Hello everyone! 🙂
Welcome to ‘Bradley’s Basement’ blog and I’m Tim Bradley!
It’s been a while since I did a review on a James Bond movie, isn’t it? The last time I did a review on a James Bond film was ‘No Time To Die’ back in 2021. So, let’s do another review on a James Bond film that I’ve seen recently on Blu-ray – the 1983 film ‘Octopussy’!
Technically, I did do a review on ‘Octopussy’ back in 2017 as part of the ‘James Bond 007 – The Roger Moore Collection’, but that was a summary rather than what my thoughts on the film were. 😐 So, I thought, let’s revisit this film after having not seen it for a while. 🙂
At the time I first saw it back in 2017, I found ‘Octopussy’ an enjoyable instalment in the James Bond film series starring Roger Moore. Upon revisiting it, I still found it enjoyable. I’m not a big James Bond fan, but I know I’m going to enjoy one that has Roger Moore in it.
The film’s title happens to be taken from a short story by Ian Fleming in the 1966 short story collection ‘Octopussy and the Living Daylights’. I’m not familiar with the Ian Fleming stories and I believe most of the film’s plot was original by the screenwriters writing the script.
The film ‘Octopussy’ has James Bond being assigned the task of solving a mystery concerning a fellow agent’s murder – 009, apparently (who dressed up as a clown before he died 😀 ) – and a priceless Fabergé egg. Like always, he goes to many parts of the world.
This includes India and East Germany. Bond ends up meeting exiled Afghan prince Kamal Khan and his associate Octopussy. Very soon, Bond discovers a plot to force disarmament in Western Europe with the use of a nuclear weapon. Can he stop it in time?
Like I said, ‘Octopussy’ is an enjoyable James Bond film flick. It has the action set pieces required, the humour, the love scenes between Bond and Octopussy, you name it. It’s a film that can be seen as standalone compared to the other 007 films made over the years.
With that said, there are times when the plot can be a bit confusing, especially as you’re trying to understand why the villain wants a Fabergé egg that will lead disarmament involving a nuclear weapon. Maybe it’s because I’m not a James Bond fan to know that. 😐
I’m sure with rewatches, you’d be able to get into the plot more and more. But considering I don’t watch James Bond films regularly, I doubt I’m going to understand the film’s plot every time I go back to revisiting a film. Maybe I’m incorrect, but that’s how I feel about it.
Maud Adams stars as the glamourous and titular Octopussy in the film. Maud Adams previously played Andrea Anders in ‘The Man With the Golden Gun’. You might think she’s the villain at certain points in the film, but she ends up being one of Bond’s love interests.
Louis Jourdan stars as the villainous Kamel Khan. I’m not sure what Khan’s motivations are in terms of a being a villain in this film, but Louis Jourdan plays him very well. Apparently, Louis Jourdan played Count Dracula in a 1977 BBC TV adaptation about him.
The film’s cast also includes Kristina Wayborn as Magda, a trusted subordinate and henchwoman to Octopussy and Khan, who also ends up in bed with Bond. 😀 There’s Kabir Bedi, as Gobinda, Khan’s powerful bodyguard that Bond ends up having fights with.
Steven Berkoff (who’s been in the ‘Doctor Who’ episode ‘The Power of Three’ and voiced King Herod in ‘It’s a Boy’) stars as the villainous General Orlov, a renegade Soviet general who works with Khan in the film. 😐 There’s Vijay Amritraj as Vijay, Bond’s M16 ally in India.
There’s David and Anthony Meyer as Mischka and Grischka, Orlov’s knife-throwing henchmen. There’s also Douglas Wilmer as Jim Fanning, Robert Brown as M, Walter Gotell as General Anatoly Gogol, Desmond Llewelyn as Q, Lois Maxwell as Miss Moneypenny, and Geoffrey Keen as Frederick Gray who’s the British Minister of Defence.
Albert Moses stars as Sadruddin, the head of the MI6 station in India, Bruce Boa (who’s been in the ‘Fawlty Towers’ episode ‘Waldorf Salad’) as US Air Force General Peterson, Michaela Clavel as Penelope Smallbone, Moneypenny’s assistant, and Paul Hardwick as the Soviet Chairman who presides over the meeting between Orlov and Gogol in the film.
