|
| 
 enlarge | Director: Irvin Kershner
Actors: Sean Connery, Kim Basinger, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Max Von Sydow, Barbara Carrera
Studio: MGM (Video & DVD)
Category: DVD
List Price: $14.98
Buy New: $4.99
You Save: $9.99 (67%)
New (47) Used (32) from $3.75
Rating:  195 reviews
Sales Rank: 799
Format: Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Color, Dvd-video, Widescreen, Ntsc
Language: English (Original Language)
Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Region: 1
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Picture Format: Anamorphic Widescreen
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 133 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.3 x 0.6
MPN: MGMD1001098D
ISBN: 0792847229
UPC: 027616853981
EAN: 9780792847229
ASIN: B00004WEJZ
Theatrical Release Date: 1983
Release Date: October 17, 2000
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: ******BRAND NEW****** ** Over 1.5 million orders shipped worldwide and more than 500 000 items in stock, BUY FROM A TRUSTED SOURCE, ESTABLISHED SINCE 1998 - INETVIDEO ~~~
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 51-55 of 195
 Pass on this Bond March 18, 2005
C. A. Luster (Burke, VA USA)
2 out of 7 found this review helpful
This movie is not based on an Ian Fleming book. I read them all many years ago. Okay I can live with that since I have enjoyed most the later movies that were not based on Fleming's books. I especially like the ones that Pierce Brosnan has done. The movie just plods along, but never makes you say wow like the other Bond movies have done. I can't take Sean Connery playing Bond in a movie that lacks anything new and exciting. His acting is good as always, but it is like watching him in a remake of "Hunt for Red October". What's the point? I liked the original "Thunderball" but I don't need to see a remake that lacks inspiration. I have all the Bond DVD movie sets and even the comedy "Casino Royale" which although the same title as an Ian Fleming book, has nothing in common with the book. I will not buy this movie though since the story isn't new and the movie is only mediocre. I think Sean Connery is one of the finest actors of our time and I love all the other movies he made with MGM, but I think this one does not measure up to the other movies.
Good to have you back Mr. Bond February 21, 2005
Phahroh
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
He's back and this time he is better than the last time. Sean Connery definitely is the real James Bond, a perfect embodiment of the famous super spy.
After having sat through all those Roger Moore movies (Who kept it going but also turned Bond into a joker), it was really refreshing to see Connery back. He is 53 but looks better that in Diamonds are Forever. The movie even though a remake of Thunderball has been well tailored for the 80's.
Although i thought that the character of th villain (Now what was his name) could have been refined a little but the women all in all made up for it. I do agree that this was quite a raunchy Bond movie and i must say that Barbara Carrera does a wonderful job as Fatima Blush. The action is customised to suit the ageing Bond who does it better than most.
All in all i would say that this movie might disappoint the purists (traditional Bond fans) but it nevertheless delivers.
Always good to see Sean Connery donning the tux.
Welcome back Mr. Bond
 Think it over; what does never mean? January 24, 2005
Hiram Gomez Pardo (Valencia, Venezuela)
2 out of 6 found this review helpful
This film was the perfect farewell to Sean Connery -The best Bond ever- . After more than a decade with Roger Moore, it was decided to make a funny remake of Thunderball with lots of finest humor and obviously double sense jokes.
The presence of a splendid cast : Max von Sydow and the third best villain of Bond series, Klaus Maria Bandauer and the glorious beauty of the talented and promising by then actress Kim Bassinger who besides became the maxim sex symbol of the eighties- the first Bond girl who eventually would receive an Academy Award, years before Halle Berry repeated the same feat, makes of this work a sympathetic evasion film who will remind Connery with an excess of free radicals and toxins.
Watch for the male villain: the dazzling and exuberant Barbara Carrera.
An unusual film a bit overlong perhaps, working out more as a tribute to Connery instead just another additional Bond entry. I presume Kershner was the chosen director after having worked in Connery's first comedy in the late sixties: A fine madness.
I got to be honest about this December 19, 2004
Peter (Sweden)
7 out of 16 found this review helpful
This is a funny thing about sean connery, back in 1973, the producers of james bond movies offered him loads and loads of money, and really wanted him to continue as bond. he refused, and they hired Roger Moore to continue as bond. (after Connery had alredy turned down the role once before when Lazenby took over) but then about 10 years later, connery is fine by staring in this none-real james bond movie. i'm sorry, i'm a big james bond fan since i was child, but i could never dig this movie nomather how much i wanted.
it feels slow, pale and empty. it can't be compared with the regular "real" james bond movies. i want it to be a part of the james bond series, but it just doesnt have it. it doesn't have it. and the fact that it's a remake of "Thunderball" makes it just even more lame. and if they had to make a remake. why not do a remake of a movie that Roger Moore had starred in earlier? that would be so fun to compare. the bond films are based on books, so why not film the "Octopussy" book wich Moore was doing the same time 1983? But to do a remake of a movie that Connery has alredy done Bond in back the 60s.. that's just so lame.
this could be wrong, but i think i heard that sean connery doesnt like to talk about james bond in interwievs. isn't james bond what made sean connery? james bond is what sean connery always will be most famour for. what has he done since he quit the role? small movies, unknown movies, trash like "the league", or playing indiana jones dad or something.. he was at his best as james bond, and doesnt seem to appreciate the role as much as Moore and Brosnan has done. they were more like the oposit, they loved playing bond and never wanted to stop it.
Connery did this movie the same year as Roger Moore was james bond in a "real" bond flick titled "Octopussy", though "Never say never again" looks more like it was made 20 years earlier.. Connery's bond movies from the 60's looks more up to date than this. alote of people think Connery is too old to play Bond in this movie, don't they know that Connery is younger than Moore? (who kept playing bond for 2 more years). what is it with these people and age? please. besides, bond is best as old. i want bond to be old. okey?. and just the title of this movie.. what a dumb title. there's only one good thing about this weak movie, and thats sean connery back as Bond. just too bad he didnt continue in a "real" bond flick instead of making this jive 15 years later.
 Fatima Blush December 11, 2004
James Lee (London, England)
1 out of 14 found this review helpful
Fatima Blush's sex scene erotic, are you old men having a laugh?, how is hanging horizontally out of an airing cupboard and being sexually molested by a 70 year old man, sexy? On the other hand the only redeeming points of this 'movie' are the scenes with Fatima and Jack and here's a quotation from one of my favourite scenes "Jack must do his little trick in 8 seconds and nursey will give baby candy"
|
|
|
| |
