OCTOPUSSY 30 YR ANNIVERSARY

135

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited June 2013 Posts: 24,159
    @hullcityfan

    You are bordering on spam. If you take the trouble to re-read your posts in even this last page, ask yourself what contribution they make to the discussion and even more so, who on Earth would want to read them?

    Example:
    Every time I see it I think it'll blow up!

    Well, sir, good for you but next time you can post that sentiment in a previous post of yours. (We have the edit button for that.)

    There's even a post of yours where you merely quote other posts but add nothing!
    NOOO!! My keyboard isn't working on my other computer and of course I live with my parents and they still have the parental lock on :( Awkward. I don't have an account on here so I have to use my younger brothers one awkward.

    Do you even think for a split second that anyone on an adult Bond forum wants to read this? Do you even think for a moment that anyone here cares? This younger brother nonsense sounds awfully familiar too. If you don't want anyone to suspect anything, then don't feed those suspicions!

    A gazillion flags have gone out concerning posts of yours over the past two days. We can hardly keep up processing them. You PM'd me a few hours ago but quite frankly it all makes sense to me now.

    Stop this nonsense right away, please. Think before you post, learn to use the edit button and consider this: the forum isn't interested in one sentence sentiments that hardly cover any serious ground. People flag your posts because they are considered an annoyance, spam and in some cases a bundle of lies. You're not helping your own case and you can't take advise, as you so aptly demonstrate.

  • Posts: 1,970
    Great Bond film is Octopussy. Its in my top 5
  • edited June 2013 Posts: 1,021
    I can't belive that OCTOPUSSY is 30 years old! If memory serves it was the first Bond film that I saw in the cinema. A pretty solid entry. Not high up in my list but I do enjoy it everytime I play it on the bluray. A few silly bits let it down - tarzan swing...tennis match audience during tuk tuk chase...telling the tiger to siiiittt....Sir Roger Moore is in fine form in this film despite his advancing age and the Indian locations are superb. A great John Barry score, a fine leading lady and some genuine tension make this a pretty solid Sir Roger Moore entry. Much better by a long shot than the other film from 1983 NSNA!
  • Posts: 5,634
    I saw it on release, and sometimes it still feels like only last week. I've castigated it something awful on previous reviews, sometimes justified I felt, and I'm not one for humor in Bond, and Moore often goes into overdrive on that regard in this release, but for all those asinine and questionable moments, he can act serious every now and again. (The interrogation of General Orlov on the train being one such example)

    All told, it's actually a decent watch. Fun, entertaining, lots to get involved in. But the bottom line is, Moore was simply too old for the part by 1983 and someone else should of come in after For Your Eyes Only. The pre credits sequence in the acrostar jet is one of the best of the entire franchise and Louis Jourdan makes for a memorable villain, but the ending is always poor, it has to be said. A bit of a letdown after all that came before it, but still a decent Bond movie, although nothing overly special. It simply can't stand on the same plateau as some other releases such as From Russia With Love, Casino Royale, The Living Daylights and The World Is Not Enough for example
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited June 2013 Posts: 9,117
    That is when he wasn't too busy shagging women during working hours when he should have been studying first and worrying about girls later when off duty (after all, a man cannot live by bread alone and must have his fish ;) ), beefing about not getting star treatment, and generally thinking he should be treated like Sean when he'd proven absolutely nothing as a movie star

    So George behaved like a twat on set? Not very professional but I dont see what it has to do with his performance. Plenty of people are arseholes off camera but deliver once its rolling. Utterly irrelevant.

    And speaking further about Sean, I'd say TB was his finest performance after seamlessly assimilating the Hamilton super spy with Young's sensibilities. That's what a great actor with an Oscar on his mantle can do, comparing George favorably to a bloated DAF performance where Sean was clearly in it for the money is a whole lot of straw clutching to me.

    Well depends what you are classing as performance. Clearly you regard the globetrotting playboy aspects of the character more important than portraying Flemings real and vulnerable man.
    You could say TB was Seans best performance in this respect (personally I prefer GF) but the point is moot anyway as neither come close to Ian Flemings character.
    Sean in DN and FRWL is exceptional as Flemings Bond but in GF (largely thanks to Hamilton) he veers off into the cinema-Bond later perfected by Rog. Now I'll grant you his performances in GF and TB are slick and oozing charisma but to argue they are great acting is pushing it somewhat. Hes just doing what he always did from GF on - playing Sean Connery. In DN and FRWL he wasnt a star so he had to act but by GF he could afford to switch on the autopilot as he had made it and from there he built a career on it. The films in which he actually acts (The Hill, The Offence, The Name of The Rose) are not as frequent as those in which he just plays himself (and I'm afraid I'm with Sickboy on the Untouchables Oscar).

