64 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

IMO one of the best scenes in OP (and the whole series) is having Bond be literally the clown who has to persuade the army that there is a nuclear bomb in the circus. What a perfect dramatic irony, especially with Moore, the one Bond who always was accused of being too much of a "clown" as Bond.

[jaguar007]

The action is mostly dated stunts

OP, I'm just curious, how old are you? The action may look dated by todays standards, but I will tell you back in 1983 it was spectacular. Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981 was Bonds first real competition in the action/adventure department and it was not until 84-85 when other movies really started to surpass Bond as far as the action genre (ROTLA escepted).

[James Bond Jr]

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

I can see how the look of the film is dated and even tacky. I think that's the cinematography, which I understand other disliking. But I think Largo's casino, ballroom, his massive boat and the set for the climax are all very classy and feel large. I think most people just remember NSNA setting pivotal scenes in a health spa and Domino's dance room, and call the whole film small and inexpensive. Maybe even the editing contributes to a more TV-friendly film style. But I still think the sets, setpieces, clothing and overall style is fine.

Agreed. I don't have the dictionary definition of "camp" in front of me, but I usually think of "camp" as something extraordinarily stupid or silly, or something that takes you out of the moment and turns the film into something that it is not meant to be. For example, the PTS of MOONRAKER is incredible right up to the point where Jaws starts flapping his "wings"; that is "camp" and it totally ruins the mood and tenor of the scene.

OP's having Bond swing from a tree and yell like "Tarzan" is silly and stupid to me. Bond berating a tiger is silly and takes me out of the film. The octopus latching on to a villain's face is so out of place and comes off silly because of the bad effects. The other Moore films are campier, but OP is guilty of camp EVEN WITH your definition. Thank you for defining it though.

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.

1. I listed all my examples. The plot points and characterization is strongly reminiscent of GF. More so than other films. The main villain is interested in jewelry, Bond exposes that he cheats at gambling, he has a silent strong henchman of another race, he captures Bond and lets him lounge about his home, he employs a female with the word "Pussy" in her name who in turn employs nothing but beautiful women. The story ends on a plane. Many Bond films reuse things from the early films, but this is too much for my tastes. On this missoion, James Bond would be feeling deja vu

2. I'm not a huge fan of FYEO and you are right about it being a bunch of stunts and reused bits, but it is certainly a radical little Bond movie. The cinematography is very different. The little bursts of humor are more over the top than ever before (and maybe sense) ex. Bond knocking hockey player assassins in a hockey goal for points. More innovation: The leading lady has a personal subplot, she's out for revenge. The PTS, while a letdown, is really essential to the overall theme of the story and actually concludes a previous film! Its the first and really only Roger film to drop his sense of humor, puns and one-liners. The climax with Bond in a small guerrilla unit is new and very cool. And that amazing score is a real new and appealing take on Bond music.

OP, I'm just curious, how old are you? The action may look dated by todays standards, but I will tell you back in 1983 it was spectacular. Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981 was Bonds first real competition in the action/adventure department and it was not until 84-85 when other movies really started to surpass Bond as far as the action genre (ROTLA escepted).

I'm 23. I'm sure this film was awesome when it came out. Its better than FYEO, TMWTGG and the future AVTAK. I don't think the chase sequences are that good, they have their fresh little spins like knife-throwing villains and bringing back scenes on top of trains, which was sort of a cliche even at that point, having seen it spoofed in many pre-83 spy comedy. I think that the flying sawblade is the coolest bit of action in the film, but it is sort a weaker, less effectively utilized gadget than the beheading bowler hat it seems to be inspired by. I bet the exploding building in the PTS was a real crowd-pleaser, but it seems sort of useless and cheap to me. It is still fun.

Have some of you rewatched OP since reading my review? Not to be a jerk, but the film is still fresh in my head and I think my points are easy to find in the film. The campy humor, the comparisons to Goldfinger, how mundane the action is today. And while its in my bottom 5 or 10 Bond films, I do think its the best of John Glen's 3 Moore films. And please do yourself a favor and rewatch NSNA with new eyes because I think that film is a gem. I don't think you could ask for a better 80s Bond film. Especially one starring an older Sean Connery, based on a previously filmed story and not made by EON.

