Connery's toupee is awful throughout this film, if they can't even get that right...
Otherwise, this is the first to have ho hum references to the character's iconography, though I suppose OP did that too with the snake charmer Bond theme. A lot of the old vokda martini stuff thrown in, taken up later by GE an awful lot and onwards.
Strangely I can see Craig's Bond becoming the taciturn hero portrayed here. Connery lacks the old swagger. And the film has dated very badly. And Kim Basinger is boring as hell. Plus I don't like the cinematography, even though its Douglas Slocombe.
Or the music, natch.
Most of all it sells out Connery's Bond for the Roger version. You don't really believe in this film at all, but it lacks the wit/music/special effects of MR.
It's probably a fair cop as far as calling Ebert's review overly sentimental---but then, nostalgia and sentiment go hand in hand with fandom...and Roger Ebert is a Bond fan, I think, despite having been corrupted by decades of professional film criticism.
Something I like about Ebert is that he goes from the gut in his film reviews...he will admit to liking a movie for sentimental reasons and so forth. Roeper I find always seems like he's reviewing films based on a checklist in a film studies text book. Case in point his review of CR in which he criticized opening with an action sequence where you don't know the exact issues involved (though to me it's like: Bond's chasing a bad guy, nuff said). Bond innovated that kind of opening! Prior to that you always had to wade through a bunch of exposition to get to the good stuff. Opening with a crash-bang action sequence makes me want to pay attention to the exposition, and this technique was of course later used for great films like Raiders of the Lost Ark. Sorry, as usual I'm way off topic, lol.
Of course, I'm actually not that keen on NSNA, to me it's a bit like when oldies artists will release a cover of their own song, like when Neil Sedaka did a slower version of "Breaking Up Is Hard To Do," for instance.
this guy Ebert is a moron! I can't believe his words...he has written good reviews about horrible films (like NSNA, which in my opinion is not even a Bond movie) and vice-versa, for instance, he basically hated cult classics and masterpieces like "A clockwork orange", "Le Locatiere" or "c'era una volta il west" just to name a few.
I don't know how people still read his crappy reviews...such a bad critic.
this guy Ebert is a moron! I can't believe his words...he has written good reviews about horrible films (like NSNA, which in my opinion is not even a Bond movie) and vice-versa, for instance, he basically hated cult classics and masterpieces like "A clockwork orange", "Le Locatiere" or "c'era una volta il west" just to name a few.
I don't know how people still read his crappy reviews...such a bad critic.
I love Kubrick...A Clockwork Orange rocks.
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
I don't know how people still read his crappy reviews...
Because, generally, he writes from the heart and not according to some soulless rubric or generic standard. The man loves movies and it's obvious from reading his reviews. When you read Ebert you don't get the impression that he places himself on some heavenly pedestal, like a snooty literary critic-- he comes across as a sincere movie lover, like all of us. What's important is not what he thinks of a film, but how he defends his opinion. I may not agree with everything he writes (in fact I vehemently agree with a lot of it), but I respect the fact that he is entitled to his own opinion and I must commend him for the manner in (and heart with) which he expresses his opinions.
this guy Ebert is a moron! I can't believe his words...he has written good reviews about horrible films (like NSNA, which in my opinion is not even a Bond movie) and vice-versa, for instance, he basically hated cult classics and masterpieces like "A clockwork orange", "Le Locatiere" or "c'era una volta il west" just to name a few.
I don't know how people still read his crappy reviews...such a bad critic.
I love Kubrick...A Clockwork Orange rocks.
I do agree with all of that, in fact I don't usually agree with Ebert's reviews, just like that he uses his instincts more than Roeper. Plus Roger did write some scripts for Russ Meyer, including Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, which rocks as hard as Clockwork Orange.
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
For what it's worth (admittedly not much) I didn't like Clockwork Orange at all-- I'd be curious to read Ebert's review to see why he didn't like it.
Empire, my friend. Just watched it on Saturday in fact. Yours?
