Would you rather screen Bond have a scar on his cheek OR Bond remain scarless on screen?

1185186187189191

Comments

  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    edited May 30 Posts: 447
    Octopussy

    Scaramanga almost saves TMWTGG, but not even he can elevate enough. It's flat, it's dumb, and when Lee is not on screen it's really very dull. Bottom two Bond film for me alongside Diamonds.

    Lee reminds me of Bardem. He's a brilliant actor and people appreciate his effort, but they both got awful villains, in my book. Showed their talent amply, sure, but both characters were not really on it.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,297
    What made Scaramanga interesting was the notion that Bond could have been him in another life. However, I feel like the film betrays this by gradually turning him into "just another villain" with the bland Solex subplot - he's another ransomer/extortionist with demands by the third act. If the focus had stuck closer to their rivalry then it would have been unique in the series. Scaramanga's skills as an assassin are essentially abandoned.

    Silva, at least, stayed true to his rather low-key goal of killing M for revenge after humiliating her. That's consistency.
  • edited May 30 Posts: 2,062
    What made Scaramanga interesting was the notion that Bond could have been him in another life. However, I feel like the film betrays this by gradually turning him into "just another villain" with the bland Solex subplot - he's another ransomer/extortionist with demands by the third act. If the focus had stuck closer to their rivalry then it would have been unique in the series. Scaramanga's skills as an assassin are essentially abandoned.

    Silva, at least, stayed true to his rather low-key goal of killing M for revenge after humiliating her. That's consistency.

    Silva had a Macguffin too, but the script forgot about it. He became a crybaby with mommy issues.

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,297
    What made Scaramanga interesting was the notion that Bond could have been him in another life. However, I feel like the film betrays this by gradually turning him into "just another villain" with the bland Solex subplot - he's another ransomer/extortionist with demands by the third act. If the focus had stuck closer to their rivalry then it would have been unique in the series. Scaramanga's skills as an assassin are essentially abandoned.

    Silva, at least, stayed true to his rather low-key goal of killing M for revenge after humiliating her. That's consistency.

    Silva had a Macguffin too, but the script forgot about it. He became a crybaby with mommy issues.

    I'm stunned: you've missed my point, or ignored it entirely.
  • Posts: 2,062
    What made Scaramanga interesting was the notion that Bond could have been him in another life. However, I feel like the film betrays this by gradually turning him into "just another villain" with the bland Solex subplot - he's another ransomer/extortionist with demands by the third act. If the focus had stuck closer to their rivalry then it would have been unique in the series. Scaramanga's skills as an assassin are essentially abandoned.

    Silva, at least, stayed true to his rather low-key goal of killing M for revenge after humiliating her. That's consistency.

    Silva had a Macguffin too, but the script forgot about it. He became a crybaby with mommy issues.

    I'm stunned: you've missed my point, or ignored it entirely.

    I don't miss your point. Silva's consistency is to go from being a fearsome terrorist to a guy seeking a lame revenge.
  • Posts: 5,364
    Did SF forget about the McGuffin or was it just part of its storytelling and resolved in the film? 🤔

    Did Silva go from being a fearsome terrorist to a guy seeking lame revenge or is he a fearsome terrorist seeking revenge? 🤔

    Is the current month May at the time of writing this post, and is the sky blue during the day? So many questions… so little answers…
    What made Scaramanga interesting was the notion that Bond could have been him in another life. However, I feel like the film betrays this by gradually turning him into "just another villain" with the bland Solex subplot - he's another ransomer/extortionist with demands by the third act. If the focus had stuck closer to their rivalry then it would have been unique in the series. Scaramanga's skills as an assassin are essentially abandoned.

    Silva, at least, stayed true to his rather low-key goal of killing M for revenge after humiliating her. That's consistency.

