Regarding the bucket I don´t think Roger did a lot of real flying by himself in OP and sorry, but your dislike of Brandauer doesn´t make it a bad movie…
1 Like
I’d say with some elements NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is the more entertaining film than THUNDERBALL. That weird training exercise at the beginning, the weird M (that is actually seven years younger than Bond). And then it was simply a joy to see Connery back (with a Bentley!) and the fight at Shrublands was a treat.
After that it’s a bit hit and miss for a while. Having Petachi addicted to heroin seemed like a risky thing, killing him with a thrown snake (that didn’t do him any harm) was almost as scurrilous and complicated as Helga Brandt’s scheme to kill Bond.
In some scenes the film is quite enjoyable - but a lot of it is really standard 80s action fare. And it’s doubtful this remake would have interested audiences hadn’t it been for Connery’s return. That was the main attraction. The rest was a reheated stew of an already passé story, sprinkled with some might-have-been.
7 Likes
And Bernie Casey was a cool Felix in this one who looked like he could really do some damage, I liked the relationship between him and Bond: real buddies but battleworn…
5 Likes
Indeed, one would have liked to see these two together more often.
2 Likes
Someone recently asked me if Bond fans are resistant to change. In my view, yes and no. On both sides, fans and behind the scenes, in all media.
EON: it’s been shown in many ways, in particular with the general audience. Think about the jarring tone in particular with going from Moore to Dalton. It’s in someways better that the same creative team behind Moore’s later movies, as Dalton’s. As new writers and a new director would have made the shift more noticeable, in more ways than one. It was a damned if you do, damned if you don’t moment for Bond, perhaps the biggest one of all. Simply due to change. Or look at Moore, always signing up at the last minute. If NSNA wasn’t released, we probably would have gotten James Brolin as Bond. For me, another reason I wish NSNA was never made. This is an example of the EON behind the scenes people not wanting change. Arguably, out of ego. But it overall did hurt Dalton at the time. The same thing arguably happened with EON with Daniel Craig and their main writers, in the last era. EON didn’t want to change. Now they arguably have no choice. The fans probably want a number of changes for Bond’s cinematic future.
IFP: They held onto John Gardener for too long. It was shown in the creative side of him. Raymond Benson actually did the right amount. But you could tell when he was a beginning author, and when he wanted out. Then, IFP let the adult Bond sit unfairly, when a new adult novel could have easily fit in (a novelization of Everything or Nothing would be one of my choices). Now, for the fans side of things, for IFP. Since DMC by Faulks, the fans have had mixed feelings about IFP’s choices. The “Faulks writing as Fleming” enraged a lot of fans, in particular because Faulks added nothing new, or pushed Bond forward. When Deaver did his own spin on Bond, people felt like it wasn’t Bond, particularly Bond’s character. When IFP heard this, they stayed in Fleming’s timeline. William Boyd and Solo was a true mixed bag for both fans and IFP. It did arguably paid off with the Horowitz beginning, middle, and end Bond trilogy. Next, when IFP announced spin-offs, fans weren’t happy. The Kim Sherwood duology (hopefully trilogy) was given mixed opinions (although A Spy Like Me has more positive than negative opinions). A unique experiment for sure. Now, let’s see if The Q Mysteries (Quantum of Menace) will work. IFP planned more than one story for these, so it’s truly a test of faith. I have always been happy that these spinoffs are in the present day. That’s when Fleming wrote his classic stories. Setting Bond and his world in the past isn’t a big creative risk taker. As fans have often said, no one can truly write like Fleming. And it’s a hard fact that fans have to face.
1 Like