Sean Connery's charismatic as all get out, but he's not that diverse of an actor. Seriously, here, he's pretty much playing the same exact character that he played in "Dr. No", "From Russia with Love", "Goldfinger" and, most of all,… More
Sean Connery's charismatic as all get out, but he's not that diverse of an actor. Seriously, here, he's pretty much playing the same exact character that he played in "Dr. No", "From Russia with Love", "Goldfinger" and, most of all, "Thunderball". Really, this whole film is such a rip-off of "Thunderball", I'm surprised the main character is named something like, I don't know, Jason Bourne, or something. No, I know it's a "James Bond" film, but Eon is about to let you forget that they're not actually producing it. Quite frankly, I think Eon is just jealous, because they've been making "007" films since Bond was, like, 34 years old, and by 1983, they're still making more "007" films 21 years later, when Bond is, like, 35 years old, and yet these guys can come out of nowhere from out of the woodworks, and get the guy who directed "The Empire Strikes Back". Well, to be fair, that film, this film and "RoboCop 2" are about all anyone remembers Irvin Kershner doing, and plus, this film was produced by Francis Ford Coppola's brother-in-law, but eitherway, as far as Eon is concerned, this film is more about Garfield than James Bond. Well, to be fair, I can't really blame them for wanting that, because I'm kind of digging on the idea of that fat, orange cat walking around in a suit, ordering martinis - shaken not stirred -, pulling all kinds of beautiful women and engaging in crazy, over-the-top stunts that he caps off with the line, "I hate Mondays", partially because, well, this is based off of "Thunderball", so it's not like it could get much cheesier.
Okay, the film isn't that... similar to Eon's "Thunderball". Okay, it's not that cheesy, either, but still cheesy enough for this film to not even reach the 15-minute mark before Bond opens a large suitcase to reveal an assortment of fine picnic foods, one piece of which already being plated. After that, the film begins an endless streak of camp and cheese, and while that kind of tone is palpable, there comes many a time where you're left more annoyed by the satire than amused by it. Still, it's hard not to wish for more camp, because when the film isn't cheesy, it's kind of boring, an aspect that you can expect from Irvin Kershner, if, of course, you're one of the handful of sensible people with enough guts to actually admit there were only about five scenes in "The Empire Strikes Back" that weren't dull. Seriously though, the film is often quiet and occasionally repetative, leaving it to be rather dull, while a couple of sequences that come and go in fashions that are almost as inorganic as a deal of the music cues damage the flow of the film, and by extension, engagement. This film is famous as the "unoffical" installment in the "007", but really, it's hard to tell, because this thing follows plenty of the same beats of Eon's "official" series, flaws and all. However, because this is such a "Bond" film, unofficial or not, on top of having plenty of recognizable flaws, this film has plenty of recognizable strengths.
Okay, say what you will about how great "The Empire Strikes Back" is (*cough*wrong*cough*), Irvin Kershner is certainly no Lewis Gilbert when it comes to action, but he's still pretty good. Okay, now, these stunts aren't a "Real Bond" level of choreography and staging slickness, but it's still pretty sharp, and it's there, in the action, where the camp is arguably at its best, as it livens up the heat of the situation and keeps you engaged, as well as entertained, which isn't to say that the camp is so powerful to the point where you forget the substance behind it, what little though, there may be. Still, what slickness there is in the action is really brought to light by handsome cinematography, which not only pays a fine compliment to the action, but a very lush compliment to the fine locations that really grab your attention. If nothing else, the film is as handsome and charming as any other "Bond" film, but the charm that you're really coming to see is that of the one, the only, the original mac daddy "Bond": Mr. Sean Connery. Well, ladies and gentlemen, he's back and just as sharp as ever. True, seeing as this is not only "Thunderball" - on the first "007" installments to be low on genuineness -, as well as a bit of a satire on the "007" series itself, there's not enough humanity in the material for Connery to work so well off of like he always did, so for those hoping that Connery will be going back to the "real" classic days of "007" - complete with all the compelling humanity -, prepared to be disappointed. Still, no matter what, you can't be totally disappointed because, come on, it's Sean Connery returning as James Bond, and sure enough, he remains as charming as ever, carrying this film from beginning to end with his charismatic and quite missed presence.
At the end of the original's trip back home before he leaves, nev-I mean, not likely to return, you're left looking back at all of the cheesy, sometimes annoying camp and... forgeting about it, because it's the quietness and sometimes spotty storytelling that's most bothersome, but more often than not, Irvin Kershner delivers on the thrills, dazzle and charm of the "007" series, almost as much as Sean Connery himself, leaving "Never Say Never Again" to stand as a generally enjoyable and welcomed addition to the "007" franchise, where Eon wants it to be or not.
2.5/5 - Fair