TOTAL FILM BOND SPECIAL impressions...

Jimmy Bond

I liked it, even if a little shallow and with repeated-material (after 40 years, you can only restate a thing too much). But I'm really mad of the magazine's insistence that NSNA never happened.

Seriously, this prejudice on NSNA must stop. Its not a horrible film, yes its not the best Bond ever, but its Bond. Not EON Bond, but Bond. Period.

What do you think?

cbdouble07

Jimmy Bond wrote:

I liked it, even if a little shallow and with repeated-material (after 40 years, you can only restate a thing too much). But I'm really mad of the magazine's insistence that NSNA never happened.

Seriously, this prejudice on NSNA must stop. Its not a horrible film, yes its not the best Bond ever, but its Bond. Not EON Bond, but Bond. Period.

What do you think?

Well I also tend to pretend that NSNA does not exist. I consider it a generally dull film with none of the qualities of a typical Bond film, aside from Connery who was a bit old by this point. And Connery's performance wasn't exactly equal to the performances he put on in his prime. The film didn't feel like a Bond film to me. No gunbarrel, no titles sequence, no great Bond score, etc. The fact that it is a remake of perhaps my favorite Bond film perhaps indicates that I should have enjoyed it, but I considered it garbage compared to Thunderball. I wish NSNA was never made, but since it was I just pretend it wasn't. It's not part of the James Bond series anyway, just an attempt by a guy with no connection to the official series to get a bit of fame.

Jimmy Bond

cbdouble07 wrote:

Jimmy Bond wrote:

I liked it, even if a little shallow and with repeated-material (after 40 years, you can only restate a thing too much). But I'm really mad of the magazine's insistence that NSNA never happened.

Seriously, this prejudice on NSNA must stop. Its not a horrible film, yes its not the best Bond ever, but its Bond. Not EON Bond, but Bond. Period.

What do you think?

Well I also tend to pretend that NSNA does not exist. I consider it a generally dull film with none of the qualities of a typical Bond film, aside from Connery who was a bit old by this point. And Connery's performance wasn't exactly equal to the performances he put on in his prime. The film didn't feel like a Bond film to me. No gunbarrel, no titles sequence, no great Bond score, etc. The fact that it is a remake of perhaps my favorite Bond film perhaps indicates that I should have enjoyed it, but I considered it garbage compared to Thunderball. I wish NSNA was never made, but since it was I just pretend it wasn't. It's not part of the James Bond series anyway, just an attempt by a guy with no connection to the official series to get a bit of fame.

I can't describe how I feel by your post. So I won't.

All I say is, if one prefers AVTAK and MR to NSNA, has a serious prob with himself. Period.

Harry Palmer

I don't mind NSNA. It's not my favourite Bond film but it's not a disgrace either. The score is pretty bad but that's the only thing that I find spectacularly below average.
--Brandauer strikes me as a pretty good villain and though Sean Connery may have been a little old (still looking better than the last Moore), since his advancing age was written in the script I did not mind it much.

Jimmy Bond

Harry Palmer wrote:

I don't mind NSNA. It's not my favourite Bond film but it's not a disgrace either. The score is pretty bad but that's the only thing that I find spectacularly below average.
--Brandauer strikes me as a pretty good villain and though Sean Connery may have been a little old (still looking better than the last Moore), since his advancing age was written in the script I did not mind it much.

Pretty much how I feel about it, too.

And I understand I was rude earlier... So I'd like to apologize for my behaviour. I did not mean, what I said.

Loeffelholz

I enjoyed NSNA for what it was, which is the Great Sir Sean Connery's swan song in the role. It's arguably his worst Bond film---but, as I've frequently taken heat for saying, in my opinion Connery's worst is superior to Moore's best.

NSNA stands alone as a Bond film (yes, a Bond film! ) not only because it's not an official 'Eon' entry, but because it specifically deals with the character's advancing age for the only time in film history. This is one of the many reasons it works for me.

bondaholic007

i have watched it once, watched all others about 1 million times,
its the dustiest dvd i own along side CR 1967

7289

Dismissing NSNA and CR'67 is a big mistake. While not Oscar quality, they are Bond films and are LEGAL/OFFICIAL even if not produced by EON.

