When I first saw NSNA at the age of 12, I was appalled. It just wasn't the Bond I'd been discovering and enjoying for the past year. I remember getting a ton of em at Blockbuster lol.
Anyway I finally rewatched it a couple years ago. Wasn't as bad as I remembered. In fact, apart from some the terrible theme song, some incredibly cheesy music, a few stupid scenes, and a couple dodgy bits of dialogue it was pretty decent up until the finale, which I still can't recall what happened other than Largo being killed underwater. Ended up getting it on Blu-Ray and I appreciate it for what it is. It can be a fun flick if you don't take it seriously.
The movie has nice locations in the Bahamas and France. The fight at Shrublands is pretty good. The actor, can't recall his name, who plays Largo was good and was kind of an 80s version of Dominic Greene. Kim Basinger was easy on the eyes. Barbara Carrera is really good in it as well. Bernie Casey makes a good Leiter and is actually close to Fleming's character.
However, the MI6 cast is a joke. Edward Fox is annoying, Moneypenny is pathetic, and Algernon is a joke.
Would've liked to have seen Blofelds role a little larger. Apparently, his demise at the claws of his cat was filmed.
Do I consider it better than any of the EON films? SP yes.
6.5-7/10
-{
NSNA was such a disappointment. I was hopeful of a more serious Bond than the ones we had been getting at that time but almost everything was dreadful. What I didn't know was that some of the jokes were taken from Porridge (which I have never liked) - now if they had been taken from the same writer's Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads at least the film may have been amusing. As it stands I would watch any Eon Bond over NSNA, even QOS.
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
NSNA was such a disappointment. I was hopeful of a more serious Bond than the ones we had been getting at that time but almost everything was dreadful. What I didn't know was that some of the jokes were taken from Porridge (which I have never liked) - now if they had been taken from the same writer's Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads at least the film may have been amusing. As it stands I would watch any Eon Bond over NSNA, even QOS.
NSNA was such a disappointment. I was hopeful of a more serious Bond than the ones we had been getting at that time but almost everything was dreadful. What I didn't know was that some of the jokes were taken from Porridge (which I have never liked) - now if they had been taken from the same writer's Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads at least the film may have been amusing. As it stands I would watch any Eon Bond over NSNA, even QOS.
Are you being serious ?:)
It’s EXACTLY the same writers....
I know it's the same writers - that's what I said. What I said in so many words (but it probably didn't come across as that) was that I found Porridge to be unfunny but Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads was funny and if they had taken some of those jokes instead of from Porridge then I may have found NSNA amusing. Does that make sense? I'm not sure )
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
It was a better Thunderball than Thunderball ) And (not popular I know) I would watch NSNA over any of the RM films.
So to address some of the criticism.
-It is cheezy
I counter this argument with some stills.
-The soundtrack is bad.
-Very true. It is rather bad. It was 1983 and some poor choices were made, but I would take it over John Legend's theme for SP. The theme form Specter is excellent background music to cremate your cat to. (RIP all of the Tiggers of the world.)
-The sex scenes were stupid.
- Yes, but let us recall the corpse like interaction between RM and CB. They had the sexual appeal of a can of tomatoes soup. I will take stupid over Pygmalion canned goods.
-Ballroom dancing.
- See above, RM as a clown. It did end up feeling like an awkward father/daughter dance at a wedding but all and all I found it less creepy/ strange than every interaction between Bond and Bibi Dahl (this is in the most part due to Bibi.)
Pros:
- Felix :x :x :x
-The sets/props were quite good.
- In comparison to this:
This looks like a hamster ball cut in half. Little Fluffy would love to live in it.
This looks like it is for a school production on the first Moon landing.
-I have some idea what is going on.
-Unlike TMWTGG, DAF, TSWLM, QOS
And just an observation. Why was Blush only dressed in trash bags?
I've always wanted to have Christmas in Turkey
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,924Chief of Staff
NSNA was such a disappointment. I was hopeful of a more serious Bond than the ones we had been getting at that time but almost everything was dreadful. What I didn't know was that some of the jokes were taken from Porridge (which I have never liked) - now if they had been taken from the same writer's Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads at least the film may have been amusing. As it stands I would watch any Eon Bond over NSNA, even QOS.
