Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Revisiting For Your Eyes Only


24 replies to this topic

#1 quantumofsolace

quantumofsolace

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1563 posts

Posted 11 May 2015 - 09:07 AM

http://www.denofgeek...-your-eyes-only



#2 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 11 May 2015 - 09:54 AM

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (re-watch)

 

Attempting re-entry into the down to earth spy thriller genre, this film differs from the previous two Moore Bonds mainly in that the stunts do seem believable.  However, all that talk about how this film changed the formula again is IMO overheated.

 

There´s so much in this film that continues in the vein of the previous films (heck, it even has the wine-drinking tourist not believing his eyes again, his third appearance!), and the fake Thatcher-ending with Q listening in could have been an alternate take in MOONRAKER as well.  Just as Blofeld´s last appearance in the PTS (and please, the stainless steel delicatessen-line must be an elaborate inside joke - or can somebody enlighten me what that was all about?).

 

But since I love MOONRAKER I don´t complain.  I felt entertained throughout, the pacing is pretty good, the ski chase is exciting, Moore´s kicking down Loque´s Mercedes is a great Bondian moment, the Bond & Melina being dragged behind Kristatos´ boat-sequence is one of the most interesting (and, yes, Flemingian) torture-scenes of the franchise, and although I know Bond is not going to die the climing sequence always has me tense up. 

 

Moore still carries the film but again is so much less camp or mugging than I (and so many journalists) remember.  However, he is beginning to look old.  And he is behaving like the more senior Bond that he, well, is.  The excess of visible stunt doubles for him is not yet there - but FYEO is the beginning of the Old Bond Trilogy that ended Moore´s tenure.

 

Mind you, I don´t subscribe to the ageism that so often and unfairly gets mentioned when the Moore era is discussed.  

 

I do think that an older or ageing Bond offers the opportunity to change the portrayal of the character.  Moore-Bond turning down Bibi´s advances is definitely opening the door to a more fatherly Bond, and the physical strain on Bond is not too much hidden this time.  Which is a wise decision, humanizing the hero in a way that would be impossible today since everybody has to look as if he/she were spending four hours a day with a personal trainer and nutritionist.

 

Also, when I was watching FYEO for the first time during its initial run in the theatres I was 12 years old, and heroes mostly were father figures, so they were allowed to be older.  Anything else would have been ridiculous.  I wanted my heroes to be wiser, experienced and mature.  So I had no problem with Moore showing his age.  And I still don´t.  

 

But I do feel a bit lukewarm about FYEO nevertheless.  Somehow it´s not Moore´s ageing that is a problem - it´s the formula´s ageing.  Maybe this is also due to my watching so many Bond films in a row - but whereas MOONRAKER, despite the already visible formula, swings by simply by its "we will stop at nothing"-swagger, FYEO this time felt a little too much like "been there, done that".  The lack of a charismatic villain definitely works against it - at no time Kristatos really feels authoritative enough to me in order to be a worthy adversary.  And like the stolen nukes in THUNDERBALL the threat that the ATAC poses for the world does not get an effective treatment enough.  Quickly I forget that it could actually throw the world order in disarray.

 

Of all the Moore-Bonds so far I must admit: this one is my least favorite.

 

And before my re-watch I thought that would be AVTAK.



#3 Call Billy Bob

Call Billy Bob

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2917 posts
  • Location:Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Posted 11 May 2015 - 02:53 PM

The reviewer made a point to say that you can't imagine any other Bond in a Moore film; however, FYEO is one of 4 classic Bonds that I can picture Craig excelling in. The others are FRWL, OHMSS and LTK.

#4 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 11 May 2015 - 06:09 PM

The reviewer made a point to say that you can't imagine any other Bond in a Moore film; however, FYEO is one of 4 classic Bonds that I can picture Craig excelling in. The others are FRWL, OHMSS and LTK.

 

I could see some of the other Bonds in For Your Eyes Only as well.  It's pretty easy to imagine Connery in it, as it's in some respects a remake of From Russia With Love.  It's not difficult to imagine Dalton, Craig, or Brosnan in the film either.

 

I also don't necessarily think the author is correct with the inverse of that thought either.  I definitely think that Moore could have pulled off some of the other films in the franchise.  I think he could have pulled off On Her Majesty's Secret Service and certainly Diamonds are Forever.  Also, assuming we're putting aside the age factor here, I think he could have done The Living Daylights as well.  



