The thirteenth Bond film in which the hero saves the situation again The Bond franchise in the early 1980s is still popular. Roger Moore has already become a familiar 007 agent to the viewer, he is not bad, with his charisma, a memorable smile and a good game. But his stories have become somewhat boring. No. As a separate action movie, "Octopussy" and many other works with Moore are good enough to watch. But at some point you notice that the films begin to mix in your memory, intertwining the plots with each other, and sometimes it's even difficult to remember what a particular project was about by the name of the film. Previous works with Connery or subsequent ones with other actors look like much more notable works. Maybe this is just my feeling of the whole franchise, but nevertheless it is there. And this is a bad trend for me. A new plot, a new passion, a new villain, new henchmen of the villain. The concept doesn't change much. But this also works quite well in the early 1980s, when the usual action movie and the image of a British spy were not yet so dramatic, which we saw 007 already in the works of Timothy Dalton in future "Bonds" and even more so in the game of Daniel Craig. Moore and his next project take their excellent filming, stunts, shootouts and chases. Each new scene of the film allows us to note that the creators are ready to give the audience more and more seemingly unique situations. And this is an important plus. But the peculiar linearity of the project makes it impossible to feel the nerve of the film, to see a certain highlight in it. A typical plot with a villain is well developed here, when it demonstrates several antagonists at once and the cunning interweaving of the characters' destinies. Such historical developments as the theft of important McGuffins and the threat of World War III are available here. And Bond will skillfully maneuver among possible developments, be sure to calculate his steps, and somewhere rely on luck. In this regard, Roger Moore's hero is always lucky, and he always comes out of the confrontations victorious. The actors in their roles are not bad. The antagonists, however, seemed to me to be some kind of cardboard. Well, you don't believe these guys in any way, despite all their attempts to convince them that they are evil itself. Maud Adams is good. Her character Octopussy gives the film some kind of charm, as if reducing the degree of endless passions from crazy chases and shootings. Louis Jourdan was not particularly impressed. The famous actor from France was much more convincing in his other roles. It seems to me that I scold this picture too much. But it's worth paying tribute. The movie looks pretty good. It just seems outdated to me, as a modern viewer. And I'm making a discount on that too. The usual linearity of Bond paintings, little-remembered characters lead to the fact that the overall impression of Moore films is somewhat blurred. The painting itself is made with dignity from a technical point of view. The film is sure to please fans of good action movies. 8 out of 10