Apparently, Jeremy Bulloch (who’s well-known for being the body of Boba Fett in the original ‘Star Wars’ film trilogy) plays Smithers, Q’s assistant in the film. Ingrid Pitt (who I’ve seen in two ‘Doctor Who’ TV stories) voice cameos as Octopussy’s galley mistress. 🙂
It’s been good to revisit ‘Octopussy’ after so many years. I still consider this an enjoyable instalment in the James Bond film series. I may not be into James Bond films like others are, but when it’s Roger Moore playing Bond in a film, I can enjoy it whilst watching him.
Roger Moore delivers Bond in spades with charm and humour in much the same way as he’s able to deliver charm and humour as Simon Templar in ‘The Saint’. Although I regard Roger Moore more as the Saint than as James Bond, his Bond films are good to check out.
Thanks for reading!
Bye for now!
Tim 🙂
Bradley's Basement 
I think the plot is a little bit muffled between the efforts of George MacDonald Frasier — who did the screenplay for The Three Musketeers — and Richard Maibaum & Michael G. Wilson.
The smuggling ring is Octopussy’s endeavour. Her operation. Her scheme to smuggle the jewels. That scheme, though, is hijacked by Kamal Khan and Orlov to, instead, transport an atomic weapon into the American airbase we see later.
Unfortunately, that’s not really spelt out to us at any point. There’s no map of Silicon Valley moment (“And everything in it submerged forever…”) like in A View to a Kill or the MacGuffin significance of the ATAC system in For Your Eyes Only.
You’re right, too. It’s not clear what Kamal hopes to gain from this whole enterprise. He’s not being blackmailed by Orlov and seems a willing participant in the attempted bombing.
Money? It would seem to be money. Perhaps, as part of the deal, Orlov has promised unlimited access to the Russian repositories they got the Fabergé egg from?
Kabir Bedi, who plays Gobinda, does a fantastic turn as a tragic immortal trapped in his country’s past in Highlander the Series.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Wolfie,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and insights on ‘Octopussy’ as a James Bond film. Glad you think the plot is a bit muffled between the screenwriters. I didn’t know there was a 1973 live-action ‘Three Musketeers’ film. Thanks for sharing that. Glad you agree with me that it’s not clear what Kamal Khan hopes to gain from the enterprise in transporting an atomic weapon using Octopussy’s smuggling ring and working with Orlov.
Like I said, maybe I need to be an avid James Bond fan to know the ins and outs of how this certain plot works. Then again, maybe if I did more reviews on James Bond films like ‘A View to a Kill’ and ‘For Your Eyes Only’, I’d get into the spirit of these plots more. Still, I enjoyed checking out ‘Octopussy’ recently and it was nice to see Roger Moore in the role of James Bond.
My Dad also purchased ‘Live and Let Die’ on Blu-ray for my Mum recently. Maybe sometime soon, we’ll see that and I’ll review it on my blog. We’ll have to wait and see. 😀
Many thanks and Best wishes,
Tim 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cheers, Tim. It will be a lot clearer for you in other films, I guarantee it. No one does exposition like a James Bond film does. A large part of it is Bond having to figure out the scheme for himself and challenging the villain to prove him wrong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Wolfie,
I’m sure as time goes by, I’ll be enjoying more James Bond films to share and review, including the Roger Moore films. Not sure why my Dad purchased ‘Live and Let Die’ and ‘Octopussy’ for my Mum recently, but since it’s Roger Moore in them, I suppose it didn’t matter which films he picked for her. 😀 My best mate Stephen regards ‘The Spy Who Loved Me’ and ‘Moonraker’ as his favourites, so maybe I’ll do individual quick reviews on those films sometime.
