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
Perhaps could explain why Safin and his plan seem so poorly thought out. If he's just some nihilistic bloke why does he care about buyer ships?
83 and 87 yes. The only intrigue and danger from AVTAK was how Bond was able to make a quice
1985 is the weak link, but not weak enough to bring down the whole era.
What's wrong with Octopussy?
Stupid, convoluted story. Iron curtain fantasy on "Little Johnny" level, plot holes and continuity problems (I leave those out here) galore. A fair bit of what would today be considered racism (I cut them some slack for this, given it was over 40 years ago, and the "keep you in curry" line is at least funny). The circus story with the train going directly from East Germany to a U.S. air base in West Germany, without being thoroughly checked by either side, is preposterous, as is the notion of the MI6 boss accompanying an agent to Checkpoint Charlie, which was heavily observed by the Stasi (in fact, there is an extensive report by them about the filming, identifying the actors). Tarzan yell. Telling the tiger to sit. Gorilla costume. Clown costume. Octopussy's girl troupe. Balloon scene. It's definitely the silliest of the Bond movies. And silly equals funny only to a very limited extent.
The PTS is pretty good, followed by a mediocre theme song. And from then on, it keeps going down the drain, apart from a few good lines ("No, ma'am, I'm with the economy tour"). I'm always wondering if I prefer AVTAK in reality, and maybe I do. At least OP is somewhere down there at the bottom of my rewatch scale, along with TWINE and DAD
It is no surprise that when NSNA came out five months after OP, most of the reviews I read at the time considered NSNA far better (at least here in Germany). I definitely still do.
If anything, NSNA makes Octopussy look like Citizen Kane in comparison. Even though McClory had an ace in the hole with Connery as Bond - it still wasn't enough to give EON the fight he was hoping for. It reeks of a film made out of desperation - a desire to one up Cubby Broccoli and EON productions. It failed in that regard since Octopussy beat it at the box office. But even now it's a strange movie where the performances come across as hammey at times, it has an awful score, and the changes they make from Thunderball often come across as inferior. It's especially disappointing when considering that McClory and Co had a unique opportunity to do something different from EON's series but no - they opted to make a worse version of a film that was nearly 20 years old at that point.
I didn't argue against your points on Octopussy because I agree - I think there is a lot of convoluted stuff going on in that film - but there's also plenty of convolution going on in NSNA mainly down to how convoluted the story of Thunderball is. My problem is that NSNA does nothing to improve upon those foundational problems - and instead just opts to tell the same story again in a slightly different presentation. I find it's a missed opportunity all around - with a cast that (on paper) should have been the best group of actors/actresses to ever grace a Bond film and a director who had delivered one of the best sequels of all time in The Empire Strikes Back. Somewhere along the way the movie just went off the tracks and I personally try to avoid it like a plague unless I'm doing a complete marathon. In that aspect, I personally find Octopussy more engaging as a movie because it has a wonderful performance from Sir Roger as Bond (one of his very best I think), a wonderful leading lady, and a set of villians I find really enjoyable. Like I said, any Bond film can fall apart when held to scrutiny - that's why I don't go into these movies expecting them to be as intricately plotted as something like The Godfather. Even From Russia With Love has some pretty outrageous stuff when looked under a microscope. This is just my view on the two films.
Regarding the original appraisial of John Glen, I would say that's justified. Three of his films -FYEO, TLD, LTK- are in my top 5, so no need to point out I think he had a great run. OP is in the middle somewhere and AVTAK near the bottom, though I think even AVTAK has some good moments in it.
I'd say though, while he wasn't the flashiest of directors, his style of action-directing does deserve a lot of praise. Even to such an extent other directors found inspiration in Glen's 007 films with regards to action / stunts.
It's a Connery film too. It's like McCartney singing Beatles songs. What's the problem?
And in any case, it was already different enough.
NSNA is Schrödinger's Bond film. Too similar and too different at the same time.
;)
And it didn't really matter how different it was because EON was going to copy it anyway, which is exactly what happened.
The film is a mix between Goldfinger and Thunderball, and I think that was a smart move. They were making a Connery film, after all.
Yes, it has quite a bit of humor, which is perfectly understandable for a film from the early '80s.
I don't know if people expected them to make LTK six years earlier. And in any case, Connery isn't Dalton, as you can see from The Rock.
What's good? Fatima. She's a delight.
Octopussy is better overall (the pre-titles sequence alone is better than the entirety of NSNA) but it’s similarly a flawed film.
Neither are gonna make my top ten, but neither fails to entertain me either.