makes this the perfect movie for someone who was put off by declining defense budgets during the Clinton years. There are also many other interesting twists on the Bond formula in this adventure. Bond plays Largo in a computer game instead of a card game, for instance. Max Von Sydow does the best ever portrayal of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, and Klaus Maria Brandauer also has agood showing as Largo.
There are a couple detractors from this movie, though. In Thundeball, the movie moved slowly but it was saved by an exciting ending. Never Say Never Again is more exciting but the end is anticlimactic. Some of the dialogue is pretty dumb, but what can you expect when the script was written by the same guy who did the Batman TV show? And the DVD special features pale next to those in the "official" Bond movies.
Despite the minor flaws, Never Say Never Again is a classic and arguably Connery's best. All Bond fans must watch this exciting flick!

Rating:
Summary: Sorry to say this about a Bond Movie
Review: I never thought i would say this but i am sorry to have seen this particular movie made. Whilst Sean Connery turns in a good performance the rest of the cast and indeed the plot leaves something to be desired in their performance and indeed their standard and it is well apparant that the usual Bond Team was not involved in the production of this movie. If your a Bond fan then maybe give it a look - otherwise give it a miss.

Rating:
Summary: Why was this movie made?
Review: It took me a while, not being a rabid Bond fan, to realize that this was a re-make of Thunderball. Ok, Sean Connery starred in the excellent film, Thunderball. So, some director pulls him out of mothballs to make another "bond" film. Ok, WHY REMAKE A FILM SEAN ALREADY STARRED IN? It makes no sense at all. They didn't even change the plot or the character's names. When hollywood rips off shakespeare plots like "hamlet" at least they change names and add/remove stuff. If Sean was to make one last bond film, why couldn't they pick a film he never made, like a Roger Moore bond flick, or a new plot entirely? This movie is senseless and stupid. The only redeeming points are seeing Kimmie basinger in her hot outfits, and seeing her underwater in scuba gear. Also, there is a scene where she is to be sold off as a white slave, that's interesting to contemplate, as the arab creepy guys count out their coins to purchase her! Forget this movie, and go get Thunderball.

Rating:
Summary: Connery's final Bond film is the most underated Bond film...
Review: I think you know the story behind this film! Kevin Mclory, Ian Fleming and Jack Whittigham wrote a film screenplay (starring James Bond 007) that introduced for the first time SPECTRE and Blofeld. The screenplay, had 10 different variations. But when Fleming adapted one of these variations of the screenplay into a novel named "Thunderball" and saled a lot, Mclory sought out to get the rights for any treatment to the storyline of this book, and any film adaptions. Meanwhile, Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman had already began the James Bond 007 series with Dr. No, FRWL and Goldfinger. So they had to co-operate with Mclory to make this film a reality. Mclory's plan with them included a possibility for remake of this film, 10 years after its first release. Nobody believed he would do such a thing because most didn't even believed that the series would continue that much. In 1975 however he tried to make a film based on a screen play written by himself, Len Deighton and, yes, even Sean Connery. But it was delayed because of 1977's TSWLM. Then in 1983, the phenomenal "Double Bond Duel" happened....

Now, lets go into a more detailed review of the film itself. The film's plot, similar to "Thunderball"'s, has two nuclear missiles steal from the newly re-appeared SPECTRE (as I like to put it), and blackmails NATO and the UN to hold the world for rensom, if they are not given share of the UN's anual payment from their oil fragment. So the MI6 operations are sending James Bond 007 to clear up the case.

