Why was NSNA so highly praised when it first came out?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — James Bond
RynoII — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 12:18 AM)
Compared to now, where so many people hate NSNA, it got a lot of good praise from critics when it came out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Say_Never_Again
Personally it's in the middle of the pack for me. Kind of good in many parts, but clunky in others. But why was it so highly praised when it came out, and so hated now? -
rich_bruce — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 04:10 AM)
The return of Connery as Bond got positive attention.
There was also the summer competition between Moore Bond and Connery Bond, an exciting time for critics and audiences. It was fun, great cast, had its moments.
Hated now probably for elements like the terrible musical score and how the production seems to be running out of money toward the end. It's so clearly not an EON produced-film without the Bond Theme, no gunbarrel, no grand action pre-titles, no nude silhouettes in a title sequence. There's also the School of Common Knowledge at work: the idea it's SUPPOSED to be hated, conversation over.
What no man
C
an give ya. And none
C
an take away. -
TrevorAclea — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 09:04 AM)
It was a breath of fresh air as the Roger Moore Bond films increasingly floundered, and was a welcome gadget-lite riposte to the worst excesses of the EON franchise in 1983, but time hasn't been that kind to it. But even in 1983 the score and Rowan Atkinson were much reviled.
"Security - release the badgers." -
pking-2 — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 10:39 AM)
At first it really buoyed both patriotic and humanistic spirit, catching up with and surpassing the competition, culminating in a grand moment never to be equalled. Yes, it had some rough parts, but overwhelming amazing achievements mattered more. Now, it is considered less impressive and ambitious.
Primarily, I think that is due to the fact that it has no manned spacecraft to launch anymore, at least not until Orion
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/orion/index.html
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm rea
d
er. -
RynoII — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 12:05 PM)
Well even if critics were excited about the competition, NSNA still got much better reviews compared to OP at the time, so critics were still like the low budget NSNA more for some reason.
Was it because OP had more of the Bond cliches in maybe, and the critics found NSNA to be a little fresher? -
wallacesawyer — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 06:49 PM)
I remember a Siskel and Ebert special about the Bond films, and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN got much praise. I could tell the two were like overjoyed fanboys. I can't help but think much of their praise was simply over the return of Sean Connery, who they both agreed was their favorite Bond actor, with GOLDFINGER being their favorite Bond film. But they did name Maximilian Largo, played by Klaus Maria Brandauer, as the best Bond villain they had seen up to that point.
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/ -
RynoII — 9 years ago(October 10, 2016 12:36 AM)
Here's the Siskel and Ebert review:
They say that it has a much better villain than most of the previous Bond films, and that it's more down to Earth, and less like a cartoon, like the previous ones.
Is that a legitimate argument? -
HugeDaiCottermee — 9 years ago(October 10, 2016 03:09 AM)
Verily I say unto thee..people praised it purely for the fact that Connery (romper suit not withstanding) was in it and nothing more. Clint Eastwood's return as Dirty Harry in SUDDEN IMPACT was also hotly anticipated in the same year and that glorious hymn to violence turned out to be the vastly superior movie.
-
psychocosmic-1 — 9 years ago(October 19, 2016 05:38 AM)
It was a big thing! A couple of generations of Bondfans and regular Bondlikers and moviegoers crowded in theatres in 1983 to watch 2 Bonds! AT LEAST half of the audience had been raised with the Connery Bonds. The 60s were gone but the memory of the two giant Brit phenomenas The Beatles and The Bond were still alive and kicking! They both were iconic in the sense that they pioneered in their respective cultural schools, one that modernized rock´n roll with European folkmusic plus showingthe young that it is ok to write your own songs, and the other, which invented action, sex and sci fi light (pulp) in an unique concoction with the unfamiliarity (at least to Europe) of self irony and self consciousness in film.
During the end of the 70s and early 80s the fantasmic hypnosis of that original Bond experience which was still so alive in that half of the audience, and they (incl me) went and saw and enjoyed every Moore Bondfilm with a somewhat silent longing for the old style and most importantly, Sean himself. He, who had been so fantastic as Bond, that people all over the world, even the journalists, had problems with separating Bond from the actor.
Rumours came and went, but no Sean would appear as Bond again. But by 1983, we knew he was too old and the idea to bring back such an icon is nothing but a silly impossible daydream. But they did it. And Sean was in better shape than in DAF71, and he was so much powerful than Moore! So, even if the film itself was/is nothing classic or great, the very idea that they succeeded in making a new Bond with Sean was wonderful. But also, it wanted to prove that it was possible to make a new Bond without too much gadgets, really topnotch acting and dialogue, and all that we longed for that was so abscent in the Moore films. We thought so. And the critics supported us old fans in the papers.
Today, I prefer to watch the silliest of Bondfilms, Octopussy, because I have become old and silly myself. But every now and then, I set myself up for some horrible icecold soundtrack, Rowan A and the lack of all EONBond characterisstics. In fact, there is no 60s atmosphere here, and we cannot deny that the "feel-good" era had been transformed into the superficial style of the 80s. Its "all a joke-feel". Sorry!