Are you being serious ?:)
It’s EXACTLY the same writers....
I know it's the same writers - that's what I said. What I said in so many words (but it probably didn't come across as that) was that I found Porridge to be unfunny but Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads was funny and if they had taken some of those jokes instead of from Porridge then I may have found NSNA amusing. Does that make sense? I'm not sure )
Ah...right...I guess I didn’t quite read it correctly ;%
Apologies...I did wonder...as you are very astute with writers...
YNWA 97
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
QOS: ... I Was advised to go back and read the books again. I did and suddenly, I could see what they were trying to do with QOS...
could you expand? I see one or maybe two minor plot points from Fleming, and some general themes that are Flemingesque. But if you're seeing some things I haven't noticed yet, I'd love to know what to look for next viewing
QoS is a guilty pleasure and I do think it is Flemingesque. Maybe not plot-wise, but the overall stripped down predicaments of Bond, less of the trademark EON glamour and more grit where even the villain and his plot are scaled down from the usual bombastic treatment we see in the other movies, it seems very much like the books. Even Bond's tuxedo was stolen and he doesn't get to sleep with the main girl! The grittier "feel" reminds me of the literary versions of FYEO and TMWTGG.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
QoS is a guilty pleasure and I do think it is Flemingesque. Maybe not plot-wise, but the overall stripped down predicaments of Bond, less of the trademark EON glamour and more grit where even the villain and his plot are scaled down from the usual bombastic treatment we see in the other movies, it seems very much like the books. Even Bond's tuxedo was stolen and he doesn't get to sleep with the main girl! The grittier "feel" reminds me of the literary versions of FYEO and TMWTGG.
Well, I don't feel so guilty. It's my favourite Craig Bond. -{
I know it's the same writers - that's what I said. What I said in so many words (but it probably didn't come across as that) was that I found Porridge to be unfunny but Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads was funny and if they had taken some of those jokes instead of from Porridge then I may have found NSNA amusing. Does that make sense? I'm not sure )
Ah...right...I guess I didn’t quite read it correctly ;%
Apologies...I did wonder...as you are very astute with writers...
No need to apologise Sir M my first post was ambiguous -{
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
Watched DAF this week on telly. It's a blast, great jokes in it. And some great action - the pts and the lift fight. Nothing like that in NSNA, it fluffs its shot repeatedly.
And Connery is over the hill in it, and has now acquired his trademark lisp, not sure how that happened. The making of it was a mess, too.
I did get the Never Say McClory Again thing, left a review on Last Bond Film Seen recently. Blofeld looks like Jeremy Corbyn!
Taken on its own merits, Never Say Never Again has its moments:
• Connery's performance is outstanding (he looks vastly younger and fitter than in Diamonds Are Forever)
• I like the reimagining of tough Sicilian gangster Largo as a camp, psychopathic playboy
• Max von Sydow's dignified, understated Blofeld provides an interesting counterpoint to the mainstream series' over-the-top, larger-than-life portrayals
• The reinterpretation of Q as a fed-up backroom boffin hampered by constant budget cuts is genuinely amusing
• The film brought several innovations that would be copied in the main series (as noted by another member, Xenia Onatopp was clearly inspired by Fatima Blush; The Living Daylights had a (much better) fight in a kitchen; and this was the first black Leiter)
However, at its worst the film is genuinely grotesque: I'd paid good money never to see Bond in denim dungarees or playing an arcade game again. Further, it manages to get an unfunny performance out of Rowan Atkinson, which I otherwise wouldn't have believed possible. I also dislike this incarnation of M, who is simply obnoxious, whilst Moneypenny (played by the normally excellent Pamela Salem) has little screen presence. Worst of all, it contains probably the most ridiculous plot contrivance in any Bond film (against quite some competition): Bond has a pen that fires explosive charges just when he's confronted by a sex-mad assassin who, improbably, wants him to write down that she's an excellent shag before she kills him.
