[Loomis]

Harmsway, on 10 February 2007 - 07:41, said:

First off, Roger Moore. Well, he's getting older, and it shows. Unfortunately for him, the fashions he's given in this film are mostly grandpa-esque.

Indeed. His clothes are horribly geriatric. Also, Bill Conti's score is odd and inappropriate for much of the time, and in many scenes the cinematography is marred by a peculiar soft focus effect.

However, it's still a million times better than THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

[Harmsway]

B5Erik, on 10 February 2007 - 13:59, said:

I LOVED the exploding car security system! It was goofy, but fun - and, actually, you could say it was installed for that very situation - where the ONLY people that would try to break in were the "bad guys" and you wouldn't want them getting their hands on any of the technology inside, so blowing up the car and killing the bad guy makes sense.

Sorry, it's entirely stupid. Assume Bond parks it in a parking lot with people around. The potential danger of the whole idea is beyond belief.

B5Erik, on 10 February 2007 - 13:59, said:

The Umbrella? Pure Bond ingenuity.

Not really. It's quite silly, and inappropriate for anything with aspirations to be a genuine thriller. It's about as inappropriate as Bond's inflatajacket in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

B5Erik, on 10 February 2007 - 13:59, said:

The little yellow car chase? Silly, but Bond uses anything he can (or has to), so it's not all that outlandish.

The idea is fine. The execution? Not so much.

B5Erik, on 10 February 2007 - 13:59, said:

The hockey scene? Unnecessary, but not all that bad. Sure the ENDING of the "hockey" scene is silly, but it IS a Roger Moore Bond movie, and that stuff just plays to his strengths.

I don't think it really plays to his strengths. I think he could have done a very interesting, darker take on his Bond in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY if they cut out the hokum.

The way they do it renders it inept as a thriller, and inept as a piece of plain popcorn entertainment. They should have really gone for a FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, or they just should have just gone for an OCTOPUSSY (which is a million times more entertaining, enjoyable, and memorable than FOR YOUR EYES ONLY).

B5Erik, on 10 February 2007 - 13:59, said:

You've got to remember, this is coming STRAIGHT off of Moonraker - one of the jokiest movies of the entire series, and compared to that this really IS FRWL. It's the most serious Roger Moore Bond film, and it's extremely well done, all things considered.

A movie doesn't work unless it works outside of its immediate time context.

B5Erik, on 10 February 2007 - 13:59, said:

And I love the ski chase scene, the underwater stuff, Topol, hell, I love almost everything about it. Heck, you could even say that Kristatos is so bland only because he's pretending to be a good guy and is trying to fly under the radar!

No, Kristatos is bland because he has no personality, no menace, nothing of interest to bring to the table.

Loomis, on 10 February 2007 - 15:23, said:

Harmsway, on 10 February 2007 - 07:41, said:

First off, Roger Moore. Well, he's getting older, and it shows. Unfortunately for him, the fashions he's given in this film are mostly grandpa-esque.

Indeed. His clothes are horribly geriatric. Also, Bill Conti's score is odd and inappropriate for much of the time, and in many scenes the cinematography is marred by a peculiar soft focus effect.

I agree to all of that.

Loomis, on 10 February 2007 - 15:23, said:

However, it's still a million times better than THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

Aren't most things?

[Loomis]

Harmsway, on 11 February 2007 - 01:03, said:

Assume Bond parks it in a parking lot with people around.

Well, he'd know not to do that, and presumably the explosive alarm can be turned off. I'll also defend the umbrella bit - not sure quite what's so daft about this scene. Bond is just using something that's at hand, like Bourne thwacking someone with a rolled-up magazine. It may not be 007's most dignified moment, but it's hardly a horrifying embarrassment.

There's not much else I'd defend about this film, though.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

B5Erik, on 10 February 2007 - 13:59, said:

You've got to remember, this is coming STRAIGHT off of Moonraker - one of the jokiest movies of the entire series, and compared to that this really IS FRWL. It's the most serious Roger Moore Bond film, and it's extremely well done, all things considered.