IMO one of the best scenes in OP (and the whole series) is having Bond be literally the clown who has to persuade the army that there is a nuclear bomb in the circus. What a perfect dramatic irony, especially with Moore, the one Bond who always was accused of being too much of a "clown" as Bond.

Yeah, that is a great point, SAF. I actually have no beef with Bond in clown makeup because its established at the beginning that an agent in such stupid camouflage is still in danger of dying.

Edited by James Bond Jr, 23 January 2011 - 02:19 AM.

[jaguar007]

I have not watched OP since reading your review (yesterday), but I did watch it a few months ago and I will agree with some points on the film. I don't think it copied GF as much as AVTAK did and there are a few scenes like the Tarzan yell that are inexcusable. I was in high school back in 83 and had been a big Bond fan for several years at that point. I was looking forward to both films, but especially NSNA as I was a bigger Connery fan. I really wanted to like NSNA better than OP and at the time I tried to convince myself that I liked NSNA better, but the truth is I liked (and still do) prefer OP. I think OP has a much better pace to the film than NSNA where most of the action looks stale and flat and OP is just more fun to watch. However overall I actually rank OP & NSNA fairly close to one another. I have not watched NSNA in years, but I will take your suggestion and re-watch it this week (my wife is out of town, so it is a good week to watch some Bond films) and return to this thread.

BTW, I place OP right in the middle of Glen's Moore films with FYEO in the top spot.

I don't think you could ask for a better 80s Bond film. Especially one starring an older Sean Connery, based on a previously filmed story and not made by EON.

Yes I can, it is called "The Living Daylights", by FAR the best 80s Bond film.

[James Bond Jr]

I have not watched OP since reading your review (yesterday), but I did watch it a few months ago and I will agree with some points on the film. I don't think it copied GF as much as AVTAK did and there are a few scenes like the Tarzan yell that are inexcusable. I was in high school back in 83 and had been a big Bond fan for several years at that point. I was looking forward to both films, but especially NSNA as I was a bigger Connery fan. I really wanted to like NSNA better than OP and at the time I tried to convince myself that I liked NSNA better, but the truth is I liked (and still do) prefer OP. I think OP has a much better pace to the film than NSNA where most of the action looks stale and flat and OP is just more fun to watch. However overall I actually rank OP & NSNA fairly close to one another. I have not watched NSNA in years, but I will take your suggestion and re-watch it this week (my wife is out of town, so it is a good week to watch some Bond films) and return to this thread.

BTW, I place OP right in the middle of Glen's Moore films with FYEO in the top spot.

I don't think you could ask for a better 80s Bond film. Especially one starring an older Sean Connery, based on a previously filmed story and not made by EON.

Yes I can, it is called "The Living Daylights", by FAR the best 80s Bond film.

Cool, man. Hope you enjoy watching NSNA again. OP's pace is probably its biggest saving grace. Just light, fast and breezy. I have a real problem with its length. Fast films like that should never be 2 hours long in my book. Feels like sensory overload.

TLD is fantastic for the most part, especially if I'm in the mood for serious Bond action. Its gotta be Glen's most respectable film and LTK, his most crowd-pleasing. TLD has one of the few elements that they reused and made better - The anti-Bond! Necros seems so much deadlier and cooler than Red Grant or Scaramanga. Wish he had more to do in the story. This Gothic blond, silent, charming murderer is the reason why I love Daniel Craig! Glen also really utilized his budget and the changing attitudes of the 80s.

My biggest problems with TLD are the main actress and the villains. If only TLD had the strong cast LTK had, I would agree its the best 80s Bond.

Edited by James Bond Jr, 23 January 2011 - 03:10 AM.