Empire as well. By a long shot I might add-- it's probably my favorite movie of all time. {[]
For what it's worth I agreed entirely with Ebert's review of Clockwork. In particular: "It pretends to oppose the police state and forced mind control, but all it really does is celebrate the nastiness of its hero, Alex." This is the wrong forum to debate that though.
I don't care that much about ‘A Clockwork Orange’ either. Kubrick was a great director, but to me ACO is a weaker version of Anthony Burgess’s novel.
I consider both the novel and the film to be masterpieces. Nonetheless, I'm curious as to why you don't love the film?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I don't care that much about ‘A Clockwork Orange’ either. Kubrick was a great director, but to me ACO is a weaker version of Anthony Burgess’s novel.
I consider both the novel and the film to be masterpieces. Nonetheless, I'm curious as to why you don't love the film?
Its part of a problem I have with a few Kubrick films. He’s regarded as a profound filmmaker, but all his ideas come from other people. There’s a really sad story about Anthony Burgess walking with a friend and seeing a huge cinema advert for ‘Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange.’ He takes ideas from books and writers and always gets the credit for them. He’s made some films I think are brilliant. ‘Barry Lyndon,’ ‘The Shining,’ ‘Paths of Glory,’ but most of the time Kubrick leaves me cold.
I. Hate. This. Movie. I was up all night at a friend's house, she had rarely seen Bond films. This one happened to be on, so I thought I'd give it one last chance. But then came the slapstick action and inappropriate soundtrack, and I was done, completely done. Never again will I watch this dreck and I say again never again. Never again will I ever see Never Say Never Again. X-(
I don't know how people still read his crappy reviews...
Because, generally, he writes from the heart and not according to some soulless rubric or generic standard. The man loves movies and it's obvious from reading his reviews. When you read Ebert you don't get the impression that he places himself on some heavenly pedestal, like a snooty literary critic-- he comes across as a sincere movie lover, like all of us. What's important is not what he thinks of a film, but how he defends his opinion. I may not agree with everything he writes (in fact I vehemently agree with a lot of it), but I respect the fact that he is entitled to his own opinion and I must commend him for the manner in (and heart with) which he expresses his opinions.
Well, he doesn't write with his brains, to be a film critic one has to be partial and objective without letting emotions to overshadow the common sense and reason...he fails on that part.
How is a person supposed to be partial and objective at the same time? I would imagine you meant "impartial". But how can you watch a movie without the influence of emotion?
I can't think of one movie that is not produced to appeal to an emotion of some kind. While I don't always agree with Ebert's reviews, he is one critic whom I trust. If we are only supposed to view movies solely with our brains, then no moive is ever going to be acceptable. A movie may appeal to your brain, or your heart, or to your sense of humor, or sense of wonder. And of course, at times it may appeal to all those emotions that we all possess. I think some of Ebert's reviews are not as sharp as they were years ago, but after reviewing movies for as long as he has, it's be expected. It's obvious the man loves the art form and all it can offer.
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
Just watched this for the first time in about 15 years. Ok...it wasn't very good. The soundtrack was abysmal and much of it felt like a cartoon or a Saturday afternoon made-for-TV movie. On the plus side there was Sir Sean looking more fit and believable in the role than Moore did even in '73. Fatima Blush was a great character and Largo was charming and menacing at the same time. Not the worst Bond film I've ever seen, but nothing at all special. It must have been a treat to see Connery back in the role in the mid-80s, but that's really all this has going for it.
I would love to see a proper Ultimate Edition style DVD for NSNA with loads of extras. As it's not an official Bond entry it's unlikely this will happen, which is a shame. Especially as the story behind how it got made is so interesting.
I would love to see a proper Ultimate Edition style DVD for NSNA with loads of extras. As it's not an official Bond entry it's unlikely this will happen, which is a shame. Especially as the story behind how it got made is so interesting.
I'm a little late to this whole discussion, but what you just said kind of sums up my problem with the movie. It's not that it's a bad film. It's just that the fact it was made at all is more interesting than the film itself. It's more of a novelty than anything else. The title alludes to that: it's a wink to the audience. It's nice to see Connery, and Brandauer is great. But in the end, the novelty aspects of the film are what are most memorable.