More broadly, the film has a slightly washed-out, low-budget, TV-movie feel to it (as did Diamonds Are Forever), not helped by a dreadful score.
However, nothing exists in a vacuum, and when compared to Thunderball the film's shortcomings are much more obvious, as Thunderball did almost everything better. In particular, the comparison underscores how perfectly Lucianna Paluzzi played Fiona Volpe: by underplaying the character instead of making her an narcissistic dominatrix and fashion victim, she made her appear genuinely dangerous rather than camp. (It's worth noting that Volpe is the only character in any Bond film who genuinely appears to frighten Bond: the carnival chase is the only time Connery ever appears terrified.) Never Say Never Again also suffers badly in comparison to the contemporaneous Octopussy, which is my third favourite Bond film.
But is it the worst? Not by any means. I like it more than Moonraker and Tomorrow Never Dies and would rate it roughly alongside A View To A Kill and Die Another Day.
Worst of all, it contains probably the most ridiculous plot contrivance in any Bond film (against quite some competition): Bond has a pen that fires explosive charges just when he's confronted by a sex-mad assassin who, improbably, wants him to write down that she's an excellent shag before she kills him.
It's not uncommon: the plot resolution of For Your Eyes Only hangs on a chance remark by a parrot, for instance. However, I can't think of a worse example than Fatima's death by pen in NSNA.
It's not uncommon: the plot resolution of For Your Eyes Only hangs on a chance remark by a parrot, for instance. However, I can't think of a worse example than Fatima's death by pen in NSNA.
That just seems like part of the Bond schtick though by that point -- the die was cast long before that Bond would just naturally have the right gadget for a situation. At least they had fun with it -- the pen didn't immediately work -- in the same way that the magnet watch in LALD -- which should probably rip Bond's arm off if it's so powerful as to draw a rowboat from many feet away -- didn't quite work out, though it did come in handy with the saw when Mr. Big conveniently tied him up with rope.
improbably, wants him to write down that she's an excellent shag before she kills him.
I agree that was a bit of a stretch...like they couldn't think of any plausible scenario for Bond to use a pen. What also bothers me about that scene is apparently Felix and co were watching the whole time, but didn't intervene. I have a similar complaint about the Marines at the end of Goldeneye...
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
1 Bond taking over from the made use?
Is this not also a sort of "rape" , forcing his hands
All over a woman's body...... looks a bit creepy to me.
3 Bond dancing with Domino ?
This is so Bad, I'd have expected Leslie Neilson to do it
In a Police Squad film. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
At the risk of sounding cro magnon, the various scenes of Bond "raping" women seem over-interpreted given the characters and context that are presented. So many of us want to treat one of the most complex of human behaviors -- seduction -- as though it's a simple binary -- black/white, do/don't, yes/no. We want a signed and notarized agreement before anyone proceeds. In real life, it's often nothing like that. Why would it be in film?
At the same time, we credit Bond with the ability to discern an opponent's veracity and motivation from the slightest of clues, often just instinct, but when it comes to women playing hard to get -- and no, I'm not saying all women play hard to get, but that these characters are presented as such in their time periods -- we doubt him immensely, even if the scene plays out to show he was correct.
I suppose it's like reinterpreting Bond (or nearly all characters in western film) as racist because he's a white male who lords himself over minorities, often killing them without concern, and who only recently seemed to exist in a world where anyone non-white could be an ally or equal. Each time he dispatches someone who isn't white, it must because because he harbors some ill will toward them based on skin color so some such and not merely because they are enemies in context. It doesn't matter if ultimately the scene shows that they were a legitimate threat or that Bond fought them for that reason. The fact that he is a white male is enough to see it for what it is -- racism.
Nothing is wrong with looking at something from a different time period and saying " I understand the context but it is messed up." As far as consent to have sex with someone it is fairly clear. Then, now, whenever.
It''s clear from the scenes that consent is given. Hence its not rape. Trying to re-conceive the scenes as such and not how the filmmakers intended them is the problem.
It''s clear from the scenes that consent is given. Hence its not rape. Trying to re-conceive the scenes as such and not how the filmmakers intended them is the problem.