    Apparently Mankiewicz‘s early drafts/treatments were more about the rivalry between Bond/Scaramanga. That actually would have been cool to see. The Solex feels oddly low stakes even though it was probably put in there to raise them.
  • Posts: 2,062
    007HallY wrote: »
    Did SF forget about the McGuffin or was it just part of its storytelling and resolved in the film? 🤔

    Did Silva go from being a fearsome terrorist to a guy seeking lame revenge or is he a fearsome terrorist seeking revenge? 🤔

    Is the current month May at the time of writing this post, and is the sky blue during the day? So many questions… so little answers…

    I don't know, and I don't care. MI6 didn't care too much either. ;)
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 447
    007HallY wrote: »
    Did SF forget about the McGuffin or was it just part of its storytelling and resolved in the film? 🤔

    Did Silva go from being a fearsome terrorist to a guy seeking lame revenge or is he a fearsome terrorist seeking revenge? 🤔

    Is the current month May at the time of writing this post, and is the sky blue during the day? So many questions… so little answers…

    I don't know, and I don't care. MI6 didn't care too much either. ;)

    Tou could go about all day picking the myriad holes in sf
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »
    Not so sure about MR either, but OP definitely has some moments of tension

    MR has tense moments like the fight scene with Chang in Venice, the Brazilian Alleys with Jaws, or that second encounter with him in Amazon, or the centrifuge scene, it also has some moments of tension too.

    The dig chase at the Chateau. You don't quite know if Corinne will make it. Gruesome.
  • edited May 30 Posts: 5,364
    007HallY wrote: »
    Did SF forget about the McGuffin or was it just part of its storytelling and resolved in the film? 🤔

    Did Silva go from being a fearsome terrorist to a guy seeking lame revenge or is he a fearsome terrorist seeking revenge? 🤔

    Is the current month May at the time of writing this post, and is the sky blue during the day? So many questions… so little answers…

    I don't know, and I don't care. MI6 didn't care too much either. ;)

    Is Deke making a joke and/or point and why can’t I understand it? 🤔 Does it even make sense? So many questions…

    😉
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited May 30 Posts: 8,297
    What made Scaramanga interesting was the notion that Bond could have been him in another life. However, I feel like the film betrays this by gradually turning him into "just another villain" with the bland Solex subplot - he's another ransomer/extortionist with demands by the third act. If the focus had stuck closer to their rivalry then it would have been unique in the series. Scaramanga's skills as an assassin are essentially abandoned.

    Silva, at least, stayed true to his rather low-key goal of killing M for revenge after humiliating her. That's consistency.

    Silva had a Macguffin too, but the script forgot about it. He became a crybaby with mommy issues.

    I'm stunned: you've missed my point, or ignored it entirely.

    I don't miss your point. Silva's consistency is to go from being a fearsome terrorist to a guy seeking a lame revenge.

    He was seeking revenge from the beginning. He didn't go from one to the other. So yes, you do miss the point.
    007HallY wrote: »
    Apparently Mankiewicz‘s early drafts/treatments were more about the rivalry between Bond/Scaramanga. That actually would have been cool to see. The Solex feels oddly low stakes even though it was probably put in there to raise them.

    I'd have liked to have seen the plot go in a direction where Scaramanga was taking out a contract on someone in the British government and Bond was there to stop him. A sort of 'Day Of The Jackal' vibe.
  • Posts: 2,062
    What made Scaramanga interesting was the notion that Bond could have been him in another life. However, I feel like the film betrays this by gradually turning him into "just another villain" with the bland Solex subplot - he's another ransomer/extortionist with demands by the third act. If the focus had stuck closer to their rivalry then it would have been unique in the series. Scaramanga's skills as an assassin are essentially abandoned.

    Silva, at least, stayed true to his rather low-key goal of killing M for revenge after humiliating her. That's consistency.

    Silva had a Macguffin too, but the script forgot about it. He became a crybaby with mommy issues.

    I'm stunned: you've missed my point, or ignored it entirely.

