60 replies to this topic

[James Bond Jr]

Best Bond film of the 80s! I hadn't seen this film since my youth, and it was better than I ever expected. Before today, Thunderball was my 2nd favorite Bond film. I think NSNA just topped it! I love this film because it actually improves on Fleming's version and it feels like a GOOD version of one of John Glen's sleepy films. The cast is better: Largo, Domino, Q, Moneypenny, M, Felix and James all feel more real than in the EON films. The score is very appropriate and fun. The direction is simply masterful. This is one of the few Bond films that's incredibly entertaining from beginning to middle to end.

This has to be my favorite performance of any actor as Bond. Sean has never been more Bondian and they actually gave Bond a good, tasteful sense of humor in this one! I don't think Bond actually shoots anyone in this film and only uses his wit to trick others and his will to beat them. Its incredible to see Sean is so physical and handsome so long after his tired, out-of-shape performance in the underrated DAF. Its amazing to imagine Bond as this agent near retirement, but still packing sub-machine guns and swimming in underwater caverns.

I think this film actually saved the EON franchise. This Bond exhibits lots of traits that would show up in the Dalton, Brosnan and even Craig eras: showing Bond in war games, a laser watch, less slapstick humor, Bond's stealthy Marine like physicality, a more aggressive M, a black Felix, and Bond on a motorcycle.

Damn, I wish they made more non-EON films!!

10/10 !!!!

Edited by James Bond Jr, 20 January 2011 - 03:59 AM.

[crheath]

Sean is my favorite Bond. I was really excited to see him back. But NSNA was a real disappointment for me. Flat action scenes, weak script, and possibly the worst score ever...

[James Bond Jr]

Sean is my favorite Bond. I was really excited to see him back. But NSNA was a real disappointment for me. Flat action scenes, weak script, and possibly the worst score ever...

Really? I think the action is great. Its scaled back, really just the intro, the climax and the motorcycle scene. And that awesome fight across the health spa. I love that they saved the action and worked on characters. I thought the script was fine as well. Very grounded and well written, no real holes or embarrassing lines IMO. The score is pretty un-Bond, but I like it because it sets the film apart.

[JimmyBond]

The last time I watched this I was so bored I turned it off during the Shrublands fight. There's nothing exciting about that particular fight, and it ends with one of the dumbest gags in any Bond film.

The film pretty much coasts on the fact that it has Connery in the lead, and doesn't try to do anything interesting.

[Col. Sun]

Best Bond film of the 80s! I hadn't seen this film since my youth, and it was better than I ever expected. Before today, Thunderball was my 2nd favorite Bond film. I think NSNA just topped it! I love this film because it actually improves on Fleming's version and it feels like a GOOD version of one of John Glen's sleepy films. The cast is better: Largo, Domino, Q, Moneypenny, M, Felix and James all feel more real than in the EON films. The score is very appropriate and fun. The direction is simply masterful. This is one of the few Bond films that's incredibly entertaining from beginning to middle to end.

This has to be my favorite performance of any actor as Bond. Sean has never been more Bondian and they actually gave Bond a good, tasteful sense of humor in this one! I don't think Bond actually shoots anyone in this film and only uses his wit to trick others and his will to beat them. Its incredible to see Sean is so physical and handsome so long after his tired, out-of-shape performance in the underrated DAF. Its amazing to imagine Bond as this agent near retirement, but still packing sub-machine guns and swimming in underwater caverns.

I think this film actually saved the EON franchise. This Bond exhibits lots of traits that would show up in the Dalton, Brosnan and even Craig eras: showing Bond in war games, a laser watch, less slapstick humor, Bond's stealthy Marine like physicality, a more aggressive M, a black Felix, and Bond on a motorcycle.

Damn, I wish they made more non-EON films!!

10/10 !!!!

I also really enjoy NSNA. I don't think it's great, but it is witty, has a very strong cast and Connery is on top form. He plays Bond as an old pro with grace and experience - IMO he makes you feel this is the Bond from the 60's grown up and ready to retire at last, but not give up his bad habits, women, martinis and high class living. Connery's Bond is therefore the only one to complete a full story arc, going from young and arrogant in Dr. No to wiser and knowing in NSNA, in which he finally hangs up his gun and licence to kill.