#5 Tiin007

Tiin007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1696 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 11 May 2015 - 06:46 PM

 

The reviewer made a point to say that you can't imagine any other Bond in a Moore film; however, FYEO is one of 4 classic Bonds that I can picture Craig excelling in. The others are FRWL, OHMSS and LTK.

 

I could see some of the other Bonds in For Your Eyes Only as well.  It's pretty easy to imagine Connery in it, as it's in some respects a remake of From Russia With Love.  It's not difficult to imagine Dalton, Craig, or Brosnan in the film either.

 

I also don't necessarily think the author is correct with the inverse of that thought either.  I definitely think that Moore could have pulled off some of the other films in the franchise.  I think he could have pulled off On Her Majesty's Secret Service and certainly Diamonds are Forever.  Also, assuming we're putting aside the age factor here, I think he could have done The Living Daylights as well.  

 

Truth is, in many ways I think Moore displayed the most versatility in the role when it comes to acting. Despite being branded "campy Bond," there are a number of serious scenes in which Moore excels. A few come to mind:

1) TMWTGG- confronting Andrea in her hotel room

2) TSWLM- Revealing to Anya that he killed her lover

3) FYEO- his numerous attempts at dissuading Melina from pursuing revenge, particularly on the horse and buggy in Cortina

4) OP- confronting Orlov on the train, the bomb scene

 

I'm sure there are others as well.

 

Granted, Moore may have had more of an opportunity to display his versatility, as he had a full seven films to work with. But I do think that the general perceptions of Moore's portrayal of Bond tend to be oversimplified, as they are more reflective of the films themselves than of Moore in particular. 



#6 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 11 May 2015 - 07:22 PM

The only thing I would have liked to see different in FYEO is a more exciting climax. I understand the need for EON to scale back after MR - and it was a brilliant and risky move, making it possible to build 'up' again in later films  - but the punch-up in Meteora was too much like the end of a Saint or Persuaders episode. Tighter editing and a 'countdown' cue on the soundtrack, perhaps  - or, better still, move the dockside confrontation in Albania to the end.

 

Thassall. Love the travelogue scenery in Greece, and the time taken to develop characters (every time I'm having pistachio nuts Topol's introductory speech runs through my mind).



#7 David_M

David_M

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1064 posts
  • Location:Richmond VA

Posted 11 May 2015 - 07:38 PM

Another great review from SecretAgentFan.

 

I remember being lukewarm to FYEO in 1981; I was 16 at the time and convinced I knew what a Bond film "should be."  FYEO was low-key compared to the two that went before it; wasn't the object to go "bigger" every time?  The "grand finale" had Bond throwing a glorified typewriter off a mountain while someone else killed the villain.  Ho hum.  Where were the battling armies and the outlandish Ken Adam sets?  I had a friend who thought the "detente" ending was too lame for a Bond film; to him it was akin to ending a Star Wars movie with Darth and Luke saying, "Let's just agree to disagree." 

 

I enjoyed a lot about the film, but it defied my expectations, so I left the theater with mixed emotions.  On the other hand, I ended up seeing it five times that summer -- a record for me -- so I must've liked something about it.  Now I understand why it was "toned down" from the previous two entries, but while intellectually I recognize it as probably the most "Flemingesque" and solidly scripted Moore entry, with some of the best stuntwork in any Bond, I still don't harbor a lot of "affection" for it as it's just not the kind of movie that seems to be interested in earning love.  

 

re: Moore beginning to look old:  I remember being convinced Roger had a portrait in his attic that did his aging for him.  To my young eyes, he never changed, and when I saw photos of him as "The Saint" in the dark past of the 1960s (not that far back at the time, but when I was a kid 20 years seemed like 200), I thought, "This guy will NEVER get old!"  So when we get to the scene where Roger's trying to blend in to the crowd at the ski jump, and his whole face is covered except his mouth and jawline, I was SHOCKED to see that "Turkey wattle" from chin to neck.  Talk about disillusionment; that moment rates right up there with getting the bad news about St Nick.

 

That said, I agree with you the age factor could've brought as many opportunities as it did challenges, and offered the chance to go some interesting places.  They test the waters with a few scenes in this film,but then they never go there again in the next two.  But as we'll learn, ignoring Roger's age only makes it *more* obvious, not less.