    I don't miss your point. Silva's consistency is to go from being a fearsome terrorist to a guy seeking a lame revenge.

    He was seeking revenge from the beginning. He didn't go from one to the other. So yes, you do miss the point.

    Scaramanga also had a plan, but we didn't know it.

    ;)
  • edited May 30 Posts: 5,364
    What made Scaramanga interesting was the notion that Bond could have been him in another life. However, I feel like the film betrays this by gradually turning him into "just another villain" with the bland Solex subplot - he's another ransomer/extortionist with demands by the third act. If the focus had stuck closer to their rivalry then it would have been unique in the series. Scaramanga's skills as an assassin are essentially abandoned.

    Silva, at least, stayed true to his rather low-key goal of killing M for revenge after humiliating her. That's consistency.

    Silva had a Macguffin too, but the script forgot about it. He became a crybaby with mommy issues.

    I'm stunned: you've missed my point, or ignored it entirely.

    I don't miss your point. Silva's consistency is to go from being a fearsome terrorist to a guy seeking a lame revenge.

    He was seeking revenge from the beginning. He didn't go from one to the other. So yes, you do miss the point.
    007HallY wrote: »
    Apparently Mankiewicz‘s early drafts/treatments were more about the rivalry between Bond/Scaramanga. That actually would have been cool to see. The Solex feels oddly low stakes even though it was probably put in there to raise them.

    I'd have liked to have seen the plot go in a direction where Scaramanga was taking out a contract on someone in the British government and Bond was there to stop him. A sort of 'Day Of The Jackal' vibe.

    That definitely could have worked, although I do like how we get the climatic duel between Scaramanga and Bond on the former’s turf as it were, and it’s definitely an idea I can understand prioritising (the fun house is just one of those weird, but quite Bondian spaces - quite Fleming-esque even). They would have had to have worked out a way of making an assassination attempt fit with that idea (which surely could have been done - I dunno, maybe the official in question is being transported via boat within the area due to getting death threats from Scaramanga, or maybe there’s a conference in the area or something the official is attending… perhaps Bond could have thwarted the assassination attempt in the previous act, Scaramanga escapes and kidnaps Goodnight, and Bond in turn tracks down Scaramanga in order to finish the job. Has kind of a SF feel to it that one, and it would have been nice seeing Scaramanga ‘surprise’ Bond with the fun house setting rather than it being this odd ‘gentleman’s duel’).

    TMWTGG is an odd Bond film in that way - the ‘what ifs’ are more interesting than what we actually got. I always say I’d love to see its broad story re-adapted in the same way TSWLM used YOLT’s story. Or how DAD takes a lot from DAF, or indeed SF from TWINE.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,297
    What made Scaramanga interesting was the notion that Bond could have been him in another life. However, I feel like the film betrays this by gradually turning him into "just another villain" with the bland Solex subplot - he's another ransomer/extortionist with demands by the third act. If the focus had stuck closer to their rivalry then it would have been unique in the series. Scaramanga's skills as an assassin are essentially abandoned.

    Silva, at least, stayed true to his rather low-key goal of killing M for revenge after humiliating her. That's consistency.

    Silva had a Macguffin too, but the script forgot about it. He became a crybaby with mommy issues.

    I'm stunned: you've missed my point, or ignored it entirely.

    I don't miss your point. Silva's consistency is to go from being a fearsome terrorist to a guy seeking a lame revenge.

    He was seeking revenge from the beginning. He didn't go from one to the other. So yes, you do miss the point.

    Scaramanga also had a plan, but we didn't know it.

    ;)

    Sigh. And now we're back to the beginning where I said that the film misused him by having him conjure up that plan instead of playing to his strengths.

    You really are a waste of time, Deke.

