It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
New Ranking
1. OHMSS
2. TSWLM
3. GF
4. FRWL
5. DN
6. LALD
7. FYEO
8. MR
9. TB
10. YOLT
11. TMWTGG
12. DAF
Previous Ranking
1. The Spy Who Loved Me
2. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
3. Casino Royale
4. From Russia With Love
5. Skyfall
6. Goldfinger
7. Octopussy
8. Spectre
9. Dr No
10. The Living Daylights
11. Goldeneye
12. Live And Let Die
13. Licence To Kill
14. A View To A Kill
15. For Your Eyes Only
16. Moonraker
17. Thunderball
18. Quantum Of Solace
19. Diamonds Are Forever
20. Tomorrow Never Dies
21. You Only Live Twice
22. The Man With The Golden Gun
23. Die Another Day
24. The World Is Not Enough
So, on to my notes. Roger Moore is, obviously, back as 007. Looking older here but still in decent shape for a bloke in his 50’s. We get a whole different Bond in this movie from the one before. As has been mentioned, the smirks, the eyebrow raising etc. is all kept to a minimum, in fact I don’t remember seeing much of it, if any. It’s almost as if he’s playing a grown up version of his Bond, definitely from the one in Moonraker. Anyway, I did enjoy him here, but I do miss some of what’s been mentioned above. Standout moments for him here; the killing of Locque and the beginning of the PTS.
Carole Bouquet as Melina Havelock, I’m sorry, bores me. One tone, one look on her face. Very wooden. I said the same of Barbara Bach in TSWLM but Bouquet takes it even further. After the death of her parents, her killing of Gonzalez, there is no real emotion coming from her and I didn’t really get in to her character. I’ve just done a quick search on her and can’t believe she was 30 years Moore’s junior. Very attractive woman, still is today but her acting skills didn’t really come through here I’m sorry.
Someone who did have more character was Lynne Holly Johnson as Bibi Dahl. Sure, she may have been seen as a comedy character but she gives so much more during her time on screen. I know people think that she is an annoying character, I’ve been guilty myself, but on this viewing I actually found myself really liking her.
My favourite of all the Bond girls in the movie though is, the doomed, Lisl. Despite only limited screen time, she brings so much to such a small role. The death of this beauty always brings a lump to my throat. It’s also good to see how much this death moved Bond in the movie. Shame there wasn’t more of her.
The henchman of the movie, Erich Kriegler, played by John Wyman. Big, brute of a man, not a brain cell to be seen, even though he was a major athlete. Found him dull as dishwater. Boring.
Julian Glover is an actor I like and I like Kristatos as a villain. He doesn’t have the grand scheme of villains that have come before him and Glover gives a good performance. His “run them down” line shows how far he is willing to go to get what he wants. One thing I will say about all villains in the Bond series is why they have to try and dispose of Bond in such weird and wonderful ways, when a bullet would be quick, easy and much more effective. I always laugh at his dismissal of, the doomed, Ferrara when he gets up to shake his hand.
Topol as Columbo was inspired casting. Love this guy and I’d love to see a way to bring him back, even now. Topol chews the scenery every time he is on screen and his first scene with Moore is outstanding. Great chemistry between the two, similar to the chemistry we saw with Connery and Armendariz.
Emile Leopold Locque, the silent assassin. We don’t hear anything from him until we hear him scream as 007 kicks his car off the cliff. Michael Gothard does a very good job, with nothing to say and I always feel that he is a very dangerous villain. At the poolside fight, he stops himself, well his right hand man, in getting involved I the fight that is going on, almost keeping an eye on 007 to see who he is to come up against. It’s very clever but I wish we’d seen him get more involved.
The supporting cast of Moneypenny and Q (unfortunately we had lost Bernard Lee before filming started) are their usual charming selves. I love Moneypenny getting herself ready for Bonds’ arrival by putting her lipstick on (and the drawer that contains the mirror etc. is genius). Q has one of my favourite scenes of his in the confessional – “That’s putting it mildly, 007”. Superb.
We had a replacement for M in Tanner. I struggle to enjoy this guy, or the Minister of Defence, here as I miss seeing Lee in that office. They do their parts ok, but one thing that annoys he always of Geoffrey Keen’s “Mhmm”, “Mhmm”. For some reason that scene really irritates me every time.
On to the classic Bond elements. Always enjoy Moore’s gun barrels and the music that accompanies them. Here, the music seems a little slower to me (may be wrong) but it sounds great.
The PTS. This could, and should, (all in my own opinion of course) have been one of the top scenes in any movie. It starts off really well, almost a sequel to OHMSS, with 007 visiting the grave of his late wife. A great, touching start to the movie. Then, the vicar comes to spoil his moments by saying his office has called sending someone to collect him. I’ve always wondered how his office knew he would have been at Tracey’s grave but hey ho. Helicopter arrives, Bond gets in and then we see the vicar does the cross with his hands thing. Why? Does he know what is going to happen? From what I know the helicopter and pilot are legit. Anyway, Bond looks wondering why and he gets taken away. Then we see, the unnamed, Blofeld and, from what we can tell, it’s the Blofeld as played by Savalas in OHMSS (although he didn’t have a cat – but the wheelchair and neck brace are there). From here, the PTS turns, not only in to a brilliant bit of helicopter stunt work, but into a comedy skit. It really annoys me, such a wonderful sequence spoilt by throwing Blofeld into the mix, and then down the chimney. The “stainless steel” thing, which I know is a joke is ridiculous and it all seems to be almost played for laughs. Played straight this could have been so much better. These are probably minor gripes to some but it really spoils what could’ve been top notch.
