Grittier look and a better showcase of location of the Bahamas over the standard, cliched and basically tepid depiction of India in OP, better direction in NSNA over Glen's restricted hand, better performances in NSNA by one of the single best casts for any Bond film (Brandauer's tied with Robert Davi as the best '80's villain) over OP's fairly average cast (Louis Jordan hams it so, so bad though, and poor Kabir Bedi is WASTED in this), and chiefly Connery's better than Moore in this. OP obviously is better as far as the score and a lot of its action is concerned, but I appreciate NSNA allows for more intrigue to take place.
Sorry, but I do not agree with any of this. India looks beautiful in Octopussy. I don't feel the direction is better in either film. Brandauer overacts and is too childish to be menacing. At least Jourdan has charm. Kabir Bedi is menacing as the classic Bond henchman. OP has Steven Berkoff, one of the greatest actors to appear in any Bond film, and he puts in the work. If anyone hams it in these films, it's Connery in NSNA. He looks like he's having a good time, but he's just gliding through the film and looks as if he's on holiday. Roger Moore gives a much better performance with far more range, and he takes his film more seriously. There's no intrigue in NSNA, while it fills Octopussy. Octopussy may have a lot of cheese, but NSNA feels more like a Bond spoof.
The only time NSNA feels lesser than a spy thriller is with its Small-Fawcett character, and he's mostly depicted as a caricature of English beraucracy and ethnic superiority. Beyond that, it doesn't feel any more of a spoof than Moonraker or even Octopussy does (whose mechanic alligator is sillier than ANYTHING in NSNA), so its hardly a fact either.
What is evident to anyone who isn't biased against the film is how excellent Brandauer in the role. He's really better than the part actually needs him to be, as he sells the menace, the anger, the petulance but also the vast intelligence behind the man. He also makes it clear he's mentally deranged, and that his downfall is instigated by this due to his vast underestimating of Bond. I rank as high as Sanchez because those two are the only villains who had any thought put behind them as three-dimensional people, certainly by the actors themselves. If anything, its not Brandauer who overracts, he underacts, but does so with the atmost subtlety - its wonder Dominique basically tried to replicate this performance, verbatim, for QOS, but failed colossally. Oh, by the way, Brandauer really is one of Europe's greatest ever actors, so a bit respect there.
In contrast, Jordan doesn't convince in the slightest, and he relies on his funny accent to provide for menace (they even say so in the documentary, pretty much), and Berkoff is fine, but he isn't really playing more than the stereotypical mad general type. I like him in this though, but its not a layered performance in the slightest, and Berkoff is not known for dexterity or depth in his career.
I like Bedi in everything he does, mostly, but he's an Oddjob/Jaws type but with nothing to distinguish him. He has no personality distinct from any of the other henchmen, at all. In contrast, Fatima Blush is the definitive camp villainess, complete with energy and vitality that the film sorely misses when she's killed. EON basically stole this personality again with Onatopp in GE, but Janssen is such a good actress she sold the part distinct.
As for Connery, well, he hardly has it up, does he? In fact, that's not a valid interpretation of his efforts here, at all. He definitively anchors the film, giving it weight and purpose as Bond, playing and looking the part for the first time like he did in the early '60's. I don't see how his performance here is worse than anything he did in the past, honestly.
Also, India hardly feels distinct enough, especially after the lovely photography the producers provided for Greece in the previous entry. Its a letdown in comparison.
And to add, I like Glover in FYEO very much, but I don't think we see his character nearly enough to get a good handle on him. He's a fantastic actor, and he's good as Kristatos, but his character is never as memorable but most of the villains in that decade, sadly.
I will certainly watch this film when it comes on the TV. There have been some James Bond films that I haven't even been able to watch to the end because I thought they were very bad (Moonraker, Diamonds Are Forever and Spectre). Because you think it is worth my time to watch Never Say Never Again then I will.
Check post 28 Joshua - you've already seen it. You didn't like it then, you definitely won't like it now!
"Everyone knows rock n' roll attained perfection in 1974; It's a scientific fact". - Homer J Simpson
I prefer it over TB, personally, so... you know. I mean, its not very polite you can predict his opinion based on his opinion on the original. I liked Goldfinger, for instance, but I don't like A View To A Kill, at all (almost).
I will certainly watch this film when it comes on the TV. There have been some James Bond films that I haven't even been able to watch to the end because I thought they were very bad (Moonraker, Diamonds Are Forever and Spectre). Because you think it is worth my time to watch Never Say Never Again then I will.
Check post 28 Joshua - you've already seen it. You didn't like it then, you definitely won't like it now!
Thankyou. I cannot remember seeing this film! So It must have had a good impression on me! )
...What is evident to anyone who isn't biased against the film is how excellent Brandauer in the role. ...Oh, by the way, Brandauer really is one of Europe's greatest ever actors, so a bit respect there.