The middle section in the South of France is my fav. The locations are terrific. The casino sequence has style and class - we even get Bond doing a tango. And this mid section has one of the best Bond lines ever - when Bond finally wins the world domination game, Largo asks him if he's as good a loser as a winner, to which Bond effortlessly replies, "I wouldn't know, I've never lost."

I understand why some fans feel the film's a bit weak - it does not have the scale of Thunderrball, or the great underwater sequences I think we all expected when the film came out, the pace and plotting is not sharp enough, (why does Bond even go to the Bahamas and why does he follow Fatima down to the sunken boat?) it's tone is a bit muddled - obvious gags mixed with much sharper lines, the jazzy score is certainly not for everyone and Edward Fox's M is too broad and irritating.

But there is still much to enjoy in NSNA - and for my money, it's closer to a classic Bond film than either Octopussy or AVTAK.

[onthetracksof007]

I think this film actually saved the EON franchise.

Agree with you there.
NSNA is such a terrible excuse for a Bond film, that it made people love the EON films even more.

[sharpshooter]

The last time I watched this I was so bored I turned it off during the Shrublands fight. There's nothing exciting about that particular fight, and it ends with one of the dumbest gags in any Bond film.

The film pretty much coasts on the fact that it has Connery in the lead, and doesn't try to do anything interesting.

Can't agree with that. Forced upon them or not, it did try something new, and it has been prominent in subsequent films. A black Felix, no Bond theme – (Arnold has used it, but markedly toned down), gun barrel absent at beginning, different version of Q, laser watch, etc. It showed that you can make a Bond film work minus the iconography. For example, QoS has the gun barrel at the end, but it could easily get by without it.

Sure, the action is rather timid. But the dialogue and scenarios are as witty as anything. And it’s good to see Connery again, matching Moore’s count of 7 films. Yes, he is the focus of the film, and he is the greatest strength. I’m glad he came back. We have the unique concept of a 1960s man taking on the modern world and winning. I suppose the case in point would be the Domination video game.

[Matt_13]

I can't say I'm a fan. The music and cheap atmosphere take me out of the film every time.

[David Schofield]

I think this film actually saved the EON franchise.

Agree with you there.
NSNA is such a terrible excuse for a Bond film, that it made people love the EON films even more.

Agree with you both there.

EON were a huge beneficiary of the disaster of NSNA. But unfairly so; no NSNA and Connery might have been rubbish, but so was Octopussy and Rog.

Contemporarily, Connery lost much support with NSNA - he had been away for 12 years, openly criticised the shallowness of the 70s EONs, promised us a top-notch FRWL-style Len Deighton script - and at the end of it we got the crap of NSNA. Which Connery, in his own unique way, trashed on fairly quickly.

Rog and EON benefitted from the disappointment with Connery: possibly for the first time Rog had become the "prefered" Bond. In fact, the evidence of both productions was that both of them should just bugger off from the Bond cash machine and let younger hands have a go.

However, both Cubby and Rog were basking so much in the triumph, AVTAK with Rog was greenlit...

[Turn]

Best Bond film of the 80s! I hadn't seen this film since my youth, and it was better than I ever expected. Before today, Thunderball was my 2nd favorite Bond film. I think NSNA just topped it! I love this film because it actually improves on Fleming's version and it feels like a GOOD version of one of John Glen's sleepy films. The cast is better: Largo, Domino, Q, Moneypenny, M, Felix and James all feel more real than in the EON films. The score is very appropriate and fun. The direction is simply masterful. This is one of the few Bond films that's incredibly entertaining from beginning to middle to end.

This has to be my favorite performance of any actor as Bond. Sean has never been more Bondian and they actually gave Bond a good, tasteful sense of humor in this one! I don't think Bond actually shoots anyone in this film and only uses his wit to trick others and his will to beat them. Its incredible to see Sean is so physical and handsome so long after his tired, out-of-shape performance in the underrated DAF. Its amazing to imagine Bond as this agent near retirement, but still packing sub-machine guns and swimming in underwater caverns.

