60 replies to this topic

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

the consensus at the time seemed to be that Connery won the Battle of the Bonds.

Eeehmmm, actually NO! according to the box office, the winner was Moore.

And even until now, you can see in sites like IMDb.com a higher rating for OP.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 24 January 2011 - 08:56 PM.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

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.

Hey! That's why I felt Quantum of Solace could have been an unofficial film

Back to topic, I feel Never Say Never Again as a funny film, but it's not a proper Bond film to me. There's not "Bondian feeling" in it. But... I enjoy it sometimes

[James Bond Jr]

Fellas, I think we need a thread about a James Bond TV series. I've always wanted one or a monthly published comic/magazine. It would really help develop James and M16 into better characters. Perhaps it could establish groups like Quantum into bigger, less convoluted threats. It could have flashbacks based on "the Young Bond" books or even guest star past Bond actors if things are ever set in different time periods. And if it fails, EON can always come back to film without missing a beat.

[JimmyBond]

Fellas, I think we need a thread about a James Bond TV series. I've always wanted one or a monthly published comic/magazine. It would really help develop James and M16 into better characters. Perhaps it could establish groups like Quantum into bigger, less convoluted threats. It could have flashbacks based on "the Young Bond" books or even guest star past Bond actors if things are ever set in different time periods. And if it fails, EON can always come back to film without missing a beat.

A monthly comic book would be interesting. But I think a weekly tv series would harm the film series. The same thing happened with Star Trek. Why go out to the movies when you can basically see the same thing at home? Granted the Star Trek movies (at least post TOS films) had more issues than just that. But over-saturation of the market really hurt Trek in the long run.

Bond films coming out every two or three (sometimes four) years makes that film much more of an event.

[Revelator]

I bring that up because it seems somewhat odd to me that one man would work so hard to keep remaking and exploiting the one contribution he made to another person's success. James Bond 007 existed before McClory ever came into the picture, and was successful as a movie series before Thunderball was made into a movie. So it always struck me as kind of sad that he was constantly chasing the glory and success of Fleming's creation as if he had anything to do with it.

Exactly. McClory has always seemed to me like one of the characters from Dickens' Bleak House--someone who wastes his adult life in never-ending litigation for an illusory prize he didn't really deserve. Had he been the artist Fleming and Bryce had mistaken him for, he might have done something else with his life and made other films, movies that demonstrated his gifts could extend beyond a character that wasn't even his. And in a final bit of irony, when he finally managed to make a Bond film, he got shut out of the production, and the direction was handed to a director who had more to show for himself than one early film and a lot of lawsuits. McClory was little more than a bad penny.

As for Never Say Never Again, it's probably underrated at this point, but the film still has massive problems. As others have pointed out, the film dwindles away piece by piece after Fatima dies, and the final underwater climax is among the most pathetic of any Bond movie, lacking much of the tension and blood of Fleming's original. Beyond that, the picture doesn't hold together. Critic Dave Kehr wrote an interesting capsule review of the film--I don't agree with much of the premise but the central thesis is food for thought:

It must mean something that Irvin Kershner, the best director ever to make a James Bond movie, has not made the best James Bond movie—-probably that the Bond films are the par excellence products of the industrial cinema, and are irreparably compromised by any inflections of personal style. Not that Kershner has brought many to bear, apart from his usual balanced wide-screen compositions and gallery of eccentric supporting characters; it's his sense that he is superior to the series (which he certainly is) that introduces a fatal strain of campiness and condescension. And without absolute conviction, no action film can survive: if there's no belief, there's no danger.

The production itself was rough, so Kershner's lack of conviction might have had something to do with that as well. Still, it was strange for Kershner to blame the movie's weakness on being based on Fleming's (supposedly) "worst" book. A strange sentiment, since the novel is better than both of the films made from it (and its plot is far smoother and free of needless complication), and much of the heart of the book never made it to the screen. Domino in both films was a pallid figure compared to Fleming's tigress. Perhaps this was because all her fiery qualities were siphoned off into Fiona Volpe and Fatima Blush, but that meant that the emotional climax of the picture--Domino brutally slaying Largo--never came across onscreen. A pity too, because Brandauer's Largo was miles ahead of Celi's old bore.

[Safari Suit]

The film does fall apart around the time of the business with the horse. The film seems to have at least three climaxes, but maybe they should have gone for four because the action in the last half-hour or so of the film is completely unexciting, and the actual climax has no impact whatsoever. Talk about a damp squib!

