ronnie@mit-eddie.UUCP (Ronnie Schnell) (10/08/83)
All the other characters in the movie were played by people I have never seen before. (I can accept the fact that "M" was different in this movie as well as in Octopussy since he passed away). And my favorite part of all the Bond movies was missing. The Bond music wasn't there! Just some poorly written song that resembled "Copa Cabana" (Never...Never say Never....Never...Never say Never...). Anyway, believe it or not, I liked it as a movie, but not that much as a Bond movie. Anyone share my opinion? -Ron (..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!ronnie)
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (10/09/83)
I saw the new Bond film tonight, and while I enjoyed it very much, I was
also disappointed by the many traditions that they gave up. While it is
quite understandable that there should be a new M (this guy was even
pretty good, in a weird sort of way), I thought it was stupid to trade
in Miss Monnypenny and Q. I think that the CIA agent was supposed to be
the same character played by Jack Lord ("Hawaii 5-O") some movies ago,
and I thought that it was silly to attempt this continuity on such a
minor character without using the same actor. I also missed the nude
silouettes under the titles, although I admit that putting real action
under them is a close second. I spent the entire movie waiting for him
to say "Bond, James Bond"; he eventually did say it, but not with any
feeling. He was at a party in Casino Royale, but he didn't even go near
the Baccarat table (that was a roulette table he was hanging around for
a moment).
So, after all this, why did I enjoy it? The action was good. There
were a number of humorous touches. The love scene with Fatima was a bit
shocking; there was an small child (around eight years old, I'd guess,
but I'm bad at that) with his parents in front of me, and I was
wondering how they must have felt. On the other hand, the opening scene
was wonderfully done.
--
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmarsheppard@parsec.UUCP (10/11/83)
#R:mit-eddi:-79300:parsec:38900007:000:1052 parsec!sheppard Oct 10 12:48:00 1983 Well, just to plug my two cents worth, it's a good flick - certainly much better than Octopussy. And, I was disappointed that they chose to have a Moneypenny in it (somehow, it's not the same when Lois Maxwell isn't playing the part). I would rather have had someone completely different (or not at all). The lack of the old Bond music was a little disturbing at first, but not noticeable once the movie got started. Just for the record, I can remember at least 4 or 5 Felix Lighters in Bond movies (starting with Jack Lord in Dr. No), and ALL of them were different actors (David Hedison played him in Live and Let Die). This was the first black Felix that I can remember, though. I thought it was a nice touch. The best thing about the flick is that it was done completely tongue- in-cheek, like it should be. Sean Connery looked like he had a pretty good time making it. Does anyone know what the budget was? I mean, it would have been really nice if they could have written an entirely new story, rather than revamp Thunderball. Andy Sheppard
ROBINSON.HENR@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/11/83)
This message is empty.
dje@5941ux.UUCP (10/11/83)
Here's a dissenting review of the new Bond flick. NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN
is one of the poorest Bond movies. Yes, it has its good points. Sean Connery
is really the only man for the James Bond role, and he does play it well in
this movie. There is some nicely done tongue-in-cheek humor (e.g. the urine
sample). But the movie as a whole is very dull, yes, dull. The previous
Bond movies have had stunts I've found thrilling and exhilarating, but there
was no real excitement here. The twists in the plot were few and far between,
the opening credits mundane, the musical scoring forgettable, and the gadgetry
almost nonexistent. The plot as a whole didn't really hang together, even when
I suspended my disbelief more than for the previous films. And, except for
Connery, none of the actors were impressive at all.
So, don't expect too much from this film.
Dave Ellis / Bell Labs, Piscataway NJ
...!{hocda,ihnp4}!houxm!houxf!5941ux!dje
...!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!houxf!5941ux!djemcewan@uiucdcs.UUCP (10/12/83)
#R:mit-eddi:-79300:uiucdcs:10700041:000:685 uiucdcs!mcewan Oct 11 13:37:00 1983 Is it more than coincidence that the plot was almostly exactly the same as that of Thunderball. /* ---------- */ Does anyone know what the budget was? I mean, it would have been really nice if they could have written an entirely new story, rather than revamp Thunderball. /* ---------- */ My understanding is that the people who produced NSNA were involved in the making of Thunderball and got the right to make a remake of Thunderball when they got the rights to Thunderball the first time. They DID NOT have the right to make another James Bond movie because the James Bond character is owned by the people who make the Roger Moore movies (who tried to have NSNA killed in court.)
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (10/12/83)
Andy Sheppard (parsec!sheppard) says that he stopped noticing the lack of familiar Bond music after a while. Well, I knew that there was something I really missed, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but that was it for me. Every time a big action scene started I expected to here the familiar theme, and it was just not quite the same (i.e., good, but different) without it. Several people have pointed out my mistake in thinking that Jack Lord was the only one to play Felix. I never did have much of a memory for minor characters, so I never realized that Felix was a character in any other movies. Was Blofeld ever called by name (or by reference) in this film. He had a relatively small part compared to his previous appearances, and it seemed to me that the only way to realize that he was actually Blofeld was from the cat. Wasn't Largo the name of a villain in another Bond film (the one which had Topol in it?)? -- Barry Margolin ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar
eric@aplvax.UUCP (10/14/83)
Blofeld was not even inthe original "Thunderball" movie, so I suspect that there may have been copyright problems. As for Largo, the named was used for the main villain in "Thunderball". -- eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric
msc@qubix.UUCP (Mark Callow) (10/19/83)
Blofeld definitely was in the original Thunderball. He presided over
a meeting of Spectre where he fried one of his minions and where the
bomb extortion operation was discussed. He was half hidden behind
a screen however.