I think this film actually saved the EON franchise. This Bond exhibits lots of traits that would show up in the Dalton, Brosnan and even Craig eras: showing Bond in war games, a laser watch, less slapstick humor, Bond's stealthy Marine like physicality, a more aggressive M, a black Felix, and Bond on a motorcycle.

Damn, I wish they made more non-EON films!!

10/10 !!!!

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, some of your praise comes off like one of those "quote whore" critics whose blurbs show up in movie ads.

I've long said I appreciate NSNA more than really like or enjoy it. It was an attempt at doing something different, and that's admirable.

However, knowing the background as revealed in great detail in The Battle For Bond with what the film could have been doesn't improve what we eventually got and actually makes it less enjoyable to me. Knowing the contraints they were put under it became almost like "let's just get it out of the way and go cash the checks."

[Doctor Whom]

Unless you were around in those days, it's hard to understand just how big a deal NSNA was. At that time, there were two Bonds: Connery and Moore (Lazenby had been forgotten). Even casual movie fans engaged in spirited debates as to which of the two was the Best Bond. When it looked like NSNA and OP would be released at roughly the same time, it was even referred to as The Battle of the Bonds. For me, I was really looking forward to it because of director Irvin Kershner, who had just directed the best of the Star Wars films, The Empire Strikes Back.

Alas, neither film turned out great. EON made a lot of talk during production of how OP was going to capitalize on the "back to basics" approach of FYEO, and were even making comments about how OP was going to be mroe like FRWL than GF. Well, not quite. As I mentioned on the OP review thread, certain parts of OP are played straight, but a lot of the film slips back into MR territory with absurd gadgets and puerile "humor." Overall, though, EON had a Bond machine in place in those days, and clearly could put out a pretty well made film without exerting too much effort. NSNA, on the other hand, had a kind of hand-me-down quality to it. And not just because it, for legal reasons, had to hew as closeely as possible to TB. The whole production seemed threadbare, with no gloss. The action scenes lack spark and aren't well shot. And Michel Legrand's strangely inappropriate score pretty much kills the picture. It's far worse than Bill Conti's work in FYEO and one of the worst scores of any major film ever. Despte it all, it was good to see Connery back in action, poor haripiece and all. He was always a more credible Bond than Moore, and even in this poor of a film, radiates a star quality that no other Bond has matched.

Overall, while neither OP nor NSNA were outstanding films, the consensus at the time seemed to be that Connery won the Battle of the Bonds.

Edited by Doctor Whom, 22 January 2011 - 05:08 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

promised us a top-notch FRWL-style Len Deighton script

Oh, the Len Deighton script was not, in any way, like FRWL; it was even worse than the finished product, and seemed more like a bizarre hybrid of Thunderball and The Spy Who Loved Me.

In hindsight, it was probably a good thing that Warhead got litigated out of production...

[David Schofield]

promised us a top-notch FRWL-style Len Deighton script

Oh, the Len Deighton script was not, in any way, like FRWL; it was even worse than the finished product, and seemed more like a bizarre hybrid of Thunderball and The Spy Who Loved Me.

In hindsight, it was probably a good thing that Warhead got litigated out of production...

Thanks for the insight on what the Deighton script was like. I have not seen it.

However, the point is, Connery promised us a FRWL-type script with a tad more action and told us that would be written by Deighton - a VERY high quality writer - and, ergo, would be better than the rubbish (in his very vocal opinion) EON had been chucking out since, well, he left.

[jaguar007]

Unless you were around in those days, it's hard to understand just how big a deal NSNA was. At that time, there were two Bonds: Connery and Moore (Lazenby had been forgotten). Even casual movie fans engaged in spirited debates as to which of the two was the Best Bond. When it looked like NSNA and OP would be released at roughly the same time, it was even referred to as The Battle of the Bonds.

Very true. The press on Bond in 1983 was HUGE,and the press on Bond has not been as big since. The media was not even as big on Bond for GE or CR as they were in 1983. I think half the issues of Starlog magazine in 1983 had either Connery or Moore on the cover.