    ;) ;) ;) ;)
  • edited May 30 Posts: 2,062
    What made Scaramanga interesting was the notion that Bond could have been him in another life. However, I feel like the film betrays this by gradually turning him into "just another villain" with the bland Solex subplot - he's another ransomer/extortionist with demands by the third act. If the focus had stuck closer to their rivalry then it would have been unique in the series. Scaramanga's skills as an assassin are essentially abandoned.

    Silva, at least, stayed true to his rather low-key goal of killing M for revenge after humiliating her. That's consistency.

    Silva had a Macguffin too, but the script forgot about it. He became a crybaby with mommy issues.

    I'm stunned: you've missed my point, or ignored it entirely.

    I don't miss your point. Silva's consistency is to go from being a fearsome terrorist to a guy seeking a lame revenge.

    He was seeking revenge from the beginning. He didn't go from one to the other. So yes, you do miss the point.

    Scaramanga also had a plan, but we didn't know it.

    ;)

    Sigh. And now we're back to the beginning where I said that the film misused him by having him conjure up that plan instead of playing to his strengths.

    You really are a waste of time, Deke.

    ;) ;) ;) ;)


    They just raised the stakes. Like GF, like DAF. And It's a plot twist like SF.


    If they had done what you say, the film would have ended within an hour, as happens with LALD.

  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 447
    The book's sequence with 007 trying to assassinate M would have been great craic.

    Imagine Roger Moore playing possessed.


  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,297
    What made Scaramanga interesting was the notion that Bond could have been him in another life. However, I feel like the film betrays this by gradually turning him into "just another villain" with the bland Solex subplot - he's another ransomer/extortionist with demands by the third act. If the focus had stuck closer to their rivalry then it would have been unique in the series. Scaramanga's skills as an assassin are essentially abandoned.

    Silva, at least, stayed true to his rather low-key goal of killing M for revenge after humiliating her. That's consistency.

    Silva had a Macguffin too, but the script forgot about it. He became a crybaby with mommy issues.

    I'm stunned: you've missed my point, or ignored it entirely.

    I don't miss your point. Silva's consistency is to go from being a fearsome terrorist to a guy seeking a lame revenge.

    He was seeking revenge from the beginning. He didn't go from one to the other. So yes, you do miss the point.

    Scaramanga also had a plan, but we didn't know it.

    ;)

    Sigh. And now we're back to the beginning where I said that the film misused him by having him conjure up that plan instead of playing to his strengths.

    You really are a waste of time, Deke.

    ;) ;) ;) ;)


    They just raised the stakes. Like GF, like DAF. And It's a plot twist like SF.


    If they had done what you say, the film would have ended within an hour, as happens with LALD.

    Nope, nope and nope.
  • edited May 30 Posts: 5,364
    I'd say the great thing about SF is that it's a film that does genuinely feel like the stakes have been raised, even if the story itself is relatively low key. Bond is injured and not at his best, M's job is at risk, MI6 has been blown up, and there's very much this idea that the world around Bond/M is changing. There's a sense of dramatic thrust that keeps the viewer engaged. We feel that the importance of these plot beats.

    TMWTGG has some great ideas which should have a lot more weight to them. We have this deadly assassin - for all intents and purposes Bond's equal, and someone who's murdered another 00 - apparently making a threat against our protagonist's life. And yet M seems oddly (and comically) irritated at the whole thing, and there's no sense throughout the film that we're in some sort of dangerous cat and mouse game where Bond could be killed at any moment. Even with the Solex they're clearly going for this sense of importance with the Energy Crisis angle, and yet in the context of the film neither this object nor the assassination of the scientist has any weight or indication that it's consequential/important (and like or dislike the list in SF, I don't think anyone can say we don't see or feel the consequences of it being leaked).

    Even a more low key, supposedly 'grounded' Bond film needs a sense of dynamic storytelling. TMWTGG falls a bit flat at times in this area. Hell, it's what puts OP above it for me. Even Bond dressed as a clown trying to convince people there's a bomb has real sense of tension to it. Same for the rest of that third act.
  • Posts: 2,062
    Well it's clearly an improvement over LALD, which is simply one chase after another.
  • edited May 30 Posts: 5,364
    Well it's clearly an improvement over LALD, which is simply one chase after another.