[James Bond Jr]

I bring that up because it seems somewhat odd to me that one man would work so hard to keep remaking and exploiting the one contribution he made to another person's success. James Bond 007 existed before McClory ever came into the picture, and was successful as a movie series before Thunderball was made into a movie. So it always struck me as kind of sad that he was constantly chasing the glory and success of Fleming's creation as if he had anything to do with it.

Exactly. McClory has always seemed to me like one of the characters from Dickens' Bleak House--someone who wastes his adult life in never-ending litigation for an illusory prize he didn't really deserve. Had he been the artist Fleming and Bryce had mistaken him for, he might have done something else with his life and made other films, movies that demonstrated his gifts could extend beyond a character that wasn't even his. And in a final bit of irony, when he finally managed to make a Bond film, he got shut out of the production, and the direction was handed to a director who had more to show for himself than one early film and a lot of lawsuits. McClory was little more than a bad penny.

As for Never Say Never Again, it's probably underrated at this point, but the film still has massive problems. As others have pointed out, the film dwindles away piece by piece after Fatima dies, and the final underwater climax is among the most pathetic of any Bond movie, lacking much of the tension and blood of Fleming's original. Beyond that, the picture doesn't hold together. Critic Dave Kehr wrote an interesting capsule review of the film--I don't agree with much of the premise but the central thesis is food for thought:

It must mean something that Irvin Kershner, the best director ever to make a James Bond movie, has not made the best James Bond movie—-probably that the Bond films are the par excellence products of the industrial cinema, and are irreparably compromised by any inflections of personal style. Not that Kershner has brought many to bear, apart from his usual balanced wide-screen compositions and gallery of eccentric supporting characters; it's his sense that he is superior to the series (which he certainly is) that introduces a fatal strain of campiness and condescension. And without absolute conviction, no action film can survive: if there's no belief, there's no danger.

The production itself was rough, so Kershner's lack of conviction might have had something to do with that as well. Still, it was strange for Kershner to blame the movie's weakness on being based on Fleming's (supposedly) "worst" book. A strange sentiment, since the novel is better than both of the films made from it (and its plot is far smoother and free of needless complication), and much of the heart of the book never made it to the screen. Domino in both films was a pallid figure compared to Fleming's tigress. Perhaps this was because all her fiery qualities were siphoned off into Fiona Volpe and Fatima Blush, but that meant that the emotional climax of the picture--Domino brutally slaying Largo--never came across onscreen. A pity too, because Brandauer's Largo was miles ahead of Celi's old bore.

Hmmm... does anyone really know how much McClory contributed to the original story for Thunderball? I'm glad he ended up making his own version, but I really despise him for holding the rights to SPECTRE. I still don't understand how he kept them from EON. And since MGM bought NSNA, couldn't they integrate elements of it into the EON-canon if they wanted?

I'm not being stubborn when I maintain that NSNA has no real "massive" problem and it has plenty of small graces (One of the best casts ever in a Bond film, original twists on the Bond formula, classy style, great dialogue). I will rewatch it, but the end was enthralling by me. Same with the pacing. If I could, I would have saved Fatima's death for the closer though

But I'm sure Kershner could have done more with the film. I still think he did a more than serviceable job. Its really the odd, glossy cinematography that is out of whack. I have to see if it looks better on Blu Ray. Honestly, I can live with the soundtrack, though a John Barry score could help any movie.

You are right about Domino being a richer character in the book. But I prefer NSNA's version to TB's. She really does and says little in TB and in NSNA she gets very intimate with Bond and shows a lot of vulnerability. I think her killing Largo is built up and executed better in NSNA. We never even see Domino show any kindness to Largo in TB.

[David Schofield]

I bring that up because it seems somewhat odd to me that one man would work so hard to keep remaking and exploiting the one contribution he made to another person's success. James Bond 007 existed before McClory ever came into the picture, and was successful as a movie series before Thunderball was made into a movie. So it always struck me as kind of sad that he was constantly chasing the glory and success of Fleming's creation as if he had anything to do with it.

Exactly. McClory has always seemed to me like one of the characters from Dickens' Bleak House--someone who wastes his adult life in never-ending litigation for an illusory prize he didn't really deserve. Had he been the artist Fleming and Bryce had mistaken him for, he might have done something else with his life and made other films, movies that demonstrated his gifts could extend beyond a character that wasn't even his. And in a final bit of irony, when he finally managed to make a Bond film, he got shut out of the production, and the direction was handed to a director who had more to show for himself than one early film and a lot of lawsuits. McClory was little more than a bad penny.

