51 replies to this topic

[Guy Haines]

Speaking of remakes - and this is going to sound a bit daft - but my first impression on leaving the cinema after seeing Casino Royale in 2006 was that I'd just watched a very superior remake of an "official" Bond version of it I'd seen decades before. Except, of course, that no such official version of CR had been made, just the 1967 spoof and the 1954 US TV movie. I suppose it was the "reboot" aspect that made me think that - Bond at the start of his Double-O career and so on, but set in the 2000s rather than the 1960s.

 

Leaving the cinema in 1983 after NSNA I had no such first impression, even though this really was a remake of a "real" Bond film from 1965. And I think it's because whereas CR 2006 felt like the start of a new series of Bond adventures, for me at least, with NSNA what interested many I imagine was whether Sean Connery, twelve years on, could still do James Bond, rather than whether another team could do a better job of remaking a previous Bond film. It wouldn't have mattered if he'd appeared in a remake of any of the other Bond films, if that had been legally possible - the "hook" for the mass audience was always Connery. He proved he could still do it, but NSNA wasn't any better than TB, and in some respects was worse.

 

(Now, if someone had made a "proper" version of CR in the early 1980s with Sean Connery as Bond, with the whole "Bond begins" aspect of the story taken out, and instead 007 on one last mission focusing his renowned gambling skills on bankrupting Le Chiffre - that might have been interesting. Could it have been made? After all, EoN didn't have the film rights then.)

[Grard Bond]

When I saw NSNA in my local cinema back in 1983 it was a real dissapointment. I went to see it three times, but only for having the chance to see Connery as Bond on the big screen. Years later I owned it on VHS and dvd, but never watched it after the first time I bought it. For years I didn't care for the movie at all.

 

I Always thought it was the worst Bond movie ever made (not counting the CR spoof), but.... when I bought it on blu ray two years ago the movie surprised me a lot.

It was fun to watch after all those years. Not a great movie, but not sooo bad as most people say it was.

Connery is great in it, much better as in Twice and DAF (although I like him in DAF too) and he is surrounded by a great cast. I mean Brandauer, Bassinger and Carrera are exellent!  A far better cast than most of the Brosnan movies (not better than GoldenEye ofcourse) and QoS.

 

Ofcourse the movie also has his difficulties: a very weak score, not very great shot and edited actionscene's and a very, very weak final confrontation with the mainvillain.

But I don't think it's a very bad movie, not "an insult" like somebody here called it, or even the worst Bond movie ever made.
I like it more than QoS, DAD, or the Dalton movies. For me it's on the same level as AVTAK: fun to watch, but too slow and a little boring somethimes.

 

So for me it's a real Bondmovie, not an official one ofcourse or one of the best, but a Bondmovie it is!

Edited by Grard Bond, 10 August 2014 - 06:06 PM.

[Bourbon Woman]

NSNA takes place in an alternate timeline where the events of Thunderball don't occur until Bond is already middle-aged. Connery is clearly not playing an older version of the same character that he played in TB, or else he would be wandering through the whole film with a sense of eerie deja-vu, as he beds down yet another girl named Domino, and battles yet another villain named Largo who has stolen yet another nuclear warhead from NATO.

 

In other words, NSNA is a one-off unauthorized reboot of the Bond franchise that just happens to star Sean Connery. 

[mr ling]

The main character is James Bond, so of course it,s a Bond film. Just not a good one.They had to tread very carefully when making it, so that would not help much. It is not unwatchable just lacks pace and exitement. Broccoli always said put the money up on the screen, but with NSNA you just dont know where the money went. Into paying big fees into peoples bigger pockets I suspect. It would  have played better as a darker more edgy thriller and dare I say it, yes I will ---- without Sean Connery. A younger guy would have in hindsight have done better. George Lazenby, now how about that. 

[Grard Bond]

Maybe, but at the beginning of the eigties was that not a realistic option.

Connery was the main attraction of this movie, without him the movie was probably never finnished, even with him on board to have enough money to get the movie made was a problem. There were a lot of cuts in the screenplay and a different beginning and ending, because of that.

Connery was also the driving force behind this movie, because his name was at stake.

People went to see this movie for him, to see the original Bond one more time.

Lazenby was seen at that time as the guy who blew it, a failure.

I also don't think a younger guy would have done better. Why? The whole idee was to get the old Bond back and ofcourse he's the only man who can save the world... again.

Edited by Grard Bond, 11 August 2014 - 04:26 PM.

[Secretan]

I liked it better than any of Roger Moore's Bond films.

[DaveBond21]

It was my first Bond movie in the cinema.

 

It's not an "official Bond movie".

 

_____________________________

[plankattack]

What is NSNA?

 

A missed opportunity perhaps?

 

While the original series was comfortable with the tone it had taken on, I remember reading NSNA (or when I first saw rumours in the News of the World of all places, under it's title "Warhead") there was a sense that it was going to return to the DN-FRWL tone of the series.

 

NSNA though seems more than happy to veer towards EON territory tone-wise, and ironically that's what hurts it. If it had committed to a "back to Fleming" approach it might be remembered for more than just SC's return but rather than standing out as something different (and the presence of SC would have given it the room to do that), it almost admits that EON were on the money by inserting Rowan Atkinson, and knock-off gadget bikes.

 

To me the NSNA interpretation of Q shows the film's potential - yes, here's a familiar character, but played in a different way, but withouth completely discarding how the audience relate to it.

 

So what else is NSNA - a failed re-boot, before re-boot's became the in-thing.....?

[Solex Agitator]

It is not a great film but it has some great moments and performances.

