64 replies to this topic

[James Bond Jr]

This is a little better than FYEO in my book, but this is still a real time-waster. I am a big fan of Roger's films LALD through MR and am sad to see him wasted in these 3 John Glen films. This film isn't as original or ambitious as FYEO. Its pretty much as typical a Bond movie as you can get. But its never painful to watch like AVTAK or parts of FYEO.

The story itself is actually a sequel to the short story its named after, which I think is pretty cool (I LOVE the short story). The film is a tame Goldfinger remake set in India with a scene or two taken from "Property of a Lady". Just like Auric Goldfinger, the main villain is a jewelry-loving villain who cheats at gambling, has a super strong ethnic henchman and even takes Bond prisoner! Maude Adams plays a Pussy Galore-ripoff named... Octopussy. Like Pussy, she is a tough woman who works with the main villain and she leads a gang of beautiful women. But Octopussy isn't nearly as interesting or cool as Pussy was. Just as this film pales in comparison to the best Bond films. I really wanted to quit the film when they copied Oddjob's bowler hat with a sawblade thrown on a string. Just obvious laziness in writing. But these unoriginal scenes are the best parts of "Octopussy". And whatdoyouknow? Bond ends up defeating the villain and getting the girl on a plane.

The action is mostly dated stunts and Bond ducking un-menacing baddies

Roger seems to be having fun playing himself here. This is really Bond at his most goofy and un-Fleming, which is fine by me but will probably annoy others (Bond to a snake: "Hiss off"). Its heavy with bad puns and slapstick and has nothing to do with making Bond a realistic character. I rather the absurdity of seeing Bond in a robotic alligator and screaming like "Tarzan" over a pretentious, dark Bond adventure that's boring and too cynical. This film at times feels like Moonraker II.

I have to compare this to NSNA, as they both came out in the same year. This film has none of the quirk, steamy romance, innovation, genuine wit or style. But this film was more successful, supposedly because this was a Summer film and NSNA came out in the Fall. And it is great light fun, mostly because Roger is so likable. Can you imagine seeing 2 new theatrical Bond films in a year?!

5/10

Edited by James Bond Jr, 20 January 2011 - 08:36 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

Couldn't agree less with this review.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Neither could I.

[Mr_Wint]

Couldn't agree less with this review.

Couldn't agree more with that.

[Safari Suit]

I'm not sure how the stunts have "dated". By being done by real people rather than pixels?

And NSNA more inovative? Really?

However you are probably right to suggest that part of the reason OP was more successful than NSNA was that it was released first and in the summer, something which is often ignored or airbrushed

[SecretAgentFan]

Couldn't agree less with this review.

You know what I would be interested in reading now, don´t you?

[zencat]

Nope. Sorry. I'm Octopussy Fanboy #1.

[James Bond Jr]

Couldn't agree less with this review.

What do you disagree with? The film is a total Goldfinger clone. It is totally campy. It innovates nothing besides setting things in India. The action is overdone chase sequences on trains and in silly carriage cars instead of automobiles. Nothing fresh happens besides Bond telling more jokes and dressing in clown makeup.

Not referring to you Zorin, but NSNA is far better. And to miss its innovation is mind-numbing.
It starts showing Bond's M16 training, something we've never seen before.
The battle between Bond and the villain is in a high-tech mental game, not a tired and predictable gambling scene.
We have a cleverly directed sex scene between Bond and the femme fatale, unlike any Bond sex scene pre-Brosnan.
Kim Basinger portrays the leading actress as frail and mortified, in contrast to the typical oblivious sexpot.
Fatima Blush is a femme fatale who actually KILLS on-screen and shows her characters insanity. This is an obvious template for the GE character Xenia Onatopp.
Q and M are drastically different from the stale stereotypes they became in the EON films.
We actually see Bond at his desk briefly.
Bond gets in a very long fist fight and relies in no gadget or weapon. He actually gets beaten badly before winning. This pre-dates the acclaimed "vulnerable action" of Craig's films.
Unlike most Bond films, Bond falls in love with his leading lady and retires to settle down with her... successfully. Its the happier version of OHMSS.

Sometimes it pays to have an unpopular opinion

[James Bond Jr]

I'm not sure how the stunts have "dated". By being done by real people rather than pixels?

You are so right. No action scenes featuring living human beings can be dated. That means no pre-CGI action scene is dated.

Give me a break.

People on tops of trains is nothing new or exciting. And setting a lame car chase in India does not hide its lameness. The only bit of good action is the jet scene in the opening, which is enjoyable because it has your typical 80s exploding building scene.