 

The real issue is one of timing: Roger begins to slow down just as the franchise begins to focus more and more on athletic stunts.  Even though he comes off as "tougher," Connery's Bond is never asked to do anything it would take an Olympic athlete/circus acrobat/ninja warrior to do, but towards the end of Roger's tenure, Bond has to compete with Indiana Jones' of the world, and that changes everything.  By the time he leaves, it's hard to imagine even a *young* Roger Moore being cast in the role due to the physical demands.  Seriously, anyone comparing the parkour-practicing, superhuman killing machine that is Daniel Craig to the 1962 version of James Bond could be forgiven for thinking it's not the same character (let alone Fleming's).

 

In other words, it's not that Roger got too old to play Bond.  It's that they changed the definition of Bond partway through his tenure.  Roger in 1985 could've still done LALD convincingly.  But even the 1973 Roger probably couldn't have done the Indy imitation convincingly.



#8 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 12 May 2015 - 04:33 AM

In other words, it's not that Roger got too old to play Bond.  It's that they changed the definition of Bond partway through his tenure.  Roger in 1985 could've still done LALD convincingly.  But even the 1973 Roger probably couldn't have done the Indy imitation convincingly.

 

Spot-on!



#9 PrinceKamalKhan

PrinceKamalKhan

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11139 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 01:47 AM

The only thing I would have liked to see different in FYEO is a more exciting climax. I understand the need for EON to scale back after MR - and it was a brilliant and risky move, making it possible to build 'up' again in later films  - but the punch-up in Meteora was too much like the end of a Saint or Persuaders episode. Tighter editing and a 'countdown' cue on the soundtrack, perhaps  - or, better still, move the dockside confrontation in Albania to the end.

 

 

Excellent point. While the climbing stunt was definitely impressive, the final battle at the top always seemed anticlimactic and underwhelming to me for the reasons you suggested. And I'm not comparing it to the lavish OTT final battles of MR and TSWLM. The final battles of the 2 films that served as a template for FYEO(the speedboat chase at the end of FRWL and the battle between Draco's Union Corse and SPECTRE at the end of OHMSS) easily dwarf the Meteora battle in FYEO for me.

 

I like your idea of moving the dockside confrotation in Albania to the end.



#10 Hockey Mask

Hockey Mask

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1027 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 08 September 2015 - 02:28 AM

In other words, it's not that Roger got too old to play Bond.  It's that they changed the definition of Bond partway through his tenure.  Roger in 1985 could've still done LALD convincingly.  But even the 1973 Roger probably couldn't have done the Indy imitation convincingly.

 
Spot-on!
You're forgetting him with the Bond girls. It was getting creepy.

#11 bribond

bribond

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 104 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 02:43 AM

Regarding the topic of Moore's dramatic highlights in the below posts

 

Truth is, in many ways I think Moore displayed the most versatility in the role when it comes to acting. Despite being branded "campy Bond," there are a number of serious scenes in which Moore excels. A few come to mind:

1) TMWTGG- confronting Andrea in her hotel room

2) TSWLM- Revealing to Anya that he killed her lover

3) FYEO- his numerous attempts at dissuading Melina from pursuing revenge, particularly on the horse and buggy in Cortina

4) OP- confronting Orlov on the train, the bomb scene

 

I have a couple to add from A View to a Kill.  Now allow me to preface my remarks by stating that my opinion of that film is about on par with most of the general public (despite it being the first Bond film I saw in the theatre) and in some scenes Moore's performance is positively lazy making wide eyes and raising his voice a tone (like in the scene in the "iceberg" in the pre-title sequence) but in these two, both with Christopher Walken, he is is fantastic:

 

1) The scene outside the Rolls Royce-the dialogue is sharp "Don't count on that Zorin"  "You amuse me Mr. Bond" "Well, it's not mutual" and Bond is barely containing his anger about his friends death.

 

2) The scene in City Hall when Zorin kills Howe in cold blood with absolute glee absolutely disgusts Bond, who finds it even more offensive that Zorin did this in front of Stacy who is horrified.


Edited by bribond, 08 September 2015 - 02:43 AM.


