What's so bad about Never Say Never Again (1983)?

[TamaraSavannah]

Originally Posted by ironpony

Well I felt that if McClory was the one who came up with the Thunderball plot as well as the characters, then maybe it's his right to remake it, if that is what the court decided.

Plus I actually like NSNA better than Thunderball. I felt the villain Largo was hugely improved and felt that Bond was actually having fun in NSNA, where in TB, Connery looked bored and worn out at that time in the series.

Thunderball is in my bottom 3 worst Bond movies though, mostly cause I felt the villains were very poorly done, and a lot of the dialogue was very mundane. It feels like it's going through the motions cause the Bond filmmaker need another one for the road after Goldfinger, but seem to be meeting a quota, rather than wanting to make a good entry.

Plus the sped up action sequences, are very bad looking in my opinion and that also detracted for me a lot.

McClory is the reason for the opening in "For Your Eyes Only"......it was the demonstration, at the time, by the franchise that they didn't need Blofeld.

As I said, at the time for having given up on the franchise at Casino Royale, I don't know where "he" stands now.

And then, there are horse races. To each their own and I don't have a problem with Thunderball. For one thing, as previously mentioned, I love the seduction of Nurse Pat and 007's ending lines to her:

"Oh, I travel a lot. Sort of a professional trouble shooter.".

I suppose it might be the eras we come from to what we appreciate. Having seen flicks like Topkapi and The Vatican Affair for example, I might appreciate flicks of an earlier decade over their updated versions.

As far as the worst 007 flicks for me from Dr. No to Casino Royale (for I have watched no more since they turned 007 into a thug), that would be Casino Royale, View to a Kill, and Licence to Kill. What makes a movie bad, however, can be many different things and those various things can degrade the value of the flick in comparison to the others.

With Casino Royale, it was just that they took the sophistication of Bond as we had known him for decades and turned him into a boy in the candy store.

View to a Kill had the problem that Roger Moore was too old for the part and the Beach Boys. So why not Moonraker, too? A matter of points in that for all the downers, there were enough uppers as well, such as 007 engaging Chang with hand to hand, Corinne's demise, the exchange between Colonel Scott and General Gogol, an excellent villain and so forth. If there was a 4th place for the worse, however, Moonraker probably would be there.

Licence to Kill was just a little too disjointed in story. Things happened that just didn't feel right, from 007 & Felix skydiving into the wedding to 007 suddenly being concerned that the law wasn't going to do anything to 007 convincing Sanchez that his people were against him to surrendering Lupe to President Lopez. The violence was there and Sanchez was an excellent villain, but it lacks any element to make me want to see the film "just to see that part". Of course, it could be that with Timothy Dalton playing a book Bond, there was just enough missing for what is expected for a Bond movie. Perhaps what was missing, now that I think of it, was the acting element that Bond had gone to rogue. The story was there for that but there was no feeling from Dalton that 007 was on his final assignment. Perhaps but as I said, disjointed.

But....to each their own.