Seriously? Anyone who doesn't acknowledge Brandauer's excellence in NSNA is biased against the film? Please. 8-) Also, his overall prowess as an actor is absolutely true, but also irrelevant to the question at hand.
FWIW, I think Brandauer is fine, but nothing special. I agree with you that he does a great job of showing Largo as unhinged, but there's not much menace in the man. He's more like a spoiled, rich child, less baby-ish than Pleasance's Blofeld but of the same ilk. But maybe I'm just biased against the film.
I was raised with the idea that Connery is the best Bond. I was also raised with the idea that all of Connery's Bond films were the best, including Diamonds Are Forever and Never Say Never Again. I still really like Diamonds Are Forever, but now Never Say Never Again does nothing for me. I don't feel like it's a pre-determined bias that I have against NSNA. I just don't like it at all now after having grown up watching it. But I still like DAF, which is one of the most hated Bond films here.
DAF has always been my mother's favorite Bond film, but for me, its the one Bond that I like less and less as time goes on (though QOS is also there). It looks cheap, the cast don't care and Hamilton doesn't remember what made Bond work at all. Its far, far more of a mess than NSNA actually was, because despite the chaoting creation its had, its still largely entertaining, and I like it as much as I ever had. In fact, learning more of its creation, and the way under which it was made in, makes me appreciate it more and feel sympathy when EON cast light at how it was actively sabotaging this one-off from the gate, and even late into its release.
Comments
Sorry, but I do not agree with any of this. India looks beautiful in Octopussy. I don't feel the direction is better in either film. Brandauer overacts and is too childish to be menacing. At least Jourdan has charm. Kabir Bedi is menacing as the classic Bond henchman. OP has Steven Berkoff, one of the greatest actors to appear in any Bond film, and he puts in the work. If anyone hams it in these films, it's Connery in NSNA. He looks like he's having a good time, but he's just gliding through the film and looks as if he's on holiday. Roger Moore gives a much better performance with far more range, and he takes his film more seriously. There's no intrigue in NSNA, while it fills Octopussy. Octopussy may have a lot of cheese, but NSNA feels more like a Bond spoof.
glover/ gothard
davi/del toro
and tied with walken/jones
James Bond- Licence To Kill
What is evident to anyone who isn't biased against the film is how excellent Brandauer in the role. He's really better than the part actually needs him to be, as he sells the menace, the anger, the petulance but also the vast intelligence behind the man. He also makes it clear he's mentally deranged, and that his downfall is instigated by this due to his vast underestimating of Bond. I rank as high as Sanchez because those two are the only villains who had any thought put behind them as three-dimensional people, certainly by the actors themselves. If anything, its not Brandauer who overracts, he underacts, but does so with the atmost subtlety - its wonder Dominique basically tried to replicate this performance, verbatim, for QOS, but failed colossally. Oh, by the way, Brandauer really is one of Europe's greatest ever actors, so a bit respect there.
In contrast, Jordan doesn't convince in the slightest, and he relies on his funny accent to provide for menace (they even say so in the documentary, pretty much), and Berkoff is fine, but he isn't really playing more than the stereotypical mad general type. I like him in this though, but its not a layered performance in the slightest, and Berkoff is not known for dexterity or depth in his career.
I like Bedi in everything he does, mostly, but he's an Oddjob/Jaws type but with nothing to distinguish him. He has no personality distinct from any of the other henchmen, at all. In contrast, Fatima Blush is the definitive camp villainess, complete with energy and vitality that the film sorely misses when she's killed. EON basically stole this personality again with Onatopp in GE, but Janssen is such a good actress she sold the part distinct.
As for Connery, well, he hardly has it up, does he? In fact, that's not a valid interpretation of his efforts here, at all. He definitively anchors the film, giving it weight and purpose as Bond, playing and looking the part for the first time like he did in the early '60's. I don't see how his performance here is worse than anything he did in the past, honestly.
Also, India hardly feels distinct enough, especially after the lovely photography the producers provided for Greece in the previous entry. Its a letdown in comparison.
And to add, I like Glover in FYEO very much, but I don't think we see his character nearly enough to get a good handle on him. He's a fantastic actor, and he's good as Kristatos, but his character is never as memorable but most of the villains in that decade, sadly.
Be fair, he is getting on a bit.
Check post 28 Joshua - you've already seen it. You didn't like it then, you definitely won't like it now!
Thankyou. I cannot remember seeing this film! So It must have had a good impression on me!
FWIW, I think Brandauer is fine, but nothing special. I agree with you that he does a great job of showing Largo as unhinged, but there's not much menace in the man. He's more like a spoiled, rich child, less baby-ish than Pleasance's Blofeld but of the same ilk. But maybe I'm just biased against the film.