#12 WaltherPPKMitty

WaltherPPKMitty

    Recruit

  • Crew
  • 3 posts

Posted 12 September 2015 - 09:36 PM

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (re-watch)

 

Attempting re-entry into the down to earth spy thriller genre, this film differs from the previous two Moore Bonds mainly in that the stunts do seem believable.  However, all that talk about how this film changed the formula again is IMO overheated.

 

There´s so much in this film that continues in the vein of the previous films (heck, it even has the wine-drinking tourist not believing his eyes again, his third appearance!), and the fake Thatcher-ending with Q listening in could have been an alternate take in MOONRAKER as well.  Just as Blofeld´s last appearance in the PTS (and please, the stainless steel delicatessen-line must be an elaborate inside joke - or can somebody enlighten me what that was all about?).

 

But since I love MOONRAKER I don´t complain.  I felt entertained throughout, the pacing is pretty good, the ski chase is exciting, Moore´s kicking down Loque´s Mercedes is a great Bondian moment, the Bond & Melina being dragged behind Kristatos´ boat-sequence is one of the most interesting (and, yes, Flemingian) torture-scenes of the franchise, and although I know Bond is not going to die the climing sequence always has me tense up. 

 

Moore still carries the film but again is so much less camp or mugging than I (and so many journalists) remember.  However, he is beginning to look old.  And he is behaving like the more senior Bond that he, well, is.  The excess of visible stunt doubles for him is not yet there - but FYEO is the beginning of the Old Bond Trilogy that ended Moore´s tenure.

 

Mind you, I don´t subscribe to the ageism that so often and unfairly gets mentioned when the Moore era is discussed.  

 

I do think that an older or ageing Bond offers the opportunity to change the portrayal of the character.  Moore-Bond turning down Bibi´s advances is definitely opening the door to a more fatherly Bond, and the physical strain on Bond is not too much hidden this time.  Which is a wise decision, humanizing the hero in a way that would be impossible today since everybody has to look as if he/she were spending four hours a day with a personal trainer and nutritionist.

 

Also, when I was watching FYEO for the first time during its initial run in the theatres I was 12 years old, and heroes mostly were father figures, so they were allowed to be older.  Anything else would have been ridiculous.  I wanted my heroes to be wiser, experienced and mature.  So I had no problem with Moore showing his age.  And I still don´t.  

 

But I do feel a bit lukewarm about FYEO nevertheless.  Somehow it´s not Moore´s ageing that is a problem - it´s the formula´s ageing.  Maybe this is also due to my watching so many Bond films in a row - but whereas MOONRAKER, despite the already visible formula, swings by simply by its "we will stop at nothing"-swagger, FYEO this time felt a little too much like "been there, done that".  The lack of a charismatic villain definitely works against it - at no time Kristatos really feels authoritative enough to me in order to be a worthy adversary.  And like the stolen nukes in THUNDERBALL the threat that the ATAC poses for the world does not get an effective treatment enough.  Quickly I forget that it could actually throw the world order in disarray.

 

Of all the Moore-Bonds so far I must admit: this one is my least favorite.

 

And before my re-watch I thought that would be AVTAK.

 

Hello to SecretAgentFan, thanks for your very fair minded critique. I do enjoy FYEO and think it's part of the Roger Moore really good Bond movies triple play, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker and FYEO.

 

Definitely agree with you that the villains could have been better--Topol was good when he teamed up with Bond, but Julian Glover was not nearly menacing enough as he is supposed to be the main bad guy. The skater Lynn Holly Johnson, quite annoying, though she existed to show us Bond is more mature about his hookups with women. He ends up with Cassandra Harris (RIP) in a nice scene where she and Bond reveal they are both actors, a bit of fakeout artists in the drama of life, with phony accents and ID's. Two fellow travelers on the roads.

 

I give it great credit as a change of pace Bond which is needed at times. Spy and Moonraker pushed the limits of Bond saves the world and the known universe so 007 really needed to come back to earth. The plot was pretty lean and mean, the ATAC computer was more a Hitchcock Maguffin--a device which does not really do anything except set everyone into motion--so it was really more believable.

 

Also Carole Bouquet was a wow she is hot Bond girl. Some did not like her, too dry, understated, but I thought she looked great, played well vs. Moore, had a no nonsense athletic style with that cross bow. Seemed way more capable than many a Bond girl, no screaming, looking scared and yelling, "Jaammmeesss" constantly. Really a good upgrade in that she could fully take part in the mission and be a believable woman of action.