As for Never Say Never Again, it's probably underrated at this point, but the film still has massive problems. As others have pointed out, the film dwindles away piece by piece after Fatima dies, and the final underwater climax is among the most pathetic of any Bond movie, lacking much of the tension and blood of Fleming's original. Beyond that, the picture doesn't hold together. Critic Dave Kehr wrote an interesting capsule review of the film--I don't agree with much of the premise but the central thesis is food for thought:

It must mean something that Irvin Kershner, the best director ever to make a James Bond movie, has not made the best James Bond movie—-probably that the Bond films are the par excellence products of the industrial cinema, and are irreparably compromised by any inflections of personal style. Not that Kershner has brought many to bear, apart from his usual balanced wide-screen compositions and gallery of eccentric supporting characters; it's his sense that he is superior to the series (which he certainly is) that introduces a fatal strain of campiness and condescension. And without absolute conviction, no action film can survive: if there's no belief, there's no danger.

The production itself was rough, so Kershner's lack of conviction might have had something to do with that as well. Still, it was strange for Kershner to blame the movie's weakness on being based on Fleming's (supposedly) "worst" book. A strange sentiment, since the novel is better than both of the films made from it (and its plot is far smoother and free of needless complication), and much of the heart of the book never made it to the screen. Domino in both films was a pallid figure compared to Fleming's tigress. Perhaps this was because all her fiery qualities were siphoned off into Fiona Volpe and Fatima Blush, but that meant that the emotional climax of the picture--Domino brutally slaying Largo--never came across onscreen. A pity too, because Brandauer's Largo was miles ahead of Celi's old bore.

Hmmm... does anyone really know how much McClory contributed to the original story for Thunderball? I'm glad he ended up making his own version, but I really despise him for holding the rights to SPECTRE. I still don't understand how he kept them from EON. And since MGM bought NSNA, couldn't they integrate elements of it into the EON-canon if they wanted?

Read Robert Seller's "THE BATTLE FOR BOND" book, one of the two or three best books written on cinematic Bond (though obviously he incorporates Fleming, Bryce and McClory's original collaboartion pre the publication of the novel).

It will give you chapter and verse (as much as is likely ever to be available), far better than any of us here trying to paraphrase you an answer. You won't be disappointed

[Mr. Blofeld]

Funny thing about Sellers: Per my edition of the book, he clearly plagiarized several passages from Andrew Lycett's Fleming biography; they even make brief mention of things that are only explained in Lycett's book.

Lycett wasn't even mentioned in the acknowledgments.

[David Schofield]

Funny thing about Sellers: Per my edition of the book, he clearly plagiarized several passages from Andrew Lycett's Fleming biography; they even make brief mention of things that are only explained in Lycett's book.

Lycett wasn't even mentioned in the acknowledgments.

I'll take your word for that as its 15 years since I waded through Lycett (and nearly four since I read Sellers), and of course Sellers also loses some credibility by basing a lot of his judgements on the papers of Jack Whittingham (with whom he overly sympathisises), which clearly give Whittingam's views only, and then condems both Fleming and McClory from them.

However, not every book or writer is perfect (hell, our own doublenoughspy's MAKING OF OHMSS which is also in my top three has some issues ) but THE BATTLE FOR BOND will certainly give our friend James Bond Jr the insight he is after into the role played by McClory in Thunderball and his subsequent rights.

[DR76]

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

I agree with this assessment.

[Liparus]

A very good movie NSNA ! Connery is far better in this one than in DAF !

[JimmyBond]

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

I agree with this assessment.

If you're going to quote me, could you at least attribute the quote to me?

[Doctor Whom]

A very good movie NSNA ! Connery is far better in this one than in DAF !

I can't agree that the movie is "very good" (more like "pretty good"), but Connery is much better here than he was in either DAF or YOLT.

[Harry Fawkes]

Earlier I said the title was neither good nor bad, but I'm going to retract that sentiment. I like the title. I like that the title uses the word "Never" that it says should *never* be used; sort of a infinite logic loop that I think Fleming would have enjoyed. In fact, Fleming did consider a similar rhetorical device, didn't he? IIRC, THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY was a story title that he considered at one point before he died.

So, I like NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN as a title. I like the title, I like the way it is used at the end of the movie, I like the wink and nod to the audience...I think it was much more creative than simply calling the film WARHEAD.

I agree fully Gravity's Silhouette. Never say never again. And to think Connery's wife thought it up.