To that matter, I don't think this film is a total REMAKE of "Thunderball", but a some-sort-of-variation of the theme, that happened to follow THUNDERBALL, as well as the other Bond films. The two films are no way similar. NSNA was much more exciting and amzing Bond film, maybe because it was done by others than Broccoli and co. Even thought it's not an original movie either (the plot remains intact with "Thunderball), the film had elements that provided a different take of the theme and thus a differently presented film. This movie marks the re-appearence of the original (and still best) Bond, Sean Connery, thus the return of an edgier 007 (no offence to Moore, but only in LALD, TSWLM and FYYO Moore showed his edge). Here, Bond must use his brain and body to get out of trouble, and not rely only to Q's gadgets (as in most of the Moore's Bond films). Also, there's some kind of aknowledgement of Bond's age, that has never been shown in the EON films. But aside Connery, the supporting cast is brilliant. Klaus Maria Brandauer is excellent as one of the most original villains of the series, Max Largo. Thought it is supposed, as in any remake, to follow the original character's performance, but in this case, Klaus Maria decided to create his own, unique representation of the character. In fact, he acts really different from the original '65 Largo - he acts like a cousin or brother or something like that (meaning he is different). His Largo, even without the characteristic Celi's scar, is far superior. He shows a menacing, intriguing face of the absolute lunatic in every sence of the word, a very dangerous side of evil, gleefully insidious, that when it is "in trouble", he shows his real face, rather than a quite wealthy gentleman, the public mask of his personality. He is the first of the neuro-phychic, realistic modern day villains we see in the present Bond films (such as Alex Travelyan, Frank Sanchez, Renard etc.)- he's a three-dimensional villain in a way that only the few great Eon/Bond supervillains (Goldfinger, Scaramanaga, Zorin) truly are. Compare Brandauer's Largo to the original, or even later bad guys like Drax and Stromberg, and you'll see what I mean. Elegantly nefarious Max Von Sydow, even for his limited on-screen time, certainly ranks as one of the best Blofeld's, and while not the best, he is the only one who actually borrowed the style, charm, charisma and coolness from the novels' Blofeld, giving him an air of danger, polite menace and fear. He had the potential to be the best. Unfortunately, his short appearence doesn't let him to be voted as the best Blofeld, but certainly one of them. Barbara Karrera is, well, the archetype of the femme fatale of the series, and certainly the inspiration of Xenia Onatopp of Goldeneye. Kim Basinger, in the beggining of her carrer, seems to be the most succesfull (on her further carrer, as I note) Bond girl, since she had the oppotunity to expand her carrer aside the Bond femme, unlike other Bond girls. She is blatant, more of pupil of Largo's in the beggining, and, as in ANY Bond movie, she falls inlove with Bond. In fact she is the one to put him on retirement (for awhile, of course). As for the MI6 cast, well, they not be as memorable as the prototypes, but they succeed on creating something unque. Edward Fox is wonderfull as Bill Taner (yes, as Bill Taner, because, for me, as M, he is awful and totally out of character!), he shows the leadership that a chief of stuff must have. Alec McCowen as Q Algy is, for me, exactly what R was in The World Is Not Enough, an inferior officer, and as the original Q is missed in here (propably for a short vacation), he is the temporary head of Q Branch. Anyways, he is wonderfull! Rowan Atkinson (Bean), well, he is the comic relief in this film, and he works it out as the incompitent agent.

The pacing of the movie is fine. Irvin Kershner (the only american director for a Bond film) gives an exciting thrill-ride, and while the script is somewhat flawed (yes, it could have been better), Kershner comes up and makes up for it. The plot is not allowed to "thicken" too much before Bond is allowed to save the world with his usual blend of savoir-faire and (not too much)gratuitous sex and violence. Overall NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is a class act. In my estimate, Thunderball was really over-the-top because overdone/extended underwater sequences (particularly the battle finale) made the fourth Bond outing a bit "soggy". NSNA is a better picture than Thunderball because it does not try to be an epic. Having Sean Connery back in action was supposed to carry the day as he put this solid 007 adventure through its paces. I think it worked. To fans this "remake" with the real Bond is a "thrilling prospect" that won't let you down and NEVER could...

So, what we have is a very entairtaining Bond film (and certainly one of the best), that needs to be in the canons. For me, the Bond series has two Phases: The first includes the first 14 official Bonds (6 with Connery, 1 with Lazenby and 7 with Moore), and ends with this one as 15th (7th with Connery), and the second Phase started with the last 5 ones (2 with Dalton and 3 with Brosnan-so far). But how can NSNA be accepted in the official series? Well, its simple: Take M, make him Chief of Stuff Bill Taner, who again replaced M, who was again on leave, delete some M references, and take Q Algy and make him the TEMPORARY replacement of the Q Branch ('cause Q is ill here or he is also on leave). Make the film take place in 1986, a little time after A View To A Kill. So, with that way, we'll have the end of the "old ones" era (old ones, meaning Connery, Moore, Maxwell, Lee, and in any cases opening the door for a new generation of Bond, M, Moneypenny etc.), so that the circle would be completed, and to be followed by a new start - The Living Daylights, Licence To Kill, Goldeneye and continue... If you liked my ideas, send me an e-mail to [e-mail] and tell me your opinion.