 

Had no problem with Bond aging, and thinking about the past, his dead wife, not getting entangled with young gals, stay on point with the mission. Something about this movie, made me think James Bond can be played seriously with Moore giving us some more thoughtfulness, humanity and nuances in his acting.

 

Just a few thoughts,

WPPKM over and out.



#13 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 04 November 2015 - 03:34 AM

The ski chase is one of the best. 



#14 mattjoes

mattjoes

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 243 posts

Posted 25 November 2015 - 08:43 PM

Something I've never understood, or the film fails to explain, is why Bond needs to go find Gonzales instead of heading for the bottom of the sea to retrieve the ATAC from the first moment. As far as I can remember, Bond learns nothing relevant regarding the location of the sunken St. Georges in the first half of the film. Bond and Melina determine the likely location of the wreck based only on Havelock's notes, which have been in Melina's possession from the beginning.



#15 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 25 November 2015 - 09:23 PM

You're not alone.

 

Retrieving the ATAC was never Bond's mission; he was only supposed to find out who was behind killing the man looking for it.

 

Having exceeded his brief and joined in the search for the wretched thing, his best move would have been not to retrieve it, but to activate the timer and scarper. Since JIM got in the way, forcing Bond to improvise with the thermite charge, his next best move would have been to chip the thing to pieces with his pick and scatter the fragments across the sea bed.

 

Retrieving the thing was never an issue - it's not like HMG didn't have spares. The emphasis was an preventing the Russians from getting their desperate hands on one (hence the irony of Bond's assurance to Gogol "That's detente, comrade - you don't have it, I don't have it.").

 

Weak, derivative plot, over-reliance on pointless stunts, but a refreshingly low-key thriller with some cool characters, a middle half-hour lifted right out of Fleming's typewriter, and something to build on in Octopussy.



#16 mattjoes

mattjoes

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 243 posts

Posted 25 November 2015 - 09:53 PM

Mhmm. Leaving aside the fact Bond's orders are not about finding the ATAC, 007 seems to work backwards in the film. Since nothing suggests this is a Thunderball type of scenario, with several agents working on the case, and considering Tanner explains it's essential the device doesn't fall into enemy hands, perhaps it would've made more sense to first send Bond to recover (or, as you say, destroy) the ATAC, and only then send him to chase the Gonzales lead. Now, if Kristatos were to find out the device was gone, he'd wisely remain in the shadows, and the trail would go cold, but the ATAC would be out of enemy reach.



#17 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 25 November 2015 - 10:17 PM

It makes sense that Bond is sent out to find "the hand that holds the whip". They can use lower agents to retrive the ATAC (like the Havelocks). When they got killed, this became a concern for the 00-section. We don't know exactly what Operation Undertow was, but Bond's first step was to find the people behind it.

When Bond finds the JIM equipment at the warehouse, he understands that Kristatos has the resources/capability to mount a salvage operation. Bond then figures out where the ATAC is located (Melina is the only one who can decipher her fathers code). Bond connects the dots (The JIM Equipment and Kristatos so-called oil exploration) and understands that Kristatos is going to retrive it by himself, so he decides to go for it. Possibly also as a way to throw himself into trouble, and force Kristatos to act.

At the end, Bond has destroyed the ATAC and identified and disabled the chain of people that were indirectly working for KGB (Gonzales - Locque - Kristatos). Mission accomplished.

#18 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 25 November 2015 - 10:58 PM

You're not alone.
 
Retrieving the ATAC was never Bond's mission; he was only supposed to find out who was behind killing the man looking for it.
 
Having exceeded his brief and joined in the search for the wretched thing, his best move would have been not to retrieve it, but to activate the timer and scarper. Since JIM got it the way, forcing Bond to improvise with the thermite charge, his next best move would have been to chip the thing to pieces with his pick and scatter the fragments across the sea bed.
 
Retrieving the thing was never an issue - it's not like HMG didn't have spares. The emphasis was an preventing the Russians from getting their desperate hands on one (hence the irony of Bond's assurance to Gogol "That's detente, comrade - you don't have it, I don't have it.").
 
Weak, derivative plot, over-reliance on pointless stunts, but a refreshingly low-key thriller with some cool characters, a middle half-hour lifted right out of Fleming's typewriter, and something to build on in Octopussy.

