A Major Disappointment

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

One of the lesser "Bond movies," I'm afraid. Sean Connery looks bad, the plot is a re-hashed Thunderball and it's annoyingly slow and drawn out. No wonder this isn't accepted in the official Bond canon.

For those who argue Sean Connery was the only "Bond"--well, Moore was considered when Sean got the job (Moore was busy and never actually tested, but if he'd got the job and been Bond for 25 years no one would ever have known the difference). This proves Connery isn't Bond, though Connery is enough.Connery does have a powerful screen presence, but in this movie he comes off as an old spy hassled by his younger superiors yet still able to attract strong young women.The fact is, this movie was made because Ian Fleming, Bond creator, did Kevin McClory. Fleming worked with McClory on an earlier Bond treatment that went nowhere. He then took his ideas (and McClory's) and wrote THUNDERBALL, the rights of which he sold to Broccoli and Saltzman.From that point on, McClory dogged the producers of the James Bond movies we all know and love (or hate) with lawsuits anytime he thought he saw an inkling of his work reflected in the movies. McClory won his lawsuit to make his own version of THUNDERBALL and this is it. It's basically a reboot of THUNDERBALL.Unfortunately, it doesn't have the feel of "James Bond." It doesn't have the support staff (Bernard Lee was dead by this time but his replacement, Edward Fox, is a fussy little man concerned about Bond's diet of white bread; Pamela Salem is wasted as a stupid, if funny, Moneypenny; and while their Q, like Fox, is an otherwise good actor, he's not really Q, is he?) We've come to expect a lot of things from Bond: exotic locations, with hot and cold running women; ridiculously enormous, but wonderful, Ken Adam or Peter Lamont sets; John Barry music; villains who are either over the top or snidely self-righteous in a Clinton/Gore sort of way. Gadgets.Well, we have the locales. We have SPECTRE and its villains, the cold Blofeld (Max von Sydow, complete with cat) and the almost painfully over-the-top Largo (Klaus Maria Brandauer). Georgia peach Kim Basinger woefully out of her league as Domino, but dark and fiery Barbara Carrera picking up any decline in sexual heat.We also have Rowan Atkinson as idiotic comic relief (as if we needed more), after Fox and Salem.What we don't have is good music, and especially the "James Bond Theme"--a tune that never grows old and always breaks out, either that or Barry's "007", every time something Bond-like happens. What we don't have is Cubby Broccoli's money thrown into design so even in the days when his Bonds ceased being the only game in town and slid in with the other action movies, they were still a peg up from the others in look.This is what James Bond movies might have been without Broccoli and Saltzman. Slapdash, with new faces thrown in willy-nilly on second-hand ideas. Oh, they updated their technology--to 1983 standards. So what? Outside of Bond, Sean Connery made some good movies ("Murder on the Orient Express" or "The Man Who Would be King") and he's made an ass of himself (Remember "Zardoz"? Or the wifebeating comedy "A Fine Madness"? If you don't remember them, thank your lucky stars) He holds up well (only six years later he was Indiana Jones' father). But we've been conditioned to think of "James Bond" as Broccoli rather than Fleming (in fact, instead of Fleming). This is neither. It's just another Connery movie, not as run of the mill as some, not as good as others; certainly better than Peter Sellers' "Casino Royale." It has the feel of one of the better Bond imitators the 1960s were full of. And we can be grateful it was Broccoli, not Kevin McClory, who got his hooks on the rest of Bond.On a curious note, "Never Say Never Again" was released the same years as "Octopussy"--not one of Moore's best outings. I'm old enough to remember the "competing Bonds" news reports. Well, there was no competition. Octopussy was number 6 at the box office. But both Bonds were blown away--by "Return of the Jedi."

Every die-hard Bond fan knows that this movie came to be because Kevin McClory felt he deserved credit for "Thunderball's" original screenplay and for the creation of Spectre and Blofeld. The court case was eventually settled with McClory being allowed to make his own Bond film. Since they wouldn't allow him to do an original screenplay, he decided to do a remake of "Thunderball." I must say, I was never a huge fan of "Thunderball," but it's vastly superior to this lackluster remake.They were able to get Sean Connery to return to the role of Bond after he had said "never again" twice before. That's how the film got its title. It was an obvious attempt to draw in old fans. However, in this movie, it once again shows how Connery had lost interest in playing the character. He pretty much phones in his performance, even more so than in "Diamonds Are Forever," his last official Bond film.Klaus Brandauer is nothing special as Maximilian Largo, and the actors who played Q, M, Moneypenny, and Felix didn't leave too much of an impression on me, either. Max Von Sydow is completely wasted as Blofeld. It was retarded to even use Blofeld at all if he and Bond never came face-to-face in the movie, considering that this is the only movie they were going to make.Barbara Carrera as Fatima Blush is one of the weirdest Bond girls ever. I don't want to even mention some of the ridiculous things she did. Kim Basinger is okay as Domino, but nothing too notable.The action scenes are poor and even weird at times. The direction and script are also very disappointing.This movie is a misfire at almost every turn. Maybe "Diamonds Are Forever" and "The Man With The Golden Gun" weren't so bad, because this movie made them look good. This just doesn't feel like a Bond movie. If it weren't for the return of Connery, this movie probably would be LONG forgotten by now.RATING: D

Never say never again I viewed last on itv4 and by God it's great stuff for real bond enthusiasts it stars Sean Connery as James Bond 12 years after he called it quits with the series with diamonds are forever in 1971 and it's about an older 007 who is called out of retirement by his superior m played by Edward fox to stop a spectre operative played by Klaus Maria Brandeur and his voluptuous sidekick Fatima blush played by Barbra careera who have stolen two nuclear warheads and held NATO ransom by planting them in various locations and bond must stop them before they cause world war 3 . Overall this film despite it being classified as an unofficial bond film is really quite fun and much better than most of Roger Moore's turkeys ( octupussy which came out at the same time ) Connery is brooding as well charming as bond he doesn't look bad considering he was 52 in 1983 when this was released and handles himself well especially in the action scenes and love scenes better than in Diamonds are forever when he looked flabby and overweight Kim basinger is stunning and tough as the Bond girl of the piece she is not just seen as a sex object . Klaus Maria Brandeur is credible villain with his cynicism and his snake like charm and overall his coolness under fire , Barbra carreaa Though is gorgeous but severely goes OTT as Fatima blush the cartoonish fem fatale and it's just embarrassing to watch . But check this film out its better than most of Roger Ms cartoonish outings ignore the negative reviews there ( obviously Moore fans ) check it out its undoubtedly Sean Connery's best bond film in my opinion .