It's a fine line - and the style is "cro magnon" )
1 Bond taking over from the made use?
Is this not also a sort of "rape" , forcing his hands
All over a woman's body...... looks a bit creepy to me.
3 Bond dancing with Domino ?
This is so Bad, I'd have expected Leslie Neilson to do it
In a Police Squad film. )
An innocent massage is not rape! I don't think that Bond was so starved for female attention that giving a massage even would have turned him on! But I know you're joking here.
But the tango is one of the worst scenes in the film, especially when he tells Domino her brother is dead. Auger plays it so much better. Definitely from Police Squad. Bond just had to offer her a cigarette.
NSNA is little more than a cheap Bond parody. Connery seems to enjoy poking fun at Bond, but he's playing it completely different from how he did in the 1960s and I don't feel like his original Bond is back.
It''s clear from the scenes that consent is given. Hence its not rape. Trying to re-conceive the scenes as such and not how the filmmakers intended them is the problem.
It's a fine line - and the style is "cro magnon" )
I don't know that it is a fine line so much as in politicizing it, people want to read it that way to fit their agenda -- and the current agenda is to see transgression in nearly everything unless the situation is so literal, no critical thinking's expected.
It's clear in the scenes usually accused -- Pussy Galore and Pat Fearing -- that the women ultimately not only approve but are complicit. There's merely the notion that they are either reluctant or play hard to get in some fashion initially, but Bond ultimately reads their motives correctly.
Whether we like to admit it or not, playing hard to get is not an unknown tactic in the fine art of seduction. Certainly, the behavior has been studied in both animal and human interactions, and in the past when society may have frowned more on people being open and obvious sexually, more common than today.
Further, what's fascinating is that in order to see only rape, the women and their motives must be dismissed as immaterial. It's all about what Bond does, and apparently, the women are reduced to virtual non-entity, merely being the victims. They can have no other agenda or expectation other than to be the victim in order to fit the argument's point of view.
It's also pretty easy to get into a slippery slope if one ignores context. Bond could just as easily be accused of rape for getting involved with anyone he works with, as we could argue he uses his institutional authority to coerce women to sleep with him out of fear of reprisal, especially if they are in subordinate positions in the organization. Heck, we don't even need to go that far. If he's a white male in a patriarchal western society, then we could argue that any time he seduces a female he is somehow using his white male privilege, doubly so if she is a woman of color because now he's a racist, too. By this way of thinking, he's been sexually harassing Moneypenny for years.
But then we could flip the roles, too. Is Xenia Onatopp attempting to rape Bond when she forces herself on him in the sauna in GE? He draws his gun initially, after all, and then she kisses him and uses her body to stimulate him. He responds, but is he doing so out of fear? Coercion? She even seems to be getting off sexually as they fight -- he's not. The scene ends with him telling her no at gunpoint. Was this a sexual assault we just witnessed? Was Bond essentially raped?
Other scenes can be analyzed out of context, too. The psychologist in the same film -- is she raping Bond by using her position over his career to coerce him to have sex with her? After all, if she doesn't sign off on his medical evaluation, he has to be behind a desk. Could we say the same thing about the physician in DAD? Remember, we're ignoring the victim's motivations and only looking at the alleged aggressor in order to substantiate our claim. What he wants is meaningless.
Was Ruby sexually assaulting Bond when she chose to write her room number under his kilt and on his bare leg, knowing it would also sexually excite him? After all, she didn't ask first and he didn't give her permission to -- she acted uninvited. What about when Grace Jones' May Day gets on top of an obviously uncomfortable Bond in AVTAK to take charge of their sexual encounter -- which he the next day even remarks was in some way uncomfortable before he finally got off. We take it as a joke, but could it be read that Bond felt physically violated rather than merely enjoyed his sexual encounter?
Whether the style is cro magnon or not is a matter of taste. Certainly, the old school masculinity that Connery brings to bear is in sharp contrast to the general expectations among mainstream western cultures today of just what a man is supposed to be -- if there really is an easily identifiable definition anymore. I find it consistent with the general mores of the day -- Bond is an escapist spy and no angel, and in the same way people have all sorts of escapist fantasies about all sorts of things, including ironically rape, he might have fit the bill for many, then and now. But I think that's a far cry from labeling him a rapist.
