The rehabilitation of "Octopussy"
actonsteve
Posts: 299MI6 Agent
Something I have noticed in the last five years "Octopussy" seems to be getting kudos from fandom.
Not from everyone I grant you. But a certain amount are singing its praises on the message boards and publications around the world. A new generation is discovering it and singing its praises.
It wasnt always so. It was praised originally back in 1983 as a good solid Roger Moore Bond going up against the Sean Connery effort the same year. Where Sean seemed to get praise for appearing in a sub-par effort Roger just got acknowledged for the far superior Octopussy.
But after that things began to slide. In the nineties Bond appraisal documents came out. People such as Virgin Films Jim Smith and Ian Lavington were decrying it to the heavens with the contrast between the joke-laden set pieces and real tension. They said it didnt know what it wanted to be Cold war thriller? or sub-Merchant Ivory Indian effort. And clown, gorilla suit, tarzan yodel made it awful.
Then about five years ago it became OK to admit to loving Octopussy. Dave Worral and more importantly David Benson openly said it was terrific. A cold war thriller with the Bond touch of panache and a colourful plot driven storyline. A new generation watched in on the UE DVD's and loved it. The kudos of Octopussy began to climb.
So what say you?
I've loved it since the big screen in 1983. I love the lush Indian locations, the Cold War plot, the jewellry caper with the three villains (including Octopussy) not trusting each other, the fantastic action sequence, the John Barry score, the editing on the train sequences, Kristina Wayborn, Kebir Bedi....
How is Octopussy for you?
Not from everyone I grant you. But a certain amount are singing its praises on the message boards and publications around the world. A new generation is discovering it and singing its praises.
It wasnt always so. It was praised originally back in 1983 as a good solid Roger Moore Bond going up against the Sean Connery effort the same year. Where Sean seemed to get praise for appearing in a sub-par effort Roger just got acknowledged for the far superior Octopussy.
But after that things began to slide. In the nineties Bond appraisal documents came out. People such as Virgin Films Jim Smith and Ian Lavington were decrying it to the heavens with the contrast between the joke-laden set pieces and real tension. They said it didnt know what it wanted to be Cold war thriller? or sub-Merchant Ivory Indian effort. And clown, gorilla suit, tarzan yodel made it awful.
Then about five years ago it became OK to admit to loving Octopussy. Dave Worral and more importantly David Benson openly said it was terrific. A cold war thriller with the Bond touch of panache and a colourful plot driven storyline. A new generation watched in on the UE DVD's and loved it. The kudos of Octopussy began to climb.
So what say you?
I've loved it since the big screen in 1983. I love the lush Indian locations, the Cold War plot, the jewellry caper with the three villains (including Octopussy) not trusting each other, the fantastic action sequence, the John Barry score, the editing on the train sequences, Kristina Wayborn, Kebir Bedi....
How is Octopussy for you?
Comments
(1) A great villain in the shape of Kamal Khan- a cold-hearted double-dealer well played by Louis Jourdan. He gets thoroughly beaten by 007 in both gambling and women, and Jourdan's slow burns are exquisite.
(2) Maud Adams :x.
(3) John Barry's lush score- not his best, granted, but very satisfactory. (Hey, I kept that down to one sentence!)
(3) The locations- colourful and dramatic.
(4) The story mixes the classic Bond plotline of 007 investigating "a minor smuggling matter" which turns out to be a lot more serious with a Cold War background and even some Fleming material.
(5) Roger Moore. Watching this one in the same year as NSNA, which to be honest I'd been anticipating more than OP, it wasn't surprising to find the official entry the better film. It was more of a revelation to realise that in direct competition with Connery, Moore was more than capable of holding his own. He's excellent throughout, his easy-going casualness belying the hard work he always denied.
Comparing Octopussy to NSNA, I have always like NSNA better, for the acting - not the story line, With the exception of "Mr. Bean" the acting is very good in NSNA, while the plot and music are flops. It was wonderous after all those years to see SC back in the saddle again!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
And there are those whose repuation has slid. I'll let you suggest yoru own for those...
What I love about OP are Maud Adams :x, the terrific plot, the action sequences (especially on the train), the music and theme song (the last truly great theme song IMO), the wonderful locations, the villains (among the best of the 80's villains) and Moore's wonderful performance.
ALthough it may have been rehabilitated, I still get the sense that OP does not receive the appreciation that it deserves in some quarters and so IMO is among the most underrated Bond films of all time. Regardless, I think it's a great film and is a Bond film that the producers should be very proud of.
This, of course, is true of many things other than films- music springs to mind as an obvious example- and whether or not something is a hit doesn't seem to have too much of an affect on how it's regarded many years later.
Special mentions about the film:
-An excellent PTS, thoroughly enjoyable.