We all know Octopussy ended up with the higher gross, but NSNA had a much bigger opening weekend showing that people were more excited to see Connery return, but probably overall felt the movie was more of a miss than OP.

Personally I think NSNA highlights were
#1 Sean Connery, he was great in this film and made the movie
#2 Barbera Carrera, one of the best Bond women of all time
#3 Keaus Maria Brandauer was a different type of Bond villain than we were used to but I really like the crazy psychopathic type he portrayed.
#4 I really like Bernie Casey as Felix, much better than most of the unforgettable actors that plagued the Connery era (Jack Lord excepted)

However, the dull pace, bland music, on the go scripting rewrites, and Kim Basinger's plain as plain yogurt portrayal of Domino really help to sink this film. I also think this film today looks far more dated than OP does.

[O.H.M.S.S.]

I rate it 7/10. So it's no masterpiece, it's a good film all right.
It's greatest plus is undoubtedly the cast: Sean Connery, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Max von Sydow, Edward Fox, Kim Basinger. All top notch actors. Irvin Kershner is also the right man to direct a good cast.
I do like Michel Legrand's jazzy score. It's another take on a Bond score, but that's what makes it unique. I prefer this to David Arnold's generic tunes anyday.

[James Bond Jr]

Rog and EON benefitted from the disappointment with Connery: possibly for the first time Rog had become the "prefered" Bond. In fact, the evidence of both productions was that both of them should just bugger off from the Bond cash machine and let younger hands have a go.

However, both Cubby and Rog were basking so much in the triumph, AVTAK with Rog was greenlit...

*EXCELLENT* point. I have never thought of it that way. Sometimes in success the wrong lessons can be learned, and as a result we got Roger in AVTAK, a film that clearly would've benefited from a younger group of talent involved all around.

As for NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN....like a few other Bond films that come to mind, there are some individually good or great pieces, but they are like parts of a jigsaw puzzle that never quite fits. For example:

...Barbara Carrera steals the movie, and when she's killed off the film loses the one driving force that's kept it going.
...I love the location work on this film. I find nothing cheap about it. The film made excellent use of the locations in the South of France and The Bahamas.
...Klaus Maria Brandauer is sufficiently creepy and scary despite the fact that he either has no script to work from or the editing makes his role appear more shallow and dispensable.

I think a lot of the other problems I might have with the film could be ignored if the soundtrack wasn't so damned awful. Music is an extremely crucial part of movie storytelling, and I'd rather that a chase scene have no music in it all than have the wrong, mood-killing music. A jazz score in the middle of a motorcycle/car-chase is about as bad as it gets.

The script does very little to improve upon the original storyline, but then again, McClory et.al. were confined to certain story parameters. However, there must have been a better way to get Bond from Point A to Point B to Point C. Bond didn't go to the Bahamas because Largo kept a yacht called The Flying Saucer down there; Bond went to Nassau because Kevin McClory lived there and wanted his home to feature prominently in the movie. Well, it did, but it didn't move the story along one bit. Bond travels all the way down to Nassau only to find out that The Flying Saucer has moved on to North Africa/South of France. In between landing and learning that bit of information, Bond tags and shags two women, and avoids a bomb and some tiger sharks. It's great fun if you don't stop to think about actual storyline. If you're a person who wants more of a plot, just about any of the other Bond films put this one to shame.

Bond then travels to France, kills some more time rubbing Domino's back, dancing with her, chasing Fatima, and finally the real story doesn't seem to kick in until he's brought on board The Flying Saucer and has a chance to look around. Over an hour, or an hour and 15 minutes is basically filler and eye candy. The first 30 minutes and the last 30 minutes probably contain the most relevant plot points. This movie is literally like a sandwich where the bread is on the inside and the meat (plot)is on the outside serving as the buns.

I love your little review here. EON capitalized on NSNA's "failures", but I still think they ripped off its successes more.