True. But that may be the problem with For Your Eyes Only. It teeters between the style of the 1970s comedy Bond films and the harder edge of the later 1980s films with Dalton and Casino Royale. In retrospect, the series was in transition from the more comedic to the more serious Bond films which gives For Your Eyes Only an "inbetween" feel. I think The World is not Enough suffers from this "middle-of-the-road indecisiveness" also. I'd almost rather it be all serious or all comedic. That's also why I find The Living Daylights vastly superior to For Your Eyes Only. Although there are some comic Moore-era leftover elements in the 1987 Bond film, it still has the courage to go all the way and be more of a straight spy drama.

B5Erik, on 10 February 2007 - 13:59, said:

Heck, you could even say that Kristatos is so bland only because he's pretending to be a good guy and is trying to fly under the radar!

Sadly, the trailer reveals Kristatos is the villain so that plot "twist" isn't as clever as it should have been.

Harmsway, on 10 February 2007 - 19:03, said:

I think he could have done a very interesting, darker take on his Bond in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY if they cut out the hokum.

The way they do it renders it inept as a thriller, and inept as a piece of plain popcorn entertainment. They should have really gone for a FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, or they just should have just gone for an OCTOPUSSY (which is a million times more entertaining, enjoyable, and memorable than FOR YOUR EYES ONLY).

Good point, Harmsway. I also prefer both Octopussy and The Living Daylights(the true 1980s From Russia With Love successor)strongly to For Your Eyes Only but I do prefer For Your Eyes Only to A View to a Kill and The World is not Enough.

I'm kinda glad to be reading some of these "not so great" reviews of For Your Eyes Only. I think the balance is being redressed for some of the overpraise this decent but hardly great Bond film receives. Ironically, I think I'll actually enjoy For Your Eyes Only more because of it.

[Turn]

A couple of other things that go against FYEO:

-The casino scene is one of, if not the least, interesting in the entire series. It was just one of those "we've got to get Bond into a tux in the casino" moments. There is just no tension or really any point to Bond beating some goofball named Bunky, except to introduce Liesel. Wouldn't it have been better if he had played Kristatos or even Columbo? Turn up some tension. Not that Kristatos's true nature was a big surprise, but Bond beating him would have been an interesting tell.

-It's interesting that Columbo doesn't go off on Bond for Liesel's death. After all, he was the one with her when she died and he failed to protect her, although it was Locque who did her in. It kind of reminds me of Trevelyan's line about the ones he failed to protect in GE.

Sure it was the blood feud with Kristatos that fueled some of the story, but Columbo should have had some mistrust of Bond. They became friends way too easily.

Along those lines, almost everybody who speaks positively about FYEO brings up Bond kicking Locque's car off the cliff. Since he murdered Liesel, shouldn't Columbo have been the one to finish him off? I know it was important scene for Bond and was one of the best of Moore's tenure, but it would have been more in line with Kerim Bey shooting Krilencu, completing the revenge. Although, I guess Columbo's ultimate revenge came with killing Kristatos.

[Harmsway]

Loomis, on 10 February 2007 - 19:32, said:

I'll also defend the umbrella bit - not sure quite what's so daft about this scene. Bond is just using something that's at hand, like Bourne thwacking someone with a rolled-up magazine. It may not be 007's most dignified moment, but it's hardly a horrifying embarrassment.

Fair enough, I suppose. I always felt it was rather silly, though, and ruins the whole scene for me. Can't say why, but it bothers me. Perhaps its also because of the absolutely horrible outfit Bond has on at the time - it makes him look totally absurd and, well, un-cool. And un-cool is something Bond shouldn't be.

PrinceKamalKhan, on 10 February 2007 - 19:39, said:

That's also why I find The Living Daylights vastly superior to For Your Eyes Only. Although there are some comic Moore-era leftover elements in the 1987 Bond film, it still has the courage to go all the way and be more of a straight spy drama.

Quite right.

Quote

B5Erik, on 10 February 2007 - 13:59, said:

Heck, you could even say that Kristatos is so bland only because he's pretending to be a good guy and is trying to fly under the radar!

Sadly, the trailer reveals Kristatos is the villain so that plot "twist" isn't as clever as it should have been.

I didn't know the twist the first time I saw FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, and it didn't do anything for me then, either.

