Rating: 
Summary: Why make Thunderball again?
Review: When I seen this movie for the first time I wondered why all of a sudden he(Sean Connery) wants to do another 007 movie? This movie I liked because I thought it had a better planning than the orignal Thunderball but he should have done one on his own and not make a remake. And Sean, never say never again.
Rating: 
Summary: Just another way to see James Bond kick some a**.
Review: Sean Connery did a fine job of portraying James Bond with his charm and intellect. This movie is a must see if you are a James Bond groupie. Although Pierce Brosnan now plays the sexy James Bond, he will never compare to Sean Connery, even on Sean's bad days. I found this movie to be likable and was a movie worth buying so as to be watched unlimitingly.
Rating:
Summary: Connery Shines
Review: This film is flawed in many respects. It's too long, the action sequences seem to drag on with little tension, and the soundtrack is depressing. Given these flaws how can the film succeed? Answer: Sean Connery. Connery brings warmth (Bond has mellowed some with age) and wit to the Bond character who is facing middle-age and the late Cold War era. He is also helped by an excellent supporting cast.
Rating:
Summary: Not Bond
Review: I pretty much agree with everyone else about this movie....but did you know that this is NOT an OFFICIAL James Bond movie? It is not part of the series. Need proof? Just search for any James Bond CD's in the Music section of Amazon.com and look through the playlists of the Theme Song CD's. Never Say Never Again is not on any of the lists. That's why this movie seems like a duplicate. It is a cheap knock-off of Thunderball.
Rating: 
Summary: A low point for true Bond fans
Review: It's so shocking that people just don't get the clue that this film was released to compete against Octopussy, which was an "official" Bond release. Sean Connery had a truckload of money handed to him by Warner Bros. with the opportunity to star in the role that made famous. You can't blame him for doing it, since all men go through some sort of mid life crisis to recapture the glory of their youth. Even that reason is no excuse for the terrible special effects, and the plot is a pathetic offtake of the original Thunderball, which is arguably one of the greatest Bond films of all time. A true Bond film fan would have hurled about twice as much debris at the screen as I did while watching the film. There is no gun barrel image to start the film (a staple of all Bond films), Connery reads his lines off in a questioning manner, not a dictating one (which is a main personality trait Bond traditionally has), and as hot as Kimmy B is, she lacks the true class that the original Domino (Claudine Auger) carried herself with in Thunderball. I guess the old Hollywood T&A actress can still cast a shadow over acting talent in any era (and don't tell me that she was better in Batman, either). The movie was an attempt to make some quick money off a naive movie public who were lured in by the return of Sean Connery. And by looking at some of the reviews by others on this site, it seems to have worked better that Warner Bros. had planned. I compare this film to Coke II. Lots of people said they liked it, but when it came down to it, the original was still the best.
Rating: 
Summary: Can You Say Boring?
Review: If you can sit through this movie without falling asleep or crying of boredom you are probably the first! This is hands down the worst Bond of all. It was never origionally writen by Ian Flemming, which made it STUPID. I don't recomdend wasting your money on this. Use it to buy one of the better ones like: GOLDFINGER
GOLDENEYE
TOMORROW NEVER DIES
Rating:
Summary: Good to have you back Mr. Bond
Review: He's back and this time he is better than the last time. Sean Connery definitely is the real James Bond, a perfect embodiment of the famous super spy.
After having sat through all those Roger Moore movies (Who kept it going but also turned Bond into a joker), it was really refreshing to see Connery back. He is 53 but looks better that in Diamonds are Forever. The movie even though a remake of Thunderball has been well tailored for the 80's.
Although i thought that the character of th villain (Now what was his name) could have been refined a little but the women all in all made up for it. I do agree that this was quite a raunchy Bond movie and i must say that Barbara Carrera does a wonderful job as Fatima Blush. The action is customised to suit the ageing Bond who does it better than most.
All in all i would say that this movie might disappoint the purists (traditional Bond fans) but it nevertheless delivers.
Always good to see Sean Connery donning the tux.
Welcome back Mr. Bond
Rating:
Summary: Think it over; what does it never mean?
Review: This film was the perfect farewell to Sean Connery -The best Bond ever- . After more than a decade with Roger Moore, it was decided to make a funny remake of Thunderball with lots of finest humor and obviously double sense jokes.
The presence of a splendid cast : Max von Sydow and the third best villain of Bond series, Klaus Maria Bandauer and the glorious beauty of the talented and promising by then actress Kim Bassinger who besides became the maxim sex symbol of the eighties- the first Bond girl who eventually would receive an Academy Award, years before Halle Berry repeated the same feat, makes of this work a sympathetic evasion film who will remind Connery with an excess of free radicals and toxins.
Watch for the male villain: the dazzling and exuberant Barbara Carrera.
An unusual film a bit overlong perhaps, working out more as a tribute to Connery instead just another additional Bond entry. I presume Kershner was the chosen director after having worked in Connery's first comedy in the late sixties: A fine madness.
Rating:
Summary: I got to be honest about this
Review: This is a funny thing about sean connery, back in 1973, the producers of james bond movies offered him loads and loads of money, and really wanted him to continue as bond. he refused, and they hired Roger Moore to continue as bond. (after Connery had alredy turned down the role once before when Lazenby took over) but then about 10 years later, connery is fine by staring in this none-real james bond movie. i'm sorry, i'm a big james bond fan since i was child, but i could never dig this movie nomather how much i wanted.
it feels slow, pale and empty. it can't be compared with the regular "real" james bond movies. i want it to be a part of the james bond series, but it just doesnt have it. it doesn't have it. and the fact that it's a remake of "Thunderball" makes it just even more lame. and if they had to make a remake. why not do a remake of a movie that Roger Moore had starred in earlier? that would be so fun to compare. the bond films are based on books, so why not film the "Octopussy" book wich Moore was doing the same time 1983? But to do a remake of a movie that Connery has alredy done Bond in back the 60s.. that's just so lame.
this could be wrong, but i think i heard that sean connery doesnt like to talk about james bond in interwievs. isn't james bond what made sean connery? james bond is what sean connery always will be most famour for. what has he done since he quit the role? small movies, unknown movies, trash like "the league", or playing indiana jones dad or something.. he was at his best as james bond, and doesnt seem to appreciate the role as much as Moore and Brosnan has done. they were more like the oposit, they loved playing bond and never wanted to stop it.
Connery did this movie the same year as Roger Moore was james bond in a "real" bond flick titled "Octopussy", though "Never say never again" looks more like it was made 20 years earlier.. Connery's bond movies from the 60's looks more up to date than this. alote of people think Connery is too old to play Bond in this movie, don't they know that Connery is younger than Moore? (who kept playing bond for 2 more years). what is it with these people and age? please. besides, bond is best as old. i want bond to be old. okey?. and just the title of this movie.. what a dumb title. there's only one good thing about this weak movie, and thats sean connery back as Bond. just too bad he didnt continue in a "real" bond flick instead of making this jive 15 years later.
Rating: 
Summary: Fatima Blush
Review: Fatima Blush's sex scene erotic, are you old men having a laugh?, how is hanging horizontally out of an airing cupboard and being sexually molested by a 70 year old man, sexy? On the other hand the only redeeming points of this 'movie' are the scenes with Fatima and Jack and here's a quotation from one of my favourite scenes "Jack must do his little trick in 8 seconds and nursey will give baby candy"
|