Many thanks and Best wishes,
Tim 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Roger Moore’s more iconic image as The Saint might have been somewhat defeating for him taking on the role of 007. Even Benedict Cumberbatch who once thought of taking on the role of Dr. Who after his break as Sherlock had later decided against it (as I recall from certain interviews). Roger was my first James Bond and as an impressionable child at the time, I just enjoyed his era for the action adventure. Nowadays I may look on it somewhat differently. But still I appreciate the fond memories and reviews like yours. Thank you, Tim.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is purely personal taste: I think James Bond, as a character, has taken a bit of a battering in the last decade. Daniel Craig is a fantastic actor, but his whole era really struggled with embracing the escapism of its predecessors. There’s none of that joi de vivre that appears even in something as grim as Licence to Kill.
Moore’s Bond, I think, has the benefit of being right in the midst of the Cold War zeitgeist. It, too, struggles as an era in the early ’70s. Not quite fish or fowl. Once they realised, though, they could go grandiloquent with The Spy Who Loved Me… That’s how the series survived and thrived.
Octopussy feels, in many ways, like a bridge between Lewis Gilbert’s larger-than-life mis en scene in Moonraker and the much more grounded For Your Eyes Only that John Glen was aiming for. A jolly romp about smuggling that turns into a dangerous Frederich Forscythe plot.
I think The Saint has survived by being broadly remembered — quite fondly — by Roger Moore and Ian Ogilvy on television. Simon Templar himself is witty, urbane, impetuous, courageous, driven by a sense of justice and… I think a lot of that is tied into the image of those two men who played him.
A lot of The Saint defined the DNA of television in much the same way as Danger Man did. You could drop the Saint right into our world, now, and he’s require little to no adjustment. The capers, the mysteries, the set pieces, they’re all still a part of how we do series in one way or another.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi scifimike, Hi Wolfie,
Many thanks for sharing your thoughts on James Bond, Roger Moore and ‘The Saint’. I agree, the recent era of James Bond through Daniel Craig got more serious compared to being fun action adventures like its predecessors were. I can’t say I’ve seen every James Bond film, but the ones I have seen have been more enjoyable in that they didn’t take things too seriously and there is that escapism you can enjoy.
I regard Roger Moore more highly as Simon Templar than James Bond. Mainly because I’ve seen him more in ‘The Saint’ compared to the James Bond films. But also, the stories are very compelling and Roger Moore’s charm and suaveness shone through more in ‘The Saint’ for me compared to the James Bond films. My Mum enjoys Roger Moore in ‘The Saint’ more than the James Bond films and is currently enjoying his episodes on DVD at present.
Best wishes,
Tim 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is my pet theory: Your Mum might enjoy The Saint more because many of the episodes are constructed around prominent women in Simon’s life. All sorts of women. Particularly the earlier episodes with Leslie Charteris as creative consultant. For the early ’60s, they do a pretty good job at keeping them distinctive — and a lot of that has to do with the writing and the acting.
There’s a theory that the best Bond films are the ones with the best villains. I think that’s partially true. I think the Bond girl plays a strong part in ensuring that quality. She is, in essence, the lead actor’s co-star. I have a great fondness for Natalya, Tracy, Melina, Kara, et al; because they’re given meaty roles in their respective narratives and that works in each story’s favour.
I always say this with Doctor/companion teams: Whenever one or the other is written sub-par, everyone suffers. You can feel it. You can’t show the quality of your hero, if the people around them aren’t written with quality, too.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As for Dr. Who in this regard is concerned, it was how Elisabeth Sladen and Louise Jameson were quite admirably written opposite Tom Baker’s Doctor that originally earned my appreciation. When I think of how much more complex it could be for obvious reasons with Bond’s leading ladies, certainly with some exquisitely superb actresses like Jane Seymour, Halle Berry and Michelle Yeoh, occasionally it may be stronger for them than for the actors playing the villains. But that can depend on perspective for what fans individually like to see most.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Wolfie, Hi scifimike,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
It is important for the co-star, whether it’d be male or female, to be just as written well and performed well as the main star, whether male or female. This certainly applies to ‘Doctor Who’ and James Bond films often featuring the duo line-up, mostly with the main lead being male and the female lead being female. I think they’ve been enjoyable in varying measures.
Best wishes,
Tim 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person