 
Top marks, AMC. Almost entirely how I feel.

What the other two people in this particular discussion may not know is that the ATAC only appeared in subsequent drafts of the script thereby wrecking the script's internal logic.

Trying to reconcile FYEO's appalling logic is like trying to reconcile the "Classic" and Craig timelines.

 

Mhmm. Leaving aside the fact Bond's orders are not about finding the ATAC, 007 seems to work backwards in the film. Since nothing suggests this is a Thunderball type of scenario, with several agents working on the case, and considering Tanner explains it's essential the device doesn't fall into enemy hands, perhaps it would've made more sense to first send Bond to recover (or, as you say, destroy) the ATAC, and only then send him to chase the Gonzales lead. Now, if Kristatos were to find out the device was gone, he'd wisely remain in the shadows, and the trail would go cold, but the ATAC would be out of enemy reach.

 
But you still need a team of British agents on site keeping an eye on the ATAC if Kristatos or any Russkies show up.
 
 

It makes sense that Bond is sent out to find "the hand that holds the whip". They can use lower agents to retrive the ATAC (like the Havelocks). When they got killed, this became a concern for the 00-section. We don't know exactly what Operation Undertow was, but Bond's first step was to find the people behind it.


Too bad the Brits forgot to assign replacements for the Havelocks. The filmmakers could have cleared this up by establishing that a British team is indeed out there keeping lookout for any suspicious ships, and by having said British team send an alert out to Bond that yes, a suspicious trawler is in the vicinity immediately before the warehouse set-piece so that Bond can get his priorities in order.

 

When Bond finds the JIM equipment at the warehouse, he understands that Kristatos has the resources/capability to mount a salvage operation. Bond then figures out where the ATAC is located (Melina is the only one who can decipher her fathers code). Bond connects the dots (The JIM Equipment and Kristatos so-called oil exploration) and understands that Kristatos is going to retrive it by himself, so he decides to go for it. Possibly also as a way to throw himself into trouble, and force Kristatos to act.

At the end, Bond has destroyed the ATAC and identified and disabled the chain of people that were indirectly working for KGB (Gonzales - Locque - Kristatos). Mission accomplished.


For reasons I set out above this still leaves far too much to be desired.

#19 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 26 November 2015 - 06:04 PM

But you still need a team of British agents on site keeping an eye on the ATAC if Kristatos or any Russkies show up.

Doesn't sound very exciting, tbh.
A salvage operation wasn't possible from the beginning. That is the premise.

Don't let this stop you from enjoying one of the best films in the franchise. The script brilliantly combines several Fleming stories and elements. Kristatos and Columbo are perfectly written and well played - feels like two Fleming characters brought to life. The story has a nice flow to it, is well directed and with superb action. As for the logic, you can fill in the gaps by yourself if you want to. And if you don't want to, there is probably something else about the film that bothers you.

#20 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 28 November 2015 - 07:10 PM

But you still need a team of British agents on site keeping an eye on the ATAC if Kristatos or any Russkies show up.

Doesn't sound very exciting, tbh.


No kidding.

 

A salvage operation wasn't possible from the beginning. That is the premise.


But sending a man down to retrieve the ATAC is possible. Sending the Havelocks out to find the ship's location is possible. So leaving the area unattended makes no sense.

The film establishes the stakes early on: a race against time - the British versus the Russians. That somebody kills the Havelocks proves somebody else is interested in the ATAC. Why the Russians would kill the Havelocks before the Havelocks find the ship's location makes no sense. If the Russians kill the Havelocks because they know Sir Timothy has found the ship's location then that should be a tip-off to the obtuse British that somebody else knows where the ship is; ergo, the British had better make retrieving the ATAC their priority. Worry about finding Havelock's killers later. Or delegate that duty to some other agent.

Ditto the Russians. We've got our man out there ready to retrieve the ATAC for us. But he's got all these frequent fliers points he's got to use up by month's end so he's going to first give Britain's top agent the runaround. What? The British send two agents out? Don't even think they have two agents. I think Bond's their only employee. When will our man retrieve the ATAC? I dunno. He's a bit of a lazy sod if you ask me. I think he'll let the British do all the hard work and grab it off of them when they surface. When do I think the British will get around to retrieving the ATAC? Hm, good question. Depends on how long it takes to convince Bond that this chap Columbo needs knocking off, and then it all depends on how long it takes Bond to knock this chap Columbo off. Of course all these plans go out the window if, for once, we get lucky and manage to knock this Bond chap off first. Do svidaniya!