The locations are beautiful and, despite my reservations of the PTS, London looks superb from above during it. Corfu looks wonderful, a far cry from the areas of Corfu I have been to that’s for sure, haha. Cortina is stunning, snow certainly helps locations like this look their best. Stunning. And the mountaintop monastery looks beautiful, a perfect location used as St Cyrils’.
Not much in the way of gadgets for 007 in this movie, there’s the wonderful Lotus Esprit that, unfortunately, gets blown to pieces. There’s also his watch that we don’t see until the end of the movie when he’s connected to Thatcher. We do have the excellent, but entirely dated, identigraph that has its use in determining the identity of Locque but, other than that, gadgets are used by others. My favourite, mentioned earlier, is the drawer of Moneypenny’s that pulls out with a mirror etc.
The action is decent in this movie. As mentioned, the PTS could have been so much better without the Blofeld thing, but the helicopter stunt works is outstanding. I love the car chase with the Citroen 2CV. As much as this is an inferior car to others that are in the series, this is one of my favourite car chases of all. The underwater scenes are ok but not a massive fan of the scene where Kristatos is pulling Bond and Melina in the water. I also noticed, thanks to those who have posted already, about the underwater scenes with Melina and a wind machine, or something similar, blowing Melina’s hair to give the effect of being underwater. Now I’ve seen it, it really is noticeable. The attack on St Cyril’s is superb though, very clever and a complete turnaround on the movies before, TSWLM and MR in particular. I’ll admit, I am a fan of these big battles that Bond finds himself in, but I do enjoy this too. The action comes at you very fast during the whole movie and makes the 2 hours or so pass very quickly. As I have said before, Moore isn’t always convincing in any fight scene I’m afraid, yet it doesn’t hinder any of my enjoyment.
As mentioned before, this seems to be a more grown up 007 and, as such, the humour is kept to a minimum, with just the odd funny one-liner appearing, albeit at odd moments; in particular the line he says after kicking Locque off the cliff. A great and dark moment for Moore’s Bond, slightly spoilt by that line. The less said about the PTS humour, the better for me.
Edit: The scene with Q in the confessional always makes me laugh, a very funny moment.
The plot is fine and one of the more credible of the series, no desire for taking over the world, just nuclear weapons. It’s a scheme that wouldn’t be totally out of place in the world of today.
On to the production elements, John Glen is on directing duties here and the movie is directed in a way that gives us a more mature adventure for 007. This shows, not just in Moore’s performance, but the movie as a whole. It’s not perfect but it certainly appeals to plenty of dedicated Bond fans out there while, for others, it doesn’t. After the, very similar, TSWLM and MR, I have to say it was a welcome change.
While I’m all for change and new ideas with the opening title design, to have Sheena Easton front and centre really did nothing for me. Unfortunately, because of that, it fails and, in my opinion, it’s the worst of Binders’ work on the Bond series.
The script, as with the movie itself, is more mature than before. Humour kept to a minimum, Bonds’ quips and funnies, mostly, out of the way. Its ok, gives us a decent, and different story that the last couple of movies. As with many scripts, there are obviously things I would have preferred not to be in there and they would have made for a much better movie.
Some of the shots used in the movie are beautiful, in particular the scenes over London and, more so, the scenes shot in Cortina. Wonderful shots that make the movie look beautiful, a common theme in a Bond movie.
No John Barry on music duties here, instead we have Bill Conti. The music is ok, not of the standard we have heard before but there are some parts where it didn’t fit; the ski chase in particular I wasn’t a fan of. Standard and not one I’d rush out to have in my collection. I loved the comment, made by, @Birdleson, about expecting Earth, Wind and Fire to appear. Very funny, quite true.
The editing seems to be fairly well done, with no obvious issues. Well, I say that, but the “underwater” scenes, that aren’t actually underwater, leave a lot to be desired. I may not have noticed before, but now you’re aware, it’s very difficult not to notice how poor they are.
Not much to say on the costume design. All usual fair, everyone looks ok and Sir Rog always looks dapper in any suit he might wear. His ski jacket didn’t really suit him though and the yellow jumpsuit thing he has to wear in the sub looked like it came straight off the Moonraker.
The sets here are not of the grand scale that, again, we saw in the two movies before. Again, it seems due to us getting a more mature Bond movie, no need for the outrageous, if you will. Even so, they all play their part, still looking great on screen.
Final thoughts – I know a lot of people really enjoy For Your Eyes Only, I do myself (as I enjoy all the Bond adventures), however there are certainly some things that could have been left out to, with some scenes extended, to ensure this could have been one of the best. The scenes I would chuck out are the hockey rink fight (pointless filler), the Thatcher scene (dear god, this is painful) and the comedy stuff from the PTS (as I’ve said, this could have been such a great start to the movie, just let down with this). I’d certainly extend the Havelocks’ murder scene and the scene when Bond meets Columbo for the first time. There are probably more changes that could be made to make it better but we have what we have. Also, could we not have had a better idea than the parrott?