[jaguar007]

My biggest problems with TLD are the main actress and the villains. If only TLD had the strong cast LTK had, I would agree its the best 80s Bond.

I agree that LTK has a better villain (I never had a problem with D'Abo) but by 1987, we have had so many over the top megalomaniac bad guys that the more realistic low key villains were quite refreshing.

[James Bond Jr]

What do you disagree with? The film is a total Goldfinger clone.

It's become fashionable to try and compare every movie since Goldfinger to Goldfinger as a "Goldfinger clone", and in this instance you're simply wrong. They share some common traits because they shared Ian Fleming as the common denominator.

Fashionable or not, its true in some cases. Especially OP.

Fleming's influence is hardly in the film OP's story. Besides the plot of "Property of a Lady" and referencing the plot of the short story "Octopussy". Fleming called an octopus "Octopussy", it was the filmmakers who gave the name to a character who is strongly reminiscent of Pussy Galore. Pussy... Octopussy. Those terribly unoriginal screenwriters. There was no gang of beautiful women in any other Fleming story besides GF. No need listing all of the similarities again. But right down to Bond blowing up a building in the PTS, OP is following GF's lead.

[James Bond Jr]

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.

I respect your bold tastes. Growing up with AVTAK in heavy rotation, I grew to enjoy it. But I don't like it now. I respect you more for loving Moonraker!

[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

I can see how the look of the film is dated and even tacky. I think that's the cinematography, which I understand other disliking. But I think Largo's casino, ballroom, his massive boat and the set for the climax are all very classy and feel large. I think most people just remember NSNA setting pivotal scenes in a health spa and Domino's dance room, and call the whole film small and inexpensive. Maybe even the editing contributes to a more TV-friendly film style. But I still think the sets, setpieces, clothing and overall style is fine.

I watched some of NSNA last night. It does have some nice sets, particularly the safe and the SPECTRE contol room and hidden entrance Fatima walks into at the beginning. But on the whole visually I don't think it's up to par.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I don't think you could ask for a better 80s Bond film. Especially one starring an older Sean Connery, based on a previously filmed story and not made by EON.

Yes I can, it is called "The Living Daylights", by FAR the best 80s Bond film.

I agree.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

However, sometimes the humor drives the action sequences by helping the audience get into the fun. I think the whole stretch of humor in the taxi chase made the sequence much more interesting and fun that it might have been otherwise. The audience I was with (all 3 times) loved the wad of rupees landing on the collection plate of the beggar; loved Roger Moore telling the swallowing swordsman "you better stick that in yourself"; Q telling Octopussy's women "there's no time for that...maybe later"...all that helped get the adrenaline moving in those scenes.

This kind of evokes how I feel about OP.

My memories of watching it on good old VHS in the eighties were with others who also really enjoyed everything the film had to offer. I think this was mainly due to Moore who doesn't put a foot wrong here and is nothing short of superb playing 007. The film makers cleverly made a film that played to all of Moore's strength's as virtually every scene gives him the opportunity to shine and take the audience with him. The auction scene, the casino scene, the chase scenes in India and Germany, Bond eating dinner with Kamal are all spectacularly entertaining. When Moore is escorted to his room by Gobinda and says 'i could come in for a nightcap' it could have been cut there but the film makers really have fun allowing Moore to tease the henchman by saying 'I don't suppose you'd care for a nightcap'. This line not only amuses, but assures those watching that although the villains have Bond captured it isn't going to be for long.

Moore is also given some great 'serious' moments to get his teeth into. As mentioned earlier he carries off the 'almost exploding bomb scene' with competent ease (helped by Glen's direction and Barry's Chase Bond Theme). The ticking bomb concept would have been well known to audiences both in and out of the Bond films by '83, but here it's like watching it done for the first time. Moore is also great in the final showdown with Steven Berkoff's Orlov. A scene that is essentially plot exposition becomes a tense drama scene in it's own right thanks to the two actors and a good script.

A great decision to bring back Maud Adams - casting an ex Bond girl could have been uninspired but it works so well and is a very clever move. No doubt relying on Golden Gun, Adam's is in perfect tune to Moore's 007 and she really doesn't disappoint as the title character. Forget a Jinx spin off, it's Adams' character you want to know more about. When she turns round and announces she is Octopussy, well she IS and Andrea Anders of ten years ago never enters the mind. Both the stars clearly enjoy themselves giving very natural performances in their scenes together.

People often slate John Glen but for a director's second film his work here is outstanding. He certainly knows how to film a Bond casino scene, keeps the pace going and has fun in all the right places but then cranks up the tension a few seconds later. He's having as much fun directing as we are watching.

This film has, IMO, nothing on NSNA. The latter film almost has no identity or confidence. It feels as though it stopped creatively the moment Connery was cast because it doesn't really know Sean Connery's Bond, and as such feels so tonally different. Ironically this often happens when the film is trying to be at it's cleverest - like in the scenes where Bond is putting down Rowan Atkinson's Small-Fawcett. When an audience pays to see a Bond film they want to see a Bond film, that's why they keep going back. With OP we got a Bond film in spades and the world seemingly loved it. With NSNA I don't think we did.

[James Bond Jr]

This kind of evokes how I feel about OP.

My memories of watching it on good old VHS in the eighties were with others who also really enjoyed everything the film had to offer. I think this was mainly due to Moore who doesn't put a foot wrong here and is nothing short of superb playing 007. The film makers cleverly made a film that played to all of Moore's strength's as virtually every scene gives him the opportunity to shine and take the audience with him. The auction scene, the casino scene, the chase scenes in India and Germany, Bond eating dinner with Kamal are all spectacularly entertaining. When Moore is escorted to his room by Gobinda and says 'i could come in for a nightcap' it could have been cut there but the film makers really have fun allowing Moore to tease the henchman by saying 'I don't suppose you'd care for a nightcap'. This line not only amuses, but assures those watching that although the villains have Bond captured it isn't going to be for long.

Moore is also given some great 'serious' moments to get his teeth into. As mentioned earlier he carries off the 'almost exploding bomb scene' with competent ease (helped by Glen's direction and Barry's Chase Bond Theme). The ticking bomb concept would have been well known to audiences both in and out of the Bond films by '83, but here it's like watching it done for the first time. Moore is also great in the final showdown with Steven Berkoff's Orlov. A scene that is essentially plot exposition becomes a tense drama scene in it's own right thanks to the two actors and a good script.

A great decision to bring back Maud Adams - casting an ex Bond girl could have been uninspired but it works so well and is a very clever move. No doubt relying on Golden Gun, Adam's is in perfect tune to Moore's 007 and she really doesn't disappoint as the title character. Forget a Jinx spin off, it's Adams' character you want to know more about. When she turns round and announces she is Octopussy, well she IS and Andrea Anders of ten years ago never enters the mind. Both the stars clearly enjoy themselves giving very natural performances in their scenes together.

I can see how its a Roger Moore fan's dream come true. The cast is really good. I'm a fan of Louis Jordan and Maud Adams is the right woman to be cast opposite our man Roger.

[jaguar007]

I think this was mainly due to Moore who doesn't put a foot wrong here and is nothing short of superb playing 007. The film makers cleverly made a film that played to all of Moore's strength's as virtually every scene gives him the opportunity to shine and take the audience with him.

I think you kind of hit the nail on the head there. While little things like the Tarzan yell are sort of cringe worthy, there is never a dull scene in the film. For all its faults, one is consistently entertained, which unfortunately is not the case with NSNA.

[SecretAgentFan]

One should also take into account that a gag like the "Tarzan yell" was a huge laugh in the cinema at that time. Nowadays this would be considered silly. But the early 80´s had a different, much more playful zeitgeist.

[Mr_Wint]

Sean Connery is the best Bond-actor (IMO) and one of the most respected actors in the world. Yet, (and this is ironic), in 1983, Roger Moore did a better performance as Bond.

Connery can play a lighter, more relaxed, Bond to perfection as he demonstrated in GF & DAF. But in NSNA he is clearly not interested. Instead, we get the uninspired Connery served with a misplaced grin every now and then. His acting is plain dull at some moments which is something you definitely do not expect with Connery. Moore on the other hand shines in OP. Some people have devoted their life to complain about his age. But this is something I never had a problem with. Unlike Connery, he improved and perfected his Bond for each new film.

If we are going into the classic 'Connery vs. Moore' debate (I wouldn't mind) you can say a lot by studying OP and NSNA. When faced with real drama in the train scene with Steven Berkoff, Moore is clearly not in his right element. It is not that hard to imagine Connery doing this scene better because he was so comfortable with dialogue. Connery excels at it! But reading out a long monologue doesn't play to Moore's strength. On the contrary, I think Moore excels when there is very little dialogue which he is forced to enhance as much as possible.

Take the auction scene at Sotheby's as a good example. With only a few lines, eyes and facial expressions as tools, Moore handles this scene beautifully. Notice the look he gives Kamal when he walks out, "I doubt it, he had to buy". It makes you wonder what is going on in Bond's head.

To take examples from other films, when Bond visit the Fillet of Soul restaurant the first time, he gives the booth a suspicious look which almost signals that Bond know what will happen and still decides to play along. When meeting Drax, he simply refuse a cucumber-sandwich but already there somehow tells us that he doesn't like or trust Drax. Now, OP is jam-packed with these subtle moments. A no-nonsense nod to Bianca when she tells him to "be careful", the priceless look on his face when Gobinda smash the dices, "Carl take you in – No problems", "This can't be a coincidence – No." etc. etc. etc.

So that's my theory - less dialogue favors Moore - and another reason why I think Moore comes out on top in the 1983 battle. The script for NSNA simply wasn't tailored for Connery. With Connery as Bond, a dialogue scene or a panther-walk is always a safe bet. You cannot put him in Bahamas with nothing to do.

[jaguar007]

If we are going into the classic 'Connery vs. Moore' debate (I wouldn't mind) you can say a lot by studying OP and NSNA. When faced with real drama in the train scene with Steven Berkoff, Moore is clearly not in his right element.

I thought Moore was great in that scene and showed that he can handle the dramatic moments as well as the lighter ones.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

If we are going into the classic 'Connery vs. Moore' debate (I wouldn't mind) you can say a lot by studying OP and NSNA. When faced with real drama in the train scene with Steven Berkoff, Moore is clearly not in his right element.

I thought Moore was great in that scene and showed that he can handle the dramatic moments as well as the lighter ones.

Yeah so did I. You wouldn't want too much of Moore/Bond like that, but used as it was in OP it suited the story perfectly. It made the Clown/Bomb scene all the better becasue we know Bond is angry about the villains plan.

The movie was an almost perfect balance of humor, romance, action, and serious moments. John Barry's score was, again, among some of his best efforts. Interesting location work....unique stunt work...loved the credits sequence...all in all, a very good film, and one that seems to be underrated among Moore's entries.

Yes I agree. I'm almost thinking now this is Moore's best work as Bond.

[AViewToAPussy]

Totally disagree. Octopussy is ROger's finest moment. It's exhilarating, witty and has gorgeous cinematography and sets.

[Perry]

Octopussy seems to divide fans as much as TWINE and DAF by the looks of it.

I'm not a fan, the first time I watced it was on TV in 1998, I was in hospital, it didn't hold my attention for very long. By the time we get to Bond's breifing we have a scene with a bunch of old men nattering away and then the auction.

It never grabbed me like Dr. No did about a year later, it's as if they were making the picture for tHe Bond fans, not for the discerning viewer, that's how I feel about it.

Don't get me wrong I do enjoy the Indian location and Roger is as charming as ever but he should have left after FYEO.

Edited by Perry, 15 May 2011 - 03:46 AM.

[mattjoes]

Octopussy is a Roger Moore Bond film that's tailor-made for Roger Moore, showcasing both his playfulness and the humanity he brings to the role. It has Maud Adams, probably at the top or near the top of the list of the best Bond girls... for both her roles in the series. It has Louis Jourdan in an elegant role and Steven Berkoff doing what he knows best: chewing the scenery. It has Kabir Bedi. It has Kristina Wayborn and many more beautiful women (don't forget Maud!). It has great stunts in which the stuntmen's faces are properly concealed to maintain the illusion that it's Roger Moore that's doing the physical work. It has a John Barry score. It's a gorgeous looking film with a gorgeous and exotic location in India and a suspenseful one in East Germany. It has 007 go through the same things 009 did before he died earlier in the film, generating good suspense. Yeah, we know he's going to make it out of it alive, but it's still great. It has a fantastic Backgammon scene. It's a funny film; some jokes work better than others, but it's all part of the film's everything-but-the-kitchen-sink mentality. It's the kind of film that you'll have a blast watching if you can go along with it, and I'm sure it would be great to watch with an audience. I don't know if I have argued a good case for it, but darn it, it's probably my favorite Bond film. Octopussy is not perfect, but, hey, it is Octopussy, and it's fun!

[AMC Hornet]

Put me down in the 'pro-Pussy' column.

I attended Octopussy on opening night with high expectations, and was not disappointed. It has remained a favorite ever since. I love the glamour of it, the pacing, Moore's glibness and his one moment of toughness ("On your feet, General. You're going to stop that train."). I could buy telling the tiger to sit, appreciated the tension of Bond racing the clock disguised as a clown, enjoyed the all-girl circus - all without feeling like I was watching Matt Helm or Derek Flint.

I recognized the parallels to Goldfinger, and enjoyed the throwback to the 60s style. I would have liked to have seen more of it subsequently .

IMO, Octopussy not only won the 'Battle of the Bonds' against NSNA, it was also better than FYEO and AVTAK - the EON films that immediately preceded and followed it. This and TSWLM were Moore at his best.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Found this US '83 review of OP recently, complete with Roger Moore interview. The film is described as being 'slick, fast moving and full of movie magic' which I think is spot on.

[00 Brosnan]

I like Octopussy. It's not Moore's best Bond film, but it's far better than his worst (AVTAK).

I admit that the end of OP does get a little silly with the whole circus atmosphere and Bond dressing up like a clown, but the first three quarters of the film are pretty good in my opinion. There are some great action sequences like the chase through the streets and the Q scene is classic Bond. Kamal Khan made a great villain as well. Moore should have definitely retired after OP though.

[Miles Miservy]

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

Octopussy survives a LOT of obstacles & still comes off as being entertaining. Besides being completely predicatble, OP suffers from having one of the lamest, most unmemorable villains in the series. Gobinda was a cool henchman (not quite Jaws; not quite Odjob). I think if the writers utilized the short story for the pre-title sequence (as they had in TLD) instead of just a summary exposition in 2 sentences, I think the film would have taken on a much deeper, meaningful tone. I think Vijay was a waste of time as an ally & only served to bridge an Indian audience. Gen. Orloff was just another rogue Russian soldier, easily disliked and just as easily dispatched. Of the few positive things I can say about Octopussy is the mini jet scene in the beginning grabbed your attention right away. Also, the other thing Octopussy has going for it was it was NOT Never Say Never Again.

[Double-0-Seven]

I thoroughly enjoy the irony that original poster is criticizing Octopussy for "rehashing Goldfinger" but later praises Never Say Never Again for being a remake of Thunderball.

On topic, I like both.

[Napoleon Solo]

I rewatched Octopussy this weekend because a friend had seen it recently and was curous about my opinion. In addition to what has been mentioned in other postings in this thread, it seems to me that Roger Moore projects a confident "I know exactly what I'm doing" aura. It's particularly evidend in the backgammon game (as noted elsewhere he doesn't even look down after rolling the double six with the loaded dice). With all the hype about the "Battle of the Bonds" that was going on, Sir Roger doesn't look like he was fazed at all.