-As mentioned before, Peter Lamont's sets are ace, the Soviet Council war room and the palaces in India being the prime examples.
-Vijay, a most likeable Bond ally.
-The moments of fun which punctuate the film: Moore in a confident and good-natured manner throughout, the "jewellery caper" element, the circus backdrop (which adds to the family-friendly manner of the film), the "army vs. army" climactic battle etc.
-Kristina Wayborn, one of the most beautiful henchwomen of the series (who joins the good guys and lives at the end! {[]).
IMO, Moore should have quit Bond after he did this one; it would have made for a sweeter exit.
But I'm not a Moore fan, and became less so the older he grew while in the role...for me the elements of wackiness and slapstick come off as wildly uneven in a film which is occasionally very tense. I've recited the litany of OP complaints in countless other threads, so I won't repeat myself.
The Acrostar Mini-Jet is very cool...but Bond rolling up to a rural gas station and saying: "Fill 'Er Up, please" makes me nauseous.
I salute everyone who loves Roger Moore---and OP---but I'm afraid I don't share the sentiment. They have plenty of fans, I think, and don't really need my support
The only Bond film I rank lower is AVTAK.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
There's always room for one Moore!
Shame you feel this way Loeffs. However, if you ever decide to come around one day, I will be sure to get you your official T-shirt and membership card!
-Roger Moore
In that spirit of detente, I'll offer up my favourite 'Bond Moment' in this one. Two words: The Banister B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Great choice! I'm glad that at least one of Moore's gags worked for you! {[]
"Detente?"
"Agreed."
"Understanding?"
"Possibly."
"Cooperation?"
"Maybe."
"Trust?"
"Out of the question!" :v
-Roger Moore
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I first saw it around 2003- I had 'The Essential James Bond' book and the film is very well regarded in there. The overt praise of TND aside, I can't say there's too much I disagree with in that book, really.
Never Say Never Again simply is not a patch on Octopussy on any level, imho.
I like it, it's an epic film and it's a bit like YOLT for me. I almost prefer the telly version as it is trimmed. I do find it somewhat heavy going and that's I prefer AVTAK generally, it's leaner. Guess with OP the second half is much better whereas in AVTAK the second half sags.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Yep, its been the last five years that OP has been appraised. Before that I can remember reading reviews especially in Empire and SFX magazine which wernt so complimentary. And even now there are those who rank it at the bottom.
I'm glad its been reappraised. To me its a gilt edged Bond - Broccoli producing, Moore starring, Maibaum scripting, Glen directing, Barry scoring and Lamonts production design.
It all just comes together.
The Indian location. It's one of the best places that a Bond movie has taken place imo.
Vijay. Very fun and likeable character. It's very sad when he dies, but Moore's delivery of "No more problems" is perfect.
The villains are top-notch. Kamal Kahn is hands down the best villain in the series. Gobinda is a great henchman. And although the weaker of the three, Berkoff does a good job as an insane soviet general in Orlov.
Some of the non-action scenes like the dinner at Kamal's or the auction are amusing and are highlights of the film.
I also like the clown suit. Imo, it's used as a disguise perfectly.
There's plenty more, but I'll stop there. I think I've got my point across.
Granted, the slapstick (the double-taking camel, "Siiiit" to the tiger, the Tarzan yell) causes annoying moments which do detract from the film, but taken as a whole it works. The silliness stops the moment Bond emerges from the mock crocodile, with the mood being enhanced by his discovery of Vijay's death, and the tension Glen creates during the ensuing sequences (Bond confronts Orlov; the car/train chase; Bond must struggle to defuse the bomb) match anything in the series.
OP isn't without faults- no Bond film is (those slapstick moments are obviously playing to the gallery a la MR)- but it's definitely up there with the classics. Moore is at his best throughout, Glen is on top form (with one or two lapses as above), Barry creates the correct ambience, Lamont provides the appropriate and exotic settings, and the supporting cast have charm and are colourful. For Fleming faithfuls, a few flavourful and favourable fragments are featured. (How's that for alliteration!)
Moore is perhaps a shade overage, but personally I've never had a problem with an actor (Connery, Moore, Brosnan) aging along with Bond. A fiftyish Bond is OK as long as the given performer has been introduced earlier and we (the audience) have been given the opportunity to accept him as 007 while younger.
(Fiftyish Barbel speaking, of course, but I held the same opinion when I was younger!)
If only that were so...
But of course it's all taste---what one likes (or doesn't!) in their cinematic Bond---and admittedly mine is often not that of the mainstream {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I agree with Barbel in terms of how much suspence there was in OP. I also agree with him that it was a great film.
OK, I forgot that bit! I'd argue that this serves as light relief after the tension of the bomb sequence and gives the audience a breather rather than going straight into the airplane climax. It's pacing, that's all.
Totally agree re taste! {[]