Anyway, that’s all for this one. Cheers and I’ll try to get the movies watched as per the schedule from now on. Just this Christmas and this first week and half of the New Year makes it difficult.
Apologies. I stand corrected. D'oh.
He is the cigar loving suave confident snob with a unique sense of humour (lald/tmwtgg)
Cardboard cutout who is a background to the epic scale of Gilbert's films (same as Connery in yolt).
Farther figure with a childish demeanor at times in Glen's films. Inconsistent portrayal due to the direction
I don’t know about you, but I dislike watching Bond films when I feel a mite poorly. With Octopussy round the corner, I bit the bullet and viewed For Your Eyes Only yesterday.
From Beatles most erudite review above -
Style
Coming off the back of an outlandish decade, and in particular the inane Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only is a welcome shift to a more grounded style. But is For Your Eyes Only's reputation as a marked change fully justified? Or compared to the decade that just preceded it, does For Your Eyes Only only seem so?
Apart from the PTS and the conclusion with a Margaret Thatcher lookalike and a parrot, the comedic scenes that bookend the film, For Your Eyes Only is a worthy attempt at channelling the 60's Bond films and the Fleming novels to produce a hybrid of 60's sensibilities and 80's action, style, and conservatism.
For Your Eyes Only succeeds in bringing Commander Bond back down to Earth, by repositioning the character of 007; Bond is proactive in propelling the story along, rather than being the catalyst around which action rotates. This makes the film eminently more satisfying and more involving. One goes on a journey with Bond - as he gets bruised and battered and uses his wits and resourcefulness in order to complete the mission. Bond's inevitable triumph feels earned.
The main strength of For Your Eyes Only is from John Glen's earnest and unfussy direction. Glen was fortunate to have a great screenplay and plot to work from. When the story is this good, one does not need any extravagance from the director. Glen allows the story to shine through, letting the film breathe, with subtle character moments, building the tension, and the immersion of the locations.
Alan Hume is cinematographer on For Your Eyes Only. He and Glen capture the locations well, be it Corfu, the Greek Islands or Cortina. Granted the cinematography does not have the grandeur of Moonraker - the budgets on the 80's Bond films would be tightly regulated - but the essence of the locales more than makes up for it.
Glen is particularly good with the action scenes, although his insistence of having the audience laugh after the action scenes defuses some of the tension somewhat. The action sequences in the Glen era (he would go on to direct the five films in the 80's) is brisk and inventive. Plaudits have to go to the stunt team, headed by the ingenious Remy Julienne (car chase) and Willy Bogner (ski sequences).
James Bond
For Your Eyes Only represents one of Roger Moore's most satisfying and accomplished turns as 007. Moore's performance, full of his trademark charm and unflappable exterior, is undercut with a steely determination, as fitting with the tone of the film. It is particularly, and perversely, gratifying to see Moore's Bond sweat and fight. It makes victory for Bond entitled. Moore has grown up.
Bond Girls
She of the striking green eyes, Carole Bouquet is one of Bond's most proficient and memorable leading ladies. Bouquet plays the role with quiet conviction. She and Bond develop a genuine connection that is played to good effect throughout the picture.
Bond sees Melina as an angel with a wing down over her parents, in classic Fleming style, and thus warns Melina from going after revenge. Some reviewers have pointed out that Bond is being hypocritical, over cautioning Melina on vengeance. However, Bond senses that Melina is a good person, although she won't be if she chooses to go down the wrong path. Bond knows what it is like to kill someone, and he desperately does not want Melina to carry that burden.
Again from Beatles -
One important cast member is Lynn-Holly Johnson as the spoilt teenage ice skater, Bibi Dahl. She is important for eliciting reactions from Kristatos and Bond. For the former, when he gets teary eyed when describing his wish on hoping to see Dahl reach the gold medal, and for the latter when Bond refuses to sleep with her, despite her proximity to the villain. (I wonder what the Bond from Live and Let Die would have done?) Although somewhat out of place in a Bond film, Dahl at least established a little humanity for Kristatos and Bond.
Bond Villain
Julian Glover plays the duplicitous Aris Kristatos, a seemingly respectable ally of Britain. Kristatos is one of Mr. Bond's more sophisticated villains; his refinement extends to his sadistic nature – see Kristatos' keel hauling of Bond and Melina. Glover depicts Kristatos well, as debonair and menacing.
Bond’s Ally
As Milos Columbo, Topol is a throwback to Kerim Bey and Marc Ange Draco – a charismatic ally. The screen lights up whenever Topol appears. Topol is such an engaging actor. He and Moore share a wonderful chemistry, to boot.
Summary
For Your Eyes Only benefits from an assured directorial début from John Glen; a superb primary cast; an assertive portrayal by Roger Moore – one of his finest; a strong screenplay and plot; a touching romance between Bond and Melina; and plenty of Ian Fleming material.