[James Bond Jr]

He plays Bond as an old pro with grace and experience - IMO he makes you feel this is the Bond from the 60's grown up and ready to retire at last, but not give up his bad habits, women, martinis and high class living. Connery's Bond is therefore the only one to complete a full story arc, going from young and arrogant in Dr. No to wiser and knowing in NSNA, in which he finally hangs up his gun and licence to kill.

I understand why some fans feel the film's a bit weak - it does not have the scale of Thunderrball, or the great underwater sequences I think we all expected when the film came out, the pace and plotting is not sharp enough, (why does Bond even go to the Bahamas and why does he follow Fatima down to the sunken boat?) it's tone is a bit muddled - obvious gags mixed with much sharper lines, the jazzy score is certainly not for everyone and Edward Fox's M is too broad and irritating.

But there is still much to enjoy in NSNA - and for my money, it's closer to a classic Bond film than either Octopussy or AVTAK.

Great hearing positivity from you about this film. It is a great tribute to the classic OO7 films and your point about Bond growing up is dead on! Its implied that this is the Bond from the early Connery films, I guess Thunderball excluded. Perhaps seeing that character successfully "ride into the sunset" is what I love most about the film.

You are very right about the action failing compared to TB. I think TB is the most solid ACTION FILM of all the Bonds so I didn't expect NSNA to touch it. Thats why I was so happy they didn't rely on action.

And I like this version of M. He's a great contrast to Bernard Lee. While watching you feel how much he feels Bond is a nuisance and he isn't meant to be liked. I think EON put some of that into Judi Dench's M. Plus the fact that he's younger, more arrogant and more intense than Bond adds a new dimension to things.

Can't agree with that. Forced upon them or not, it did try something new, and it has been prominent in subsequent films. A black Felix, no Bond theme – (Arnold has used it, but markedly toned down), gun barrel absent at beginning, different version of Q, laser watch, etc. It showed that you can make a Bond film work minus the iconography. For example, QoS has the gun barrel at the end, but it could easily get by without it.

Sure, the action is rather timid. But the dialogue and scenarios are as witty as anything. And it’s good to see Connery again, matching Moore’s count of 7 films. Yes, he is the focus of the film, and he is the greatest strength. I’m glad he came back. We have the unique concept of a 1960s man taking on the modern world and winning. I suppose the case in point would be the Domination video game.

Thanks for sharing where you agree and your own great points! NSNA is such a silent, unappreciated and BIG influence on later Bonds!

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, some of your praise comes off like one of those "quote whore" critics whose blurbs show up in movie ads.

I've long said I appreciate NSNA more than really like or enjoy it. It was an attempt at doing something different, and that's admirable.

However, knowing the background as revealed in great detail in The Battle For Bond with what the film could have been doesn't improve what we eventually got and actually makes it less enjoyable to me. Knowing the contraints they were put under it became almost like "let's just get it out of the way and go cash the checks."

Thanks for comparing me with a whore. I am a young guy who writes these reviews for fun and practice writing and I appreciate the critique. I did write this review right after watching NSNA, probably how most newspaper critics do.

While is isn't the crowd pleaser it said it would be, or the FRWL follow-up(!), it has more class, strong notes and vitality than I ever expected. I judge it more as a remake, where I think it really shines. I love what it did and didn't change about TB. How it went for maturity and personal feelings instead of youth and hard hitting drama.

I rate it 7/10. So it's no masterpiece, it's a good film all right.
It's greatest plus is undoubtedly the cast: Sean Connery, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Max von Sydow, Edward Fox, Kim Basinger. All top notch actors. Irvin Kershner is also the right man to direct a good cast.
I do like Michel Legrand's jazzy score. It's another take on a Bond score, but that's what makes it unique. I prefer this to David Arnold's generic tunes anyday.

Tell me about it. The cast is perfect! I really like Kim Basinger as Domino. Totally fits for such an older Bond and less sensational story. The score is fine by me. They didn't have a persistent main theme to rely on or John Barry's style to freely interpret and they did a good job. Again, its appropriate for an older Bond and the decade it was made. And I think Irvin Kershner is high in the ranks as far as Bond directors. Some absolutely stunning shots and setting up of scenes.

[Harry Fawkes]

I love this film. Obviously I love it because it is Connery's return as Bond after so long a lime. There are so many other good things about it though too. The music was good but lacked something I still haven't been able to put my finger on. Ah, yes, the Bond theme Nah, just joking. I loved the bit Bond makes himself known to Domino in the massage parlor.

'Mish Pitachi! Nobody told me you were here. I am shorry.'

And the music accompanying that scene. Une Chanson D'Amour vocal by Sophie Della.

I could go on but I'd probably bore the socks out of ya all so I shan't.

Great Bond flick though. I skived school to watch it when it first came out. There I was fifteen years old, mouth open wide in awe as Connery did his thing. Damn what dreams I had then, of how life could be and all that.

Yeah, and forty two years old now and thanks to films like NSNA it has been a wonderful life!

[Safari Suit]

There is a lot to admire about the film. Given the leagal pressures, they did well to make the plot different enough from Thunderball whilst operating within the same structure. It's clever how the opening scene is changed to a simulation, the card game a computer game etc. I imagine there have been a fair few people who've seen both films and not twigged that this is a remake, although maybe that's more a reflection of the repetitiveness of the Bond series as a whole than the merits of this one. The performances are generally pretty good, Casey is one of the better Leiters and of course it's a real treat to see Connery in the role one last time. Some of the underwater action is good and quite impressive on a decent-sized TV screen, if not necessarily all that much of a progress from Thunderball. And Gavan O'Herlihy is in it.

Despite all that, it can't help but feel like a bit of a missed opportunity. The cienamtography and production values feel a little below par. Maybe not a major issue for all films, but a bit of a blow for a Bond. People praise the film for acknowledging Connery's age. While I suppose its approach is more graceful than EON's approach to Rog's age at the time, it's only really brought up very early in the film and then completely dropped. It's also kind of contradicted by the hysterical way women react to the mere site of Connery in the film, which goes beyond even anything in the EON films. Much more could have been made of it.

I do find it to be a film which is very easy to watch though, even by Bond standards. It has a certain relaxed charm, not a million miles away from the vibe of DAF.

Re: Warhead, I haven't read the script, but what I know of the plot makes it sound more ambitious and exciting than NSNA, if a long way from the "return to Fleming" a lot of people seem to believe the film should have been. Probably impossible within leagal constraints though.

It's interesting to think what would have happened had McClory managed to get a rival franchise off the ground following NSNA. How long until the public would have cottened on to him charging them over and over again for the same story? Would the public have accepted anyone other than Sean as a "rival" Bond? How much damage could it have done to the EON series and the Bond "brand" as a whole?

[Gothamite]

I desperately wish I could have lived through the supposed media circus of two Bonds coming out in the same year. I'd love to read some of these 'Battle of the Bonds' articles and would welcome any links to them.

There are things I like and things I don't like.

The title of the film is pure silliness. It has no real basis in anything to do with the events that transpire in the film (although it claims to at the end) and just references Connery's real-life refusal to return to Bond. The title of the film is actually admitting that the film is just an excuse to have Connery reprise the role.

The music and the song at the beginning are patently atrocious. This video proves how much better and effective the film would have been as a triumphant return for Connery, had the music taken itself a little bit more seriously.

I really enjoy the motorcycle scene in spite of the music, although I wish Connery had been allowed to not wear a helmet in that scene. It's kind of funny that two Bond films with the exact same story have a different sequence involving the aesthetic 'cool' factor of an admittedly ridiculous action scene being ruined by Sean Connery having to wear a silly helmet.

The film is mostly enjoyable as a peek of what a rival franchise could have been, free from the constraints of The Formula but quite happy to pick and choose and plagiarise elements from it that worked and re-imagine them (the obligatory Q and Moneypenny scenes).

The whole idea of tackling Bond's age and the idea of budget cuts in MI6 was interesting, but also a bit self-indulgent considering how breezy the overall film is. The film relishes in the "male-wish-fulfillment" aspect of Bond (Connery has sex with every attractive woman in the world in this film) so it's a bit of a chore when the film then decides it wants to be serious and tackle realistic issues that would plague an intelligence organisation in the economically downtrodden era of the 1980s. Filmmakers should just forget how much Bond's adventures would realistically cost. I really don't want that explored in the next Craig film, either. I'm quite happy to continue watching Bond living the high life amidst the chaotic bazaar that is his profession. Fleming felt the same way (for the most part).

Other than that, all I can really say is that I liked the laser watch effect and thought it was funny that the script had Q saying "It looks a watch, but it's really a laser!!" like something from an idiot fanfiction writer. It also kind of bothered me that Q's description of the gadget suggested that the watch didn't really even function as an actual watch, but just as a laser. Also, what was with the script making such a big deal of Q's name being 'Algernon'? It was like they were desperately trying to prove that he was a different character from the one Eon created, to save themselves from legal troubles (because Major Boothroyd wasn't in the Thunderball novel). Although Moneypenny was named in this film, wasn't she?

Finally, did the scene where Bond and Domino leap from the balcony on a horse bother anyone else? It always looked to me like the horse may have suffered during the filming of that part.

Edited by Gothamite, 23 January 2011 - 02:42 PM.

[doublenoughtspy]

Finally, did the scene where Bond and Domino leap from the balcony on a horse bother anyone else? It always looked to me like the horse may have suffered during the filming of that part.

Vic Armstrong did the stunt, and while animal rights groups protested, and the scene is cut on some airings and some versions of the DVD, it is my understanding that the horse was not harmed.

While I don't fault your concern for the horse, I'm surprised about your comments regarding Connery wearing a helmet in Thunderball and NSNA and how they detract from the scenes.

In Thunderball, the people that flew the jetpack for real, Gordon Yeager and Bill Suitor, absolutely would NOT fly it without wearing helmets, despite protests from the film makers. But these people were risking their lives. So the Connery footage had to match up, and so he had to wear a helmet.

I would assume the same for the NSNA stunt.

I don't begrudge stunt men being safe.

[plankattack]

As for NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN....like a few other Bond films that come to mind, there are some individually good or great pieces, but they are like parts of a jigsaw puzzle that never quite fits. For example:

Exactly!

Individually, there is much to enjoy about NSNA, most of which have been mentioned by everyone else. But the sum is less than the parts and the film ultimately is a wasted opportunity. It's almost like getting Max Von Sydow on board and then not having him do anything......

OP on the other hand, moves along quite smoothly, the EON machine churning out its product with consistent standard and almost unimaginative efficiency. And while it's sits pretty near the bottom of my personal list (discussion about what is or isn't camp aside, for me, Barbara Wodehouse impressions and Tarzan sound effects are as cringing as double-taking pidgeons, it, unlike NSNA, has aged well, one thing that can be said for nearly every EON effort).

I do remember loving NSNA when it came out, but time has worn off the sheen of SC's return to the role, leaving the film with some solid moments but nothing so memorable that the series would be incomplete without.

We've had many threads discussing who was most to credit for Bond's initial on-screen success - the character, Connery, Young, the producers etc - that in a strange way, NSNA proves that (in the first 20 years) you needed more than SC to have a great Bond film.

[Safari Suit]

The title of the film is pure silliness. It has no real basis in anything to do with the events that transpire in the film (although it claims to at the end) and just references Connery's real-life refusal to return to Bond. The title of the film is actually admitting that the film is just an excuse to have Connery reprise the role.

Maybe not the best title, but far from the worst. And even if you don't like the title, it was used effectively in the final scene

I've always liked the title; it's catchy and memorable. A heck of a lot better than Warhead or James Bond of the Secret Service. Or Quantum of Solace for that matter. Yes it's more evocative of off-screen situations than the plot, but that's hardly an admission that it was the limit of their ambitions. How could Connery's return to the role not be a key marketing angle?

[James Bond Jr]

The music at the beginning is a weakness because it does diffuse some pretty killer action scenes. But the dated and obtuse bits of the film, like the music or 80s cinematography, are charming to me. Its similar to DAF or LALD for me. The films work as time capsules and their strangeness just make them stand out from Bond films in a positive way. I didn't live through the 70s or 80s, so the dated aura is exotic to me.

I love the title. It sounds like a phrase Fleming would enjoy.

I hope that horse wasn't harmed. I've seen some appalling treatment of animals in film and this didn't seem nearly as cruel. But, yes, today it would be done with CG. I think the moment in context of the story is pretty awesome though.

NSNA didn't produce more non-EON films, but I don't know if the filmmakers really were out to beat EON as a series. I think the producers wanted a slice of the James Bond pie and Sean wanted to go out on a higher note than DAF. Maybe if NSNA beat OP, we would have gotten another film. But NSNA's ending explains Sean is done with the role.

[Safari Suit]

Don't know how much truth there was in it, but a follow-up was announced in Variety, with Connery attached. Certainly McClory was interested in making another remake somewhere down the line. I believe he made quite a bit of money developing the project in the 90s. Another Connery effort post-The Rock was mooted, with Connery playing the character as he was with no wigs etc., but Connery himself wasn't really interested. Personally, as ridiculously redundant as the plotting would have been, I think I would have quite liked that.

[David Schofield]

Don't know how much truth there was in it, but a follow-up was announced in Variety, with Connery attached. Certainly McClory was interested in making another remake somewhere down the line. I believe he made quite a bit of money developing the project in the 90s. Another Connery effort post-The Rock was mooted, with Connery playing the character as he was with no wigs etc., but Connery himself wasn't really interested. Personally, as ridiculously redundant as the plotting would have been, I think I would have quite liked that.

Wasn't there also some mid-80s nonsense floated in the "press and media" about Pierce starring in WARHEAD 2000, after missing out on TLD to Tim?

I know there was certainly some US press gossip in 1996 about Timothy Dalton coming back to do WARHEAD 2000: I read about it in USA Today. Key West. October '96.

[jaguar007]

Wasn't there also some mid-80s nonsense floated in the "press and media" about Pierce starring in WARHEAD 2000, after missing out on TLD to Tim?

I know there was certainly some US press gossip in 1996 about Timothy Dalton coming back to do WARHEAD 2000: I read about it in USA Today. Key West. October '96.

McClory was trying to develop a James Bond TV series in the early 90s (during the hiatus) and had named Brosnan as his choice for Bond.

Yes, in the late 90s he tried to develop Warhead 2000 and named Dalton as his choice at that time although I seriously doubt Dalton would have done it as he remained good friends with the Broccolis.

[Simon]

I desperately wish I could have lived through the supposed media circus of two Bonds coming out in the same year. I'd love to read some of these 'Battle of the Bonds' articles and would welcome any links to them.

With respect, I am wondering if you are perhaps envisaging a similar access to quick news of today with how it was in 1983.

Not so. There were newspaper reports but the news frenzy with which stories circulate in today's internet age was absent in '83. Certainly it was an interesting time to watch it all play out in the press (I am exposing my vintage here) but it would probably be more fun today with daily on set reports and images flying around in the way we are provided with updates of today's film making progress.

[jaguar007]

I remember when Kevin was leaking to the press that he was interested in getting Dalton to star as Bond in his 2nd remake of Thunderball and I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now and not in the sense that he was lying; no, I just couldn't believe that he thought Dalton would pursue the project with the same interest or level of investment that Connery had. What's more, Connery's Bond years were mega-successful; Dalton's not so much. Dalton's attachment to the project would not have generated the same interest as Connery's had, and, quite frankly, Dalton was too classy to ever let himself get caught up in McClory's feud with Broccoli and be used as a tool against Cubby et.al. (who, by that point, had already passed on).

As much as I would have loved to had seen Dalton return to the role, I knew at the time it would never happen. I wondered why McClory would try to cast a less successful former EON Bond to go up against the popular Brosnan rather than hire a new Bond himself (Clive Owen has yet to make a name for himself at that point).

[marktmurphy]

It's not great, but it does have a great cast, a plot that makes more sense than Thunderball's (apart from the arbitrary change in location halfway through) and some cracking lines ('my martini's still dry'). Not without merit.