93 replies to this topic

[Pete]

I've always enjoyed NSNA. I like the quirkiness of it and the fact that it doesn't follow Eon's treatment of Bond. There are one or two annoying parts int it but then I find that's the case of most movies.

Having seen the trailers NSMA on Blofelds Cat's site I like the look of it with the new music. So I hope a bit of gratuity may help in me seeing the whole project

[Major Tallon]

I like NSNA. Sure there are things to criticize. The list is, in fact, pretty lengthy: the "Domination" video game's out of place in a Bond movie, I doubt that a man could stagger backwards into a shelf of glassware with such force that it would shatter and kill him, the concept the Washington DC bomb was woefully underdeveloped, it's not possible for a yacht to sail from North Africa to the Gulf in a few hours, the fortuitous appearance of the submarine is too coincidental, Bond's ability to topple a huge boulder in the "Tears of Allah" grotto by pushing against it with his feet is preposterous, and Edward Fox's M rapidly degenerates into caricature.

So why do I like this movie? First and foremost, there's Sean Connery, who, despite his age, looks fit and capable, giving an assured performance as Bond. The story itself was a retread of Thunderball, but it still works. Fatima Blush was a terrific villainess, the locations were good looking and were used effectively, and there were some clever lines ("I'm to eliminate all free radicals"). The movie moved along well, and there were some great action scenes, including two (the shark chase and the motorcycle chase) that were very exciting. As for the absence of the gunbarrel and the Bond theme, these are trappings of the EON franchise, but in no way do I regard them as essential to a film being a Bond film.

For all its flaws, NSNA is a solid entertainment and unmistakably a James Bond movie. Count me among its boosters.

[Daddy Bond]

I like NSNA. Sure there are things to criticize. The list is, in fact, pretty lengthy: the "Domination" video game's out of place in a Bond movie, I doubt that a man could stagger backwards into a shelf of glassware with such force that it would shatter and kill him, the concept the Washington DC bomb was woefully underdeveloped, it's not possible for a yacht to sail from North Africa to the Gulf in a few hours, the fortuitous appearance of the submarine is too coincidental, Bond's ability to topple a huge boulder in the "Tears of Allah" grotto by pushing against it with his feet is preposterous, and Edward Fox's M rapidly degenerates into caricature.

So why do I like this movie? First and foremost, there's Sean Connery, who, despite his age, looks fit and capable, giving an assured performance as Bond. The story itself was a retread of Thunderball, but it still works. Fatima Blush was a terrific villainess, the locations were good looking and were used effectively, and there were some clever lines ("I'm to eliminate all free radicals"). The movie moved along well, and there were some great action scenes, including two (the shark chase and the motorcycle chase) that were very exciting. As for the absence of the gunbarrel and the Bond theme, these are trappings of the EON franchise, but in no way do I regard them as essential to a film being a Bond film.

For all its flaws, NSNA is a solid entertainment and unmistakably a James Bond movie. Count me among its boosters.

Well, although I'm not a huge NSNA fan, this is a well thought out post.

[Mike00spy]

Without restating previous opinions, one thing that has always bothered me is the film's general effect. It just feels too laid back to me- b/c of the pacing, the unexciting music, and the second half of the film. I may like parts of it, but the whole effort has this effect on me.