78 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

When it comes to some of the Roger Moore films, I've found that For Your Eyes Only differs greatly in opinion on CBn. While the general consensus of many books about Bond seems to be that this is one of the top 2 or 3 Moore Bond films (and the MGM VHS even mentions Roger Moore's best performance on the box), the views on here are decidedly different.

Personally, while the "down to earth" policy worked out okay, this film loss some things that I think became very evident and successful in many of the Moore Bond films: fantasy and fun. Won't go into details on why I think those elements work for films like The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, and Octopussy because we're talking For Your Eyes Only here. A taut thriller works very well, but For Your Eyes Only just seems to meddle around in certain scenes. I never found the car scene to be particularly memorable, nor the last part of the finale. While the rock climb is indeed a great scene, once Bond gets atop the mountain, some of the tension goes away in my opinion.

What do you think of For Your Eyes Only? Overrated? Underrated?

[Tarl_Cabot]

My thoughts from 2 years ago:

http://debrief.comma...topic=11657&hl=

I posted this in another thread:

"FYEO is in my opinion the most purely entertaining Bond film.It's not exactly my favorite but it has a great balance of fun, romance, locales, seriousness, comedy and genuine intrigue. I would like to see a film like it again.It had a great song,a fun score(I like Conti's disco!)the ski,underwater and casino stuff all in one film, making it a quintesential Bond film experience. And it was my first in a theater too!:"

I thought this topic deserved a thread.I think 'From Russia' is the finest film in the series. Goldfinger is the most iconic. Thunderball is Bond at his peak.OHMSS has a great story and real romance.'The Living Daylights' is like Bond for adults (and Fleming fans).But FYEO is my choice as the most entertaining film.It hits on all cylinders of escapist entertainment.

The classic elements are in place:Humor,action that serves the story (and is not too contrived like TWINE) Ski chases,underwater action,Casino scenes,interesting support players like Topol,a great song, locales that enchant, a fun low-performance car chase,and a classy, intelligent and beautiful Bond girl; she may not be an 'equal' in terms of combat ability like the she-bots of recent films but she's certainly worthy of respect...and Roger's conversation with Kristatos about dinner and the choice of wine...very Fleming!

And a Bloefeld appearence to boot! What's not to like?

[Qwerty]

Added a poll.

[K1Bond007]

I have no opinion, I guess. I don't think it is the best and I don't think it is the worst. The pacing of the film is rather slow for my tastes, but it's still a good film.

[Qwerty]

Yeah, I deliberately left out a "It's okay" option here. I'm definitely interested to see which of the two main choices is dominating this poll in a few days.

[bryonalston]

I agree whole-heartedly Tarl. FYEO is one of the few (very few) Bond films I can watch over and over again consecutively and not get tired of. I find myself to get very involved with the story (even though I know what's going to happen.) I *LOVE* the car-chase, adore the disco-themed score, and still feel tension during the climbing scene. I do feel that Roger Moore gave his best performance as Bond (MR was a close second, but he was pretty much channeling Simon Templar with that performance.) The movie actually succeeds without a bunch of gadgets and overdrawn gags (the gag with the drinking man only made a very brief appearance.) I could go on and on about this movie, but it definitely is NOT a bore, it's MOORE than enough to give Connery a run for his money!

[Johnnie]

I enjoyed the movie. The car chase down the mountain was really cool.The highjacked Helicopter sceen were Bond kills Bloefeld was neat. A beautiful Bond girl Melina. Exotic locations.Very enjoyable movie.

I love the line "put some cloths and I will buy you an ice cream."

[Turn]

Qwerty, I think maybe you should have waited until the CBn main page review of FYEO to put this thread up, but here it is.

I do rank FYEO way down my list of favorite Bond films. It's the first new film that came out after I became a huge, rather than casual, Bond fan. My enjoyment of Moonraker two years before helped spark my new, serious interest in Bond.

