Begins fairly well: with an acrobatic, high-flying pretitle sequence, followed by a close adaptation of Ian Fleming's The Property Of A Lady short-story involving the sale of a Faberge egg at Sotheby's in London- which unfortunately goes nowhere, as Bond then ends up on in India on a small island populated by beautiful women belonging to an octopus cult, before relocated to East Berlin and disarming a nuclear bomb in a circus, in a surprisingly serious climax where Bond dresses as a clown as cover.
But what's the point? Is the film just an excuse to have endless jokes and inside jokes? (does Bond really recognise his own leitmotif?) Is the film just an excuse to have a lame love story between geriatric Bond and unmemorable Octopussy? Is the film just an excuse to rip off Indiana Jones, uneffectively? Most definitely not an excuse to film stunts and action set-pieces, as the film has few memorable scenes. Although I do enjoy the surprisingly suspenseful climax where Bond dresses as a clown to avoid detection at a circus and disarm the bomb. Bond is not the joke in those scenes, he's merely trying to avoid detection and certain death in the most convenient (and best possible, at the circus) of disguises.
Film seems like four or five different short screen-stories (pretitle scenes, The Property Of A Lady adaptation, India sequences, Berlin sequences) rather than a cohesive story with a subplot. Without that, and without any memorable action sequences or memorable characters, film falls apart long before its ending. That's another problem with this one: it goes on forever.
This film gets my vote for being the weakest Bond film to date (from the series' beginning in 1962, up to this film's release in 1983) Despite probably featuring Roger Moore's worst turn as Bond, he almost manages to singlehandedly carry the entire film through its lethargic directing, wholly forgettable villain, and awful photography.
Almost.
But what's the point? Is the film just an excuse to have endless jokes and inside jokes? (does Bond really recognise his own leitmotif?) Is the film just an excuse to have a lame love story between geriatric Bond and unmemorable Octopussy? Is the film just an excuse to rip off Indiana Jones, uneffectively? Most definitely not an excuse to film stunts and action set-pieces, as the film has few memorable scenes. Although I do enjoy the surprisingly suspenseful climax where Bond dresses as a clown to avoid detection at a circus and disarm the bomb. Bond is not the joke in those scenes, he's merely trying to avoid detection and certain death in the most convenient (and best possible, at the circus) of disguises.
Film seems like four or five different short screen-stories (pretitle scenes, The Property Of A Lady adaptation, India sequences, Berlin sequences) rather than a cohesive story with a subplot. Without that, and without any memorable action sequences or memorable characters, film falls apart long before its ending. That's another problem with this one: it goes on forever.
This film gets my vote for being the weakest Bond film to date (from the series' beginning in 1962, up to this film's release in 1983) Despite probably featuring Roger Moore's worst turn as Bond, he almost manages to singlehandedly carry the entire film through its lethargic directing, wholly forgettable villain, and awful photography.
Almost.