Turn, on 10 February 2007 - 20:53, said:

-The casino scene is one of, if not the least, interesting in the entire series. It was just one of those "we've got to get Bond into a tux in the casino" moments. There is just no tension or really any point to Bond beating some goofball named Bunky, except to introduce Liesel. Wouldn't it have been better if he had played Kristatos or even Columbo? Turn up some tension. Not that Kristatos's true nature was a big surprise, but Bond beating him would have been an interesting tell.

It's another forgettable moment in a string of forgettable moments.

Turn, on 10 February 2007 - 20:53, said:

-It's interesting that Columbo doesn't go off on Bond for Liesel's death. After all, he was the one with her when she died and he failed to protect her, although it was Locque who did her in. It kind of reminds me of Trevelyan's line about the ones he failed to protect in GE.

Good point. Would have been interesting if he did.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Harmsway, on 10 February 2007 - 21:04, said:

PrinceKamalKhan, on 10 February 2007 - 19:39, said:

That's also why I find The Living Daylights vastly superior to For Your Eyes Only. Although there are some comic Moore-era leftover elements in the 1987 Bond film, it still has the courage to go all the way and be more of a straight spy drama.

Quite right.

Great minds think alike, Harmsway

You and Turn would probably agree with this review of FYEO-

http://www.geocities.com/moviecritic.geo/r...oryoureyes.html

[Safari Suit]

PrinceKamalKhan, on 11 February 2007 - 03:39, said:

You and Turn would probably agree with this review of FYEO-
http://www.geocities.com/moviecritic.geo/r...oryoureyes.html

What about this one:
http://dvdtimes.co.u...contentid=62228

I'm sort of fond of Conti's score, to be honest, although it's far from his best work. It would have been much more suited to one of the more openly "silly" Bond films, though.

[B5Erik]

You know, as a BIG Dalton fan I have NO problem with anyone rating TLD higher than FYEO!

I don't agree - I LOVE FYEO - but I don't strongly disagree, either.

For me, FYEO is the perfect ROGER MOORE Bond movie. The truth is, Roger Moore proably shouldn't have been cast in the part from a strictly BONDIAN point of view. But he was, and he helped revitalize the series when it looked like it might die, so for that I'm thankful.

And FYEO is just damned entertaining. It's got the straight spy thriller stuff along with some of the Moore era humor. (MUCH less humor than in previous Moore movies, thankfully!)

FYEO just looked fantastic on the big screen, too!

[Mr_Wint]

I dont understand what problems you have with the casino scene. For me, the short gambling and the following dinner scene is just perfect.

I've always liked this film. Altough the plot is very straightforward, and leaves very little room for emotions or typical sob stuff, there's plenty of tension and Bond-excitement in this film. That, combined with an excellent cast, wonderful cinematography and some of the best action scenes ever made, makes FYEO totally superior to any of the following Bondfilms (including Casino Royale).

[draxingtonstanley]

Superior to Casino Royale? Well,each to his own I suppose. Though for me,Casino Royale is the first Bond film since OHMSS to fully shed the 'Pinewood Pantomime"feel that really took hold during Roger's tenure and plagued the series from then on.
The slapstick humour is particularly frustrating in FYEO,as it constantly undermines what could be a great,dark Bond film. The opening precredit is a case in point. A great start,Bond at Tracy's grave,but minutes later Bond is slapping Blofeld's bald pate("Keep your hair on"),and dropping him down a chimney to the sound of a slide whistle. And what IS that line about" a delicatessen in stainless steel"? The atmosphere is shattered.
I must admit to being torn though. Moonraker was the first Bond film I saw at the cinema,and I loved it as a 12 year old. FYEO worked for me back then too,as did Octopussy(though not AVTAK). All three films hold a special place in my affections,but with hindsight-average. Love the ski/motorbike/bobsleigh chase though. John Glen knows how to put a good chase together.

This post has been edited by draxingtonstanley: 11 February 2007 - 08:31 PM

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Safari Suit, on 11 February 2007 - 04:20, said:

PrinceKamalKhan, on 11 February 2007 - 03:39, said:

You and Turn would probably agree with this review of FYEO-
http://www.geocities.com/moviecritic.geo/r...oryoureyes.html

What about this one:
http://dvdtimes.co.u...contentid=62228

I'm sort of fond of Conti's score, to be honest, although it's far from his best work. It would have been much more suited to one of the more openly "silly" Bond films, though.