[Safari Suit]

Geez, you're rude! I hope you're nicer when you progress to James Bond Sr.!

I never said that all live action stunts are timeless, but the plane stunt at the end is hardly Pauline being tied to the tracks.

[James Bond Jr]

Geez, you're rude! I hope you're nicer when you progress to James Bond Sr.!

I never said that all live action stunts are timeless, but the plane stunt at the end is hardly Pauline being tied to the tracks.

I apologize. My personality is pretty sarcastic and acerbic at times. I'm like that with my friends.
But I don't like when people offer flippant little replies without explaining themselves. I might have taken out my annoyance on you by mistake.

[Doctor Whom]

I had high hopes for OP when it was released. FYEO was a marked departure from the previous Moore efforts, and I really enjoyed it (as I've mentioned elsewhere, I don't think it's stood the test of time). I was hoping that we'd get more of the same with OP. We didn't really, aside from some bits and pieces here and there. OP seems like a film that doesn't know what it wants to be. The parts in Germany relating to the nuclear bomb are played effectively straight (even with Bond dressed as a clown). But much of the rest of it is too jokey by far, as if the producers couldn't quite bring themselves to go all the way.

OP is not without its charms. The stuntwork is terrific, even though their verisimilitude is severely undercut by the presence of the fifty-something Roger Moore. From a distance, Bond is a high-energy athelete. Up close, he's a stiffly moving middle aged man. Louis Jourdan is a suave, menacing villain.

On the negative side, John Barry's score is a disappointment, as were all of his eighties scores. Even the gunbarrel theme lacks zip. Clearly, the Bond films just didn't inspire him any longer. John Glen's direction is colorless, as usual (oddly enough, his style works best in the German scenes. He's lost in India).

[elizabeth]

Couldn't agree less with this review.

Nor could I. OP is terrific. You must have been watching it with your eyes closed.

[sharpshooter]

Couldn't agree less with this review.

Couldn't agree more with that.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

But I don't like when people offer flippant little replies without explaining themselves.

But I wonder if your review prompted anything else. As someone who grew up on Octopussy (I remember watching the UK TV premiere) and looks back on it fondly, when I read something that suggests Moore was wasted in three John Glen films I find it difficult to respond because you don't really say why you think this is the case (which could be an interesting point to discuss). Furthermore in your penultimate paragraph you write that Bond is too unrealistic in the film, but then you (seem to) say this isn't a problem for you but might be for others. Considering OP's very healthy box office grosses back in 1983 i'm not sure who these others might be.
You say that OP is heavily reliant on Goldfinger, (and that NSNA is a better film). That's fair enough, but I disagree. Just because both villains loved jewellery, had super strong ethnic henchman and both female leads are tough and lead a gang of beautiful women doesn't make it a remake for me. For example Goldfinger the villain is obsessed with gold, Louis Jourdan isn't obsessed with faberge eggs. Bond has a backstory with Octopussy's father but there is nothing of the same in Goldfinger. Considering Goldfinger was a kind of series template if similarities to it occur in the films years down the line then this doesn't altogether surprise me.

[The Shark]

On the negative side, John Barry's score is a disappointment, as were all of his eighties scores.

A VIEW TO A KILL begs to differ.

Easily one of Barry's most stirring, sinuous, violent, and anthemic scores.

[Zorin Industries]

Couldn't agree less with this review.

What do you disagree with? The film is a total Goldfinger clone. It is totally campy. It innovates nothing besides setting things in India. The action is overdone chase sequences on trains and in silly carriage cars instead of automobiles. Nothing fresh happens besides Bond telling more jokes and dressing in clown makeup.

Not referring to you Zorin, but NSNA is far better. And to miss its innovation is mind-numbing.
It starts showing Bond's M16 training, something we've never seen before.
The battle between Bond and the villain is in a high-tech mental game, not a tired and predictable gambling scene.
We have a cleverly directed sex scene between Bond and the femme fatale, unlike any Bond sex scene pre-Brosnan.
Kim Basinger portrays the leading actress as frail and mortified, in contrast to the typical oblivious sexpot.
Fatima Blush is a femme fatale who actually KILLS on-screen and shows her characters insanity. This is an obvious template for the GE character Xenia Onatopp.
Q and M are drastically different from the stale stereotypes they became in the EON films.
We actually see Bond at his desk briefly.
Bond gets in a very long fist fight and relies in no gadget or weapon. He actually gets beaten badly before winning. This pre-dates the acclaimed "vulnerable action" of Craig's films.
Unlike most Bond films, Bond falls in love with his leading lady and retires to settle down with her... successfully. Its the happier version of OHMSS.

