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.