Kim Basinger is bad, Sean Connerey phones in his performance, the villians are good but the pacing is slow and boring, the effects are terrible, not too mention the cheesy scene where Bond plays the video game against the villian which shocks you if you lose. Instead of a casino he had a big arcade room? what the hell?! What was so bad about Thunderball anyway? Leave well enough alone. I would've rather have had George Lazenby in this one. Also, it dosen't even have the gunbarrell credits!!!! The Motorcycle chase was cool, but instead of the Bond theme, you get a lame elevator music jazz score playing over it. If this WAS an official 007, I'd put it in the same class as Moonraker or Diamonds are Forever. CRAP tastic
Why don't they go by tickets sold, instead of dollars earned? It'd be a much more meaningful figure.
BTW - I love "Live and Let Die" even though Connery is my favorite Bond. It's just a fun movie. I thought it was too soon to drop Brosnan though. As for Daniel Craig, I haven't seen the new movie (Hey! I'm a father of three now and movies cost a fortune!) I came here because I'm watching "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" right now. I like all the Bond films! Great diversions!
What really gets me is how Sean Connery was way too old looking to play Bond. Lets put it in perspective. Only 6 years later he would play Jones' dad in The Last Crusade! The movie was terrible. I hate how Connery actually left twice with the Bond Franchise. Two years after George Lazenby played Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service he did Thunderball. Then...! He played Bond in this movie while Roger Moore was still Bond! The money had to have been good.
"Funny since Roger Moore looked and was way older than Connery and nobody complained. Seems a little bit contradictory he?"
That's because Roger Moore managed to pull it off. Connery wasn't so lucky (and the toupee didn't help matters). Now, Roger Moore did sport a rather funny case of looking like he had a facelift in A View To a Kill, but he was still very entertaining in the role and the film was still enjoyable. I just reviewed it the other day and enjoyed it a lot. Never Say Never Again would have been lucky to be as good as AVTAK.
* * * * If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Yeah the POS beginning song, err...I mean, theme is just a nightmare. I can't stand even looking at the TV Guide listing of this "film" when it's on. Uhhh...it just sends angry thoughts into my head.
I'll take A View To a Kill any day over the mess that was this film. I am sorry, but the only thing NSNA has going for it is Fatima Blush. Once she dies, the film dies with her. I will say, though, that Roger Moore kissing on Tanya Roberts was equally as gross as Sean Connery kissing on Kim Basinger. Ewwwwwwww. NSNA was worse, though, because I was expected to believe that everyone in that health spa would be turning their heads and watching Bond like he was the most amazing thing to ever cross the room. It was laughable. At least moore didn't have a scene like that in AVTaK.
I am not wrong, it's just my opinion, one that you do not rule.
- - - - - - - Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
This movie was horrible, and like the above poster mentioned the music selection is part of the problem. I like jazz but it shouldn't be used in a jazz movie especially during action sequences.
The "M" character bothered me quite a bit as well.
Connery in OHMSS would've elevated the film to iconic status.
Lazenby, had he stayed for DAF, would've been great - had Peter Hunt returned, as well. It would've been, as a result, a whole different movie - and that would've been only good.
There are worse Bonds than NSNA.
NSNA is a great Bond movie. Not perfect - but not bad, too. Its actually better once you see the fan-edited version that gave the film the EON film by applying the title sequence and the gun-barel, as well as adding music cues from all Bond movies, minus CR.
I suggest all of you whiners, who can't tell the difference between MOONRAKER and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, to check out the fan-edited version of NSNA - and THEN judge it, for what is.
Because what McClory REALLY wanted to do, was an EON Bond without EON. In the end, EON burned him to the ground.
Oh, and another thing - if you wanna blame anyone for the mistakes of NSNA, blame EON and Broccoli. Without Connery, the film would never have seen the light of day, as EON really wanted to KILL the film.
Its a miracle that the man half-produced it, half-edited it, and acted in it, and very well, if I might add.
All the Bond films in general teeter precariously on the edge of Silly....that means that you only have to increase the level of Silly marginally and whole thing goes over the edge.
The Bond films for me are all bitter sweet...I love the serious, suave, cool, gritty, or tongue-cheek parts and feel agony at the campy, silly parts. The bad dialogue, the terrible acting, the silly accents, the weird score editing which goofily splices in bits of incongruous music (eg: The beach boys) or bawdy comedy sound effects (Tarzan) without warning.. the good bits are so cool that you just want to watch it over and over again, performing little filter functions every few minutes when something painful happens. I think it's something about the atmosphere that they generate. It's a Bond Movie..and you can feel it. It blurs the bad and leaves you with an overall impression...and it's one you want to revisit often.
It's a bit like watching The Phantom Menace; Anakin is unbearable, Jar Jar is unbearable, the stupid animated battles and droids are horrible...and yet there are the Jedi and Darth Maul, especially Darth Maul virtually carrying the whole godawful mess with his 10 minutes of screen time....and it makes you watch it again, alternately cringing and marvelling for 2 hours.
That's how I feel about Bond. I watch them all many times but it's a roller coaster of pleasure and pain. NSNA is arguably one that goes very far towards silly and kinda tired, but that doesn't mean others don't. Die Another Day, for example, was an insult to the senses as well as to the brain. The main thing that upsets me about Moonraker isn't that they went into space, it's that they went into space because Star Wars was huge at the time. That kind of motivation for deciding on plot and visuals just CAN'T be good. It seems tacked on and false and a pale imitation of the thing it was cynically attempting to capitalise on.
On a side note, Batman&Robin isn't just the worst Batman film by a country mile, it's arguably one of the worst films ever made and Joel Schumacher is arguably one of the world's worst "big" directors. A Celebrity Death Match between him and Michael Bay would be cool.
Not having to think does not equate to 'entertaining' just as being provoked into thinking does not equate to 'dull'. Not unless thinking inherently makes your eyelids heavy.
Has anybody noticed this? In the scene where the cruise missile is shown flying, the trees underneath look brown as if it's winter, but a moment later it passes over a beach with children building a sandcastle, as if it's summer!
"I have an appointment with eternity and I don't want to be late"