All Bond flicks have their logic loopholes, but nothing this blatant where the audience is left wondering, "What happened to the race against time?"

 

Don't let this stop you from enjoying one of the best films in the franchise. The script brilliantly combines several Fleming stories and elements. Kristatos and Columbo are perfectly written and well played - feels like two Fleming characters brought to life. The story has a nice flow to it, is well directed and with superb action. As for the logic, you can fill in the gaps by yourself if you want to. And if you don't want to, there is probably something else about the film that bothers you.


You mean, don't let this stop me enjoying what you consider to be one of the best films in the series. The script shoehorns several Fleming stories and elements. I will give you that. But Julian Glover is dull and Topol belongs in another film - he gives such a lively performance that by comparison to the rest of the cast he seems to be overacting. Ditto Steven Berkoff in Octopussy. The film's pacing is poky. It feels three hours long. The Cortina sequences add nothing to the plot. The entire half hour or so sequence seems to consist of Bond speaking to Kristatos and learning about Columbo. Oh yes, and having lots of stunt sequences. And then Bond racks up the frequent flier points traveling to Greece to speak to Kristatos again about Columbo. Kristatos likes racking up those frequent flier points too. I will grant you your comments about the action sequences and add that the film has a wonderful outdoors feel. Not since Dr No has a Bond film felt this way. Not so sure about the film being nicely directed throughout, tho'. The direction has its moments and virtues. But it has its share of clunky moments that are due entirely to the direction. John Glen was a very uneven director. I sometimes wonder if he got sloppier throughout his tenure. Most people agree that John Glen was not an actors' director nor was he a stylist. Fans seem to like Moore's performance. For the life of me I can't imagine why. Moore seems exhausted. I'm no Timothy Dalton fan but even Dalton would have been better in this film.

So, yes, plenty bothers me about this film.

#21 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 30 November 2015 - 04:46 PM

Well, at least you liked the outdoor feel, so it wasn't a complete disaster for you.

#22 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 30 November 2015 - 10:25 PM

Quite a few other things I like about the film. All in all it's mid-level for me.



#23 Professor Pi

Professor Pi

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 03:44 PM

This film has grown on me throughout my life.  It's one I always like to come back to.  I have probably seen it more than any other Bond film--we're talking well over fifty times.

 

At first, I didn't like it for all the reasons outlined above.  Where's the final battle?  Kristatos isn't threatening.  What happened to the countdown?  All things that Spy, Moonraker, and Octopussy did better.  But then I saw FYEO doubled with OHMSS at a Bond film festival in the early 90s and my whole take on it changed.  I view it as a spiritual sequel to OHMSS. 

 

The opening PTS starts off great, and that was my introduction to the bald man with the white quite.  I used to memorize his speech.  Now that I understand the context better, the resolution is played with too much humor.  For those wondering, "delicatessan in stainless steal" was a mafia joke that Cubby Broccolli liked.  And the PTS is also a "screw you" to Kevin McClory.  But the rest of the film is quite serious (minus the hockey score board.)

 

Another reason I think I watched it so much is it's a film you want to be in.  It's got skiing, underwater scenes, car chases, motorcycles beaches and friggin' dune buggies, casinos, winter and summer settings.  Bond is a mature agent, having learned lessons from his earlier missions, counseling Melina against revenge.  He's earned his cyncism, but not without maintaining a joie de vivre.  I love how he goes into the flower shop and orders lillies before he takes out the assassin through the glass window of the shop. "Send them to the funeral, will you." 

 

Colombo is an ally up there with Kerim Bey, Marc Ange Draco, and (later) Rene Mathis.  While the climbing scene is anticlimactic and should probably be earlier in the film, it takes on more meaning when you know that Bond's parents died in a climbing accident (though nothing is made of it at the time.)  It also expanded the side character General Gogol who was to have larger roles in later Bond films (including the original script of The Living Daylights.) 