    You are of course correct when you say a motivated Sean in OHMSS would be the best Bond ever but as all we were getting from Sean by that stage was him turning up to pick up his cheque then I far prefer what we got from the chocolate model than what the coffin polisher would have turned in.

    But it seems clear from all your barbed comments about his womanising, drinking and fighting (none of which have any bearing on his acting ability - presumably you also think Oliver Reed and Richard Harris were terrible as well?) that you are unable to divorce your hatred of George the man with what we get on screen. Sean is hardly a saint - hes been in a few rumbles and lets not forget his 'its fine to hit a woman' interview - but it seems hes beyond reproach.
    Having taken acting classes myself in order to better develop my on stage presence during my touring days as a musician, I think I know a little bit about the subject....

    ...George's glaring ineptness as an actor may fool some of you out there, but I know better [-X

    Sorry to report but despite any rave reviews you may have garnered in the local rag for your seminal performance in Kiss Me Kate with the Tunbridge Wells players it doesnt make you an authority on anything. Its still just an opinion.

    When I call Brosnan a "caricature", I mean that strictly in terms of his GQ looks and the too obvious way he ticks the boxes rather than venturing a fresh new vision of Bond. In comparison to Lazenby, the former is fair. George, taking nothing here away from his real life gravitas and balls, pursued a caricature of Sir Sean by giving himself a makeover in Sean's JB image, going so far as to go to Sean's barber and tailor. Now if you want to compare both as an actor, I'd venture to say that short of George's action star skills that make him a better on screen fighter (no doubt honed by years of drunken bar brawling), I really don't see where he's the better actor. And that's not to defend your Exhibit A or the many other instances where the Brozzer seems too content with cheesy deliveries, but I also see certain scenes like the ending fight with Trevalyan where he does well in action spots, and can name several scenes such as his Kaufman confrontation that show me when given the right lines and motivations, he can occasionally be convincing in the role. Pierce studied at the Drama Centre, London, for several years before he had his first role in any production, and had many credits before taking the role of James Bond. In this, he qualifies as an accomplished actor. Now whether one sees him as a good actor is open to interpretation, personally I like him much better in non-Bondian roles and don't feel he was a good Bond in comparison to Sean, Roger, or Tim who came before let alone Daniel, but in the above comparisons only one logical conclusion can be drawn- Pierce is an actor and George is an action star. And for most, the actor wins every time.

    If you mean by 'accomplished actor' he has made a living from it then fine but to compare Brozzas CV with say Daltons is ridiculous. His pre Bond CV pretty much bears out your comments about him basically being a GQ model (something which is fine apparently - as is being Mr Universe (well third) or a knitwear model. Apparently its only chocolate modelling that you have a downer on. Or is it that George just walked ino the part without ever having taken acting classes that really rankles? There but the for the grace of God and all that... You could have been a contender?) with a handful of minor parts before Remington Steele (which I doubt would have even stretched George). I'll grant you post Bond some of Brozzas performances have been reasonable but I dont think he will ever go down as anything but a slightly lesser Rog in terms of acting ability.

    Getting back to Sir Roger on this, again we have a real actor at work. Yes it's fair to say as you have, that at times during his tenure he is "the holiday camp comedian who cavorts in underwater cars and hover-gondolas (or even space itself FFS)", but here's something that has to be said in his defense. He is far more than just a comedic talent. Again, we have an accomplished actor who was trained and had many film and TV credits going back some 23 years that included being a MGM contract player during Hollywood's golden age of the 1950's. The truly telling factor in the way of comparing either as Bond is very telling- after George everyone including myself was screaming for Sean to return and being an original fan, I lived through the uproar and read all the press clippings and everything else going on because I was a young and obsessed new Bond fan. After Moore debuted in LALD, the public and Bond fans were not screaming and everyone seemed mostly satisfied. Rather than thinking that looking the part was the lone prerequisite, and quite frankly he had brown hair which didn't match the standard any more than Craig's look, he went in with a game plan that Pierce and George either lacked or failed to bring to fruition. He knew that if he hoped to succeed, he HAD to be different than Sean 1962-1965. And it mostly worked because the man was a legitimate actor and established his own interpretation of the role. Something Sean did, Tim did, and something Craig is currently still defining. Again, this is certainly reason to consider these four actors ahead of both Pierce and George in any list based on more than one's personal preferences, and further reason to congratulate OP and Sir Roger on the film's 30th anniversary because without Sir Roger, we might not have a series :)