In any cases, this is the most underrated Bond film of the series. What needs to be done for now, is a Special Edition DVD-vhs that will include the open-narrel opening, will re-arrange the training exercise in the beggining as a pre-title sequence, include newly created title sequence with the traditional way, will include some important deleted scenes within the film-not in a deleted scenes section (such deleted scenes as Blofeld's death etc.), and will in any cases improve the picture and sound, and in this case the movie itself, like in the other ones, now that its rights were bought by MGM/UA. As for the current DVD, lets not talk about it. I think it is obvious, how much MGM respects this "really underestimated Bond picture.

Rating:
Summary: To the chap who's not sure who released this film
Review: Although the first release was WB, the DVD and the errors contained on it are a product of MGM. Quite infact, two links into the MGM.com site revealed the disc for sale. Unfortunatley, they are somewhat confused as to who is responsible over there as well. As a film it may be lacking in some departments, but the least we can do is get the opportunity to see it in its entirety.

Rating:
Summary: (james bond fan & collector) NEVER WATCH IT AGAIN
Review: This flim is awful its the worst sean connery bond flim ever made.Its not realy a proper Bond flim. Instead of calling it Never Say Never Again it should be renamed Never Watch It Again. Its suposed to be a remake of Thunderball, but its not its nothing like Thunderball.It's that terrible it should not realy get one star.

Rating:
Summary: Never Say Never Again
Review: The lack of the "DANJAC" (Albert Broccoli) 007 Music & opening credits are the only thing about this movie that could have been better. I say Cheers to Kevin McClory for creating the anti-Bond charchters, SPECTRE, BLOFELD & his kitty, and for having the guts to go up against MEGA movie makers "Broccoli & Co." and make this last Good James Bond Movie. To me 1983 was the last year James Bond was really James Bond. Now he's ...politically correct, which I am sure makes Ian Fleming turn over in his grave. All 7 of Connery's Bond's are Great, Moore's 1st 5 Bond's are very good, his last 2 were Stinko, all of Dalton's, Brosnan's & Mr. Lazenby's solo, all make my stomach hurt. Thanks Mr. McClory! Good Luck on a 2nd remake effort in 2001!

Rating:
Summary: A very poor remake of "Thunderball"
Review: As a James Bond fanatic, I purchased all the videos over the years, and "Never Say Never Again" was part of my collection. However, when I started over with DVD, "Never Say Never Again" was and still is the only one I had not purchased again - and I won't. Why? It simply does not belong in the James Bond series. Not only because of superficial details such as the absence of the 007 logo and of the usual actors playinq M, Q, and Moneypenney, but also because the film has basic flaws. I could sum them up by saying "Why make a second "Thunderball" when the first one was much better?" In "Never Say Never Again", for example, the plot is a much downgraded version of the plot in "Thunderball", so the director has to fall back on old tricks like beautiful girls and car chases to keep the audience awake. I will pass quickly on details such as the so-called " state-of-the-art-submarine that threatens the world"... with a hull form that has not been used since the fifties. Sometimes they should know that paying attention to details is necessary in order to create a masterpiece. The humor is not better, and the glass of urine thrown at the face makes me think, once again, of a very bad copycat act. At least, in the movies of the twenties, they threw cream tarts at each other's faces. There is little of interest in that disaster of a movie. If it was meant to be a classic of the genre, we have seen much better. If it was meant to be a parody, which is what I rather think, it falls short of the mark. Why on Earth did Sean Connery get involved in that business?

Rating:
Summary: Never Say Never Again Revisited.
Review: It is a long time since I last saw this film & I could not remember the plot, but I do remember it as being the return of the quintessential Bond, Sean Connery. I was not dissappointed when as a late Easter present my wife bought it for me, I am a total Bond addict! It is not so full of modern day Bond weapons or gadgetry, but it is more like the first half dozen, a little more sophisticated where Bond had to use his brains & stealth to get himself out of trouble rather than fantastic pyrotechnics. There are the compulsory vehicles, beautiful women & well known characters in the form of Leiter & "M" & the inevitable down to the last minute conclusion, so all in all, despite the lack of the usual gun barrel beginning & Bond theme, it is a thouroughly enjoyable film in the vintage vein of Bond. Well worth watching.