It could be argued that NSNA is a precurser to CR. After all, you could believe that Craig's Bond becomes the diffident, quieter Connery Bond here, but not the Bond of GF. There's the black Felix Leiter. The sense that it's not quite of the official series (no Bond theme, no Q, no gunbarrel per usual). Plus the sense that it's very formulaic and we'v e seen it all before, the emphasis instead being on 007 himself and his relationship with his bosses etc, with CR being at the start of his career and NSNA at the close.
I'm a little late to this whole discussion, but what you just said kind of sums up my problem with the movie. It's not that it's a bad film. It's just that the fact it was made at all is more interesting than the film itself.
I totally agree. I feel the same way about CR 67, which is a fascinating production but not much of a film. That's why I would love to see somebody put together a decent DVD that goes into their making in great detail. But given the low reputations of NSNA and CR 67, it's probably not financially viable to do so.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
It must have been a treat to see Connery back in the role in the mid-80s
It certainly was, Laz my friend. For me, this was the highlight of 1983 B-)
In my opinion, a James Bond film should have James Bond in it---Therefore, despite its numerous shortcomings, NSNA has a distinct advantage over at least seven other Bond films I can think of
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Its part of a problem I have with a few Kubrick films. He’s regarded as a profound filmmaker, but all his ideas come from other people. There’s a really sad story about Anthony Burgess walking with a friend and seeing a huge cinema advert for ‘Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange.’ He takes ideas from books and writers and always gets the credit for them. He’s made some films I think are brilliant. ‘Barry Lyndon,’ ‘The Shining,’ ‘Paths of Glory,’ but most of the time Kubrick leaves me cold.
Hear hear. It was never Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange", it was Burgess's. It wasn't his "Shining", it was Stephen King's. And so on; it really p*sses me off to hear a director (even one as justly celebrated as Kubrick) take possessive credit for someone else's thoughts. Jurassic Park was Michael Crichton's idea, not Spielberg's. In the Bond field, Terence Young is guilty of this, as is Guy Hamilton (listen to the commentaries).
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited August 2007
Sorry about going OT...but the truth is that Kubrick's 'Shining' was more Kubrick's than Stephen King's---and King will be the first one to say so. He once famously said of Kubrick's film: "It's a great movie...but it's not my story." Having read the book, I'd have to agree. Kubrick basically 'pulled an Eon' with this one: He took the title, and the rudiments of the basic story, and then did his own thing.
I'm not sure that Kubrick was ever guilty of taking 'possessive credit' for other person's thoughts. He always gave full credit: "Based upon a novel by..." and so forth. As far as a director taking above-the-title billing, as in "Stanley Kubrick's [insert title here]"...I know, for a fact, that the Writer's Guild of America continues to contest such things legally, but I'm not sure that directors in question deserve absolute condemnation. Their creative investment in a given film is, after all, considerable.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Sorry about going OT...but the truth is that Kubrick's 'Shining' was more Kubrick's than Stephen King's---and King will be the first one to say so. He once famously said of Kubrick's film: "It's a great movie...but it's not my story." Having read the book, I'd have to agree.
I'm glad Kubrick went off in his own direction on The Shining. There's a bit about King and Kubrick in this month's Empire magazine. King says he knew they were never compatible when Kubrick told him that the idea of a ghost was a good thing, because it meant there is an afterlife. Personally I'm with Kubrick on that.
I'm not sure that Kubrick was ever guilty of taking 'possessive credit' for other person's thoughts. He always gave full credit: "Based upon a novel by..."
Kubrick was definitely a collaborative filmmaker. I guess the people I have a real problem with are the critics who write about A Clockwork Orange, and who tend to write Burgess, out of the equation, when so much of what works best in that movie comes from the novel.
How about if in 1983, we were given Stanley Kubrick's Never Say Never Again?
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
It certainly was, Laz my friend. For me, this was the highlight of 1983 B-)
I bet. The film is significant for me in that it was my (then 8 year-old self's) first exposure to Bond as I remember my parents getting all excited about the fact that Connery was in this movie.