    So we come to Rog and I heartily agree with your points here. Rog may not have a CV in terms of quality a la Dalton but in terms of quantity he must have done something right to work constantly for 50 odd years.

    Good observation about him consciously not wanting to copy Sean and making the part his own in order to succeed.
    And he could act when required - which brings us to OP (so all this has been tentatively on topic!?). The scene with Orlov on the train and the defusing of the bomb are for me Rogs finest hour in the role. He really sells it (and could any other actor get away with that clown suit?) and his performance in the Germany section of the film goes a long way to making OP my favourite Rog film. With OP you really have the best of both worlds - a taut, dare I say Flemingesque, cold war climax in the circus tent but before hand a classic Rog romp. 'Fill her up please' is a master at the peak of his trade and lines like 'Sit' and 'That'll keep you in curry for a few weeks' only Rog could get away with. Genius.

    It simply can't stand on the same plateau as some other releases such as From Russia With Love, Casino Royale, The Living Daylights and The World Is Not Enough for example

    Thats a curious definition of the word plateau you are using there. I have never seen a plateau with such a deep valley running through the middle of it.

    OP is not on a par with the big 3 of FRWL, OHMSS and CR for sure but it batters TWINE to the floor in every department (well except that Marceau is way hotter than Adams or Wayborn).
  • edited June 2013 Posts: 4,622
    Sean in DN and FRWL is exceptional as Flemings Bond but in GF (largely thanks to Hamilton) he veers off into the cinema-Bond later perfected by Rog. Now I'll grant you his performances in GF and TB are slick and oozing charisma but to argue they are great acting is pushing it somewhat. Hes just doing what he always did from GF on - playing Sean Connery. In DN and FRWL he wasnt a star so he had to act but by GF he could afford to switch on the autopilot as he had made it and from there he built a career on it.
    Connery was no doubt very relaxed in his Bond skin by GF, but Alfred Hitchcock very much influenced Connery's evolved Bond persona in GF as much as anyone.
    Watch Hitchcock's Marnie, which Connery made just before GF, and you will swear it's Connery's Goldfinger Bond, moonlighting as Hitchcock's American businessman-lead Mark Rutland.
    Connery incorporated a lot of what he learned from Hitchcock into GF. The resemblance between the two characters (Rutland and GF-Bond) is uncanny. Not only the exact same look, but also walk, inflections, posturing, facial expressions.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314

    Of course I'm not about to argue that George is oozing more talent than the rest as they are after all guys who have made a career out of acting and he hasnt

    Thank you. That's all I was looking for.

    timmer wrote:
    Connery was no doubt very relaxed in his Bond skin by GF, but Alfred Hitchcock very much influenced Connery's evolved Bond persona in GF as much as anyone.
    Watch Hitchcock's Marnie, which Connery made just before GF, and you will swear it's Connery's Goldfinger Bond, moonlighting as Hitchcock's American businessman-lead Mark Rutland.
    Connery incorporated a lot of what he learned from Hitchcock into GF. The resemblance between the two characters (Rutland and GF-Bond) is uncanny. Not only the exact same look, but also walk, inflections, posturing, facial expressions.

    Yes, I've heard people mention this before but I've never seen the film. Thanks for bringing it to my attention again. I'm going to check it out as soon as I get the chance.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    timmer wrote:
    Sean in DN and FRWL is exceptional as Flemings Bond but in GF (largely thanks to Hamilton) he veers off into the cinema-Bond later perfected by Rog. Now I'll grant you his performances in GF and TB are slick and oozing charisma but to argue they are great acting is pushing it somewhat. Hes just doing what he always did from GF on - playing Sean Connery. In DN and FRWL he wasnt a star so he had to act but by GF he could afford to switch on the autopilot as he had made it and from there he built a career on it.
    Connery was no doubt very relaxed in his Bond skin by GF, but Alfred Hitchcock very much influenced Connery's evolved Bond persona in GF as much as anyone.
    Watch Hitchcock's Marnie, which Connery made just before GF, and you will swear it's Connery's Goldfinger Bond, moonlighting as Hitchcock's American businessman-lead Mark Rutland.
    Connery incorporated a lot of what he learned from Hitchcock into GF. The resemblance between the two characters (Rutland and GF-Bond) is uncanny. Not only the exact same look, but also walk, inflections, posturing, facial expressions.

    Yes, thanks for this, too. I'll have to check this out, too.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited June 2013 Posts: 13,355
    Another Connery film around that time worth noting is Woman of Straw, in that film nearly all of Connery's suits are again worn in Goldfinger.
  • edited June 2013 Posts: 3,494
    @Wiz- I really don't see where you are coming from past your personal opinion that you happen to like Lazenby. I do see a couple of snide remarks, amusing as they may be, that certainly prove you know even less about the subject of acting as I. And like you, I'm not standing for this.

    Apparently you and George's supporters seem to think that being an action star qualifies as acting. I don't and it doesn't. Martial arts type films are a different genre. It's far less complicated compared to what the other Bond actors have done professionally. George was hired for three reasons, none of which have very little to do with being an actor. One, he tested well in the action sequences, which is what an action star excels at. Two, all an action star has to do is say their lines. They don't have to be convincing, just passable. Just like Chuck Norris, who is as awful as George, except, well, obviously he managed to make a career out of being awful. Three, he aped Connery's look and style and aggressively pursued the role until Cubby and Harry hired him. A huge mistake on their part in my estimation not to hire one of the actors up for the role, but as the Sicilians say, you can't put the s**t back in the donkey. I'd love to describe George as a "one hit wonder" as Bond, but even that would be a stretch as OHMSS in 1969 and 1970 was anything but in the eyes of the world, and George was anything but a wonder as his career shows. As far as I'm concerned, he might as well have been reading his lines from a teleprompter. So what if a few lines here and there he said were convincing? Almost anyone could say a line with the correct intent and inflections if coached by an accomplished actor and given enough takes and time to get it right.

    You also seem to think I hate George as a man. Far, far from it if you'd read my comments about his real life gravitas and balls. I would have loved to have gone out drinking and wenching with him because we were kindred spirits like that and that's what I did on a near daily basis myself for about 13 years during my time as an active and public musician. He was rock star like that and people can tell very similar stories about my antics, so no doubt we would have been excellent wing men for the other. Everything I said about George's lack of professionalism on the set is true, which you should well know. And I maintain he should have been taking the role a lot more seriously and studying to get better instead of thinking "I got the job, I'm going to be a big star", which Dana Broccoli tried to set him straight on. The only things I have negative to say about George the person, things he no doubt recognizes in hindsight, is that he was professionally lazy, let his ego get in the way, and wasn't smart enough to make sound decisions regarding his career. I'm sure if the clock were turned back he would have done these things differently, and perhaps he would have grown into a competent actor while he was at it.

    Like Pierce or not as Bond, in which my stance should be clear to anyone who reads my posts that he wasn't my cup of tea, he was an actor long before he took the role. His GQ looks may have similarly played a role in his hire, but the fact is he was also an actor and not a model with no credits or training that made his hire professionally sensible. I thought he mostly acquitted himself much better than George in his first two films. He showed me he had some acting skills, not at the level of the others save George before him or Craig following, but still he was far advanced and good enough to continue working and making a living at it before, during, and after his time as Bond. Where can George claim the same? His resume surely doesn't reflect his proficiency as such. His legacy as Bond far outweighs George's and is similar to Sir Roger's in style as well as rescuing the franchise at a low point, something George failed to do with a similar opportunity, and that isn't even debatable according to history. A member of the holy trinity of Connery, Dalton, and Craig? Now that is laughable.

    That's it from me, further debate is pointless.
    timmer wrote:
    Sean in DN and FRWL is exceptional as Flemings Bond but in GF (largely thanks to Hamilton) he veers off into the cinema-Bond later perfected by Rog. Now I'll grant you his performances in GF and TB are slick and oozing charisma but to argue they are great acting is pushing it somewhat. Hes just doing what he always did from GF on - playing Sean Connery. In DN and FRWL he wasnt a star so he had to act but by GF he could afford to switch on the autopilot as he had made it and from there he built a career on it.
    Connery was no doubt very relaxed in his Bond skin by GF, but Alfred Hitchcock very much influenced Connery's evolved Bond persona in GF as much as anyone.
    Watch Hitchcock's Marnie, which Connery made just before GF, and you will swear it's Connery's Goldfinger Bond, moonlighting as Hitchcock's American businessman-lead Mark Rutland.
    Connery incorporated a lot of what he learned from Hitchcock into GF. The resemblance between the two characters (Rutland and GF-Bond) is uncanny. Not only the exact same look, but also walk, inflections, posturing, facial expressions.

    Now THIS is about acting and things someone with knowledge of the subject would post. I always thought myself that Sean was in "Marnie" mode and noticed these same similarities. His performance in TB to me was an ideal mix of his first three and his best showing as Bond.
  • edited June 2013 Posts: 12,837
    Opinions aside for a minute, Lazenby not being a real actor and having a crap career doesn't count as evidence for Connery being a better Bond.

    The only thing that matters in this debate is his performance in OHMSS and Connery's performance in his movies, whatever your opinion of those may be.
  • Posts: 4,622
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Another Connery film around that time worth noting is Woman of Straw, in that film nearly all of Connery's suits are again worn in Goldfinger.
    This is interesting too. According to IMDB, Connery followed the back-to-back Terrence Young Bonds of DN and FRWL with Woman of Straw and Marnie before he did GF, so clearly Sean did some growing/evolving between his second and third Bonds.
    Sure, why not carry over the suits from Woman of Straw, if they fit that well.
    Also seems like FRWL soldified Connery as a major star, leading to his handsome leading-man status with Gina Lollobrigida in Woman of Straw and Tippi Hedren in Marnie.He was probably feeling pretty good about himself by the time he strolled onto the GF set. :)
    I must confess, I've never seen Woman of Straw. I am now going to hunt it down. This looks like prime-time Connery celluloid.

    Woman_of_Straw_poster.jpg
  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    Posts: 3,144
    Sir Henry Quite so sir good points well made Thankyou .
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    For more on the Woman Of Straw/Goldfinger suits, look here:

    http://thesuitsofjamesbond.com/?cat=98
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    The title of the thread is : OCTOPUSSY 30 YR ANNIVERSARY hardly what is being discussed in many of the above posts. I agree topics do often change in their nature, but this is to celebrate an anniversary of the thirteenth Bond film.
    Lets get it back on track please, and if you feel the need to continue discussing GL, SC or any of their films, then use the appropriate thread.
    Thanks.
  • @Benny- sorry about that friend. I tried to steer it back on to topic but it didn't quite work out that way. I promise no more off topic discussion or debate coming from me :)
  • Posts: 7,653
    OCTOPUSSY an alltime high
  • Posts: 2,341
    I enjoy reading all the comments but like Benny and SirHenry says sometimes these boards take on a life of their own.

    I have a hard time finding things that I did not like about OP. It fits well in the Moore / 1980's era of Bond and Moore got a lot of flak for the clown disguise but I had no problem with it. Hiding in the gorilla suit was very funny.
    As for the Tarzan yell that scene ended with him landing in a river and coming out with leaches stuck to his chest. That mix of comedy and gritty realism at play here.

    Magda's exit from Bond's bedroom was very cool too.
    And the dinner scene at the palace with Khan eating his smothered head of lamb. Classic.
  • edited June 2013 Posts: 4,622
    Yes we did get sidetracked. Guilty. I assume there is a thread somewhere re the films of Connery.
    Back to OP. I said my peace earlier.It's one of my favourites. I like that it combines a hard edge to offset the camp and more escapist elements. That's the magic of Bond IMO, finding that camp/danger balance.
    Even FRWL manages the feat. It is one of more grounded Bond films, but it still features Spectre and Blofeld, Spectre island etc.
    OP combines outrageous plotting and characters, with some serious suspense and violent action. Rog's final tussle with the 2nd twin was quite well done.
    I did enjoy the OP display at the Designing Bond exhibit which continues to tour the globe. The OP baccarat board was on display along with the little dice cups, the actual loaded dice and one of the faberge eggs. The items were all resting on the baccarat board, which sat on a table, flanked by mannequins of Kamal Khan and Rog sporting their actual outfits from the game.
    I wanted to hold the egg and roll the dice but the security guy was sitting right beside the table, and told me no. Damn!
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Otcopussy, Otcopussy.....

    The action is inventive, locales stunning, the screenplay is intriguing and it has great cast; Moore, especially has some fine moments, defusing the bomb, squaring up to Orlov, the death of Vijay; very touching and sombre. Plus Moore has a great chemistry with Maud Adams. Silly humour infiltrates into a few scenes, the Tarzan yell, for example, but the overall theme from For Your Eyes Only is retained.

    My heart says Spy, when I'm deciding on my favorite Moore film, and my brain says FYEO; OP is a perfect combination of them both.


  • Posts: 1,052
    C'mon OP is such a good watch, possibly my favrouite Bond film, definitley top 5, one of my favrouites released in the year I was born!

    And I can never understand people banging on about the clown disguise, it's just lazy journilism that has been regurgitated by people to criticise this film. People complain about Bond not acting like a real spy, yet wearing a clown disguise at a circus seems like a pretty logical thing to do, you just can't win!
  • edited June 2013 Posts: 4,622
    The eye-rolling over the clown disguise has to do with how he managed to apply elaborate make-up and put the costume together in what seemed like a matter of minutes.
    It is possible though that as part of his Mi6 training, Bond had some background in the art of clown make-up and costuming, just in case. :)

    Alternatively, there may have been a clown make-up helpful-guide picture pasted on the wall for quick reference. Then Bond would only have to match the colours with the design. Like using a colouring book, except your face is the book.
    Wriggling into the costume, shouldn't have posed much difficulty either.
    There, it all hangs together just fine.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited June 2013 Posts: 9,117
    timmer wrote:
    The eye-rolling over the clown disguise has to do with how he managed to apply elaborate make-up and put the costume together in what seemed like a matter of minutes.
    It is possible though that as part of his Mi6 training, Bond had some background in the art of clown make-up and costuming, just in case. :)

    Alternatively, there may have been a clown make-up helpful-guide picture pasted on the wall for quick reference. Then Bond would only have to match the colours with the design. Like using a colouring book, except your face is the book.
    Wriggling into the costume, shouldn't have posed much difficulty either.
    There, it all hangs together just fine.

    I think youre just being facetious here and picking on the make up because you know your argument is on shaky ground and the scene is actually a classic and the best bomb countdown of the series. The only criticism I've ever seen of the clown suit is over the whole idea of Bond dressed as a clown - period - which some people are unable to look beyond and that's fair enough I suppose but to criticise the scene because of the make up is rather fatuous.

    Yes the make up is too perfect (as the bomb got down to 1 second Bond must have thought to himself 'I wish I hadn't spent so long doing those tears down my cheek') but this is a minor detail that can be overlooked in the whole suspension of disbelief you need to employ in watching a film - particularly a Rog Bond film.

    I've never seen anyone complain that it just happens to be the Junkanoo, Rio carnival or the Palio on the very day Bond rolls into town (and presumably Bond turning up at Oberammergau would coincide with the once in a decade passion play being performed). No one moans that the DB5 or the Lotus couldnt possibly contain all those mechanisms and armaments and still be driveable as a sports car or that Q just happens to supply gadgets suited to the very scenario Bond finds himself in in a particular film. Even the 'reslistic' SF has these moments - its very convenient that a train just happens to be coming at the exact moment Silva blows the tunnel or Bond just happens to survive a fall that about 95 times out of 100 would be fatal.

    This is what happens in films - they operate in a heightened state of reality. How dull would the tube scene in SF be if after Silva blows the tunnel a TfL announcer is heard saying 'there are minor delays on the District line' and Silva just legs it and we don't have the train crashing through the wall?

    Go and watch a Mike Leigh film if true reality is what you want.
  • edited June 2013 Posts: 4,622
    Chill,this isn't a big deal, and who is Mike Leigh?

    Edit: "Mike Leigh, British writer and director of film and theatre.......known for gritty kitchen sink realism." Yuk. No thanks.

    Bond fans have been having fun with Rog's quick-change clown get-up for years. Like for 30 years.
    It's not a deep serious complaint. It's something to have fun with.
    Of course, you have to suspend disbelief when watching a Bond film. That's not news.
  • Posts: 686
    I enjoyed Octopussy. The only problems I had were:

    1. Tarzan scream
    2. The chase in Deli - Seemed so hackneyed.
    3. The short amount of time Bond got into the clown outfit.
    4. The overuse of humour.

    Otherwise it was the one the most Flemingeque Bonds in content and in context.
  • hullcityfanhullcityfan Banned
    Posts: 496
    Perdogg wrote:
    I enjoyed Octopussy. The only problems I had were:

    1. Tarzan scream
    2. The chase in Deli - Seemed so hackneyed.
    3. The short amount of time Bond got into the clown outfit.
    4. The overuse of humour.

    Otherwise it was the one the most Flemingeque Bonds in content and in context.

    That music at the end really annoys me just after he stopped the bomb got it stuck in my head I'm going insane! =))
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited June 2013 Posts: 18,264
    Perdogg wrote:
    I enjoyed Octopussy. The only problems I had were:

    1. Tarzan scream
    2. The chase in Deli - Seemed so hackneyed.
    3. The short amount of time Bond got into the clown outfit.
    4. The overuse of humour.

    Otherwise it was the one the most Flemingeque Bonds in content and in context.

    Indeed. It certainly is a successful mix of part Bond film adventure and part Flemingesque suspense-fest. Having said all of that, of course, there's very little from the pen of Fleming actually in it.
  • edited June 2013 Posts: 4,408
    I haven't watched OP in a few years, but my enduring memory of it is not good.
    To me the movie has tonal issues. After MR, Cubby made a deliberate attempt to make the next movie more realistic and less fantastical. The film was also a departure for Moore as his Bond always seemed more self-aware and FYEO was a much more serious affair.
    The big issue with FYEO was that it was relatively sombre a Bond film, I think OP was a slight reaction to that as the film seems intent on having a little more 'fun'.
    The overall effect is jarring, the film wants to be taken seriously but at the same time is overly camp and silly. The film wants to exploit the goodwill of FYEO of having a story in a similar vein but also satisfy Moore's more comic, self-aware performance, and it doesn't work. Furthermore, it has not aged well. I think once Glen got rid of Moore, he came into his own with his 2 Dalton movies as he had a Bond which matched the tone he was after - Moore was an uncomfortable fit.
    We should really be ignoring this movie and not celebrating its anniversary.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    I haven't watched OP in a few years, but my enduring memory of it is not good.
    To me the movie has tonal issues. After MR, Cubby made a deliberate attempt to make the next movie more realistic and less fantastical. The film was also a departure for Moore as his Bond always seemed more self-aware and FYEO was a much more serious affair.
    The big issue with FYEO was that it was relatively sombre a Bond film, I think OP was a slight reaction to that as the film seems intent on having a little more 'fun'.
    The overall effect is jarring, the film wants to be taken seriously but at the same time is overly camp and silly. The film wants to exploit the goodwill of FYEO of having a story in a similar vein but also satisfy Moore's more comic, self-aware performance, and it doesn't work. Furthermore, it has not aged well. I think once Glen got rid of Moore, he came into his own with his 2 Dalton movies as he had a Bond which matched the tone he was after - Moore was an uncomfortable fit.
    We should really be ignoring this movie and not celebrating its anniversary.

    I agree on the tonal differences. I was trying to kind of say that in the post above, to no avail. I see no problem in celebrating it, though, even if it is something of a curate's egg if you'll pardon the pun!
  • Posts: 4,408
    OP for me is a stepping-stone movie, there is little in it to marvel. AVTAK is similar but has a number of saving graces (the biggest being Christopher Walkern). For my money Moore's era was frontloaded with the weak LALD and ended with worst films in the series. I like Roger, but his tongue-in-cheek performance was really not suited for both OP and AVTAK. Cubby should have realised this and recast the part. Babs and MGW had the exact same issue going into CR; Brosnan could have gone on but he wouldn't have been a comfortable fit just like Moore here.

    Though Moore isn't entirely to blame, surely someone should have looked at the script and saw that there were far too many silly disguises and bad jokes in it. Also Peter Lamont needs slap for the production design of this movie.
Sign In or Register to comment.