I'd like to point out I used the term "Rape" , as it was the term
Firemass used.I know if it had have been Roger ....... we"d
Have gotten loads of posts calling him a perv.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
It''s clear from the scenes that consent is given. Hence its not rape. Trying to re-conceive the scenes as such and not how the filmmakers intended them is the problem.
It's a fine line - and the style is "cro magnon" )
I don't know that it is a fine line so much as in politicizing it, people want to read it that way to fit their agenda -- and the current agenda is to see transgression in nearly everything unless the situation is so literal, no critical thinking's expected.
It's clear in the scenes usually accused -- Pussy Galore and Pat Fearing -- that the women ultimately not only approve but are complicit. There's merely the notion that they are either reluctant or play hard to get in some fashion initially, but Bond ultimately reads their motives correctly.
Whether we like to admit it or not, playing hard to get is not an unknown tactic in the fine art of seduction. Certainly, the behavior has been studied in both animal and human interactions, and in the past when society may have frowned more on people being open and obvious sexually, more common than today.
Further, what's fascinating is that in order to see only rape, the women and their motives must be dismissed as immaterial. It's all about what Bond does, and apparently, the women are reduced to virtual non-entity, merely being the victims. They can have no other agenda or expectation other than to be the victim in order to fit the argument's point of view.
It's also pretty easy to get into a slippery slope if one ignores context. Bond could just as easily be accused of rape for getting involved with anyone he works with, as we could argue he uses his institutional authority to coerce women to sleep with him out of fear of reprisal, especially if they are in subordinate positions in the organization. Heck, we don't even need to go that far. If he's a white male in a patriarchal western society, then we could argue that any time he seduces a female he is somehow using his white male privilege, doubly so if she is a woman of color because now he's a racist, too. By this way of thinking, he's been sexually harassing Moneypenny for years.
But then we could flip the roles, too. Is Xenia Onatopp attempting to rape Bond when she forces herself on him in the sauna in GE? He draws his gun initially, after all, and then she kisses him and uses her body to stimulate him. He responds, but is he doing so out of fear? Coercion? She even seems to be getting off sexually as they fight -- he's not. The scene ends with him telling her no at gunpoint. Was this a sexual assault we just witnessed? Was Bond essentially raped?
Other scenes can be analyzed out of context, too. The psychologist in the same film -- is she raping Bond by using her position over his career to coerce him to have sex with her? After all, if she doesn't sign off on his medical evaluation, he has to be behind a desk. Could we say the same thing about the physician in DAD? Remember, we're ignoring the victim's motivations and only looking at the alleged aggressor in order to substantiate our claim. What he wants is meaningless.
Was Ruby sexually assaulting Bond when she chose to write her room number under his kilt and on his bare leg, knowing it would also sexually excite him? After all, she didn't ask first and he didn't give her permission to -- she acted uninvited. What about when Grace Jones' May Day gets on top of an obviously uncomfortable Bond in AVTAK to take charge of their sexual encounter -- which he the next day even remarks was in some way uncomfortable before he finally got off. We take it as a joke, but could it be read that Bond felt physically violated rather than merely enjoyed his sexual encounter?
Whether the style is cro magnon or not is a matter of taste. Certainly, the old school masculinity that Connery brings to bear is in sharp contrast to the general expectations among mainstream western cultures today of just what a man is supposed to be -- if there really is an easily identifiable definition anymore. I find it consistent with the general mores of the day -- Bond is an escapist spy and no angel, and in the same way people have all sorts of escapist fantasies about all sorts of things, including ironically rape, he might have fit the bill for many, then and now. But I think that's a far cry from labeling him a rapist.
It's all good mate, just winding you up for using "cro magnon" -{
I would suggest using the word sexual assaulted. That can mean a guy grabs your ass on a train or touches your boob without convent and with a clear motive on the other end. You would be amazed how much that happens. Like, really. All the time.