    I wouldn't necessarily say it's clearly an improvement. I actually get a much better sense of that 'cat and mouse' element with Bond in Harlem and constantly being watched by Big's accomplices/set ups. I always felt the stakes/danger in that film much more than TWMTGG.

    Anyway, it helps that the chases in LALD are better than the ones in TMWTGG. In my opinion of course ;)
  • edited May 30 Posts: 2,062
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well it's clearly an improvement over LALD, which is simply one chase after another.

    I wouldn't necessarily say it's clearly an improvement. I actually get a much better sense of that 'cat and mouse' element with Bond in Harlem and constantly being watched by Big's accomplices/set ups. I always felt the stakes/danger in that film much more than TWMTGG.

    Anyway, it helps that the chases in LALD are better than the ones in TMWTGG. In my opinion of course ;)

    The movie has more action, that's all. Nobody cares about the plot. Not even the characters themselves.

    The same thing happens with OP. The plot is a mess, but it has a lot of action, so it doesn't matter. If things slow down you start thinking too much.

    I think LALD is quite flat, by the way. At some point the chases no longer make sense.
  • edited May 30 Posts: 5,364
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well it's clearly an improvement over LALD, which is simply one chase after another.

    I wouldn't necessarily say it's clearly an improvement. I actually get a much better sense of that 'cat and mouse' element with Bond in Harlem and constantly being watched by Big's accomplices/set ups. I always felt the stakes/danger in that film much more than TWMTGG.

    Anyway, it helps that the chases in LALD are better than the ones in TMWTGG. In my opinion of course ;)

    The movie has more action, that's all. Nobody cares about the plot. Not even the characters themselves.

    The same thing happens with OP. The plot is a mess, but it has a lot of action, so it doesn't matter. If things slow down you start thinking too much.

    I think LALD is quite flat, by the way.

    Actually if anything I'd argue LALD doesn't really have much action before a point. We get a little scene of the driver being assassinated, but it's really only later where we get that string of bigger chases and Bond doing cool stuff. So I'm not sure I really agree with you here. A lot of what keeps the viewer engaged with the film for that first portion is Bond being in the environment of Harlem, being tracked by Big/having to navigate traps, and of course the whole Solitare subplot. So actually yes, to some extent the viewer does care about that sort of stuff. And a Bond film without any action or quick pace, especially by the second and third acts, would feel a bit odd. Not saying LALD is a perfect film, but I think it holds together much better than TMWTGG.

    Anyway, none of those films have action scenes every 5 minutes, and all Bond plots on some level have absolute nonsense. A viewer still has to be invested in the film and go along with the story (and characters). Otherwise we'd all just be crossing our arms, looking at our watches, and waiting for the next action scene (or just skipping ahead to them, if not switching off the film as we'd quickly realise none of this was worth our time ;) )
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 447
    Well it's clearly an improvement over LALD, which is simply one chase after another.

    LALD is a far superior film, but it's elevated by its awesome soundtrack.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,557
    I get all the arguments against TMWTGG and won't try defend them. I just love the atmosphere and I like the characters, so I'm enjoying every moment we spend with them. Moreover Scaramanga is my favourite villain and the Golden Gun my favourite gadget.

    It's just one of those Bond films I really enjoy, against the general consensus. Feel free to add DAF, TWINE and SP to that list too.
  • edited May 30 Posts: 2,062
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well it's clearly an improvement over LALD, which is simply one chase after another.

    I wouldn't necessarily say it's clearly an improvement. I actually get a much better sense of that 'cat and mouse' element with Bond in Harlem and constantly being watched by Big's accomplices/set ups. I always felt the stakes/danger in that film much more than TWMTGG.