If only John Barry's A View to a Kill score could have been placed in For Your Eyes Only and Bill Conti's in A View to a Kill.

Interesting review. I liked these points he made-

"There is absolutely nothing wrong with this film, but there

[Mr_Wint]

draxingtonstanley, on 11 February 2007 - 20:28, said:

Superior to Casino Royale? Well,each to his own I suppose. Though for me,Casino Royale is the first Bond film since OHMSS to fully shed the 'Pinewood Pantomime"feel that really took hold during Roger's tenure and plagued the series from then on.
The slapstick humour is particularly frustrating in FYEO,as it constantly undermines what could be a great,dark Bond film. The opening precredit is a case in point. A great start,Bond at Tracy's grave,but minutes later Bond is slapping Blofeld's bald pate("Keep your hair on"),and dropping him down a chimney to the sound of a slide whistle. And what IS that line about" a delicatessen in stainless steel"? The atmosphere is shattered.

Yes, each to his own. I enjoy the PTS and wouldn't change a second in it.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Mr_Wint, on 11 February 2007 - 16:47, said:

draxingtonstanley, on 11 February 2007 - 20:28, said:

Superior to Casino Royale? Well,each to his own I suppose. Though for me,Casino Royale is the first Bond film since OHMSS to fully shed the 'Pinewood Pantomime"feel that really took hold during Roger's tenure and plagued the series from then on.
The slapstick humour is particularly frustrating in FYEO,as it constantly undermines what could be a great,dark Bond film. The opening precredit is a case in point. A great start,Bond at Tracy's grave,but minutes later Bond is slapping Blofeld's bald pate("Keep your hair on"),and dropping him down a chimney to the sound of a slide whistle. And what IS that line about" a delicatessen in stainless steel"? The atmosphere is shattered.

Yes, each to his own. I enjoy the PTS and wouldn't change a second in it.

This makes me think of a good potential thread, i.e.-Diamonds Are Forever PTS vs. For Your Eyes Only PTS. Both of them are "sequels" of sort to the events of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Which one handles the idea of Bond's ruthlessness and avenging Tracy's death better? Just the PTS not the films as a whole.

[draxingtonstanley]

That's a good idea PrinceKamalKhan,and it raises an interesting point about the FYEO pts. What makes it so frustrating for me is that it touches on a very deep chord in Bond's history and turns it into a throwaway joke. For me it would have worked better without a Blofeld reference,or at least not such an obvious one. The rest of the film feels something of a side issue when such mighty ghosts have been stirred-Kristatos and his ATAC caper are overshadowed by thoughts of the glory days of SPECTRE. For me at least.
The Diamonds Are Forever pts at least packs a punch,Connery is really menacing and out for revenge,but the rest of the film descends into an (admittedly hugely enjoyable)camp romp. In the PTS stakes as you propose,the tone of DAF works better for me. I did enjoy the helicopter by remote control,and the London setting in the FYEO pts,but for the reasons outlined above,for me it doesn't quite work. I'm going to have to agree to disagree with Mr Wint on that one.

This post has been edited by draxingtonstanley: 11 February 2007 - 11:29 PM

[Mr_Wint]

Bond's ruthlessness?

The PTS to FYEO is a brief reference to Tracy followed by a very good action-scene. I dont think it was meant to be anything more or anything less than that.

[00Twelve]

Sure, as well as Cubby's Blofeld-kiss-off. I just wish they didn't go so light on the whole thing. He just came from his wife's grave, for crying out loud! I know- Maybe Bond is just so elated at the unbelievable opportunity of having Tracy's killer in his grasp on the very day that he decided to visit her that he just can't hold back a smile or a pat on the bald wig as he dispatches the guy.

And I'm with Turn on this, one of the forever-to-be unanswered questions of the universe...What in the world is a "delicatessen in stainless steel?!?"

[Harmsway]

00Twelve, on 12 February 2007 - 09:37, said:

And I'm with Turn on this, one of the forever-to-be unanswered questions of the universe...What in the world is a "delicatessen in stainless steel?!?"

Well, it's not unsanswered. In the old days, a "delicatessen in stainless steel" was a mob buy-off. It's still a stupid-as-hell line, though.

[00Twelve]

Ah...now I have peace. Thank you, Harmsway.