 

I like the health farm sequences. I LOVE Michel Legrand's piano theme when Bond arrive at Shrublands. I think Barbara Carrera is a lot of fun in this film. 

 

I also really like Klaus Maria Branduer in this film. The scene where he tells Bond (and I paraphrase) that he  "a very good secret agent" is classic. Brandeur's Largo is believably insane. 

 

Is it canon? No way! Is it Bond? Absolutely.

Edited by Solex Agitator, 07 November 2014 - 04:45 AM.

[Bond of Steele]

I look at it as a mirror universe.  It's on it's own.  

 

I've always been curious about a sequel.  I suppose in the end, things worked out for the best, and I don't think it really ever was possible for a rival Bond series, but if it was, competition would have created much better movies and production values.  Each series trying to top the other.  

 

But in saying that, the more I think about it, perhaps it would have gone the way of too much over the top action.

[Syndicate]

To me it consider a rogue Bond movie. Just like what is called a rogue agent and rogue spy.

[ChickenStu]

The way I see it, it's based on material that Fleming had a hand in and stars Sean Connery. Whether it's part of the original series or not, it's still a legitimate James Bond story. I always include it in my marathons and watch it in between Octopussy and A View To A Kill. It's not brilliant but it does have some really nice moments and I for one am glad it exists - simply cause it had Connery as Our Man. It's a pleasing diversion.  

[Admiral Messervey]

Like Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, it's not canon nor official. Still wondering why McClory was so obsessed with remaking Thunderball over (NSNA) and over (The proposed Warhead movie) again.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

NSNA is non-canon Bond film, a rogue Bond adventure. And better than OP.

[AMC Hornet]

NSNA is non-canon Bond film, a rogue Bond adventure. And better than OP.

I disagree, but I will concede that it's better than AVTAK.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

For me Seanery won the Battle of the Bonds. OP is the most dreary, bland and simply boring of any Sir Rog's Bonds. NSNA isn't much good either, but at least the film has some saving graces, Seanery's performance and Barbara Carrera to mention a few.

[Shamelord]

 

NSNA is a one-off unauthorized reboot of the Bond franchise that just happens to star Sean Connery.

 

Midshipman, whether you like the movie or not NSNA wasn't unauthorized. It was done from legally obtained rights. All this crap about NSNA being unauthorized or maverick seems to me to be the symptom of people being so fan of the James Bond franchise that they are not ease with something being out of the line.

 

History is written by the victors. Eon did the majority of Bond movies - the worst and the very best. They write history. They want you to think NSNA is  shameful - just more shameful than it deserves to be.

 

NSNA, probably a better film than half of the Roger Moore Bonds, probably well below the golden age of Bond, is authorized - hence official - and legal. It's just not EON.

[tdalton]

 

Midshipman, whether you like the movie or not NSNA wasn't unauthorized. It was done from legally obtained rights. All this crap about NSNA being unauthorized or maverick seems to me to be the symptom of people being so fan of the James Bond franchise that they are not ease with something being out of the line.

 

 

Well said.  All of this talk about how Never Say Never Again, as well as certain entries in EON's own franchise, aren't "real" Bond films is ridiculous.  It's not like McClory, Connery, and company went out and made an illegal movie.  They had the legal rights to make a film starring James Bond.  That makes it a "real" James Bond film.  For that matter, as bad as Casino Royale '67 is, it's still a real James Bond film.   

[seawolfnyy]

 

 

Midshipman, whether you like the movie or not NSNA wasn't unauthorized. It was done from legally obtained rights. All this crap about NSNA being unauthorized or maverick seems to me to be the symptom of people being so fan of the James Bond franchise that they are not ease with something being out of the line.

 

 

Well said.  All of this talk about how Never Say Never Again, as well as certain entries in EON's own franchise, aren't "real" Bond films is ridiculous.  It's not like McClory, Connery, and company went out and made an illegal movie.  They had the legal rights to make a film starring James Bond.  That makes it a "real" James Bond film.  For that matter, as bad as Casino Royale '67 is, it's still a real James Bond film.   

 

As is the 1954 TV movie Casino Royale. Never Say Never Again is a true Bond film, it's just not an EON Bond film. That said, I'm not a fan and have never much cared for it. I have no idea why Kim Basinger is always included on best-of Bond girl lists. She's awful in everything including NSNA. The video game fight was weird as was Klaus Maria Brandauer's bizarrely OTT Largo. There are some positives: Barbara Carrera and the lab fight. Also, Connery gives a better performance in this film than in Diamonds are Forever. However, I still feel Octopussy is the better film and is one of the most underrated in the whole series. I especially credit John Glen on the clown scene that gets so much crap as it comes off as very tense with Bond attempting to get the General to believe that he's a secret agent and not a clown.

[glidrose]

 

NSNA is non-canon Bond film, a rogue Bond adventure. And better than OP.

I disagree, but I will concede that it's better than AVTAK.

 

 

I disagree, but I will concede that it's better than TLD. Just kidding. NSNA is almost as bad as TLD.

[Blofeld's Cat]

NSNA is in the fold now that all the legal battles have been sorted out and is under the Sony umbrella like all the EON Bonds, so whatever it may have been at the time it is now official, canon, whatever one want to call it.

[stromberg]

"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."

 

A mediocre (at best) movie that happens to have a character named James Bond in it and which I happen not to like very much. There's one thing I like about it: "Your brothers dead. Keep dancing." (could serve as a motto for the whole film, btw).

Puts it on par with DAD, because there's one thing I like about that one, too: the way John Cleese's legs look when he walks around the "invisible" Aston Martin. Clearly a reference to the Ministry of Silly Walks.