I think in the end Bond has often been super pervy but much of it feeds into a fantasy that women are ice princesses who are hard to get and somehow Bond melted their hearts when no (or few)other men could. This is the case with Pussy. Ice princess held down and kissed till she melted and fell (or was pushed) into James bed.
Again, you can watch these movies and see flaws, just be aware and enjoy the movie.
Comments
Anyway I finally rewatched it a couple years ago. Wasn't as bad as I remembered. In fact, apart from some the terrible theme song, some incredibly cheesy music, a few stupid scenes, and a couple dodgy bits of dialogue it was pretty decent up until the finale, which I still can't recall what happened other than Largo being killed underwater. Ended up getting it on Blu-Ray and I appreciate it for what it is. It can be a fun flick if you don't take it seriously.
The movie has nice locations in the Bahamas and France. The fight at Shrublands is pretty good. The actor, can't recall his name, who plays Largo was good and was kind of an 80s version of Dominic Greene. Kim Basinger was easy on the eyes. Barbara Carrera is really good in it as well. Bernie Casey makes a good Leiter and is actually close to Fleming's character.
However, the MI6 cast is a joke. Edward Fox is annoying, Moneypenny is pathetic, and Algernon is a joke.
Would've liked to have seen Blofelds role a little larger. Apparently, his demise at the claws of his cat was filmed.
Do I consider it better than any of the EON films? SP yes.
6.5-7/10
-{
Yep! NSNA is sort of cheesy and I absolutely hate the soundtrack, but I certainly enjoy it more than I do TMWTGG and AVTAK.
Regard, all agree that Bernie was one of the highlights.
Are you being serious ?:)
It’s EXACTLY the same writers....
I know it's the same writers - that's what I said. What I said in so many words (but it probably didn't come across as that) was that I found Porridge to be unfunny but Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads was funny and if they had taken some of those jokes instead of from Porridge then I may have found NSNA amusing. Does that make sense? I'm not sure
So to address some of the criticism.
-It is cheezy
I counter this argument with some stills.
-The soundtrack is bad.
-Very true. It is rather bad. It was 1983 and some poor choices were made, but I would take it over John Legend's theme for SP. The theme form Specter is excellent background music to cremate your cat to. (RIP all of the Tiggers of the world.)
-The sex scenes were stupid.
- Yes, but let us recall the corpse like interaction between RM and CB. They had the sexual appeal of a can of tomatoes soup. I will take stupid over Pygmalion canned goods.
-Ballroom dancing.
- See above, RM as a clown. It did end up feeling like an awkward father/daughter dance at a wedding but all and all I found it less creepy/ strange than every interaction between Bond and Bibi Dahl (this is in the most part due to Bibi.)
Pros:
- Felix :x :x :x
-The sets/props were quite good.
- In comparison to this:
This looks like a hamster ball cut in half. Little Fluffy would love to live in it.
This looks like it is for a school production on the first Moon landing.
-I have some idea what is going on.
-Unlike TMWTGG, DAF, TSWLM, QOS
And just an observation. Why was Blush only dressed in trash bags?
Ah...right...I guess I didn’t quite read it correctly ;%
Apologies...I did wonder...as you are very astute with writers...
QoS is a guilty pleasure and I do think it is Flemingesque. Maybe not plot-wise, but the overall stripped down predicaments of Bond, less of the trademark EON glamour and more grit where even the villain and his plot are scaled down from the usual bombastic treatment we see in the other movies, it seems very much like the books. Even Bond's tuxedo was stolen and he doesn't get to sleep with the main girl! The grittier "feel" reminds me of the literary versions of FYEO and TMWTGG.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
No need to apologise Sir M my first post was ambiguous -{
And Connery is over the hill in it, and has now acquired his trademark lisp, not sure how that happened. The making of it was a mess, too.
