- Format: Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Color, DVD-Video, Widescreen, NTSC
- Language: English
- Region: (US and Canada This DVD will probably NOT be viewable in other countries. Read more about DVD formats.)
- Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
- Number of discs: 1
- MPAA Rating:
- Studio: Fox Video
- Release Date: April 1 2003
- Run Time: 134 minutes
- Average Customer Review: 2.8 out of 5 stars See all reviews (97 customer reviews)
- ASIN: B00004WEJZ
-
Amazon Bestsellers Rank:
#698 in DVD (See Top 100 in DVD)
- #1 in DVD > Action & Adventure > Espionage
- #1 in DVD > Action & Adventure > Action Stars > Sean Connery
- #2 in DVD > Action & Adventure > Romantic Adventure
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details |
Product Description
From Amazon.com
After years of enduring Roger Moore in the role of James Bond, it was good to have Sean Connery back in this 1983 film for a one-time-only trip down 007's memory lane. Connery's Bond, a bit of a dinosaur in the British secret service at (then) 52, is still in demand during times of crisis. Sadly, the film is not very good. In this rehash of Thunderball, Bond is pitted against a worthy underwater villain (Klaus Maria Brandauer); and while the requisite Bond Girls include beauties Kim Basinger and Barbara Carrera, they can't save the movie. The script has several truly dumb passages, among them a (gasp) video-game duel between 007 and his nemesis that now looks utterly anachronistic. For Connery fans, however, this widescreen print of the Irvin Kershner (The Empire Strikes Back) film is a chance to say a final goodbye to a perfect marriage of actor and character. --Tom Keogh
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product)
|
Customer Reviews
Most helpful customer reviews
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
Strangely, one of my favorites
May 30 2004
Format:DVD
I kinow this film has not received the acclaim of other Bond films but for the life of me I don't know why not. So what if the story is borrowed from a previous film...Dirty Harry, You Got Mail, etc were all variations on a theme.
No, this was the return of the TRUE James Bond, the one and only Sean Connery. Here he is older yet wiser, not as foolhardy but still daring, and though his libido must have subsided a tad, he is still the ladies man. Kim was great as the bad guy's gal pal. Equally good was the villian himself, not as totally outlandish as some of the previous ones. Several scenes stand out....
The Tango (fantastic and it was reprised with the...) Arab auction. (What a great opportunity for Bond to make a - pardon the pun - dashing entry). Then there was the game for the world and who can forget the over the top performance by Barbara Carrerra as the sexy Fatima Blush. Where DO they come up with these names? Good plot, good characterization and good ending.
Never Never Land
May 6 2004
Format:DVD
Never Say Never Again would be a fairly solid Bond film, if it were not a remake of an earlier adventure in the series, Thunderball. After years of rejecting the idea of playing the superspy again followng Diamonds Are Forever, Sean Connery, returns to the role. He is my favorite person in the part, for sure, and he's the only reason to watch this movie.
The story takes place at a time when Bond (Connery) is called out of retirement when the SPECTRE organization concocts its latest plan for worldwide domination. The agency's number 2 operative, Largo (Klaus Maria Brandauer), has managed to steal two cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads, and Agent Number 1, Blofeld (Max von Sydow), has threatened to explode them in areas with large populations if a huge, and almost impossible, ransom demand from the NATO countries is not paid.
Director Irvin Kershner does his best to make the adventure watchable and not seem like a remake. The casting doesn't help you forget the far superior earlier version though. Brandauer isn't a very good Largo. In their scenes together, Connnery outacts him at every turn, even though the material is at times, over the top anyway. The Bond girls in the film, Barbara Carrera as Fatima and a young Kim Basinger as Domino, are beautiful--but since we know what their characters are all about going in--everything they do is muted. The script keeps the basic story in tact but again if you are a fan of Bond Thunderball is just too much of a classic to forget. Connery keeps his wits about him and even with its problems proves he's still got it.
Not suprisingly the DVD has no extras on it. MGM, the studio that owns the Bond franchise, likes to think this film doesn't exist. To some fans it doesn't--while I wouldn't go that far (because of Connery), I will say your best bet is to watch Thunderball instead
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
Ummm yeah - It's a remake
Dec 16 2010
Format:DVD
I am SO suprised that people are all up about this being a remake and NOT being as good as other BOND films...The original happened 45 years ago and the remake almost 25 years ago so fainting suprise now is a much belated reaction.
Well... I love BOND films.... all of them... because they are ALL cheesy. Every one. Films don't all need to be Frederico Felini neorealist works of art. Is this my favorite BOND film? Well... I can't answer that. I don't watch Bond films to be impressed with acting, the script or the theme song. I watch them because they are Bond films; because they are fun to watch. As of late the newer films in this franchise have had larger budgets and are definately geared more as action flicks (because noone knows how to write anymore), but as of this review I give them all a passing grade for what they are.