Sometimes it pays to have an unpopular opinion

MOST of the Bond films are to a degree clones of GOLDFINGER. It is the definitive template that is embedded in the formula. The film is not camp. It is a lot of things but it is not camp.

Bearing in mind 1970's cinema and Bond was awash with car sequences (including EYES ONLY) it made absolute sense to avoid that. I think the train sequences are well done. They are about the story at all times with an urgency and emergency a lot of Bond set pieces do not have.

I'm sorry to disagree - but there is nothing very innovative about NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN. A lazy remake of THUNDERBALL was never going to be innovative. It looks like a TV movie, it has very little grace and elegance, takes the cheap route far too often and Kim Basinger looks asleep through most of it. And the problem with LARGO is the very thing you are lauding up. High tech mental games do not make good cinema. And BOND settling down with his girl at the end is easy if the film makers know this was a one off. Hence, inane winks at the audience. In fact, one of my main issues with NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is that the whole film is a wink to the audience. Every beat thinks it is oh-so knowing and clever, when it rarely is. Yes, FATIMA BLUSH works very well but that is down to Barbara Careera not the script.

My personality is pretty sarcastic and acerbic at times. I'm like that with my friends.

From your posts I would say it thinks it is but is not. There is a difference. But you are a man ebbing against the tide so have some of my respect as I think Zorin Industries wrote the book on that (in fact.....). I appreciate your efforts to discuss a film that I think is very good, even if I agree on nothing you say. Horses for courses and all that, as Zorin Industries plc always says.

[Safari Suit]

Geez, you're rude! I hope you're nicer when you progress to James Bond Sr.!

I never said that all live action stunts are timeless, but the plane stunt at the end is hardly Pauline being tied to the tracks.

I apologize. My personality is pretty sarcastic and acerbic at times. I'm like that with my friends.
But I don't like when people offer flippant little replies without explaining themselves. I might have taken out my annoyance on you by mistake.

Nah, you don't need to apologise, we were just messing around. And for what it's worth you may have actually convinced me on a points decision that NSNA is somewhat more inovative than OP. But still not nearly inovative enough for "the Bond movie EON dare not make!"

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I am actually putting pen to paper re OCTOPUSSY at the moment (but maybe not for CBn circulation).

Well I hope we'll get it, i've been asking and waiting for this for some time

[Zorin Industries]

I will get round to Bond 83 one day.

[Jim]

Not a film I've ever been able to warm to, really. Ambles along fairly harmlessly I suppose.

[Loomis]

Y'know, I was a young boy when OCTOPUSSY and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN came out, and thus was perhaps the ideal age for both films. Moreover, I knew nothing of the rivalry between Eon and McClory, the long legal wrangles and all the rest of it.

It never occurred to me to wonder why two different actors were all of a sudden playing Bond in "rival" Bond films. Indeed, it never even crossed my mind that these films were rivals (heck, they both came out on Warner Home Video). I simply accepted them both as Bond films, and found both of them very enjoyable. Still do (although truth be told I've always much preferred NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN). I was just a kid who was happy to have these exciting action movies, both of which gave me further adventures of my hero 007. I never thought to question the situation - it just "was". And as for taking sides, who on earth would want to do that?

There's a lesson in there somewhere.

[David_M]

It's a good point that Octopussy beat NSNA to the punch in '83, but there's more to its "win" than that. Whatever NSNA's merits, it's crippled by a look and feel that comes off as cheap and small, and that's a cardinal sin for a "Bond film." I saw the trailer for the film on YouTube recently and realized all the clues were there; the most "exciting" sequence shown was a motorcycle chase that could have been staged for a TV show.

It's also fair to argue that OP didn't exactly set the world on fire with "innovation." In large part this is no doubt thanks to NSNA; with a rival Bond on the horizon, EON had a powerful incentive to give audiences the kind of movie they expected when they paid for a Bond film. That said, NSNA isn't a font of new ideas, either. It doesn't help that they were legally restricted from straying too far from the "Thunderball" story. The neat early bits showing how the passage of time would have affected an older Bond are pretty much abandoned as the film goes on, and with them went the one real chance the film had to offer something really special and unique.

When I saw OP in '83, I felt some of the same things already expressed on this thread; a lot of it was just "more of the same," a lot felt like it was "playing it safe" after the riskier FYEO (again probably due to the competition from Connery), the stunts were great if somewhat undone by the obvious impossibility of Moore doing even the simplest of them, and so on. The music I thought worked very well in the film but yes can be sleep-inducing on a turntable (showing my age, there).