I did get the Never Say McClory Again thing, left a review on Last Bond Film Seen recently. Blofeld looks like Jeremy Corbyn!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
• Connery's performance is outstanding (he looks vastly younger and fitter than in Diamonds Are Forever)
• I like the reimagining of tough Sicilian gangster Largo as a camp, psychopathic playboy
• Max von Sydow's dignified, understated Blofeld provides an interesting counterpoint to the mainstream series' over-the-top, larger-than-life portrayals
• The reinterpretation of Q as a fed-up backroom boffin hampered by constant budget cuts is genuinely amusing
• The film brought several innovations that would be copied in the main series (as noted by another member, Xenia Onatopp was clearly inspired by Fatima Blush; The Living Daylights had a (much better) fight in a kitchen; and this was the first black Leiter)
However, at its worst the film is genuinely grotesque: I'd paid good money never to see Bond in denim dungarees or playing an arcade game again. Further, it manages to get an unfunny performance out of Rowan Atkinson, which I otherwise wouldn't have believed possible. I also dislike this incarnation of M, who is simply obnoxious, whilst Moneypenny (played by the normally excellent Pamela Salem) has little screen presence. Worst of all, it contains probably the most ridiculous plot contrivance in any Bond film (against quite some competition): Bond has a pen that fires explosive charges just when he's confronted by a sex-mad assassin who, improbably, wants him to write down that she's an excellent shag before she kills him.
More broadly, the film has a slightly washed-out, low-budget, TV-movie feel to it (as did Diamonds Are Forever), not helped by a dreadful score.
However, nothing exists in a vacuum, and when compared to Thunderball the film's shortcomings are much more obvious, as Thunderball did almost everything better. In particular, the comparison underscores how perfectly Lucianna Paluzzi played Fiona Volpe: by underplaying the character instead of making her an narcissistic dominatrix and fashion victim, she made her appear genuinely dangerous rather than camp. (It's worth noting that Volpe is the only character in any Bond film who genuinely appears to frighten Bond: the carnival chase is the only time Connery ever appears terrified.) Never Say Never Again also suffers badly in comparison to the contemporaneous Octopussy, which is my third favourite Bond film.
But is it the worst? Not by any means. I like it more than Moonraker and Tomorrow Never Dies and would rate it roughly alongside A View To A Kill and Die Another Day.
So, that's actually not so common then?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I agree that was a bit of a stretch...like they couldn't think of any plausible scenario for Bond to use a pen. What also bothers me about that scene is apparently Felix and co were watching the whole time, but didn't intervene. I have a similar complaint about the Marines at the end of Goldeneye...
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
1. Explanation for why Bond is at the Shrubland's clinic in the first place.
2. Using Domino as leverage to get the Vulcan pilot to do Spectre's bidding. The "clone plot" in Thunderball is embarrassingly bad.
Plus, a few classic 007 moments:
1. Bond taking over as a masseuse at the club.
2. Bond tricking the guard into thinking the cigarette case is a bomb.
3. Bond tango dancing and telling Domino that her brother is dead.
4. Bond smuggling his own food into the health clinic and seducing the nurse. (as opposed to the blackmail/rape in TB)
Overall, not the total loss that most fans here make it out to be...
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Is this not also a sort of "rape" , forcing his hands
All over a woman's body...... looks a bit creepy to me.
3 Bond dancing with Domino ?
This is so Bad, I'd have expected Leslie Neilson to do it
In a Police Squad film.
At the same time, we credit Bond with the ability to discern an opponent's veracity and motivation from the slightest of clues, often just instinct, but when it comes to women playing hard to get -- and no, I'm not saying all women play hard to get, but that these characters are presented as such in their time periods -- we doubt him immensely, even if the scene plays out to show he was correct.
I suppose it's like reinterpreting Bond (or nearly all characters in western film) as racist because he's a white male who lords himself over minorities, often killing them without concern, and who only recently seemed to exist in a world where anyone non-white could be an ally or equal. Each time he dispatches someone who isn't white, it must because because he harbors some ill will toward them based on skin color so some such and not merely because they are enemies in context. It doesn't matter if ultimately the scene shows that they were a legitimate threat or that Bond fought them for that reason. The fact that he is a white male is enough to see it for what it is -- racism.
It's a fine line - and the style is "cro magnon"
"Better make that two."