In my opinion, a James Bond film should have James Bond in it
Sorry about going OT...but the truth is that Kubrick's 'Shining' was more Kubrick's than Stephen King's---and King will be the first one to say so. He once famously said of Kubrick's film: "It's a great movie...but it's not my story." Having read the book, I'd have to agree.
I'm glad Kubrick went off in his own direction on The Shining. There's a bit about King and Kubrick in this month's Empire magazine. King says he knew they were never compatible when Kubrick told him that the idea of a ghost was a good thing, because it meant there is an afterlife. Personally I'm with Kubrick on that.
I'm not sure that Kubrick was ever guilty of taking 'possessive credit' for other person's thoughts. He always gave full credit: "Based upon a novel by..."
Kubrick was definitely a collaborative filmmaker. I guess the people I have a real problem with are the critics who write about A Clockwork Orange, and who tend to write Burgess, out of the equation, when so much of what works best in that movie comes from the novel.
How about if in 1983, we were given Stanley Kubrick's Never Say Never Again?
There's really nothing new about a writer's work becoming identified in the public's mind as the filmmaker's. I suppose the classic example would be a film that was a huge hit when I was a teenager. You may have heard of it: "Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet."
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
There's really nothing new about a writer's work becoming identified in the public's mind as the filmmaker's. I suppose the classic example would be a film that was a huge hit when I was a teenager. You may have heard of it: "Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet."
But Shakespeare is in the Public Doman...thank God, or we'd have more lawyers to kill )
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
Oh, it wasn't? Nah I'm not disappointed...and I'm not pretending. I just thought it was Dalton.
Otherwise, this is the first to have ho hum references to the character's iconography, though I suppose OP did that too with the snake charmer Bond theme. A lot of the old vokda martini stuff thrown in, taken up later by GE an awful lot and onwards.
Strangely I can see Craig's Bond becoming the taciturn hero portrayed here. Connery lacks the old swagger. And the film has dated very badly. And Kim Basinger is boring as hell. Plus I don't like the cinematography, even though its Douglas Slocombe.
Or the music, natch.
Most of all it sells out Connery's Bond for the Roger version. You don't really believe in this film at all, but it lacks the wit/music/special effects of MR.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Something I like about Ebert is that he goes from the gut in his film reviews...he will admit to liking a movie for sentimental reasons and so forth. Roeper I find always seems like he's reviewing films based on a checklist in a film studies text book. Case in point his review of CR in which he criticized opening with an action sequence where you don't know the exact issues involved (though to me it's like: Bond's chasing a bad guy, nuff said). Bond innovated that kind of opening! Prior to that you always had to wade through a bunch of exposition to get to the good stuff. Opening with a crash-bang action sequence makes me want to pay attention to the exposition, and this technique was of course later used for great films like Raiders of the Lost Ark. Sorry, as usual I'm way off topic, lol.
Of course, I'm actually not that keen on NSNA, to me it's a bit like when oldies artists will release a cover of their own song, like when Neil Sedaka did a slower version of "Breaking Up Is Hard To Do," for instance.
I don't know how people still read his crappy reviews...such a bad critic.
I love Kubrick...A Clockwork Orange rocks.
Because, generally, he writes from the heart and not according to some soulless rubric or generic standard. The man loves movies and it's obvious from reading his reviews. When you read Ebert you don't get the impression that he places himself on some heavenly pedestal, like a snooty literary critic-- he comes across as a sincere movie lover, like all of us. What's important is not what he thinks of a film, but how he defends his opinion. I may not agree with everything he writes (in fact I vehemently agree with a lot of it), but I respect the fact that he is entitled to his own opinion and I must commend him for the manner in (and heart with) which he expresses his opinions.
I do agree with all of that, in fact I don't usually agree with Ebert's reviews, just like that he uses his instincts more than Roeper. Plus Roger did write some scripts for Russ Meyer, including Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, which rocks as hard as Clockwork Orange.
I actually happened to read it online just a little while ago. Google Ebert Clockwork Orange, should be easy to find. {[]
Will do. What's your favorite Star Wars movie, by the way?