[jrcjohnny99]

I'm not ashamed to say I am not a fan of NSAN; I think it pales next to even the worst of the EON flicks (AVTAK, DAF);
Connery is poor at best and everything about the movie appears juvenile with the exception of the wonderful Klaus Maria Brandeur and Max Von Sydow who both deserved a much better Bond film on their resume.
I remember back in 83 I enjoyed OP and was excited but trepidatious about NSNA, I did see it twice in the theatre but was hugely dissapointed.
I've only seen it a few times since, the last just a couple of years ago when I got the new DVD edition and have never had a fondness for it.

[MarkA]

I was around for the media circus. I was also really pro Connery so the excitement about this project was incredible. I went to see this film with a group of guys that ran the original incarnation of the James Bond British fan club. It was a crew show on Sunday morning about a month and a half before it's British release. I remember walking to the cinema thinking I was finally going to see another Connery Bond after being so detached from the series during the Moore years. Well, to a man we were gutted at how awful it was. I remember two of the team tore they tickets up in disgust and threw them in the bin outside the cinema (they were special preview tickets as well). To this day I have never been so disappointed by a film. It is without a doubt the worst Bond film. So much talent in front and behind the camera wasted. The group I was with went to a restaurant after. There was complete silence. No one could express the level of disappointment. The ironic thing I spoke to Irvin Kershner before the screening he signed my ticket (which I still have) and thanked me for coming and hoped I would enjoy the film. Also on the way out we saw Maurice Binder with Harry Saltzman. I wonder what they thought of it?

[MarkA]

I was around for the media circus. I was also really pro Connery so the excitement about this project was incredible. I went to see this film with a group of guys that ran the original incarnation of the James Bond British fan club. It was a crew show on Sunday morning about a month and a half before it's British release. I remember walking to the cinema thinking I was finally going to see another Connery Bond after being so detached from the series during the Moore years. Well, to a man we were gutted at how awful it was. I remember two of the team tore they tickets up in disgust and threw them in the bin outside the cinema (they were special preview tickets as well). To this day I have never been so disappointed by a film. It is without a doubt the worst Bond film. So much talent in front and behind the camera wasted. The group I was with went to a restaurant after. There was complete silence. No one could express the level of disappointment. The ironic thing I spoke to Irvin Kershner before the screening he signed my ticket (which I still have) and thanked me for coming and hoped I would enjoy the film. Also on the way out we saw Maurice Binder with Harry Saltzman. I wonder what they thought of it?

Thanks for those observations. As I watched it again today one thing occurred to me: that Connery may have underestimated the value of having Desmond Llewelyn or Bernard Lee or Lois Maxwell to act opposite. Or even having the team of usual writers and directors he had experience working with. Connery's Bond is certainly different than his previous Bonds; he's much older, a bit tired, but has more experience. I'm not sure if that angle was wise or not wise to play up in the film; in some places it works, in some places it doesn't help.

There's not quite the same chemistry between Connery and his office cast as he had in the EON pictures.

I will give the film praise for having a nice balance of humor and action; there are some genuinely funny moments that don't detract from the film. But overall, once Barbara Carrera leaves the film, you sense she's taken most of the fun and excitement with her. Her performance is in a class and league all of its own; it's as if she were the only one who understood she was in a *BOND FILM*.

I also was not all that impressed with the plot, which is odd since it's both a remake and an adaptation of a book; with so much source material to work from, you'd have thought they could have written a much more compelling story. For example: the film really doesn't seem to adequately explain why Bond needed to go to the Bahamas (though we Bond fans know why: McClory lived there and wanted Nassau to factor into the movie). If I understand the movie correctly, the bombs went underwater somewhere off the coast of England; yet Bond's "clues" take him all the way to Nassau, when a simple phone call to determine if The Flying Saucer was in port would have sufficed.

Minor quibble: When Fatima tells her driver: "Find that villa !!", how was she able to bug Nicole's car and listen to her conversation with Bond if they hadn't already found the villa??? It was a totally unnecessary line, and would have not altered the viewers experience had it been deleted.

