Octopussy

If it weren't for the fact that this is based on one of Ian Fleming's original novels, I'd have no idea how the title Octopussy actually got approved. 

To be fair, there's almost no connection between the novel and film (like most of his books) and the reasoning for "Octopussy" is ridiculous, but hey...whatever. 

Octopussy plays an interesting part in the Bond lore. It released in 1983 and had direct competition that year from a competing James Bond film, Never Say Never Again, starring an aging Sean Connery. While I haven't watched that film yet, it will be next in this Bond Retro Review journey as it's a pivotal juncture point for the franchise. 

It's at this point in my journey that things are beginning to feel "samey" and familiar for this franchise. Part of that stems from the fact I'm watching them back-to-back and sometimes close together, but it also comes from the nature of the older Bond films in each actor's era. I've found that Moore's films feature pretty great stunt work and action, and the plot/characters either make or break the film (for the most part). Octopussy strangely feels like one of the more unique Bond films, but not in the best of ways. And it continues the trend of the Moore era (or the entire series for that matter) of fluctuating between goofy and serious installments. 

Aside from the outrageous name, Octopussy is just a silly film. It feels like it most wants to copy Indiana Jones as it takes us to India for the majority of its minutes and emulates scenes of Bond with snakes, other wild animals, on a train, and sword fighting in a crowded market place. The change of location is actually one of the better parts of the film, and those aforementioned things are baked into the film fine. It's when the film decides to have a female fighting force from the circus, put Bond in a clown costume (or gorilla costume), or have him Tarzan yell as he swings on vines that you begin to roll your eyes. Luckily these never totally destroy the action scenes they're a part of (and there's plenty of good action without silly moments) but they're the type of decisions you just wish could have been left on the cutting room floor. To be honest, there are several throughout the Moore era that you could significantly improve his filmography by removing. But what's the saying about hindsight? It's also a film that struggles to know when/how to end, having some false climaxes and feels 20 minutes too long.

"Yes! I regret signing this part of the contract!!"

"I hear you've met my
American brethren, Dr. Jones?"

Octopussy has probably the most nonsense plot of any of his films thus far. It's overly confusing in a series that has been fairly straightforward thus far and it's poorly organized. I couldn't tell you all the finer details but it's frustratingly small scale for a majority of the time -- I was wondering why the hell James Bond, the best spy in Britain, was wasting his time with jewels and a Fabergé egg. Then, almost out of nowhere, there's a nuke involved that ends up at a circus so...yeah it's just all over the place. Unfortunately there aren't all that many great side characters here either - aside from Vijay - that stand the test of time. Maud Adams as Octopussy is fine, but not memorable nor are the henchmen or main villain. Moore is still doing well as Bond, but his age - showing in the last film - is even more apparent and its getting harder to believe that Bond is performing these heroic stunts when there's thinning hair, wrinkles, etc. 

Luckily, the aforementioned action is pretty decent. I don't think it reaches series highs, but an entertaining "mini-jet" sequence kicks us off, and is followed by a exciting chase through an Indian market that has some fun surprises as well as various chases, climbing the exterior of a flying plane (Tom Cruise would be proud!), and melee combats. Sure, we've got a segment where Bond, as a clown, must infiltrate a circus to stop a bomb but otherwise there's impressive stuff here. 

Octopussy feels like a step down for the Moore era that tends to lean heavier on silliness (unfortunately) after a welcomed break from [most] of it with For Your Eyes Only. It has the action to be something special, but the innards and moving parts are boring and unorganized making it forgettable other than being the "Bond film in India" as it's main recognition point (similar to how Moonraker is the "one that went to space"). I'll be interested to see how Never Say Never Again - a remake of *yawn* Thunderball - ends up competing. 

CONS

• Story is nonsense and swings wildly from Bond messing with a Fabergé egg to having to stop a nuke at a circus
• Where did Ian Fleming get this title?
• Too many silly moments that are "WTF?" decisions to make it into the final cut
• Uninteresting side characters from the villain to the henchmen to the Bond girl
• Moore starting to age
• Overlong by 15-20 minutes

PROS

• Moore is still a great Bond. I find I've really liked him since he took over the role. He seems to have a lot of fun with it here
• Strong action with impressive stunts. There are definitely some highlights
• Going to India was a good change of locale where Bond hadn't been before and the film spends most of its time there
• Entertaining when there's action (there's a lot of it) and when the film is avoiding overly-silly moments

Retro Rath's Review Score | 6.5/10