I confess I never saw the parallels to GF, but this thread has provided some satisfaction, having now officially had every single post-1964 Bond film accused of somehow ripping off Goldfinger. :-) It never occurred to me the ending on the plane might have been cribbed from that film, but I certainly did notice that it was the second film in a row to feature Bond stunting around on the outside of an aircraft, and the next three would follow suit (the next two in their climactic stunt scenes), suggesting we were indeed in a bit of a rut.

[Doctor Whom]

MOST of the Bond films are to a degree clones of GOLDFINGER.

That'c certainly true. GF was the film that made the franchise and it only nmakes sense that the producers of a long-running series would want to replicate their first big hit. But it seems that whenever they actually cloned a film, it was YOLT. You can find echoes of YOLT in OHMSS, DAF, TSWLM (YOLT with submarines), MR (YOLT in space) OP and AVTAK.

[JimmyBond]

I do gotta disagree with your implications that AVTAK is somehow a bad film. It happens to be my second favorite Roger Bond film, after Moonraker of course.

Horses for courses.

[Mr. Blofeld]

But it seems that whenever they actually cloned a film, it was YOLT. You can find echoes of YOLT in OHMSS

Huh? Since when did OHMSS echo YOLT -- a movie OHMSS's director despised, and deliberately ignored in crafting the screenplay?

If anything else, YOLT was itself a clone of Dr. No; there's so many similarities, it's absurd.

[James Bond Jr]

I still maintain that OP relies too much on Goldfinger. Its too obvious what they were going for and it insults one's intelligence. Its plain to me that the character Octopussy was made to be Roger's Pussy Galore. Sure, GF is a template of the series, but I think it was copied lazily here.

This is my main beef with the John Glen films. He tried lots of new directions, but failed in my opinion. And to balance out his more daring decisions, he borrowed heavily from the Connery films. But he never improved on them. It just feels like watching a bad imitation. OP has a fake Goldfinger, a fake Oddjob, a fake Pussy Galore. AVTAK seems like a direct response to NSNA with Mayday as Fatima Blush, Zorin as a weak Maximillion Largo, and a plot centered on computer chips maybe a response to Largo's heavy computer usage. LTK was didn't rip off any other Bond films, but it ripped off a dozen other 80s action films. Glen's compromises were terrible.

In OP, I do like Louis Jordan here. He is the highlight of the film. But he's playing the same villain here that he played in the Swamp Thing films, and to a much weaker degree. So I'm not as impressed with his role.

Now I will explain why NSNA is the most innovative/fresh 80s Bond films to me. I know Kim Basinger is not a popular Bond girl with fans, but I think she is supremely beautiful compared with most Bond actresses and I think her acting was very different and more interesting than TB's Domino. She seems genuinely in love with Largo. And also, genuinely afraid. Bond girls before have zero dimension (besides Jane Seymour who played pretty terrified/town between Bond and the villain to a smaller degree. I think the actor who played Largo was perfect. Modern, stylish, unassuming, quietly menacing and not a cartoon. A black Felix Leiter (and a Felix with plenty of screen time) had to inspire the Craig creative team. I'm borrowing from my NSNA review by mentioning elements like Bond on a motorcycle, the first use of his laser watch and seeing Bond train in war games. How can you say NSNA is not innovative now?

The humor in Moore's films are CAMPY. Bond screaming like Tarzan, Maragret Thatcher talking to a parrot and that terrible "California Girls" scene. Come now. On the other hand, I don't think NSNA ever crosses any line besides the literal "wink at the camera" which is more of a "farewell" from Sean than the film not taking itself seriously. Its humor is more straight, less broad and less pun-oriented.

I don't see how NSNA feels small and cheap. Dated, yes. The soft focus camera certainly dates it, but I think it adds elegance to the film. The Domination setpeice is very well done for its time. Can't think of anything similar predating it. When we visit the Caribbean and Europe, we have more establishing shots of the scenery, which makes it more evocative and grand than most Bond films up to that point. The set at the end (Tears of Allah) is a gorgeous set, reminiscent of the Indiana Jones sets, but not copying them. I prefer NSNA's score to the scores on later EON films, which seemed to be bastardizing themselves. NSNA gave a totally new sound to James Bond.

I still maintain that OP relies too much on Goldfinger. Its too obvious what they were going for and it insults one's intelligence. Its plain to me that the character Octopussy was made to be Roger's Pussy Galore. Sure, GF is a template of the series, but I think it was copied lazily here.