Well at least you watched it again. Out of all the Bond's I just find it unwatchable. I can't remember how many times I have started it just to give up as he arrives at Srublands. With the director of 'The Empire Strikes Back' the crew of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' and that cast. What could go wrong. As I said a massive waste of talent. A few years ago I bought the blu-ray to finally watch it again after all these years. I just couldn't. But I did listen to the audio commentary and even that annoyed me. Kershner didn't have a clue what makes a good Bond film. Listen to the commentary it is all there. It looks cheap like an episode of the 70's Return of the Saint. All the action sequences are flat. There is no structure to the film, no sense of urgency. It is scored like a pørn film. Don't get me started on the humour. Rowan Atkinson, what were they thinking!! What I find hilarious is during the promotion Connery kept stating his favourite Bond was FRWL and he wanted to get back to that style of film. Well he missed by miles. I think despite the fact he might deny it Connery hasn't a clue what makes a good film. Roundabout the time of NSNA I thought the man could do no wrong. He was the greatest Bond. Out of Bond he had been in Marnie, The Hill, Robin and Marian, The Offence, The Man Who Would Be King and many more. Since then he has coasted. Even his Oscar performance in The Untouchables. I think it was only given out of affection for the man himself. It is a lazy self-indulgent turn. Like all his performances since. It started with NSNA. He believed too much in his legend and gave up acting.

[Safari Suit]

As I watched it again today one thing occurred to me: that Connery may have underestimated the value of having Desmond Llewelyn or Bernard Lee or Lois Maxwell to act opposite. Or even having the team of usual writers and directors he had experience working with. Connery's Bond is certainly different than his previous Bonds; he's much older, a bit tired, but has more experience. I'm not sure if that angle was wise or not wise to play up in the film; in some places it works, in some places it doesn't help.

There's not quite the same chemistry between Connery and his office cast as he had in the EON pictures.

Yeah, it's kind of like a Beatles "reunion" with Paul McCartney, Julian Lennon, one of the other Travelling Wilburys and Ringo's understudy. McCowen is good as Q, and Fox is OK as M but it doesn't have the intended effect.

As for Atkinson, bear in mind this was pre-Mr Bean, and he was chiefly known for the then edgy and very popular (in the UK) Not the Nine O'Clock News, so they probably thought they were being hip.

[Loomis]

Wasn't it the case that Desmond Llewelyn was offered Q in NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, while John Barry was asked to score it, but both men turned down any involvement in the film out of loyalty to Eon?

In any case, I don't demand that NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN should be exactly like an Eon film - surely the whole point is to have a slightly different kind of Bond outing? And it's also surely correct that Connery should be the star of the show here (his show, for better or worse). To use the Beatles comparison again, I see NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN as more akin to Wings or a Lennon solo project than an attempted reunion.

And say what you will about NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN (although I've never found it remotely as wretched as many Bond fans make it out to be), but Connery is more than watchable in his final performance as 007. He seems to be having more fun with the character than in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER or YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

Anyway, when's the damn thing going to make its way to Blu-ray in Britain? Anyone with any updates?

[Safari Suit]

YOLT maybe, but I think his performance in DAF is unfairly slammed. I think he's clearly having a lot of fun with the role. He probably didn't give a about the character by that point, but to be honest I don't think that hurt him. Not that I don't think he's good in NSNA too.

I also have no problem with it being Connery's show, but scenes like the Q scene are clearly meant to be "look it's Connery and Q again! After all this time" and it doesn't come off with a different actor. Perhaps a Q scene wasn't necessary. NSNA's strongest champions always enthuse about it's "uniqueness", but in all honesty it's probably too much like an EON Bond film.

[Kreivi von Glödä]

NSNA was the second Bond film I ever saw, and I've always liked it. Of course it's inferior when compared to Thunberball and has a weak climax and sub-par score but there are plenty of good things too - Connery in top form and Barbara Carrera are first ones to come into my mind. In my opinion it is third best Bond movie of the 80's after FYEO and TLD and much better than not-going-anywhere-borefest known as Octopussy.

EDIT: I have to mention Brandauers Largo - am I the only one who feels he's some kind of psychotic proto-Dominic Greene?

Edited by Kreivi von Glödä, 12 February 2011 - 01:02 PM.

[dogmanstar]

I think the cast is the one thing that saves the film. Connery is very good, even when the script is pretty bad. Kim Bashinger is vulnerable and scared of Largo. Klaus Maria Brandauer, that scene where he laughs when Domino asks what would happen if she leaves is very chilling.

As said, the score is pretty bad, the direction looks cheap, and there is a curious lack of tension for a Bond film.

