Supelice Dreadfully Boring

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

connorbbalboa Watching all 24 Bond films, some stand out more than others, and some just blend into the background. Octopussy, the 6th Roger Moore Bond film, just blends into the background. Just to get it out of the way, I'll just highlight the stupid moments Bond fans know: 56-year-old Moore as Bond dressed up as a clown, Bond fighting a bunch of bad guys through (offensive) stereotypical Indian displays like the sword in the mouth, and Bond yelling like Tarzan while swinging through the trees. Yeah, the goofiness of Moore's previous films just couldn't go away after For Your Eyes Only, which was supposed to be a more serious film, despite having a stupid beginning and ending. Besides that, there is nothing really horrendously bad about this film other than the stupid highlights I mentioned earlier; it's just not remarkable. The plot is that a Russian general who just wants power (Steven Berkoff, who was also a Russian bad guy in Rambo: First Blood Part II) hatches a secret plan that involves working with Kamal Khan and the vengeful Octopussy, who later switches sides to help Bond. The MacGuffin in this story is a piece of jewelry shaped like an egg that is recovered by another double-0 agent who is killed...and wears a clown suit. Oh boy. Bond goes to India to track down Kamal Khan, who buys a replica of the egg, unknowingly, and gets caught up in the Russian general's plot to blow up part of India. That is all I could remember from the plot because the film is not memorable in any way. Maude Adams' Octopussy (Really?) isn't as memorable a Bond girl as I thought she'd be; her character in The Man With the Golden Gun (1974) who gets killed stood out more and that was a smaller part. The main villain has one of the most basic archetypes ever in a movie and turns out to be so insignificant, he gets killed quite some time before Bond stops his scheme and the movie ends. Kamal Khan isn't an interesting bad guy either. Moore is alright here as Bond, but one trait of his that I always find annoying is that he knows EVERYTHING about the MacGuffins in his movies, whether it be the ATAC system in For Your Eyes Only or the egg jewelry in this film.I do like the concept of a whole battalion of sensual women fighters who serve Octopussy, but it ends up feeling like the numerous other battle scenes with large forces that have been in previous films.I guess my point here is that this film does nothing new or exciting for the Bond series at that point and is just another basic plot. I actually had trouble remembering some of the details right after I had finished it. If you're looking for high-quality Bond, you won't find it here.

KineticSeoul With a title like "Octopussy" I was expecting something more unique and different, perhaps bizarre. However this is another movie where Roger Moore plays James Bond in a way that is full of silliness although the plot tries to have that Indiana Jones vibe going for it. It just seems that the Bond franchise tries to emulate films that are popular films around that time. So in this Bond goes swinging from tree vine to vine in order to escape the bad guys while yelling like Tarzan, to him using the street entertainers equipment to fight of the bad guys, to him being inside a mechanical alligator in order to disguise himself (which is something that inspired Hideo Kojima for "Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater". It even goes as far to break the barrier when it comes to lameness by getting Bond to dress up like a clown. Like the past Bond movies with Roger Moore, it's a movie that you just can't take seriously. The plot can be difficult to follow, except that it revolves around some prized egg jewel and a detonator. When it comes to the battle of the Bonds, between "Never Say Never Again" and this. I think the reason this made more money when it came to box office was because of this was a official canon movie in the Bond franchise while "Never Say Never Again" was a rehash and is not officially a Bond movie in the original franchise. So although "Octopussy" won when it came to the box office numbers, but I personally think "Never Say Never Again" is the better Bond film and not just because of Connery. I give this one a 4.5 out of 10 because it does have the best intro scene compared to the previous Bond films.4.5/10

tomasg-69814 I kind of like this Bond movie, I do. Fresh, but the usual patters is still there, well worked in. And the "Cold War" theme sort of still hanging around in the 007 films, and wasn't to be scrapped quite yet, either. Fascinating (but expected) stunts, and a trip around the world. Got It before? The greatness is in good, well thought casting; among other well performing guys like Louis Jourdan and Kabir Bedi, there's a warm welcome back to a skilled woman named Maud Adams. The whole "Octopussy" part of the movie is a booster when one got a little tired of Russians making evil plans. (Steven Berkoff's performance got him the role in Rambo: First Blood part II ?)The comedy parts is what works best in this movie. Former pro-tennis player Vijay Amritraj and the legend "Q" Desmond Llewelyn are brought along for laughs, as I see it. Not to mention the innumerable inside jokes - as of many Bond movies - that fans still searching for today when re-watching it. Roger Moore got bought back for the 007 act in an almost desperate way from the production team. Exchange the now legendary five round, well worked in actor gentleman obviously wasn't done just like that. Rumors (as usual) in preproduction placed some dudes as potential substitutes, but as it seems today, in vain. (One wish-list guy, Pierce Brosnan, was contracted to a half-ass flashy TV detective show straight throughout the 80's.)I personally think that the situation of today's James Bond movie production have some similarity to the mid 80's. I can imagine people got a slight feeling knowing what to expect when going to the cinemas for the 6th Roger Moore-show. I was in exactly that mood before watching "Spectre" at the local theater last November...

Owen Ogletree This film came out in 1983, the same year as the unofficial Bond film, "Never Say Never Again" starring Sean Connery. They had a box-office battle called "The Battle of the Bonds," and this film grossed a lot more and was, by a long shot, the better film as well. This is another fun Bond adventure with plenty to like.Roger Moore is starting to show his age a little bit in this film, but he's still has his charm and can still seduce women and deliver the one-liners. Maud Adams, who was previously in "The Man With The Golden Gun," once again is pretty much wasted, which is a shame since she's the title character.Louis Jordan as Kamal Khan is a very smooth and cool villain, and Steven Berkoff isn't as bad as most people say. The plot may be convoluted for some, but it's actually another fairly down-to-earth spy story.The locales in India are very beautiful and the film doesn't disappoint as far as action goes. It has a brilliant plane chase in the pre-credit sequence, a chase through the streets of India, a struggle on top a train, and a nerve-racking climax with Bond hanging on to Khan's areoplane.There are some incredibly silly elements that this film is infamous for. Bond dressing in a clown costume is one thing, but the Tarzan yell is a bit much. You'll enjoy the film if you just ignore those.By no means is this Bond's "All-Time High" like Rita Coolidge's theme song says, but this is still a fun, suspenseful, action-packed entry in the Bond series. Well worth a look.RATING: B