Octopussy

1983 "James Bond’s all time high!"
6.5| 2h11m| PG| en| More Info
Released: 10 June 1983 Released
Producted By: EON Productions
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website: https://www.mgm.com/movies/octopussy
Synopsis

James Bond is sent to investigate after a fellow “00” agent is found dead with a priceless Indian Fabergé egg. Bond follows the mystery and uncovers a smuggling scandal and a Russian General who wants to provoke a new World War.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

EON Productions

Trailers & Images

Reviews

rt-ingram Octopussy carries on with the serious return to the series, and with Roger Moore playing 007 with the seriousness that was evident in For Your Eyes Only, but the film is not entirely successful. However, there are some good moments. The pre credits scene is one of the most entertaining, with the Acrostar mini jet being chased by the missile, and the scene after the pre titles where 009 is hunted down and killed is quite eerie and very suspenseful. There are some good performances from the supporting cast, with Maud Adams, Louis Jourdan and Vijay Amritraj being standouts.The main problem with Octopussy is that the plot line is far too complex for its own good; the best films are when the story is straightforward and easy to follow, but Octopussy has far too much going on. The story does grow on you, but it's not something you take to straight away.The film does have a few silly moments, especially the Tarzan yell, and the part where Bond disguises himself as a clown to disarm the bomb doesn't work; it would have been more tense if he'd have just gone in as himself.Overall, Octopussy has its good moments, but is let down by an overly complex story.
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
Thomas Drufke Of course, I wrote in my For Your Eyes Only review that I appreciated the tongue and cheek being toned down a bit, only to be overwhelmed with goofiness with Osctopussy. There's a lot of entertainment to be had with this film, but sadly I felt a ton of opportunities were wasted.It seemed as though the plot was going to shift the motivations of the lead villain from craving world domination down to simply a jewel thief. To me, that was intriguing. Bringing the stories to a more realistic focus would have been compelling for this film. But instead we got a mess of a film. I'm just very tired of the use of nuclear weapon's for the lead villain. It's been used over and over again. Not every bad guy has nukes. I also felt they took the setting of India and abused it a bit. I'm sorry but how many different animals were used as spectacles or traps for Bond? Bond literally tells a wild tiger to sit down, and it listens. It got a bit ridiculous, especially knowing how noticeably fake most of them were. Certainly some of the sequences can be entertaining, but when a professional tennis player's cameo turns into him beating villains over the head with a tennis racket overpowering machine guns, you know you've taken it too far.But it's disappointing that this film didn't take advantage at having a female antagonist. The series thus far hasn't had a lead female villain, and I thought for awhile it would be the first. She was hidden from the audience for a good portion of the film similar to Blofeld which made for an interesting proposition. Sadly, 'Octopussy' turns out to be just like most other Bond girls. On the flip side, Q gets to play a bigger role which was a good change up from being back at MI6 all the time. There's no denying this film's entertainment, but there's just too many missed opportunities.+Q is a bigger part+Very good first half-Missed opportunities-Yet another nuclear obsessed villain5.5/10