[iBond]

I have to be honest, I do enjoy this film. It could have been much better in terms of the music and the opening titles, but for what it was, it was still nice to see Sean Connery as James Bond yet again. I thought it was a far better improvement over Diamonds Are Forever and even though it is technically not an official James Bond film, I still consider it to be a James Bond film and have it in my collection of Bond movies. Kevin McClory finally got his big chance to make a movie 20 years after the fact and it still is a Bond movie. Yes, our classic allies are all played by new people, but seeing Connery in a scene by himself as Bond really brought back the memory of the 60s and 70s. I enjoyed it and watch it from time to time.

[jaguar007]

While far from being in the upper half of my favorite Bond films, NSNA does have its merits. Connery, Brandauer and Carrera are all great in the film. There are some great moments and some not so great moments. I think it was Roger Moore who got it right about NSNA when he said the problem was that they tried to make it funny (like a Moore Bond film) rather than go for a more serious approach.

[David_M]

Sean has never been more Bondian and they actually gave Bond a good, tasteful sense of humor in this one!

Can't believe everyone's let this one slide. For me, the prime example of "humor" in this one is the running gag with the urine, first with the "Fill this please"/"From here?" joke -- which is stolen from no less a comedy highbrow than Benny Hill himself -- and then with the bit where it ends up in Pat Roach's face. Yes, it got laughs, but they were cheap laughs. Any time James Bond is reduced to pee jokes you know you're scraping the bottom. And the Rowan Atkinson material is totally over the top goofiness. My impression has always been that they were trying to do "Roger Moore humor" and ending up even more juvenile than his worst. (On the other hand, there's some funny stuff in Bond's showdown with Fatima.)

For me, the main problem with the film isn't its cheap look (though that doesn't help) or even the lousy music, but that lack of courage exhibited in trying to deliver a "formula" Bond after the early attempts to shake things up. The "Bond's getting older" concept had real potential, but after Shrublands, nothing is done with it. The humor, the Dick Tracy flying trash cans at the end, all that stuff seemed tacked on to me as if someone started the film thinking, "Let's do Bond like nobody's ever seen" and ended up thinking, "Oh my god, if we don't add gadgets and jokes, we're going to bomb."

[TheREAL008]

Like I've said before: If you've seen Thunderball, you've seen NSNA. It was the one movie that didn't need a sub par remake. Granted Connery looks slightly better than DAF, but in reality NSNA has no saving grace for it. I'll gladly take the pomp and camp of Moonraker and OP over NSNA any day of the week.

I was always hoping that either Marvel or DC, possibly even IDW would try to make a Bond comic series. If any company could get the rights from the Fleming estate perhaps we could have had all fourteen books...or just the non short story ones...in graphic novel form.

About the TV series: I heard about it when I was in my teens and always wondered what happened to it. But now having read that McClory was going to be behind it, I'm glad it didn't happen.

And now that Kevin McClory is sadly gone, why can't EON get the 'rights' to SPECTRE back?

Edited by TheREAL008, 24 March 2011 - 03:31 PM.

[Dustin]

I was always hoping that either Marvel or DC, possibly even IDW would try to make a Bond comic series. If any company could get the rights from the Fleming estate perhaps we could have had all fourteen books...or just the non short story ones...in graphic novel form.

You are aware of the McLusky comic adaptions? Ok, it's newspaper strips, not "graphic novel". But the strips are fairly well done and often give a good idea what faithful early film adaptions might have looked like. The only missing one (if such can be said) is the cut-down Thunderball. In exchange you can get Amis Colonel Sun too. And a number of original stories on top of that.

Can't give you a source for it, but I think I remember Marvel having had licence for a Bond comic for a time (FYEO???). There's a site specıalısing in drawn/comic/graqphic Bond, they'd know for sure.

Edited by Dustin, 25 March 2011 - 11:46 AM.

[iBond]

I like it better than Diamonds Are Forever. This was a much better swansong for Connery as 007. It also seemed like he enjoyed himself more since he had control over the production and who to cast and direct the film. If only it was official...but who cares!

This is classic!

[Miles Miservy]

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 !!!!

This movie blows. It foolishly ran in direct competition with Octopussy, the better of the two. Each scene lumbers into the next with the finesse of an insurance seminar. With bad hairpiece & the beginning of a plumber's gut, Sean Connery is well past his twilight as 007. I'd say the only pleasurable aspect of the film is the very young, very supple Kim Bassinger. The role she's given doesn't allow her to do much except to stand there be looked at; which is luck for her. Apart from Adnon Kishogi's yacht, the rest of the movie looks like it was shot on a television studio. If you're going to remake a great movie, there's little point in doing it poorly. Irwin Kirshner should've stuck with making STAR WARS sequels.