--
Mark Callow, Saratoga, CA.
...{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!
...{ittvax,amd70}!qubix!msc
decwrl!qubix!msc@Berkeley.ARPAsra@hocda.UUCP (10/20/83)
Just saw "Never Say Never Again". They should have called it "Can You
Do Thunderball Again". I read the original "Thunderball" book by Ian Fleming
a few months ago and the movie was the book almost word for word, even the
gags were the same. In spite of the bad reviews the movie has received, I
think it is one of the best Bond movies I have seen in a long time. Sort
of reminiscent of the early films like "Dr. No" before they got too absurd.
>From what I understand, this movie was different from the other Bond films
in that it was done by a different director, producer and studio. The original
Bond producer, "Cubby" Broccoli, it still around, and is responsible for
"Octopussy". He still has the rights to the original Fleming titles, the
Bond music, and the other elements that make Bond Bond. I guess the newer
Bond films were getting so far away from the books that someone wanted to
make a movie of the "real" James Bond. I have always believed Sean Connery
was molded for the part anyway.
Some of the gags in the film (most from the book) were very funny. Some of
the more memorable gags:
SCENE: Bond in doctor's examination room sitting on a table, nurse
near the back of the room holding a beaker.
NURSE: Mr. Bond, would you fill this beaker please?
BOND: From here?
SCENE: Bond in a US Navy sub, talking to the commander
BOND: Do you have a <some code>?
COMMANDER: How do you know about that? It's top secret!
BOND: I read a Russian translation of one of your service manuals.
SCENE: The "bad" guy at a computer terminal, instructing the computer
to replace the dummy warheads in the missiles with nuclear
warheads. A female synthesized voice acknowledges his command.
COMPUTER: Dummy warheads replaced with nuclear warheads. Thank You.
Have a nice day.
Some of the things in the movie are difficult to understand without reading
the book, as the beginning was omitted. In the book, the first few chapters
were about how and why the "bad guys" wanted and got the missiles.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie and would recommend it to anyone, along with
the original Fleming novels.
A bit of trivia: Ian Fleming, in addition to writing about 15 Bond novels,
wrote the children's story "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang".
Scott Abbot
Bell Labs, Merrimack Valley
mvuxb!sa or hocda!sraCaro.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA (11/07/83)
Saw "Never Say Never Again" last weekend. I'm told that the plot for this 007 encore is identical to that of Thunderball, but since I'm not familiar with that particular story I shouldn't say "Yay" or "Nay" to it. Sean Connery, paunchy and suffering from denture wearers hiss STILL manages to carry off the classic 007 macho image that we all know and love. In fact, I think that he has improved with age in some ways. This older 007 is more whimsical and less serious than previous Sean Connery 007's. I won't bother comparing him to that other fellow, whats-his-name. For some reason (legal?) there is no traditional James Bond music, and no familiar actors for M, Q, and Moneypenny. The new "M" refers to his "predessesor" in one scene, so I guess the other guy retired or got offed. But Max Von Sidewinder is back to play Spectre's head honcho, only now we see his face!!! The plot is fairly straight-forward. Good ol' Spectre manages to swipe two nukes from the USAF. Number 1, His Supreme Evilness and Cat Lover, threatens to blow up the two bombs unless all of the NATO countries cough up 25% of their oil budgets. Nasty, nasty! But that's not the best part. The best part of the movie is the conflict between 007 and two of Spectre's agents, a gorgeous female assasin named Fatima Lusche (or Balusche, or something like that), and a mean son-of-a-Nazi named Largo who rides around in this HUGE yacht. We're talking mega-bucks here. For the first time, we see some character development (actually, anti-development, as you will see...) of the BAD GUYS! I don't want to give anything away, but for once we get a glimpse of just WHY these otherwise brilliant and beautiful people turn to evil. Good stuff! The movie is long (approx. 3 hours), but it didn't have a boring moment. It had plenty of gratuitous sex and violence (in fact, old Q actually says to 007, "I say, good to have you back! What this place has been lacking is some gratuitous sex and violence!" -- or something like that.) Lots of beasts too, including killer sharks and vultures. On the Commodore's Scale of Merit (six bells being all's well), I'd give thisun a 4. Commodore Perry
usadaca@uiucuxc.UUCP (11/18/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-1341900:uiucuxc:31100001:000:484 uiucuxc!usadaca Nov 17 13:31:00 1983 ssassin was named Fatima Blush. the plot was a remake. also, the original M. (the actor who portayed him) is deceased. Sir A. Broccoli has the legal rights to the theme music and a lot of other stuff. however, the rights to this movie were not part of Broccoli's property. a lot of other ian fleming james bond stuff is still being developed by flemings heirs. sure hope we see more of the best bond ever....but, who plays bond when connery gets really decrepit? any nominations??