 

Bond has to use his wits to survive, not just gadgets.  Nothing symbolizes this more than his "burglar protected" alarm blowing up the Lotus Esprit.  It shows Bond and Q actually working together trying to identify Locque instead of just quipping at each other.  Bernard Lee as M is sorely missed in this film (Bill Tanner isn't brought to screen successfully here as he would be with Michael Kitchens and Rory Kinnear decades later.)

 

The music isn't everyone's cup of tea, but Sheena Easton's title is one of my favorite Bond songs.  I played the Bill Conti score to death, and still like it today.  Maybe too brassy and 80s to be Bond, but a more rich listening experience than many of Bond's later composers.  Granted, this was before I got really acquainted with John Barry scores.

 

FYEO starts brisquely and slows down toward its end.  But FRWL never has its pace.  It strays from the Bond formula a bit but restores the Bond of the 60s films.  It's John Glen's homage to Peter Hunt.  I'll forgive it its faults.   It's a film that shows us that friends can turn on you in life, that your enemies sometimes have goals aligned with yours, and that meaningful relationships can still be made.  It's a Bond film that speaks to me more and more as I get older.



#24 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 07 December 2015 - 06:34 AM

This film has grown on me throughout my life.  It's one I always like to come back to.  I have probably seen it more than any other Bond film--we're talking well over fifty times.

 

At first, I didn't like it for all the reasons outlined above.  Where's the final battle?  Kristatos isn't threatening.  What happened to the countdown?  All things that Spy, Moonraker, and Octopussy did better.  But then I saw FYEO doubled with OHMSS at a Bond film festival in the early 90s and my whole take on it changed.  I view it as a spiritual sequel to OHMSS. 

 

The opening PTS starts off great, and that was my introduction to the bald man with the white quite.  I used to memorize his speech.  Now that I understand the context better, the resolution is played with too much humor.  For those wondering, "delicatessan in stainless steal" was a mafia joke that Cubby Broccolli liked.  And the PTS is also a "screw you" to Kevin McClory.  But the rest of the film is quite serious (minus the hockey score board.)

 

Another reason I think I watched it so much is it's a film you want to be in.  It's got skiing, underwater scenes, car chases, motorcycles beaches and friggin' dune buggies, casinos, winter and summer settings.  Bond is a mature agent, having learned lessons from his earlier missions, counseling Melina against revenge.  He's earned his cyncism, but not without maintaining a joie de vivre.  I love how he goes into the flower shop and orders lillies before he takes out the assassin through the glass window of the shop. "Send them to the funeral, will you." 

 

Colombo is an ally up there with Kerim Bey, Marc Ange Draco, and (later) Rene Mathis.  While the climbing scene is anticlimactic and should probably be earlier in the film, it takes on more meaning when you know that Bond's parents died in a climbing accident (though nothing is made of it at the time.)  It also expanded the side character General Gogol who was to have larger roles in later Bond films (including the original script of The Living Daylights.) 

 

Bond has to use his wits to survive, not just gadgets.  Nothing symbolizes this more than his "burglar protected" alarm blowing up the Lotus Esprit.  It shows Bond and Q actually working together trying to identify Locque instead of just quipping at each other.  Bernard Lee as M is sorely missed in this film (Bill Tanner isn't brought to screen successfully here as he would be with Michael Kitchens and Rory Kinnear decades later.)

 

The music isn't everyone's cup of tea, but Sheena Easton's title is one of my favorite Bond songs.  I played the Bill Conti score to death, and still like it today.  Maybe too brassy and 80s to be Bond, but a more rich listening experience than many of Bond's later composers.  Granted, this was before I got really acquainted with John Barry scores.

 

FYEO starts brisquely and slows down toward its end.  But FRWL never has its pace.  It strays from the Bond formula a bit but restores the Bond of the 60s films.  It's John Glen's homage to Peter Hunt.  I'll forgive it its faults.   It's a film that shows us that friends can turn on you in life, that your enemies sometimes have goals aligned with yours, and that meaningful relationships can still be made.  It's a Bond film that speaks to me more and more as I get older.

 

It has always been my favourite up there with FRWL.

 

I also watch it the most often too, and it is one that my wife is happy to sit through as well.



#25 Gobi-1

Gobi-1

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1529 posts
  • Location:East Texas

Posted 24 January 2016 - 09:09 AM

Here's a video review of FYEO from Oliver Harper's youtube channel. He has a lot of Bond content so check 'em out.