I remember going to the drive-in theater all charged up for FYEO. My local newspaper even ran the full thong and all ad; what wasn't there to like for a 14-year-old? So why did I leave that night feeling underwhelmed?

I think part of the problem was they took the all-out anything goes approach out completely and in returning things to earth it came with a thud. Let's take Moore and put him in an early Connery film situation and to be safe, put in big things that worked in the past as far as stunts and situations - car chase, check; ski chase, check; underwater action, check.

Mad Magazine's parody For Your Thighs Only, hit it right on the mark when it showed how the underwater action was better in TB and the skiing better in OHMSS and TSWLM.

The ski chase was fine, but it was just guys out to get Bond, not the threat they posed in OHMSS. The underwater section was simply one of the most boring stretches in any Bond film for me. How anybody can complain about Thunderball when slogging through this for however long it was is beyond me. For instance, was that nerdy guy in the mini sub really necessary? I am surpised so many people like the car chase. Yeah, it was different to see Bond in non-gadgeted car, but he did the same thing in OHMSS to better effect. The climb and keelhaul were decent enough, though, as far as action goes.

As far as other action goes, FYEO has to rank among the least sexy Bonds of all. This is where the PC element seemed to be creeping in more than ever.

The Mad Magazine thing also joked about the villains not including anything near a Goldfinger or Blofeld. And that's another big problem I have with FYEO: it contains some of the least interesting characters. I like Columbo a lot, he's a great character, and something I wish they'd give Bond in the future, another male mentor type. The rest of the characters are
-Melina is okay, but a bit vague. She's more of a Bond companion than Bond woman, though.
-Kristatos is a very bland villain, more of a cad than a true threat to Bond. I've always liked Julian Glover, but the character is lacking.
-Locque. His resume sounded more interesting than he was made out to be. The silent thing was kind of cool, but Grant did the same thing to better effect. At least I believed Locque was deadly unlike:
-Kriegler. Red Grant clone, plain and simple. Love the way you throw that bike. Even Stamper was more intimidating.
-Bibi. What did she add to this film?
-Brink. She seems like she could have had a more substantial part. There seemed more there than we got.
-Countess Lisl. Just a Bond plaything, nothing more.
-Ferrara. Just a sacrificial lamb, nothing more. Battles Chuck Lee as least interesting Bond assistant.
-Tanner. Supposed to be Bond's best friend according to Fleming, but here he is little more than a blustering bureaucrat. Isn't that Frederick Grey's responsibility? Bernard Lee, you were sorely missed.

Like TSWLM, I've really tried to like FYEO over the years, but forcing it to be Fleming like and toning Moore's successful characterization to be more in that direction didn't seem comfortable. I thought it worked as a better balance in OP two years later.

[Loomis]

Yeah, I deliberately left out a "It's okay" option here.

Which is what I'd have gone for.

Otherwise, yes, it's a bore, and one of the worst in the series. A dull, flat, plodding affair that could have used much more lightness of touch. Had it been exactly the same film, but with the jokey, fun-for-all-the-family tone of MOONRAKER or OCTOPUSSY, I'm sure it would have been a blast. As it is, it's something of a damp squib. Has its moments, though.

[DLibrasnow]

Qwerty, I think maybe you should have waited until the CBn main page review of FYEO to put this thread up,

I placed it at number 3 in the countdown threads...my review there speaks for itself...one of the best 007 pictures.


I really didn't like it when I first saw it at the theater...I had been a big fan of MOONRAKER two years earlier and was hoping for more of the same...but FYEO has improved in my ratings over subsequent years.-

[Kara Milovy]

I can't answer this survey. FYEO comes out squarely in the middle of my ranking, at #14 (of 21), with a rating of 7/10, which is to say, it gets a B.

But I disagree about your reasoning. I don't find FYEO boring, I find it disjointed. I will excerpt my (soon to be published! Yay! ) review:

For Your Eyes Only is a fairly good Bond film, but overrated. Fans of Roger Moore point to it as

Edited by Kara Milovy, 15 September 2005 - 02:17 PM.