This is my main beef with the John Glen films. He tried lots of new directions, but failed in my opinion. And to balance out his more daring decisions, he borrowed heavily from the Connery films. But he never improved on them. It just feels like watching a bad imitation. OP has a fake Goldfinger, a fake Oddjob, a fake Pussy Galore. AVTAK seems like a direct response to NSNA with Mayday as Fatima Blush, Zorin as a weak Maximillion Largo, and a plot centered on computer chips maybe a response to Largo's heavy computer usage. LTK was didn't rip off any other Bond films, but it ripped off a dozen other 80s action films. Glen's compromises were terrible.

In OP, I do like Louis Jordan here. He is the highlight of the film. But he's playing the same villain here that he played in the Swamp Thing films, and to a much weaker degree. So I'm not as impressed with his role.

Now I will explain why NSNA is the most innovative/fresh 80s Bond films to me. I know Kim Basinger is not a popular Bond girl with fans, but I think she is supremely beautiful compared with most Bond actresses and I think her acting was very different and more interesting than TB's Domino. She seems genuinely in love with Largo. And also, genuinely afraid. Bond girls before have zero dimension (besides Jane Seymour who played pretty terrified/town between Bond and the villain to a smaller degree. I think the actor who played Largo was perfect. Modern, stylish, unassuming, quietly menacing and not a cartoon. A black Felix Leiter (and a Felix with plenty of screen time) had to inspire the Craig creative team. I'm borrowing from my NSNA review by mentioning elements like Bond on a motorcycle, the first use of his laser watch and seeing Bond train in war games. How can you say NSNA is not innovative now?

The humor in Moore's films are CAMPY. Bond screaming like Tarzan, Maragret Thatcher talking to a parrot and that terrible "California Girls" scene. Come now. On the other hand, I don't think NSNA ever crosses any line besides the literal "wink at the camera" which is more of a "farewell" from Sean than the film not taking itself seriously. Its humor is more straight, less broad and less pun-oriented.

I don't see how NSNA feels small and cheap. Dated, yes. The soft focus camera certainly dates it, but I think it adds elegance to the film. The Domination setpeice is very well done for its time. Can't think of anything similar predating it. When we visit the Caribbean and Europe, we have more establishing shots of the scenery, which makes it more evocative and grand than most Bond films up to that point. The set at the end (Tears of Allah) is a gorgeous set, reminiscent of the Indiana Jones sets, but not copying them. I prefer NSNA's score to the scores on later EON films, which seemed to be bastardizing themselves. NSNA gave a totally new sound to James Bond.

[Zorin Industries]

The humor in Moore's films are CAMPY. Bond screaming like Tarzan, Maragret Thatcher talking to a parrot and that terrible "California Girls" scene. Come now. On the other hand, I don't think NSNA ever crosses any line besides the literal "wink at the camera" which is more of a "farewell" from Sean than the film not taking itself seriously.

Those moments you cite from Moore are NOT camp. You need to check what your definition of camp is.

OCTOPUSSY had ... Mood. Style. Mystery. The music and the atmosphere in the casino sequence was A+. The dialogue was great. Loved the scene where Bond spies on Magda getting off the boat and wondering who she is as Barry's mysterious music plays. Glen does a great job building up the suspense as we hear Octopussy speak but don't get to see her immediately. I could go on.

Give that man a ticket for the Economy Tour!

[Safari Suit]

I think the term "TV Movie" can sometimes be thrown around a little carelessly but... I have to say to my eyes NSNA looks very cheap for a Bond movie, especially considering it reputedly had a bigger budget than Octopussy. The only other Bond movie which I feel comes even close to looking as dingy is TMWTGG. Even the furniture looks cheap and tacky, which is odd considering it was partly funded by MFI. Or maybe that explains it

[Turn]

OP is my favorite Moore Bond and one of my series favorites. It works as a fun Bond film and has enough serious moments to work along with being just a great ride. Taken for what it is it seems hard for anyone not to like OP, but everybody's got their own take.

A couple of things in this thread I don't agree with: 1. How in any way OP is a GF clone, aside from a strong henchman and ticking bomb near the finale. AVTAK is much closer to this comparison and even I have never been one to buy into that.

2. How FYEO was original or ambitious. It attempted a couple of things in trying to lose the fantastic aspects and gadgets and bring Bond back to earth, toughen up Moore's character and go back to Fleming a bit.

But examine it on a bigger scale and it's basically an excuse to focus on stunts instead of gadgets and to rehash many things that went before including new versions of previous stunts and set pieces, characters and even plot. I don't find great or even good storytelling at all in FYEO.