An innocent massage is not rape! I don't think that Bond was so starved for female attention that giving a massage even would have turned him on! But I know you're joking here.
But the tango is one of the worst scenes in the film, especially when he tells Domino her brother is dead. Auger plays it so much better. Definitely from Police Squad. Bond just had to offer her a cigarette.
NSNA is little more than a cheap Bond parody. Connery seems to enjoy poking fun at Bond, but he's playing it completely different from how he did in the 1960s and I don't feel like his original Bond is back.
It's clear in the scenes usually accused -- Pussy Galore and Pat Fearing -- that the women ultimately not only approve but are complicit. There's merely the notion that they are either reluctant or play hard to get in some fashion initially, but Bond ultimately reads their motives correctly.
Whether we like to admit it or not, playing hard to get is not an unknown tactic in the fine art of seduction. Certainly, the behavior has been studied in both animal and human interactions, and in the past when society may have frowned more on people being open and obvious sexually, more common than today.
Further, what's fascinating is that in order to see only rape, the women and their motives must be dismissed as immaterial. It's all about what Bond does, and apparently, the women are reduced to virtual non-entity, merely being the victims. They can have no other agenda or expectation other than to be the victim in order to fit the argument's point of view.
It's also pretty easy to get into a slippery slope if one ignores context. Bond could just as easily be accused of rape for getting involved with anyone he works with, as we could argue he uses his institutional authority to coerce women to sleep with him out of fear of reprisal, especially if they are in subordinate positions in the organization. Heck, we don't even need to go that far. If he's a white male in a patriarchal western society, then we could argue that any time he seduces a female he is somehow using his white male privilege, doubly so if she is a woman of color because now he's a racist, too. By this way of thinking, he's been sexually harassing Moneypenny for years.
But then we could flip the roles, too. Is Xenia Onatopp attempting to rape Bond when she forces herself on him in the sauna in GE? He draws his gun initially, after all, and then she kisses him and uses her body to stimulate him. He responds, but is he doing so out of fear? Coercion? She even seems to be getting off sexually as they fight -- he's not. The scene ends with him telling her no at gunpoint. Was this a sexual assault we just witnessed? Was Bond essentially raped?
Other scenes can be analyzed out of context, too. The psychologist in the same film -- is she raping Bond by using her position over his career to coerce him to have sex with her? After all, if she doesn't sign off on his medical evaluation, he has to be behind a desk. Could we say the same thing about the physician in DAD? Remember, we're ignoring the victim's motivations and only looking at the alleged aggressor in order to substantiate our claim. What he wants is meaningless.
Was Ruby sexually assaulting Bond when she chose to write her room number under his kilt and on his bare leg, knowing it would also sexually excite him? After all, she didn't ask first and he didn't give her permission to -- she acted uninvited. What about when Grace Jones' May Day gets on top of an obviously uncomfortable Bond in AVTAK to take charge of their sexual encounter -- which he the next day even remarks was in some way uncomfortable before he finally got off. We take it as a joke, but could it be read that Bond felt physically violated rather than merely enjoyed his sexual encounter?
Whether the style is cro magnon or not is a matter of taste. Certainly, the old school masculinity that Connery brings to bear is in sharp contrast to the general expectations among mainstream western cultures today of just what a man is supposed to be -- if there really is an easily identifiable definition anymore. I find it consistent with the general mores of the day -- Bond is an escapist spy and no angel, and in the same way people have all sorts of escapist fantasies about all sorts of things, including ironically rape, he might have fit the bill for many, then and now. But I think that's a far cry from labeling him a rapist.
Firemass used.I know if it had have been Roger ....... we"d
Have gotten loads of posts calling him a perv.
It's all good mate, just winding you up for using "cro magnon" -{
"Better make that two."
I think in the end Bond has often been super pervy but much of it feeds into a fantasy that women are ice princesses who are hard to get and somehow Bond melted their hearts when no (or few)other men could. This is the case with Pussy. Ice princess held down and kissed till she melted and fell (or was pushed) into James bed.
Again, you can watch these movies and see flaws, just be aware and enjoy the movie.