    Anyway, it helps that the chases in LALD are better than the ones in TMWTGG. In my opinion of course ;)

    The movie has more action, that's all. Nobody cares about the plot. Not even the characters themselves.

    The same thing happens with OP. The plot is a mess, but it has a lot of action, so it doesn't matter. If things slow down you start thinking too much.

    I think LALD is quite flat, by the way.

    Actually if anything I'd argue LALD doesn't really have much action before a point. We get a little scene of the driver being assassinated, but it's really only later where we get that string of bigger chases and Bond doing cool stuff. So I'm not sure I really agree with you here. A lot of what keeps the viewer engaged with the film for that first portion is Bond being in the environment of Harlem, being tracked by Big/having to navigate traps, and of course the whole Solitare subplot. So actually yes, to some extent the viewer does care about that sort of stuff. And a Bond film without any action or quick pace, especially by the second and third acts, would feel a bit odd. Not saying LALD is a perfect film, but I think it holds together much better than TMWTGG.

    Anyway, none of those films have action scenes every 5 minutes, and all Bond plots on some level have absolute nonsense. A viewer still has to be invested in the film and go along with the story (and characters). Otherwise we'd all just be crossing our arms, looking at our watches, and waiting for the next action scene (or just skipping ahead to them, if not switching off the film as we'd quickly realise none of this was worth our time ;) )


    Well, at this point I think that if someone complains about the script what they really mean is that the movie has little action.
    ;;)
  • Posts: 5,364
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well it's clearly an improvement over LALD, which is simply one chase after another.

    I wouldn't necessarily say it's clearly an improvement. I actually get a much better sense of that 'cat and mouse' element with Bond in Harlem and constantly being watched by Big's accomplices/set ups. I always felt the stakes/danger in that film much more than TWMTGG.

    Anyway, it helps that the chases in LALD are better than the ones in TMWTGG. In my opinion of course ;)

    The movie has more action, that's all. Nobody cares about the plot. Not even the characters themselves.

    The same thing happens with OP. The plot is a mess, but it has a lot of action, so it doesn't matter. If things slow down you start thinking too much.

    I think LALD is quite flat, by the way.

    Actually if anything I'd argue LALD doesn't really have much action before a point. We get a little scene of the driver being assassinated, but it's really only later where we get that string of bigger chases and Bond doing cool stuff. So I'm not sure I really agree with you here. A lot of what keeps the viewer engaged with the film for that first portion is Bond being in the environment of Harlem, being tracked by Big/having to navigate traps, and of course the whole Solitare subplot. So actually yes, to some extent the viewer does care about that sort of stuff. And a Bond film without any action or quick pace, especially by the second and third acts, would feel a bit odd. Not saying LALD is a perfect film, but I think it holds together much better than TMWTGG.

    Anyway, none of those films have action scenes every 5 minutes, and all Bond plots on some level have absolute nonsense. A viewer still has to be invested in the film and go along with the story (and characters). Otherwise we'd all just be crossing our arms, looking at our watches, and waiting for the next action scene (or just skipping ahead to them, if not switching off the film as we'd quickly realise none of this was worth our time ;) )


    Well, at this point I think that if someone complains about the script what they really mean is that the movie has little action.
    ;;)

    Hmm... I think that depends honestly. I don't think that's always the case.

    Anyway, I think LALD holds up fine for the most part. Most people seem to prefer it to TMWTGG for what it's worth. I can see why.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,862
    Great discussion as always!

    Okay now we have a dilemma as we have one official movie left and two un-official films left. The score of the official ones are rather interesting so I am going to make an executive decision and pit an un-official film against the worst rated official film.

    This might get interesting!

    Would you rather watch AVTAK (36%) OR NSNA (71%)?