I know this is not a so called legitimate Bond film, but that is simply because of copyright ownership issues. Connery was the best Bond (and Moore the best 'Saint'). And as only 2/3 of the Bond films were actually based directly on a Fleming novel, well... what can I say... As for a remake, what about Casino Royale? And I am not talking about the '67 spoof with David Niven and Peter Sellers(to name a few of that cast), but rather the 1954 Bond flick with Barry Nelsen as Bond.
Yup... Thunderball is not he only ripped Bond film. And if I WAS to be a purist I could only include the 16 written by Fleming (and perhaps the co-written 'Spy who loved me')
So I give this film 5 stars for being what it is. A Bond Film with Sean Connery. To heck with copyrights and ownership. To heck with trying to argue Oscar status for any of these films. To heck with the Film Critics (real or imagined) who are usually worth thier weight in manure... Just enjoy them for what they are... BOND Films....
(By the way - REAL critics gave the film reasonalbe reviews and in '83 the film grossed over $160M - I guess you need to be older than 25 to like this film - or perhaps even 'get' the franchise)
Well... I love BOND films.... all of them... because they are ALL cheesy. Every one. Films don't all need to be Frederico Felini neorealist works of art. Is this my favorite BOND film? Well... I can't answer that. I don't watch Bond films to be impressed with acting, the script or the theme song. I watch them because they are Bond films; because they are fun to watch. As of late the newer films in this franchise have had larger budgets and are definately geared more as action flicks (because noone knows how to write anymore), but as of this review I give them all a passing grade for what they are.
I know this is not a so called legitimate Bond film, but that is simply because of copyright ownership issues. Connery was the best Bond (and Moore the best 'Saint'). And as only 2/3 of the Bond films were actually based directly on a Fleming novel, well... what can I say... As for a remake, what about Casino Royale? And I am not talking about the '67 spoof with David Niven and Peter Sellers(to name a few of that cast), but rather the 1954 Bond flick with Barry Nelsen as Bond.
Yup... Thunderball is not he only ripped Bond film. And if I WAS to be a purist I could only include the 16 written by Fleming (and perhaps the co-written 'Spy who loved me')
So I give this film 5 stars for being what it is. A Bond Film with Sean Connery. To heck with copyrights and ownership. To heck with trying to argue Oscar status for any of these films. To heck with the Film Critics (real or imagined) who are usually worth thier weight in manure... Just enjoy them for what they are... BOND Films....
(By the way - REAL critics gave the film reasonalbe reviews and in '83 the film grossed over $160M - I guess you need to be older than 25 to like this film - or perhaps even 'get' the franchise)
Want to see more reviews on this item?
Most recent customer reviews
Weak and Lacks Action
Well what more can I say,from my title heading. Not having the original producers Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman in this production from the previous Connery movies,and... Read more
Published 16 months ago by Rob
Not Bond
I pretty much agree with everyone else about this movie....but did you know that this is NOT an OFFICIAL James Bond movie? It is not part of the series. Need proof? Read more
Published on July 16 2004
Can You Say Boring?
If you can sit through this movie without falling asleep or crying of boredom you are probably the first! This is hands down the worst Bond of all. Read more
Published on July 14 2004 by AJR
Thunderball Knockoff
The Never Say Never Again movies is a knockoff of the better Bond movie Thunderball. In this one SPECTRE steals necular bombs and holds the world hostage (as always) and Bond Save... Read more
Published on Jun 22 2004
A great adaption of Thunderball
I really loved this movie and I liked the way they made a modern adaption of Thunderball. Even though this movie isn't as good as Dr. Read more
Published on May 29 2004
Would have been 5 stars except for the music.
Never Say Never Again(NSNA)has always been among my favorite Bond movies. Released in the same year as the enjoyable, but not that great, Octopussy, NSNA was remarkable simply... Read more
Published on April 21 2004
It all depends on who you are.
After watching the movie, and enjoying it, and then reading the mostly negative reviews, I will still admit that I actually thought it was a pretty good movie, and I will tell you... Read more
Published on April 19 2004 by steer
Um...
I have no idea why they even spent the money to shoot this film. Sean Connery is a great actor, but he was too old for this role. Read more
Published on Mar 6 2004 by Richard Allman
Its as good as Thunderball,maybe even better!
NSNA is at the same level as any other James Bond Movie. It may be a remake,but its not a remake where you'll find them going back and doing the same thing as in... Read more
Published on Jan 1 2004 by Vincent Anderson
Poor Remake
Sean Connery still has its charm, but he seems more like the aging high school football hero who has to live in the memory of his past glory. Read more
Published on Nov 30 2003
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