- the casino scenes and the ensuing scenes between Bond and Lisl in her apartment. Those particular scenes were of a “soft focus” style Was that a trend for 80’s movies, or is it too hide Moore’s advancing age, or what?. But that, apparently, had been “cleaned up” for Blu – Ray. Anyone got any suggestions?
Royale’s Ranking -
1. From Russia With Love
2. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
3. Dr. No
4. Goldfinger
5. Thunderball
6. The Spy Who Loved Me
7. For Your Eyes Only
8. You Only Live Twice
9. Moonraker
10. The Man With The Golden Gun
11. Diamonds Are Forever
12. Live and Let Die
I'm not sure I'll ever hear that part of the score again without singing out "Who wrote the score to Live And Let Die…"
I think General Gogol’s presence in this film is absolutely required. In most of Gogol’s appearances, he’s the personification of the lessening tensions between Russia and the West. He’s the Commie we love to have in gentle opposition -- and sometimes in grudging cooperation -- with Western aims. “That’s detante, Comrade,” wouldn’t have had half the impact with anyone else being sent in Gogol’s place.
I like to think that Jacoba Brinke & Colombo ended up having a…close relationship…after the credits roll on this film. Which is a good indicator of just how strong a film FYEO really is: who cares a fig what happens to Tiger Tanaka or the gypsy girls of FRWL after they’ve served their parts in a Bond adventure? But we care about what happens to Colombo and Brinke, and yes, even Bibi, after their parts in this adventure are over. Did Bibi ever win the gold medal? I tend to think not: she probably got the silver, just so she’d continue to have something more to strive for…
I suppose it’s only fitting for some of us to view NSNA as a double bill with Octopussy, they did come out at around the same time. But I’ve seen NSNA twice and that’s once too often for me. Connery is Connery, of course, and Barbara Carrera is a hoot as Fatima Blush, but I have a few bad associations with that film and don’t really need to renew them. Still, each to their own! Enjoy, all….
His main problem seems to be that he often doesn't listen to the question. Always entertaining though.
Anyway, OP was released when I was about 10 years old and I remember walking past our old cinema and seeing the advert for it at my local cinema. I'd been introduced to Bond via Moonraker the Christmas before so knew what James Bond was all about. What was different about this, though, was that it wasn't the only James Bond adventure being advertised. No, on the poster next to it, was one for Sean Connery starring, Never Say Never Again. Being 10 years old, I had no idea what was going on and I found out after talking to mum who, despite telling me she wasn't a big Bond fan, knew all about it. Anyway, it was a couple of years later that I saw NSNA so that's by the by.
So, Octopussy, was the official adventure and, as I said, I watched it over the weekend. I always find this movie a whole lot of fun, even at it's silliest parts, "Siiiiiiit". It's quite a ride of a movie, speeding along very quickly. Now, if a Bond movie moves at a quick pace like that, then it must be doing something right. I know this movie may have it's doubters but, for me, it's a good outing and, probably, my second most enjoyed movie of Moore's tenure.
On another note, I can't believe that we are now 13 movies in to the Bondathon. That has gone very quickly.
New Ranking
1. OHMSS
2. TSWLM
3. GF
4. FRWL
5. OP
6. DN
7. LALD
8. FYEO
9. MR
10. TB
11. YOLT
12. TMWTGG
13. DAF
Previous Ranking
1. The Spy Who Loved Me
2. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
3. Casino Royale
4. From Russia With Love
5. Skyfall
6. Goldfinger
7. Octopussy
8. Spectre
9. Dr No
10. The Living Daylights
11. Goldeneye
12. Live And Let Die
13. Licence To Kill
14. A View To A Kill
15. For Your Eyes Only
16. Moonraker
17. Thunderball
18. Quantum Of Solace
19. Diamonds Are Forever
20. Tomorrow Never Dies
21. You Only Live Twice
22. The Man With The Golden Gun
23. Die Another Day
24. The World Is Not Enough
Octopussy - Actor Notes
Bond is now a man who appears to be past his prime but is still leaping around like someone half his age, suggesting rightly or wrongly that Bond is still supposed to be a man in his mid 40s.
His casual but noticeable interest in Moneypenny's assistant Miss Smallbone is a little off-putting and it really shouldn't be.
James Bond is a cultured man so his reaction to eating sheeps eyeballs doesn't sit too well.
Roger Moore however gives an intense, robust performance laced with moments of Moonraker madness.
@Birdleson mentions the suggestion of a back story (Octopussy's father) and it's true up to that point that it was unusual in Bond films to go down this road. It makes the scene comfortingly dramatic and involving.
It is indeed too easy to dismiss Moore's performance as flippant based around two or three of the more unpalatable comedy moments, but these are forgivable in the grander scheme. Moore is nothing if not professional, and he has plenty to offer at the most crucial moments.
Maud Adams flounces around mysteriously as Octopussy. When she explains where the bevvy of beauties come from she sounds sort of earnest, but never fully convincing.
She tends to look like she would prefer not to get too emotional in case her make up cracks, but when she does get angry (at Bond just before he grabs her for a snog) it's difficult to work out what the hell for! She doesn't seem half as pissed off at Kahn for nearly blowing her to smithereens later on.
Speaking of Kamal Kahn, Louis Jourdan is suitably icy, but barely memorable as the arch villain. Roger Moore's growing influence on the production shows with Jordan and of course Robert Brown (both close friends of his) being brought in to the production.
Vijay Armritraj the professional tennis player, plays Vijay, a professional tennis player.
And as they say, as an actor Vijay is one hell of a tennis player.
Kristina Wayborn plays Magda, who appears to be Kahn's squeeze, but then teams up quite naturally with Octopussy at the end to suggest a bit of duplicity. Bond is quite taken with her (she is after all slightly more mature than Bibi and Miss Smallbone) and she is quite happy to bed him for the opportunity to steal the Faberge egg.
Steven Berkoff is a hoot as the totally nuts General Orlov. The scene where his outrageous invasion plans are shot down by Gogol and he sits down like a scolded schoolboy are a joy to behold. Berkoff is never one to underact, so he was perfect for this part.
Kabir Bedi as Gobinda gets to emulate the great Oddjob and his golf ball trick by crushing dice in his hand. Gobinda is pretty good I must admit. Loyal to Kahn to the point of climbing out of an aeroplane in flight (personally I would have told Kahn to do one) Gobinda is one of the better henchmen of the Moore era.
Robert Brown is the new M, and if he achieves nothing else he makes you realise how bloody good Bernard Lee actually was. RIP Mr Lee.
Maud Adams is quite the stunner as Octopussy, yet I feel her performance lets her down at times and feels, as has been said, very forced, especially in the scene just before Bond sticks his lips on her. I much prefer her as the doomed Miss Anders in TMWTGG. I do like the fact that we are almost kept guessing of her intentions during the whole caper, until the revelation of the proposed nuclear attack.
We also have the lovely Magda, one of my favourite secondary Bond girls from the series. Not sure whether that’s based on her performance though. Saying that it probably is as she plays the character in such a naughty way, it’s hard not to be attracted to her. The thing she does with her mouth too, very saucy, haha. Seriously though, I think Kristina Wayborn is great.
Kabir Bedi is a mountain of a man and makes such a threat as Gobinda. However, as has been mentioned before, he does seem to be playing all the tunes of past glories, especially the dice crushing tribute to Oddjob.
Louis Jourdan is ok as Kamal Khan but he’s not the most memorable of the villains in the Bond series. Most non-Bond fans will know the name, Octopussy, but ask them to name the villain and they won’t know. I quite like his portrayal and his line “You have a nasty habit of surviving” is one I really like and is delivered well.
The next character, I agree is one of the finest in the movie, and he is Orlov, played by the wonderful Steven Berkoff. From the first time we see him at the meeting he is the right amount of crazy through all his scenes. He is wonderful to watch on screen and a highlight of the movie for me.
Vijay Amritraj is ok as, erm, Vijay. Easy to see it’s his first acting role. His death being one of the darker moments of the movie.
Desmond Llewellyn and Lois Maxwell are there adorable selves as always. I did enjoy the scene where Q gets a smacker from Magda, which is, quite obviously, enjoys.
We have a new M in Robert Brown. After being spoilt with the wonderful Bernard Lee, it’s difficult to take to a whole new take on the character.
Classic Bond Elements – The gun barrel is the same as always, albeit with the music slightly different. As always, I do love the Moore walk and turn to shoot.
The PTS is one of those where you will enjoy it or you won’t. I don’t mind it at all, although it could do without all the comedy parts thrown in. I do wish we’d seen more of Bianca though, although we did see plenty of her while she was driving the jeep. While I do like it, I agree that the post title sequence is so much better.
The main location for the movie is, obviously, India and how stunning does it look. Wonderful buildings all over the place and so colourful. I’ve said it before, Bond movies, for the most part, really do visit some fantastic locations.
Where to start with the gadgets. There are certainly plenty on show during the movie, but they do all have their uses. My particular favourite is the Seiko watch. Not because of what it does but I just love the watch. Very 1980’s style, I’d wear one of those now. Further on in the movie, not sure if I am a fan of the Union Jack hot air balloon that Q and Bond use to get to Khans’ pad to join in the attack on it. Too much of a rip off from TSWLM and without the effect that the parachute had. I do like the alligator boat that Bond uses to get to Octopussy’s island.
There are some decent action sequences in this movie, from the pts, the post title scene, the plane fight etc. and they keep moving the movie along nicely. While I really do like this movie though, I have to say that the advance on Khan’s place lacks. I love the fact the Octopussy and her girls go on the attack but, as they are all circus performances, the scene gets very gimmicky, very quickly and it spoils it somewhat. Add in the hot air balloon and it just gets more so.
EDIT: Oh, the jungle chase as well; this could have been so much better and could have created more tension than it did if it wasn’t for, at least, three things. “Siiiiiit!”, “Hiss off” and that bloody Tarzan yell as 007 is swinging on the vines. In fact, make it four things as you can add the vine swinging to that. Not believable at all.
Despite still get some of the serious Bond from FYEO, the humour certainly returns. As I’ve said before I don’t have a problem with the humour and it, mostly, always gives me a chuckle. I particular enjoyed Q taking a shine to Magda, that did make me laugh, as it always does.
The plot is as credible as it gets for a Bond movie and the scheme, trying to create a new world war perhaps is something that is translatable in to the world of today I’m sure. There is always a threat.
Production Elements – The movie is directed well enough I think and we are treated to some very good scenes. Despite my lack of enjoyment from the attack on Khans’ place it is directed well enough by John Glen and must have taken time to put together.
The opening title design is unremarkable and done in quite a boring style. Not a fan and one of my least favourite of the series.
The script is ok for the most part but some of the lines from Octopussy, the advance on Khans’ place etc. could have been written much better, as with the jungle chase. With regards to the Octopussy lines, that may be more to do with how they are delivered rather than the script.
The movie is made to look beautiful as most Bond movies are and, thanks to the beauty of India, the movie looks stunning in places, being beautifully shot.
John Barry was back on music duties for this and, while not being the best of his scores, it is certainly an improvement on the one we got for FYEO. The title track, however, does leave a lot to be desired and this ranks as the worst one yet for me.
The editing seems to be very good, with no issues noticed by myself. Good job done, especially during the action scenes.
As we are in India, the costume design is beautiful and makes for some wonderful viewing during the movie, especially when the girls of Octopussy are all their costumes. Away from that, all the cast look great and Moore as dapper as he always does.
As is, mostly, usual we are treated to some lovely looking sets, such as Octopussy’s floating palace etc. However, the one that stands out for me is the USSR rotating meeting room. I think this a genius bit of design from Mr Lamont and, certainly, a big plus in this movie.
Final thoughts – As I said yesterday, this is a movie I always enjoy, it really is and it could well stay in my Top 10, which is where it is currently. However, I did notice a few things on watching it this time that take a little away for me. Things like the jungle chase comedy value and the girls attack on Khans’ place are way too gimmicky. It’s obvious that watching it for this Bondathon I am looking a little closer to things that have never bothered me before. But, it didn’t stop me thoroughly enjoying the adventure and it is certainly still my number 2 Moore 007 movie. We see some stellar performances throughout, certainly from Sir Rog, but especially from Berkoff who excels as Orlov. The scene on the train is quite excellent. A good, fun, adventure, which I certainly prefer to the rogue Bond released the same year.
Cheers
The pre title sequence is par for the course, dishing out plenty of spectacle, and as with For Your Eyes Only we have an independent little film with no bearing on the main story.
From A View To A Kill we would enter a phase, unbroken to the present day, where the PTS would became a part of the main film.
Bond gets to wear the first of several disguises and considering the others ( a crocodile, a clown and a gorilla) we should be grateful for small mercies.
The locations include a first visit to India, shot in soft focus to suggest a romantic and exotic local. I'm sure it is, but Moore himself has since cast doubt on the use of the locations once he saw the extent of the poverty there. It all looks stunning however.
The action in Octopussy is typical of John Glen's time as director. It's full to the brim with incredible stunt work on and around a train, an aeroplane, cars, horses, and one breath-taking and unplanned moment when a local rides his bicycle straight through the middle of a complex chase sequence. I sincerely hope the crew found the individual and paid him the going rate.
I did love the action in this film. It was all genuinely entertaining, and unlike For Your Eyes Only it seemed to gel in with the story rather than feel slotted in just for the sake of it.
And of course the much loved sequence where a mysterious clown is pursued by twin assassins is intriguing and wholly entertaining.
The humour was on the whole quite juvenile. Plenty of jokes more akin to a Pink Panther film and when Bond uses a camera to zoom in on the breasts of Q's assistant there was a sense of Octopussy truly finding it's level of humour.
There were genuinely more subtle funny moments, such as M's face when he realises Bond has switched the Faberge eggs at the auction. Not enough of these I fear.
As for the plot, well, where to start. It is convoluted and complex and takes a while to work out what the hell is going on. This is mainly down to having real and fake Faberge items, and trying to keep pace with which is which and what the point of them is.
But, when the dust settles it's good fun and comes back down to the 'same old dream' of world domination (Orlov) and non-petty theft (Kahn).
It's hard to be original here as so much has been done before, from Bond's ivory tuxedo, to the villain's assistant crushing the dice, to Bond dining with the villain for what is assumed to be his last meal, and on and on. But it doesn't really matter as Bond films simply have to repackage what has been before to avoid losing sight of the reasons we loved these films in the first place.
Octopussy's repackaging is done in an entertaining and enjoyable manner. It moves along at a brisk pace and there isn't a sense of any jarring change of pace when the film moves from India to Western Europe. If anything it cranks up a gear.
I am saving watching the Moore films until after we're done. I was going to try to cover as many of his films as I could, but I didn't want to be up to MR then have to jump to TLD. It's very important to me to revisit and re-evaluate the Moore era properly, so I will watch all seven back to back and review them that way so that I have a clear picture of just how the films and Moore as Bond developed over time without any interruptions. I think it's the best way to do it, really.
That's just made me spit my cuppa all over the floor. Funny you mentioned it as well as I thought the same thing when I watched it. Haha.
The glory of technology, hey Brady?
That's why this film is called OctoPUSSY. It is because of Gwendoline :))
John Glen seems to have settled and offers a more assured touch to this film (it's ok folks, it abandons him completely in the next film).
Interesting to see the splendid writer George MacDonald Fraser (of Flashman fame) listed as one of the writers in the credits. The same sort of eyebrow raising reaction to seeing Roald Dahl listed as writer of You Only Live Twice.
It would be interesting to know what Fraser contributed.
The main titles use an odd glowing red outline of James Bond and the 007 symbol. Why?
We also have lots of lovely girls lying around playing suggestively with their walthers, and of course the obligatory Bond plus girl trampolining around, yet apart from a read glowing repro of Octopussy's tattoo there is no sign of any octopus symbolism.
Then when we see Bond being encircled by a woman's arms, and it goes beyond two..three..four..five..and THAT'S IT. five!! Not eight, Five!
Strange to think that this film's villains have no link to Spectre all things considered. So we wait for another 32 years before we see a title design with lots of lovely octopus tentacles.
The script has plenty of clunkers, and lots of cod philosophy, especially from Octopussy herself. But the plot is enjoyable enough and Steven Berkoff gets some great mad dialogue to spout.
The music is sweepingly romantic, with a lovely title track. However, even Tim Rice the great and clever lyricist abandoned any effort to fit the title of the film into his lyric.
Likewise the cinematography takes on a soft focus look. I do like the texture of this film. More reminiscent of the look of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which remains the most gorgeously photographed film in the series.
There is so much dazzling colour in the film, mostly the costumes in India and the circus scenes.
This film made me realise how far gone are the days of Blofeld's shiny, metal boardrooms. Now the villains live in ornate splendour, and whilst they remain satisfyingly mad as a box of frogs they are less likely to impose their will with terrifying electric chairs around sparse metal tables, and more likely to do so by showing off their wealth and privilege.
Octopussy is never dull. We have two villains whose lives are worlds apart but are dragged together by an ambitious plan to give them both what they want. How they ever found each other in the first place is another story I'm sure, but here they are.
The women are all exotic and one dimensional. Octopussy herself has a back story which is nice, but we never feel like rooting for her such is her greed and omnipotent control of so many 'lost' girls.
So much is crammed in to 2 hours and it does feel longer. Mainly because the film keeps ending. It ends with the defusing of the bomb. Then it ends again with the raid on the palace, and finally it ends a third time when Kahn's plane crashes. Well, it doesn't end there of course, we have to have the hilarious pay off with Bond in traction and all that. It does end then, finally.
Of all the Roger Moore films this is my favourite. Sometimes however Live And Let Die is, and other times The Spy Who Loved Me is, but often Octopussy is.
And that is why I don't list my favourite Bond films...because I simply can never make up my mind.
What's next? Oh F**k!! It's A View To A Kill
Brown did a decent old job when all is said and done, but I do think that some of the casting in the 80s was a little slipshod.
First up, this movie, despite it being an unofficial Bond picture, does hold a special place for me, being the first Connery Bond I saw at Christmas 1986, with my mum. At the time it was such a highlight and I loved the movie.
I also remember a few years before, as I’ve mentioned, of seeing posters in the cinema window for both this and Octopussy. Good times.
Anyway, nowadays, my enjoyment of this movie fluctuates. Initially, when I first saw it premiered on the tellybox, I loved it. I didn’t even notice back then that there was no gun barrel etc. but it didn’t put me off, it was a whole new Bond for me. As the years have gone by my enjoyment of it waned, whether that’s something to do with it not being official, the “Rogue Bond” as I’ve heard it called, I don’t know. Lately though, on my last couple of viewings, in particular last night, I found myself to enjoy it more than I’ve done before. This is probably because, for the purposes of this Bondathon, I’ve looked a little closer than I have done before.
I do like the way that we see Bond as an “aged” agent and that he has been teaching and there hasn’t been much use for the 00’s. Due to Connery’s age at the time, I see this as a nice little touch. Not anything we’ve seen before and it brings Bond down to earth. Obviously, as Bond movies always go on, we see how indestructible he is as he wins the day.
So, on to the cast. Connery is back here, once again, as a more aged 007. Nothing is done to make us think that he is younger than what we see. Still has his toupee and now with hair greyer than before. I also think that he looks nice and trim here, very fit. I certainly feel he looks better here, than he did in DAF, 12 years earlier. His performance is good, I don’t think it’s up to the standard of his earlier 007 adventures but we know it’s certainly the same character. Maybe it’s due to age but I also feel that his fight scenes, especially the one vs Lippe, it’s more like a Moore Bond fight than a Connery. It’s certainly tough but it feels like he’s lost a bit of what he showed in his official Bond pictures. Still, it’s Connery, it’s Bond so all is good. I’ve mentioned before that I haven’t really read the Fleming books so I can’t match him up to the book version.
Kim Basinger as Domino, rather bland for me. Never been a massive fan of her acting skills anyway, but she certainly had the looks for a Bond girl.
Largo, played with what looked like complete enjoyment by Klaus Maria Brandauer. He really did look like he was enjoying himself thoroughly. Very menacing, especially towards Domino – The, “Then I’ll cut your throat” reply to Domino after she mentioned ever leaving him is chilling.
I love Max von Sydow and his portrayal of Blofeld is ok. I don’t find him quite as much as a threat as early Bond Blofelds and I think I would have like to have “not seen him”, if you see what I mean. Having his face hidden would have made him more of a threat than what we see.
We have another new M here also, in Edward Fox. As I said with Octopussy, after being spoilt with Bernard Lee, seeing someone else in the role isn’t easy. Of the two, I certainly preferred Robert Brown. With regards to Fox, I don’t know what it was but I couldn’t take to him. A fine actor, but maybe overplayed the role here. May just be me.
The supporting cast are, mostly, ok. Barbara Carrera as Fatima Blush is suitably crazy and steals many scenes that she is in with her manic performance. The dancing around, the water skiing, even her death scene. She’d have certainly fit in well to an official Bond film. Our replacement Pat Fearing is ok, but not a patch on the original from Thunderball, I like Pat Roach, a suitable adversary for Bond, but the James Bond urine sample in the face thing was hard to take. Not that it finished him off but was certainly potent enough to force him back. Bernie Casey make a decent Felix Leiter and, again, he would have suited the official series no problem. Miss Moneypenny actress, Pamela Salem, is dull as dishwater and no comparison whatsoever to the wonderful Lois Maxwell. Rowan Atkinson – no thank you, not a fan of his character or performance here. Not a big fan of Gavan O’Herlihy as Jack Petachi, more used to seeing him in a more comedy role than a serious role as this. I’m also a fan of the lovely Valerie Lyon but, man is she tall, certainly matching up to Bond there.
The classic Bond Elements – No gun barrel to speak of so can’t offer an opinion on that. The pts is ok, a training exercise to see if 007 is still up to the job in hand. As mentioned before, Connery looks nice and lean here and is decent during the scene. I did like the twist that it was a training exercise as opposed to being real.
The locations used all look great, the main location being the Bahamas, giving it a similar look to Thunderball, especially filming at Clifton Pier, as some of Thunderball was.
A few gadgets of note are the motorcycle which is used in an excellent chase scene and the pen he is given by Algernon, which, despite its reluctance to work, comes in very handy of disposing of Fatima Blush.
There action sequences are ok in this movie, the motorcycle chase and the attack on the Tears of Allah location are the best of the bunch. The underwater scene, unlike Thunderball, doesn’t feel too long and I like the fact that it’s Domino who finishes him off.
The humour is kept to a minimum, certainly less so that in OP but what there is, is ok for the most part. Like I have said though, not a fan of the comedy character in Small-Fawcett, he really grates on me.
The plot is no more credible than any other Bond movie, official or not. Credibility isn’t an issue whether it is credible or not and this is no different and follows a similar plot to Thunderball. As for the scheme of the villain, steal nuclear warheads, threatening the world for money to deter them from detonating them. It all works out at trying for world domination.
On to the production elements of the movie – The movie is directed well enough I think, seems to flow through nicely, with the action scenes mentioned above directed well.
No opening title sequence to speak of, again unfortunately, so can’t offer any comment here.
The script follows a similar theme to Thunderball, I did like the fact that they wrote Bond as an older agent. Never thought about that before but it works well.
The movie is shot well enough, and some scenes look suitably lovely; the scenes in The Bahamas especially, but there isn’t the impact that we have seen in official Bond movies. May well be me, but I don’t think we have the money shots here.
The score is rather dull, instantly forgettable and nowhere near the quality we see from, say John Barry. The title track is also forgettable and I do find myself muting that when it comes on (although for the sake of this Bondathon I listened to it all the way through). Awful song, in my opinion.
The editing was ok for the most part but, and I’m not sure this fits, as with Moore, there is such an obvious body double. It’s certainly showing during the fight scene with Lippe as Bonds hair, when his head is thrown back from a punch, is longer than Connery’s. With how short Connery’s hair was, it wouldn’t have waved back as it did. Other than that, just a few editing issues noticed but none too major.
Costume design – well, Connery does look good in the suits he is given. Then there’s the gear he wears at Shurblands, the dungarees etc. Not a good look for a Connery Bond I’m afraid, and worse than the towelling effort he wore in Goldfinger.
I think the main piece of set design is where we see Bond, Leiter et al, attack the Tears of Allah location for the gunfight. Honestly, I’m not a fan of it at all and I think it really looks like a set. Some sets you can see and they look real, authentic but, this one, it really doesn’t. I looked last night and just wasn’t convinced that this place could actually be a reality. (Now waiting for someone to tell me this wasn’t a set at all).
Anyway, I’ve written more than I thought I would have, my apologies for that. As a final thought, while, over the years, my enjoyment of this movie has waned, I have found myself enjoying it more over my last couple of views, especially last night. It’s by no means anywhere near a perfect Bond movie and it’s not going to break in very highly in my rankings (if I were to add it), but I think I certainly enjoy it now, more than others. Therefore, if I was ranking it, it wouldn’t be languishing at the bottom. I didn’t think I would be saying that about this movie but I think it is better than it’s given credit for and maybe some of the negativity towards it is because it’s unofficial?
Cheers.