Empire as well. By a long shot I might add-- it's probably my favorite movie of all time. {[]
For what it's worth I agreed entirely with Ebert's review of Clockwork. In particular: "It pretends to oppose the police state and forced mind control, but all it really does is celebrate the nastiness of its hero, Alex." This is the wrong forum to debate that though.
Also, you might like this.
Its part of a problem I have with a few Kubrick films. He’s regarded as a profound filmmaker, but all his ideas come from other people. There’s a really sad story about Anthony Burgess walking with a friend and seeing a huge cinema advert for ‘Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange.’ He takes ideas from books and writers and always gets the credit for them. He’s made some films I think are brilliant. ‘Barry Lyndon,’ ‘The Shining,’ ‘Paths of Glory,’ but most of the time Kubrick leaves me cold.
Well, he doesn't write with his brains, to be a film critic one has to be partial and objective without letting emotions to overshadow the common sense and reason...he fails on that part.
I can't think of one movie that is not produced to appeal to an emotion of some kind. While I don't always agree with Ebert's reviews, he is one critic whom I trust. If we are only supposed to view movies solely with our brains, then no moive is ever going to be acceptable. A movie may appeal to your brain, or your heart, or to your sense of humor, or sense of wonder. And of course, at times it may appeal to all those emotions that we all possess. I think some of Ebert's reviews are not as sharp as they were years ago, but after reviewing movies for as long as he has, it's be expected. It's obvious the man loves the art form and all it can offer.
I'm a little late to this whole discussion, but what you just said kind of sums up my problem with the movie. It's not that it's a bad film. It's just that the fact it was made at all is more interesting than the film itself. It's more of a novelty than anything else. The title alludes to that: it's a wink to the audience. It's nice to see Connery, and Brandauer is great. But in the end, the novelty aspects of the film are what are most memorable.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I totally agree. I feel the same way about CR 67, which is a fascinating production but not much of a film. That's why I would love to see somebody put together a decent DVD that goes into their making in great detail. But given the low reputations of NSNA and CR 67, it's probably not financially viable to do so.
It certainly was, Laz my friend. For me, this was the highlight of 1983 B-)
In my opinion, a James Bond film should have James Bond in it---Therefore, despite its numerous shortcomings, NSNA has a distinct advantage over at least seven other Bond films I can think of
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Hear hear. It was never Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange", it was Burgess's. It wasn't his "Shining", it was Stephen King's. And so on; it really p*sses me off to hear a director (even one as justly celebrated as Kubrick) take possessive credit for someone else's thoughts. Jurassic Park was Michael Crichton's idea, not Spielberg's. In the Bond field, Terence Young is guilty of this, as is Guy Hamilton (listen to the commentaries).
I'm not sure that Kubrick was ever guilty of taking 'possessive credit' for other person's thoughts. He always gave full credit: "Based upon a novel by..." and so forth. As far as a director taking above-the-title billing, as in "Stanley Kubrick's [insert title here]"...I know, for a fact, that the Writer's Guild of America continues to contest such things legally, but I'm not sure that directors in question deserve absolute condemnation. Their creative investment in a given film is, after all, considerable.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm glad Kubrick went off in his own direction on The Shining. There's a bit about King and Kubrick in this month's Empire magazine. King says he knew they were never compatible when Kubrick told him that the idea of a ghost was a good thing, because it meant there is an afterlife. Personally I'm with Kubrick on that.
Kubrick was definitely a collaborative filmmaker. I guess the people I have a real problem with are the critics who write about A Clockwork Orange, and who tend to write Burgess, out of the equation, when so much of what works best in that movie comes from the novel.
How about if in 1983, we were given Stanley Kubrick's Never Say Never Again?
I bet. The film is significant for me in that it was my (then 8 year-old self's) first exposure to Bond as I remember my parents getting all excited about the fact that Connery was in this movie.
Agreed.
There's really nothing new about a writer's work becoming identified in the public's mind as the filmmaker's. I suppose the classic example would be a film that was a huge hit when I was a teenager. You may have heard of it: "Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet."
But Shakespeare is in the Public Doman...thank God, or we'd have more lawyers to kill
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM