41 replies to this topic

[Gothamite]

First of all, I'm not saying that Octopussy is a bad Roger Moore Bond film, it's an inspired fun-filled adventure. It's just sad to see the Moore era revert to juvenile hijinks when FYEO was a much more serious thriller in so many ways.

Why did John Glen decide to revert back to the old way of doing a Roger Moore Bond film? Was he pressured by the studio to do so? Some of the most awkward moments in Rog's tenure are in this film (the Tarzan yell and the Frankenstein impersonation are the more immediate examples).

[seawolfnyy]

I think Octopussy would have been better with more polish. It has the makings of an absolutely classic story in there with the renegade Soviet general and I like how the Octopussy story was woven in. However, Kamal Kham was a weak villain and they needed a younger actor than Moore's 56. Originally, they were looking for a younger Bond, but because of Connery in NSNA, EON thought they needed an established actor and Roger was a safer choice than a new actor. I also hate the tarzan yell....and the gorilla suit....and the tiger scene. Not the clown suit though. I liked that no one believed him because he was dressed as a clown.

[Gothamite]

I've always felt the clown scene is maligned too often, considering how really well done it is (when people complain about it, they're usually the same casual fans who claim DAF to be a good film simply because Connery's in it). But there's so much other rubbish in the film that detracts from the fun for me.

The intriguing plot and the excellent Maud Adams save the film (Adams had the best chemistry with Moore of all of his women). Roger does look too old, but he's still credible and gives one of his best performances. As many have said before, it is indeed a pity this wasn't his last film.

The fact that NSNA saved us from getting a James Brolin (complete with retained American accent) Bond film actually makes me grateful for that film.

[Armand Fancypants]

Perhaps the blame should be squared at George Macdonald Fraser...

[Simon]

Frankenstein?

[AMC Hornet]

What happened?

John Glen's sense of pacing improved, as did the scriptwriters' juxtaposition of old world settings and new technology (thank God for George MacDonald Fraser!).

I find Octopussy 'flows' better from one set-piece to another (as much as I appreciate the use of the FYEO and Risico short stories in the previous film, they seem at odds with the scenes inside the wreck of the St. Georges, Q Branch, etc).

As for the humour, Sir Roger has a way of getting onside with a director and inspiring a lot of silliness (he said that he and Lewis Gilbert shared the same 'insane' sense of humour in an interview about making MR - and it shows).

I think FYEO gets over-rated as a 'gritty', down-to-earth film, often compared too favourably to FRWL and OHMSS; well yeah, Bond is chasing after a lost coder, while on skis part of the time - and some call TSWLM a 'greatest hits' package!

For my money OP is a fresher, more original film, not afraid to entertain audiences, without condescending into full-blow Moonraker mode. It was enthusiastically received in 1983, and as far as the bean-counters and I are concerned, it won the 'battle of the Bonds' against NSNA.

[Turn]

What happened?

John Glen's sense of pacing improved, as did the scriptwriters' juxtaposition of old world settings and new technology (thank God for George MacDonald Fraser!).

I find Octopussy 'flows' better from one set-piece to another (as much as I appreciate the use of the FYEO and Risico short stories in the previous film, they seem at odds with the scenes inside the wreck of the St. Georges, Q Branch, etc).

As for the humour, Sir Roger has a way of getting onside with a director and inspiring a lot of silliness (he said that he and Lewis Gilbert shared the same 'insane' sense of humour in an interview about making MR - and it shows).

I think FYEO gets over-rated as a 'gritty', down-to-earth film, often compared too favourably to FRWL and OHMSS; well yeah, Bond is chasing after a lost coder, while on skis part of the time - and some call TSWLM a 'greatest hits' package!

For my money OP is a fresher, more original film, not afraid to entertain audiences, without condescending into full-blow Moonraker mode. It was enthusiastically received in 1983, and as far as the bean-counters and I are concerned, it won the 'battle of the Bonds' against NSNA.

Very much my sentiments about OP, AMC Hornet. FYEO does always get this pass, much of which seems as a radical reaction to MR. So much of it really is a greatest hits package based on stunts moreso than special effects. One critic said it was basically a bunch of stunts in search of a plot, the stunts are meant to cover a weak story and that Moore was an occasional stand-in for his stuntman.

Boring villains and women to boot, although I do like Colombo and Loque to some extent. But even Colombo is basically a repeat of Kerim Bey and Tiger Tanaka, while both Loque and Kriegler are Red Grant variations, one in manner, the other in physical appearance. Moore's chemistry with Maud Adams is much better than with Carol Bouquet, and the mysterious intentions of Magda are more intriguing than Countess Lisl, who is basically a plot device.

While OP's comedy does sometimes get too much and is more broad, it works in the context better than the comedy in FYEO, starting with the pointless banter in the teaser. If people complain about Bond and Blofeld being too friendly in DAF, why muck up this final showdown between the two at the end of the pretitles with the jokes? Unless you want to cling to the flimsy claim he's not Blofeld.

Add to that the unnecessary comedy in the car chase, hockey rink, ski chase, directly with Bibi and Ferrara. The latter makes him really hard to care about as far as being a sacrificial lamb character, as opposed to Vijay in OP, who at least had some charm. Then there's probably the all-time worst wrap-up in a Bond film with the PM Gets the Bird scenario (this being the title of the track from the soundtrack).

I'll take the blend of the fun and seriousness of OP any time.

[freemo]

Put me down as another who prefers OCTOPUSSY, warts and all, to FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (which isn't rotten, and has excellent stunts and action sequences, is is overall rather "meh").

They put in everything they had into OCTOPUSSY, if anything it's maybe a bit too much of a good thing, but better too much than not enough. I think AMC Hornet has it right about it's aim to entertain, a mission it certainly accomplishes. I also agree that it "flows" better than the "bits and pieces stapled together" FOR YOUR EYES ONLY.

Also had no problem with Bond disguising as a clown. It works because we already saw 009 get killed dressed as a clown at the beginning of the film. Is Bond, following his predecessor's path, next in line for a similar fate, etc? As for it's broader comedy, I think the possible error was in incorporating gags into the middle of the action sequences, thereby undercutting the tension, instead of playing the action sequence straight, and then ending it with a gag for relief.

[hoagy]

Octopussy was a much more enjoyable, fun movie ! It had adventure, exotic locales, a great Oddjob-level henchman, a cool killing device (the yo-yo, the modern-day bowler hat). For Your Eyes Only did, indeed, have Bond coolly tip the car off the cliff, brought the series back down to earth (literally), but it also had the ridiculous story-line with Bibi. What was she even doing in the movie, except to awkwardly acknowledge the Bond actor was too old ?
Yes, the scene when Bond chases after the car which refuses to give him a ride but gives up after a few steps at a run scene in Octopussy did the same, and, likewise, was awful. And the vest meant to hide Moore's belly in both films wee awful). So, there were problems in both films, but Octopussy was more fun. It was not wacky weird like Mooraker, but more fun that For Your Eyes Only. Both films could have been greatly improved, even with keeping Moore in both...of course, THAT (some minor tweaking would have yielded a vastly better film) could be said, unfortunately, about too many of the films after the first few.
But, back to the immediate comparison -- the audience reactions to the two showed easily that the balance came out better in Octopussy.

[seawolfnyy]

Personally, I like FYEO more. I agree that the two biggest problems with the film are Carole Bouquet and Lynn-Holly Johnson. The whole Bibi subplot was useless and just plain weird. Dropping it would've improved the film. As for Bouquet, she is quite lovely, but ultimately one of the most forgettable Bond girls. She never does anything to set herself apart and comes off flat in most of her scenes. Having said that, she is leaps and bounds better than Lois Chiles. Agreed too though, that Maud Adams is one of the best Bond girls....in both roles.

[Mr_Wint]

I don't see how the "what happened?!" question is relevant. I do not want FYEO to be more like OP, or OP to be more like FYEO... but I wish we had more Bond films like FYEO and OP.

[SecretAgentFan]

OP is very underrated indeed.

And the "clown" scene actually is one of the best and most tense scenes in any Bond film IMO. What is a better way to show the inability to act against a nuclear threat: a secret agent having to hide undercover as a clown while the army and the audience are laughing away, seconds before the nuclear bomb on stage is about to wipe out a country and start another world war?

[Simon]

Seriously, Frankenstein??

[Gothamite]

Frankenstein?

Or Dracula, or some kind of generic monster. When Bond is hiding in a burlap sack, a bunch of henchmen come over to take the sack away and he sits up and makes an evil laugh. Made me think of Frankenstein's monster for some reason (although he's not known for his mirth).

Personally, I like FYEO more. I agree that the two biggest problems with the film are Carole Bouquet and Lynn-Holly Johnson. The whole Bibi subplot was useless and just plain weird. Dropping it would've improved the film. As for Bouquet, she is quite lovely, but ultimately one of the most forgettable Bond girls. She never does anything to set herself apart and comes off flat in most of her scenes. Having said that, she is leaps and bounds better than Lois Chiles. Agreed too though, that Maud Adams is one of the best Bond girls....in both roles.

Maud Adams is terrific and the best thing about OP. The rest of the film is just a mixed bag of interesting espionage (with great references to Fleming "Spend it quickly, Mr. Bond," etc) and goofy gags. Some of the sight-gags are just as bad as in Moonraker (the camel looking on in disbelief at Bond and Veejay doing wheelies on the taxi thing, for example).

Generally I prefer FYEO, as I feel it has better pacing than OP did. Both are good films, though and I'm in no way trying to speak ill of OP, it's just bizarre that they're both by the same director.

[AMC Hornet]

If A View to a Film Too Many and its magnificent follow-up The Living Daylights can be by the same director, why not FYEO and OP?

[hoagy]

Since it's been raised -- would TLD have been IMPROVED by keeping the "magic carpet" scene ? Those who are big Timothy Dalton fans likely would cringe, but, really, his films had no f-u-n. And, as for being serious Bonds without any big effort for fun (CR pulled it off, though it had more humor [even though very little, if any]), well, his two just were not very good. LTK, in particular, was like a run-of-the-mill TV cop movie. AVTOAK was not the nadir, nor MR, it was LTK. So, that having been said, perhaps TLD would have been better WITH the "flying carpet" scene (yes, maybe even WITH the hapless policeman getting dyed blue [reminiscent of another "Bond" actor's bullfighter-gets-died-blue scene ?] OK, those who remember the 60s, let's see if you can pull that reference into the light). Of course, TLD still has a who's-the-big-bad-villain problem [answer, no one is, or there's two, whatever...and then one of the actors plays a good guy two films later WHAT is WITH these producers doing that ???!!!!].
I've, ummm, strayed, haven't I ? Apologies...

[glidrose]

What happened? Answer that one easily. They fixed all the things they got wrong in FYEO to create OCT easily one of the best damn Bonds.

OP is very underrated indeed.

And the "clown" scene actually is one of the best and most tense scenes in any Bond film IMO. What is a better way to show the inability to act against a nuclear threat: a secret agent having to hide undercover as a clown while the army and the audience are laughing away, seconds before the nuclear bomb on stage is about to wipe out a country and start another world war?

What happened?

John Glen's sense of pacing improved, as did the scriptwriters' juxtaposition of old world settings and new technology (thank God for George MacDonald Fraser!).

I find Octopussy 'flows' better from one set-piece to another (as much as I appreciate the use of the FYEO and Risico short stories in the previous film, they seem at odds with the scenes inside the wreck of the St. Georges, Q Branch, etc).

As for the humour, Sir Roger has a way of getting onside with a director and inspiring a lot of silliness (he said that he and Lewis Gilbert shared the same 'insane' sense of humour in an interview about making MR - and it shows).

I think FYEO gets over-rated as a 'gritty', down-to-earth film, often compared too favourably to FRWL and OHMSS; well yeah, Bond is chasing after a lost coder, while on skis part of the time - and some call TSWLM a 'greatest hits' package!

For my money OP is a fresher, more original film, not afraid to entertain audiences, without condescending into full-blow Moonraker mode. It was enthusiastically received in 1983, and as far as the bean-counters and I are concerned, it won the 'battle of the Bonds' against NSNA.

So much of For Your Eyes Only really is a greatest hits package based on stunts moreso than special effects. One critic said it was basically a bunch of stunts in search of a plot, the stunts are meant to cover a weak story and that Moore was an occasional stand-in for his stuntman.

Boring villains and women to boot <snip>

I also agree that [Octopussy] "flows" better than the "bits and pieces stapled together" FOR YOUR EYES ONLY.

Also had no problem with Bond disguising as a clown. It works because we already saw 009 get killed dressed as a clown at the beginning of the film. Is Bond, following his predecessor's path, next in line for a similar fate, etc?

[Iceskater101]

Personally, I never was a big fan of Octopussy. I mean it is okay, but I definitely liked For Your Eyes Only better.

[lechero]

OP is very underrated indeed.

And the "clown" scene actually is one of the best and most tense scenes in any Bond film IMO. What is a better way to show the inability to act against a nuclear threat: a secret agent having to hide undercover as a clown while the army and the audience are laughing away, seconds before the nuclear bomb on stage is about to wipe out a country and start another world war?

Yeah, it's a great scene, but I've always felt it would have been improved upon if Roger's clown makeup was smeared all over his face and his outfit maybe missing one or two items, thus heightening the tension even more because it would have been harder to get past the guards. I mean, who has the time to perfectly apply makeup when a nuclear bomb is about to go off!?
Still, OP is indeed really great fun and as of today I would rank it higher than FYEO.

[Cruiserweight]

I llke Octopussy but i, without a doubt prefer For Your Eyes Only.

[plankattack]

Have I come at a bad time? 'Cos I'm a fan of FYEO (despite the PTS and Conti's score). Topol is a terrific ally, and Sir Rog acts tough and convincingly pulls it out (unlike TMWTGG), giving Locque a kick and pulling off world-weary rather than just old. He acts his age, and keeps the nudging and winking to a minimum. No it's not FRWL, but as said above it's clearly a reaction to MR, but after two straight films of OTT excess, the change of tone was a good thing. I like my epic Bonds as much as anyone else, but three in-a-row would have been overkill.

OP is very watchable, but I find it's all the place with double-taking camels, market-goers, and snake-charmer jokes. The set-pieces could have been outstanding but are all undone by "jokes" which IMHO really undo some terrific stunt-work - something which, ski-chase aside, FYEO avoids.

OP is not a bad film, but I do feel it's Bond as fast-food - you're hungry, it goes down well, but it's ultimately empty calories. And with Fraser on-board, it all feels vaguely like some Raiders of the Lost Ark bandwagon-jumping.

FYEO for me.

[plankattack]

Have I come at a bad time? 'Cos I'm a fan of FYEO (despite the PTS and Conti's score). Topol is a terrific ally, and Sir Rog acts tough and convincingly pulls it off (unlike TMWTGG), giving Locque a kick and pulling off world-weary rather than just old. He acts his age, and keeps the nudging and winking to a minimum. No it's not FRWL, but as said above it's clearly a reaction to MR, but after two straight films of OTT excess, the change of tone was a good thing. I like my epic Bonds as much as anyone else, but three in-a-row would have been overkill.

OP is very watchable, but I find it's all the place with double-taking camels, market-goers, and snake-charmer jokes. The set-pieces could have been outstanding but are all undone by "jokes" which IMHO really undo some terrific stunt-work - something which, ski-chase aside, FYEO avoids.

OP is not a bad film, but I do feel it's Bond as fast-food - you're hungry, it goes down well, but it's ultimately empty calories. And with Fraser on-board, it all feels vaguely like some Raiders of the Lost Ark bandwagon-jumping.