I also liked the Bond-Vijay interaction. Vijay ends up as one "sacrificial lamb" the audience feels for and Bond look genuinely distressed about his death.

[00 Brosnan]

it seems to me that Roger Moore projects a confident "I know exactly what I'm doing" aura. It's particularly evidend in the backgammon game (as noted elsewhere he doesn't even look down after rolling the double six with the loaded dice).

I can see what you are saying, both Moore (and in my opinion) Brosnan played the role with a confident, playboy-like swagger..one fit for the 70s and one fit for 90s. However, I think that particular scene you referenced is a bad example b/c of course Bond wouldn't look down..he knew the dice were loaded.

[Napoleon Solo]

it seems to me that Roger Moore projects a confident "I know exactly what I'm doing" aura. It's particularly evidend in the backgammon game (as noted elsewhere he doesn't even look down after rolling the double six with the loaded dice).

I can see what you are saying, both Moore (and in my opinion) Brosnan played the role with a confident, playboy-like swagger..one fit for the 70s and one fit for 90s. However, I think that particular scene you referenced is a bad example b/c of course Bond wouldn't look down..he knew the dice were loaded.

He suspected the dice were loaded, but he had *never used them before*. He does it seemingly casually though with 200,000 rupees on the line it would have been damn embarassing if it came up, say, 11, if he hadn't manipulated the loaded dice correctly.

[Miles Miservy]

it seems to me that Roger Moore projects a confident "I know exactly what I'm doing" aura. It's particularly evidend in the backgammon game (as noted elsewhere he doesn't even look down after rolling the double six with the loaded dice).

I can see what you are saying, both Moore (and in my opinion) Brosnan played the role with a confident, playboy-like swagger..one fit for the 70s and one fit for 90s. However, I think that particular scene you referenced is a bad example b/c of course Bond wouldn't look down..he knew the dice were loaded.

He suspected the dice were loaded, but he had *never used them before*. He does it seemingly casually though with 200,000 rupees on the line it would have been damn embarassing if it came up, say, 11, if he hadn't manipulated the loaded dice correctly.

i found that the movie thoughout was rife with class & confidence; that is, right up until 007 winds up sporting a clown suit. Very undignified; he may as well have been dressed in drag.

[Major Tallon]

it seems to me that Roger Moore projects a confident "I know exactly what I'm doing" aura. It's particularly evidend in the backgammon game (as noted elsewhere he doesn't even look down after rolling the double six with the loaded dice).

I can see what you are saying, both Moore (and in my opinion) Brosnan played the role with a confident, playboy-like swagger..one fit for the 70s and one fit for 90s. However, I think that particular scene you referenced is a bad example b/c of course Bond wouldn't look down..he knew the dice were loaded.

He suspected the dice were loaded, but he had *never used them before*. He does it seemingly casually though with 200,000 rupees on the line it would have been damn embarassing if it came up, say, 11, if he hadn't manipulated the loaded dice correctly.

i found that the movie thoughout was rife with class & confidence; that is, right up until 007 winds up sporting a clown suit. Very undignified; he may as well have been dressed in drag.

But, you know, the clown costume scenes work. Now, I'm a pretty hard-core Fleming guy, and I like my Bond hard-edged and dangerous. For that reason, I had all kinds of misgivings when I saw the pre-release publicity stills of Moore dressed in a clown costume, but the actual film laid them to rest. It's because the context of the scenes isn't silly. We don't see Bond's "clown" doing goofy things or acting clownish. In fact, Moore often does more to send up Fleming's Bond when playing the role straight than when he's dressed in the costume. In the clown scenes, he's fixated on disarming the bomb, and Moore's performance conveys this deadly urgency. As a result, and I was pleasantly surprised to discover it, there's a tension to the scene that dispels (at least for me) the notion that Bond had been made to look ridiculous.

Clown suit or not, he's still 007.