Proof positive you need much more than Sean Connery to make a Bond movie. Whatever his reasons were to come back (having a say in the casting and creative influence f.e.) this movie turned out bad. And he looked about ten years older than he actually was. Which at least the'd taken into account.
Well, they couldn't use all the trademarks and it shows everywhere. From the opening scene this doesn't feel anything like James Bond. Funny enough some scenes actually do look like late 60s.
Concerning the cast: those aren't bad actors. But their acting is bad. But I guess they act like they were directed. "M" seems like a persiflage, totally over the top. Barbara Carrera is just a hanger for designer fashion. Her performance is one of the worst I've ever seen. I don't understand the Golden Globe nomination at all. And her final scene the most ridicolous thing. Brandauer is very bland as the villain. You can't say anything else above him.
And talking of blandness - re-heating an old story doesn't help. Seems to be that an original script would've been to expensive. And it takes about 1.5 h before the first decent stunt. It's also about the only significant one. I wonder where all that budget went. 36m $ compared to the 27.5m $ for "Octopussy" (all numbers imdb). Guess a lot went into Connery's pocket (actually it was 3m $ which was stupid money to pay for an actor back then). In case you'd like to know, roughly multiply the figures times 3.7 to compare it with today.
Like I said, in my eyes an unnessessary and forgetable movie. Well, since the boxoffice numbers were inferior to "Octopussy" we were spared another rogue Bond movie.

After a dozen years of sabbatical, Sean Connery slips into the old tuxedo, wraps his fist around a cold martini and reclaims the role of James Bond for one last lap around the racetrack. Connery looks rather gray for the part, but neither he nor the filmmakers shy away from that. Rather, he's portrayed as an old spy come out of retirement, with a renewed reliance on gadgets and sneaky tricks in lieu of dust-ups or more physical slices of action. That's admirably honest, particularly in contrast to Eon’s stubborn insistence that fifty-six year old Roger Moore was not an older man at all, and it might've paid off, had the ensuing film shown any sense of style or panache.

Instead, Never Say Never Again is thoroughly safe, flat and workmanlike, as though it were already looking forward to cashing checks for the sequel. There's no fire to the plot, no energy to the performances. Sir Sean seems perfectly content to let his mere presence do all the work, showing no sign of the magnetic, charismatic personality that once made him so irresistible. Much of the film's structure feels silly and out-of-date, too, perhaps reaching for familiar material to put the aging superstar at ease. Even the big set pieces land with a thud. How is it possible for a jetpack chase to feel so boring?

Grinding through the last hour is a terrible chore, drug out and underwhelming as it is. By that point, it's already obvious that not even James Bond can pull out of this tailspin.

What were they thinking?
This stood for a while as the worst of the 007 series, although it's been outdone since then.
It's just too boring to be as Hollywood depressing as it tries to be.
Plot? You'll lose interest in the attempt to show a plot. It's a grand scheme to threaten the world, and Bond is there to save the day.
There's nothing wrong with Connery. It's the script. It's the direction. It's the monotony. It's the totally predictable Hollywood ideology.
It's a more "Hollywood" rendering of Thunderball. Here, we have it made for women. This is a chick flick 007 movie, with the heroine being the pale "plain Jane" that all women identify with.
There is nothing memorable about this movie. You'll see that for yourself, if you watch it.
What were they thinking?

_**Connery “gets the band back together” after a dozen years absence**_

As James Bond (Sean Connery) returns to field action with M16, SPECTRE steals two warheads and 007 traces them to wealthy SPECTRE agent Maximillian Largo (Klaus Maria Brandauer), but he has to deal with femme fatale Fatima (Barbara Carrera) to accomplish his mission as he globetrots from the London area to the Bahamas to the French Riviera to North Africa to an underground facility on the Ethiopian coast. Kim Basinger plays Largo’s girlfriend while Bernie Casey is a highlight as Agent Leiter.

Despite the return of Connery, "Never Say Never Again" (1983) is an ‘unofficial’ James Bond film in that it wasn’t produced by Eon. As such, the recognizable Bond theme is missing, as is the opening gun barrel sequence and the familiar M16 office cast. Other than these factors, it’s a 007 film through and through. While it made a respectable profit at the box office, it didn’t do as well as “Octopussy” with Roger Moore, released four months earlier.

It’s a competent enough James Bond film it just pales in comparison to the dynamic “Octopussy,” which is arguably the most adventuresome, action-packed 007 flick. While Connery was three years younger than Moore, he looked older.

Some of the highlights include a knock-down-drag-out scrap between Bond and a big lug at the clinic; a clash with a couple of sharks in the waters of the Bahamas; a wild motorcycle/car chase in Nice, France; an escape from an old fortress in North Africa; and an exciting shootout at an archeological site.

Super-sharp Barbara Carrera stands out on the feminine front while Basinger is winsome enough, but she never interested me. Prunella Gee is striking as Patricia, a professional at the English clinic. Saskia Cohen Tanugi plays an M16 agent, Nicole, while Lucy Hornak has a small role as a cute nurse.

The film runs 2 hours, 14 minutes, and was shot in England; Nassau, Bahamas; the French Riviera; Almería, Andalucía, Spain; Malta; and Silver Springs, Florida.

GRADE: B-

It's a typical Bond. Brandauer and Connery solid. Connery aged but the first part in the sanatorium is an honest statement that they won't try to conceal the fact that this isn't a Bond at the peak of his physical capabilities. Rowan Atkinson trains for becoming both Mr. Bean and Johnny English. There's many memorable scenes like the electro-shock game. There's also the franchise's trademark silliness, craziness, sexism, humor, irony, fun and violence. I was entertained 'cause I got what I expected (except of course the official Bond theme 'cause this is not an official movie of the franchise). Like every Bond it's not an artful masterpiece nor is the plot unforeseeable (or entirely coherent) but I guess that's not the point of Bond movies.

I still don't understand why they made this a remake of *Thunderball*. I'm aware that a lengthy legal battle preceded this movie. But I still don't get it why they thought it was a good idea to make this movie almost identical (in many respects worse) than *Thunderball*. Couldn't they have disguised the original plot a bit? I mean who bought a ticket to watch this movie? I don't get it. Did they hope for younger viewers that didn't watch *Thunderball* before?