Kissing off these two movies is like ignoring Goldfinger because Felix Leiter was not played by Jack Lord.

Bond is more than just a gunbarrel opening, and Maurice Binder titles. Only by taking the good with the bad can you fully appreciate the Bondian world.

The notion that some Bond films are "acceptable" and some are not is arrogant. Hey, don't watch them if you hate them - no one is suggesting otherwise, but let's not pretend they don't exist, that's the kind of thinking that leads to censorship.

cbdouble07

7289 wrote:

Dismissing NSNA and CR'67 is a big mistake. While not Oscar quality, they are Bond films and are LEGAL/OFFICIAL even if not produced by EON.

Kissing off these two movies is like ignoring Goldfinger because Felix Leiter was not played by Jack Lord.

Bond is more than just a gunbarrel opening, and Maurice Binder titles. Only by taking the good with the bad can you fully appreciate the Bondian world.

The notion that some Bond films are "acceptable" and some are not is arrogant. Hey, don't watch them if you hate them - no one is suggesting otherwise, but let's not pretend they don't exist, that's the kind of thinking that leads to censorship.

I never said NSNA was not a Bond film. I said it wasn't part of the Bond series, and it isn't. It's a standalone film that was made mostly by people unaffiliated with any of the official films. I do recognize that the gunbarrel, titles, etc. are not the only things that make up a Bond film. These were just a few examples I was using to explain why NSNA didn't feel like a Bond film to me. But after thinking about it, even if these things were all included in the film I think it would still seem a bit hollow to me. I'm not quite sure why.

I find your point about dismissing the films interesting, and I have to agree that one should take the good with the bad in a series. TSWLM is considered by a lot of people to be inferior to Fleming's other Bond novels but I think there are a lot of redeeming qualities to it and feel that it should not be dismissed. I agree that taking the bad with the good is important to get the most out of a series, and I would even say that one day someone may discover that the book or film that they considered to be a weak point in the series has actually become a favorite. This is why I still watch the films in the series I don't like as well like AVTAK and MR. I recognize them as part of the James Bond series along with the novels and other films. But I don't feel this way about NSNA. When I said I pretend it never existed, that may have been a bit harsh. I should have said that I am pretty indifferent towards it. I have seen NSNA twice and appreciated it for what it was but have never been greatly enthused about it, nor do I feel the urge to watch it again. While I agree with your points about taking the bad with the good, since NSNA again isn't part of the EON series I've never really looked at it as part of the James Bond series.

bondaholic007

NSNA on itv today, i guess i will watch it

Jimmy Bond

7289 wrote:

Dismissing NSNA and CR'67 is a big mistake. While not Oscar quality, they are Bond films and are LEGAL/OFFICIAL even if not produced by EON.

Kissing off these two movies is like ignoring Goldfinger because Felix Leiter was not played by Jack Lord.

Bond is more than just a gunbarrel opening, and Maurice Binder titles. Only by taking the good with the bad can you fully appreciate the Bondian world.

The notion that some Bond films are "acceptable" and some are not is arrogant. Hey, don't watch them if you hate them - no one is suggesting otherwise, but let's not pretend they don't exist, that's the kind of thinking that leads to censorship.

Amen! The notion that one would do a special on Bond without researching all Bonds, is silly. Not to mention the idea that "bashing NSNA is cool" has gotten really, really tired.

I perfectly agree with you on the "unofficial" remark. Fan films are "unofficial" films, but not theatrically released, studio-distributed films. And what does an "unofficial Bond film" mean? Thats crap.

NSNA is a non-EON Bond film, starring Sean Connery. Whats wrong with that?

Higgins

.... because to my taste it is a bit-less-than average spy movie coincidently with a main character called James Bond and a main actor called Sean Connery.

If it would be called "The missiles from Largo", one would be averagely entertained and most of the people would talk about Connerys huge salary, which made the remaining movie not really looking like a big-budget film (though they seemed not to pay for the Nabila Yacht).

For similar reasons, I don't count 67 CR to them and I am ready to getting hit for this


But the censership theory is a bit ott to me.