    We have Roger's swan song. The final film of a 12 year, 7 film run that unfortunately didn't end on the strongest of notes. We do have a great ally in Tibbett played by Patrick McNee. The chemistry between Roger and Patrick is a joy. Sadly there isn't much chemistry between Roger and Tanya Roberts. We have a wonderful actor as the villain and he plays the role to perfection. In between we have a little bit of Goldfinger, and some Beach Boys.

    Rotten Tomatoes says this about the film Absurd even by Bond standards, A View to a Kill is weighted down by campy jokes and a noticeable lack of energy.

    OR

    Sean's swan song in the role. A final film that came after 12 years away from the role. Sean is engaged and his performance is a highlight. The film makers had to remake a film and yet keep things fresh. Less underwater sequences and more land action. We have an unhinged villain. A memorable Felix Leiter, with some saying Bernie Casey hit all the right notes and he does have good screen chemistry with our lead.

    Rotten Tomatoes says While the rehashed story feels rather uninspired and unnecessary, the return of both Sean Connery and a more understated Bond make Never Say Never Again a watchable retread.

    Now that I think about it, these films do seem to have a lot in common.

    Which one would you rather give a watch on your screen?
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,269
    While I think that the difference between those two movies is exaggerated (RT can only compound the opinions of a number of critics, some of whom may be "wrong"), I do think that NSNA is the more enjoyable movie, just like it is the more enjoyable movie compared to its contemporary adversary, OP...and its own template, TB. And I still like AVTAK, although it's on the lowest end of my "like" scale, below OP. The logical consequence is: If I like NSNA more than OP (as the vast majority of critics did at the time they came out), I also have to like it better than AVTAK. Let's not forget this board agreed that NSNA had the best Felix Leiter ever, and the henchwoman has still to appear on this board's rating because she'll be in the top eight or so as well. So yes, give me NSNA over AVTAK. Doesn't mean I won't watch AVTAK the following night.
  • Posts: 12,714
    AVTAK, easily.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,918
    NSNA, Connery even though he was old in the film, was still convincing in action and in everything he did as Bond, and if looking at Moore in AVTAK, Connery in NSNA looked a bit younger in comparison, Moore in AVTAK just became plain laughable and sometimes uncomfortable to watch, his age was really showing that he's no longer convincing as Bond unlike Connery in NSNA as the vigor was still there.

    Max Zorin is an interesting villain so I'll give AVTAK that point, then so May Day, although NSNA have Fatima Blush and Klaus Maria Brandauer is the better version of Largo (more book accurate) compared to Celi's version.

    The plot of AVTAK is a recycled version of a better film (Goldfinger), while NSNA is for me, is a better version of an older film (Thunderball), the only good thing that Thunderball have going for it is Fiona Volpe, but remove her in the film, it would fall apart.

    Kim Basinger's Domino is miles better than Tanya Robert's Stacey Sutton, even though neither of them I liked, honestly.

    The same for theme songs, I don't liked either of them, but I wished NSNA used the Phyllis Hyman version instead, I've found myself listening to it more often than NSNA's original track, if that's the case, then I may choose NSNA over AVTAK, but now, in this case, I'm going with AVTAK.

    NSNA's action is more fun (especially the car chase between Fatima and Bond, Connery was also cool riding that motorcycle), it's just fun all along, AVTAK on the other hand, I remember someone said here before that the action scenes in AVTAK comes off as 'Anemic' and I can't help but to agree, then you have the obviously aging Moore in there makes it more less appealing further, I think AVTAK have one of the worst action sequences (don't get me started on that entire firetruck scene).

    AVTAK is not fun for me, it's more of a cringefest of a watch for me, the only good thing in AVTAK is the Golden Gate Bridge Fight Finale, which I do admit is a tense scene, but aside from that, nothing in that film I find enjoyable, NSNA at least entertained me, so for that matter, I'll go with NSNA.

  • edited May 31 Posts: 16,521
    I love both, but NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is a favorite of mine. I'll go Sean's swan song.
Sign In or Register to comment.