[Kingdom Come]

I've a chicken to put in the oven so I haven't read these posts! just a line here and there but I have to say that this threads title made me laugh out loud!!! 'a bore'!!!

Well I like the film and it is very colourful but when I saw it for the first time I was VERY disappointed. It does have 2 of the very best sequences in the series' history - Bond/Melena being dragged underwater and the climb to St Cyril's. But for me this was the downturn in the series that lasted until Goldeneye. As a story it is very dull and univolving like Octopussy's / A View To A Kill's / The Living Daylights and Licence To Kill's. I never liked Maibaum's scripts nor Wilson's.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

-Tanner. Supposed to be Bond's best friend according to Fleming, but here he is little more than a blustering bureaucrat. Isn't that Frederick Grey's responsibility? Bernard Lee, you were sorely missed.

Yeah that bugged me too, he seemed meaner to him than M. 'Freddy' Grey and Roger always seemed to get along in the friend capacity.

[marktmurphy]

It's a little dull, but oddly has (apart from Tomorrow Never Dies) the best action scenes in the whole series in the car and ski chases. Not the best in the series- Bond just doesn't work in a 'gritty' and 'down to earth' style- it's boring.

[Jim]

It's... um

It...

It exists.

I s'pose.

Shruggable. Will watch it for a bit if it's on.

Still, better than Octopussy. But then being eaten from the inside by a ravenous rat is better than Octopussy. Considerably better, ackshley.

[spynovelfan]

Reading Bret Easton Ellis again, Jim?

Thanks for reminding me of the image, anyway.

[Jim]

Reading Bret Easton Ellis again, Jim?

Thanks for reminding me of the image, anyway.

Indeed. Living the dream, in fact. Digressing hugely from the subject of this flatulent old film, he would be a super-duper new Bond writer chap.

[DLibrasnow]

Likewise, there is the otherwise inexplicable presence of Bibi Dahl, and the several meaningless scenes with her in them.

Of course everyone who has been on CBn for sometime knows that I will always jump up in defense of the Bibi character.

Being 9 years old when the movie was in the theaters I had a schoolboy crush on Lynn Holly Johnson. I also find her character a lot of fun and more full-of-life than any of the other actresses in the picture.

[Turn]

Likewise, there is the otherwise inexplicable presence of Bibi Dahl, and the several meaningless scenes with her in them.

Of course everyone who has been on CBn for sometime knows that I will always jump up in defense of the Bibi character.

Being 9 years old when the movie was in the theaters I had a schoolboy crush on Lynn Holly Johnson. I also find her character a lot of fun and more full-of-life than any of the other actresses in the picture.

Understood and I agree with her adding much-needed life to the project. But when alls said and done, she works to what end? She's just as superfluous eye candy to bring in the pre and adolsecent audience and only different in that sense than the girls sitting around Gonzalez's pool.

[tonymascia1]

Tarl_Cabot and bryonalston are 100% dead on.

FYEO is a fairly low-key yet well-crafted thriller that holds up well today. While it's not quite From Russia With Love, it's damn close.

I don't mind the lack of gadgets or the more restrained humor; the movie works.

[marktmurphy]

FYEO is a fairly low-key yet well-crafted thriller that holds up well today.  While it's not quite From Russia With Love, it's damn close.

From Russia With Love was a decent movie they made before they knew how to make Bond movies. Not sure what the excuse for FYEO's dullness was.

[DLibrasnow]

-Kristatos is a very bland villain, more of a cad than a true threat to Bond. I've always liked Julian Glover, but the character is lacking.
-Locque. His resume sounded more interesting than he was made out to be. The silent thing was kind of cool, but Grant did the same thing to better effect. At least I believed Locque was deadly unlike:
-Kriegler. Red Grant clone, plain and simple. Love the way you throw that bike. