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
. Body comparisons aside, Moore did more serious acting in OP
Well, I suppose starting off the day with a good, hearty belly laugh isn't the worst thing =)) [/quote]
Hmmmm....... I have to raise my eyebrow about Moore's serious acting OP!
Thanks for the back up, and I agree with this. You can't judge his performance here based on India, where he's in camp mode more often than not. He's excellent in Germany and he's doing the serious FYEO/TMWTGG Bond, even in the clown getup he is not clowning around here.
And you're entitled to raise all the eyebrows you wish to. Are you going to tell me next that Lazenby had a better performance? A rookie better than a master actor. This I gotta hear.
I really enjoy both scenes, and that's not advocating slapping women around in defense of my statement. But Moore Bond in TMWTGG knew he was in mortal danger if Scaramanga really did want him dead, and I always saw his actions as the script intended, those of a desperate man who knew his time was running out if he didn't find his enemy first.
Thank you as well for pointing out the lack of gun barrel and Bond theme anywhere in NSNA. No real Bond film is without it, only those pretending to be ;)
Well, in the sense of @senthivel being a Connery fanboy I can understand where he is coming from. I was as a kid and Sir Sean will always be my favorite actor ever, Bond or not. I followed his career after Bond and always went to see his newest film. If one prefers Connery and Lazenby to Moore, then it's likely they will defend a remake (NSNA) and a bad actor (George) over OP and Moore. But then there's the facts as we look at it, and while you are completely right in saying that the general public spoke in favor of Moore and OP by way of box office, there's also the actual acting being done. What @senthivel doesn't get here is the experience of living through those times. George would have never been accepted nor escaped the shadow of Connery no matter how many Bond films he did. The public by and large never liked him and even today he has few fans compared to the other Bond actors. This is a fact and just saying George would have eventually been accepted is a baseless opinion devoid of the facts needed to prove such an opinion. Whereas Moore was clearly much more easily accepted when LALD was released, and that had a lot to do with (another fact) that he was an accomplished actor and knew exactly what he wanted to do in putting his own stamp on the role. The public didn't want a Connery clone if they couldn't have the real thing, and he and EON knew it. That concept was beyond the mindset of a rookie, more action star (who always excel in physicality because that's what makes an action star) than actor, who had decided Bond was Sean's gig. Rather than make his own mark, he figured his career was launched just by being Bond even one time, and as we know that was a major miscalculation and assumption that Moore understood all too well.
Funnily enough, while the Moore vs Connery controversy as to who was the better Bond raged during the summer of 1983, neither man took beating the other at the BO too seriously. They had been close friends for several decades at that point and had nothing but respect and brotherly affection for the other. Sir Roger relates how they got together during production and openly discussed how things were going and what each was doing. His telling of the story ends with his factual statement on the conclusion of the 1983 Bond War- OP won at the box office, and was the better film.
NSNA was a rather flat Bond film. It was a nice try, but it lacked the production oomph of the established Bond team, plus the production was harassed in court by the Eon group, doing their best to derail the production. The movie faced production challenges that OP didn't have to deal with.
The blu-ray commentary and extras delve deeply into the production hurdles that were faced on a daily basis it seems.
I enjoy NSNA, if only as Connery's swan song as Bond. Connery looked great as Bond - much better than Moore did at the same age (52) and he was his usual brutally convincing self.
I do think however that Sean's performance was somewhat restrained. However it also seems, that he was constantly being asked to play foil to an endless supply of eccentric characters playing off him, from Carrera's bombastic Fatima Blush, Brandauer's Largo, Rowan Atkinson as Nigel Small-Fawcett, Alec McCowen's Algy to Edward Fox's very animated M.
Sean really only gets to assert himself playing opposite Basinger's more docile Domino and Bernie Casey's reasonably restrained Leiter.
The film didn't IMO spend enough time showcasing the awesomeness that is Bond, despite having a very fit looking and determined Connery present and able to do the job.
The film really should have been a Connery tour-de-force. Connery might be guilty of not asserting himself as he had in the past. Who knows? I suspect though that the directer, Kirshner, may not have been confident (understandably perhaps) in directing Connery on how to play Bond, not to mention intimidated, and concentratd on other directorial matters, leaving Sean to his own devices.
But why is OP so divisive? Some appreciate it whilst others view it as something of an embarrassment to the Bond cannon. Why has OP spilt fandom so much? Well I think I have an answer to that. The first thing you have to accept about OP is that it is an action-comedy. The gags are fundamental to the actual fabric of the film itself. The tone of the movie is perfectly modulated to accommodate the big thrills but also deal with light relief.
A perfect example comes in the pre-title sequence; here we witness a great spectacle-laden action set-piece but throughout we also get a number of gags (Bond putting on the moustache/ Bond's impersonation of the General and the later reveal of Toro...etc). It's one of the reasons why the pre-titles are such a success as it really establishes the tone of the film to come. I think this approach adopted by Cubby Broccoli and John Glen is the chief issue behind why some fans easily reject the film ("It lacks the grit associated with the Connery films" etc) whilst others can appreciate it as the ultimate embodiment about what made the Roger Moore era.
The film also has something of an 'adventure' movie vibe to it. Maybe owing somewhat to the then recent appearance of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' (though those films owe a large debt to the Bond films and I always thought the Moore films in particular). All the stuff in Khan's palace is maybe the most obvious example. I think this section of the film is a highlight for me. i love the cell Bond is kept in as well as his dinner with Khan where the men talk about possibly torture techniques whilst preparing to dine - sophisticated and dangerous.
The comedy of the film actually is quite funny and often throughout I had a big grin on my face. There was some sight gags that really work (Bond throwing the money on to the beggar's plate in India) and others that fall shockingly flat (the tennis sound-effects during the tuk-tuk chase). Roger often delivers his more humorous lines with ease and for my money he is the real reason why this film works.
Roger is effortlessly charismatic and his ability to handle humour is deft. The fact that the film so willingly accepts this idea and actually emphasises the comedy plays to his strengths. Roger is the reason why this film is such a fun and breezy affair. His Bond is the perfect embodiment of the gentleman spy. Bond here is plain cool, for instance when he puts on a tux or suit it looks like a second skin, when he talks about fine wine and cuisine he sounds like an expert and when Bond sits down in lavish restaurants he looks like he belongs there. Furthermore the Bond in OP is very much the action hero, we know that he is a man of principle and far from a gun for hire and opposed from running away from the fire, Bond runs straight into it (in this film's case Bond drives into the fire extremely fast in an Alfa Romeo).
Roger's Bond is a man of action who has an appreciation for fine tailoring. Often throughout watching the film I was reminded how underrated a 007 Moore really is. There is a moment in the second act when Khan goes to see Octopussy and tell her about Bond's sudden appearance in their plan. It's the first scene without Roger in and I was suddenly aware of his disappearance and only then did I start to notice the gaps and the general thin nature of the plot. Roger's presence is really the thing that keeps the film going. When he's not-screen you miss him and want him back. After watching OP I want to be Roger Moore.
In many ways the film reminded me of the recent 'Iron Man 3'. I would describe both films as action-comedies that really catered and rely on their leading men to get the film by. In many ways Moore is not to dissimilar to Robert Downey Jr in the Tony Stark role (however a lot less chatty and snarky), the film is carried by his charm and persona. This means that the story is kept moving and audiences are stopped from noticing the inefficiencies in the plot.
The action in the film is also first-rate and constantly inventive. The film is headed and tailed by two fantastic ariel sequences that are genuinely thrilling. never before have I seen a craft quite like the Acrostar Jet or seen a man hold on for dear life on a plane quite like in the finale. It really ups-the-ante seeing something like that in a film as this is 1983 after all and there is no computer-whizzardry behind the scenes. If your witnessing a fight on top of a plane then that really is two guys up there. The inventiveness of the action must be noted as stuff like the tuk-tuk chase and the later chase through the Indian bazaar are not only charming but funny.
Furthermore, the standout piece for me is one of the sequences in the film that has it's most critics. I really enjoy the hunt scene through the Indian jungle. For me it really cements OP more as an 'adventure' film and I think it's great to see Bond stalked as the prey as he battles not only the forces trying to hunt him but also the elements in the Indian jungle. It's a fun sequence and i think rather under-appreciated.
In addition, in the third act I love how the car goes on the railway tracks, I remember when I was a kid and seconds before the sequence started thinking to myself how awesome it would be to see it happen only for the film to give me exactly what I wanted. Moreover, the image of a man running and hanging from on top of a train is really great and a testament to Martin Grace's work as a stuntman.
The film does however have issues. The first being the absence of any real plot. The film sets out some vague ideas about jewellery smuggling and stretches these ideas throughout a very drawn-out runtime. But why should I care about this smuggling operation? Even Octopussy herself says it to Bond; this really isn't an issue for the British Secret Service. There is an attempt to set-up the idea of a big bad Russian general who's up to no good early on but the idea isn't well laced in with the rest of the film. This essentially means that the stakes don't quite heat up till the last 30 minutes of the film when the nuclear bomb starts ticking down. The villains of the piece also contribute to the plot issue. Steven Berkoff is overacting to the hilt as Orlov and is often more distracting than anything else and while Louis Jourdan is a smooth charming presence on-screen, his Kamal Khan is devoid of characterisation and is something of a stock Bond villain. I also find Khan's motivation somewhat murky - why is he working with Orlov if he knows millions will die as a result? It isn't established that he's a Communist it seems he's happy to go ahead with Orlov's plan as it means he can cut Octopussy out of the deal. Hardly a satisfactory motivation in my opinion.
A common complaint of OP is that the film dosen't really contribute anything new and if anything is the perfect example of a formulaic Bond entry. I can't really find much to argue this point differently. But I don't necessarily think its a bad thing. Whilst watching the film I felt rather secure sitting within the mechanics of the Bond machine - I enjoyed the flirty moment with Moneypenny, the briefing from M, Bond confronting the villain, seducing the girl, his banter with Q, etc. The film dosen't steer too far from the restraints of formula but it's enjoyable and effective and there is enough spectacle to stop you from caring too much. It does however make the film something of a sitting duck - as there are many elements which seem repetitive and have a 'seen-it-all-before' quality to them. For instance Bond's confrontation with Khan in the casino and his "spend the money quickly" line coupled with the sudden ominous change in the score all feel very textbook paint-by-numbers stuff. There is a further sense of deju-vu with Gobinda as a character especially the way he crumbles the dice into dust. Like I said I didn't mind these elements and if anything found them exciting and reaffirmed the pleasure that I was definitely watching a 'Bond movie'.
However, is there a point where this all becomes too much? Is there a moment in OP where the film is less a formulaic Bond entry and instead an inadvertent piece of self-parody? I mean after all the film is called 'Octopussy'; it's an awful title that sounds more suited to an Austin Powers-spoof film rather than the actual main event itself. I do think that on occasion OP does have some very silly things in it. These moments have been well catalogued by fans over the last three decades so i won't go into them but stuff like the crocodile submarine and the gorilla and clown costume (not enough has been written about the awful red velvet shirt Bond wears when on top of the train). There does seem to be a moment where OP looks like it may have jumped the gun.
However, I do think the action sequences really stop the thing from falling apart. I may be in the minority that actually dosen;t mind seeing Bond in a clown costume, I think it's quite effective as it mirrors 009's demise earlier in the film and gives the piece a nice sense of cohesion. When 009 put on the clown suit it didn't end well, so whats to say it won't end badly for 007 when it's his turn. I also think that for a film that has such a strong female lead in Octopussy the other female characters and women in general during the film are mis-served. Bond zooming in on the girl's breasts in Q's lab is less sexist and more puerile and it really comes as no surprise that a bunch of middle-aged men masterminded the finale of the film where a load of scantily-clad woman take on the bad guys. It makes the whole affair seem rather anachronistic not just for todays audiences but also surely for those in 1983. It's silly, I mean how many times do I have to see Bond walk past a pool with woman running around in bikinis?
On the technical side of things, the performances are mostly serviceable with Maud Adams standing out. I think Octopussy as a character is very interesting and is a very strong female presence in the film. Her backstory is very interesting and I enjoyed that the character had a very strong sense of self. However, I would have liked more of her as it's clear her and Roger worked well together. Peter Lamont's production design is gaudy and ugly and somewhat cheapens the film. I also found that it was very easy to notice when we were on set and when on location with the two never being seamlessly intertwined. The costume designs are also dreadful, all of Octopussy's girls look awful (odd head scarfs and red jumpsuits being the standout offences) and Bond even wears some nasty outfits. John Barry's score is disappointing as is the useless title song. However, India is a stunning location and really brings a great flavour to the piece. As does the Berlin segment, the scene at Checkpoint Charlie and M's mention of "your on your own now", once again remind us of Bond's Cold War roots.
So 30 years on I think OP really stands up. The film is often funny and the action is inventive and stunningly placed on-screen. The film is formulaic - but who cares? That is all part of its charm and what considerable amount of charm it does have. Though the film does veer into the 'silly' territory on occasion it's a perfectly forgivable fun adventure film.
Very good post Sir which I find myself broadly in agreement with.
I think the standout performance though is Jourdon, who's excellent as Kahn.
...and let's not forget that Fleming originally came up with that "awful" title so he was obviously having some fun.
I still enjoy it just the same, despite several cringeworthy moments. Fun watch.
OP easily trounces NSNA in quality and the big deal about Connery coming back seems pretty redundant as NSNA and Connerys perfomance seem quite influenced by the Rog era.
Agreed, though I think FYEO still edges it as Moore's best Bond performance.
Roger is very good in OP. It's his persona that the film has been tailored too. The odds are that if you hate the Roger Moore Bond you don't like OP as the film is clearly been structured around his more jokey tonuge-in-cheek Bond.
In many ways the film reminded me of the recent 'Iron Man 3'. I would describe both films as action-comedies that really catered and rely on their leading men to get the film by. In many ways Moore is not to dissimilar to Robert Downey Jr in the Tony Stark role (however a lot less chatty and snarky), the film is carried by his charm and persona. This means that the story is kept moving and audiences are stopped from noticing the inefficiencies in the plot.
http://the007dossier.com/007dossier/post/2013/09/24/1982-Today-Show-James-Bond-Specials
Both have the Russians as main adversaries. Both have the elimination of western agents in the beginning. Both have another M than Bernard Lee as a first. Both are up against a rivalling Connery film the same year. Both feature a former Bond girl. Both feature India and Berlin. Both feature an auction. Both feature an atomic bomb. Both feature Indians (native indians and the real deal). In addition to this , both feature absurdities and cringeworthy moments. Peter Sellers wanted to be a serious and straight James Bond in CR, I think he could have pulled it off. James Brolin wanted to be a Serious Bond in OP as well. Not so sure about him, though. Maybe there are more similarities, have not watched CR in years.
Moore's performance as Bond in OP is indeed very good. He plays the gentleman spy so well. I think a perfect example of this comes after the tuk-tuk chase when Bond is stabbed, Roger's Bond is the only one to get his suit roughed up and later go get it snitched back up.
Bond in OP is very much built in the leading-man-hero mould. When Bond finds danger he runs into it. Once Bond finds out he has little time to stop the bomb going off he does everything in his power to race into the chaos and stop the bomb when most people's instinct would be to run as far from the explosion as possible.
Bond also has some other interesting shades to his persona throughout the film. Firstly, once he tracks down Major Smythe he allows the man the opurtunity to kill himself instead of facing up for his crimes. Bond is very much a man of integrity throughout he won't compromise his position by becoming a 'gun for hire'. Moreover, Bond seems genuinely moved by Vijay's death and his relationship with Octopussy herself has spark.