FYEO for me.

[00Twelve]

I can't say I understand the characterization of FYEO as this "serious spy thriller." Only when compared with the most outlandish of all Bond films does it remotely resemble something "down to earth."

A cartoonish drop down a smokestack.
A cheeky talking parrot.
That Citroen car chase, just after the Lotus' "Burglar protection" demise.
"A nose, not a banana, Q."
The nympho teen ice skating champ.
Skiing down a distance jump ramp and a bobsled track.
That same double-taking whino,
Baddies in hockey masks.
Maggie Thatcher imitations...fooled by said cheeky parrot.

The follow-up to Moonraker just has no basis as the "down to earth" spy story it seems to continually be called. I would venture to say that the only moments in OP that could be seen as more fantastical than FYEO are the acrostar opening, the minicart chase and the jungle hunt shenanigans. Even the clown suit gets played straight.

No, there are not many "juvenile hijinks" in OP that weren't also present in FYEO.

[JimmyBond]

I think FYEO is a great film, I enjoy watching it, and I think Roger Moore gives it the old college try playing a slightly more serious Bond.

I do however feel the film is missing a lot of the "Roger Moore" charm his films have had up till this point. That charm does return with Octopussy and my personal favorite Moore film "A View to a Kill." Why yes, I did just say View was my favorite, and Moonraker is my second favorite

Twenty years ago people would have lynched me for these opinions.

[S K Y F A L L]

I also like FYEO more then OP, but OP has like JimmyBond pointed out the charm and its funnier IMO. I mean I love saying it; Bond defuses a nuclear bomb dressed as a clown.

I really like AVTAK as well, Moore's age isn't that much of a problem for me because they make up for it with characters like Tibbett and Zorin.

[Tony_OO_Black]

Octopussy has always been a personal favourite of mine, I much prefer it to For Your Eyes Only.

Don't get me wrong, I actually think FYEO is a better constructed film, it just wasn't suited to Rog. Throw Dalton or Craig at it, probably Connery too, it would have clicked; but Moore just struggled with the darker angst John Glen tried to put into FYEO (doubtless as a reaction to Moonraker being so hugely outlandish). Moore was way more at home in OP - I don't think he's ever looked as comfortable playing Bond as he did there, mainly because it's so bonkers (which is why I love it).

So it's a bit unfair IMO to compare these two, as they're both so wildly different.

[George Kaplan]

For years I don't think I ever really appreciated a lot of OP's better parts. Watching it recently I'd say its easily on par with FYEO which I've always liked.

[Roebuck]

Also had no problem with Bond disguising as a clown. It works because we already saw 009 get killed dressed as a clown at the beginning of the film. Is Bond, following his predecessor's path, next in line for a similar fate, etc?

Isn’t this supposedly based on an unused Fleming idea? Something about an assassin who’d gained access to an embassy party as part of a team of clowns or acrobats. Bond gets into a fight to the death with the guy but, because their both in costume, the guests all think it’s part of a circus routine.

I briefly met George Macdonald Fraser a good many years ago. All he’d say about Octopussy was that the money was good and he’d have liked to do another one.

[Mr Twilight]

[quote/]Isn’t this supposedly based on an unused Fleming idea? Something about an assassin who’d gained access to an embassy party as part of a team of clowns or acrobats. Bond gets into a fight to the death with the guy but, because their both in costume, the guests all think it’s part of a circus routine.[/quote]

First time I heard about that. Sounds interesting if it's true.

[George Kaplan]

RE: The clown - I remember when seeing footage of the movie on the entertainment shows Moore in the clown makeup always seemed depressing (well it was sad clown makeup but also it just seemed so weird and over the top and the clown makeup wasn't flattering at all).

Having seen the movie again recently, I actually felt in the context of the film the clown stuff really worked. So for me at least, the clown suit appears to be a problem of losing the films context for it, rather than it being inherently bad.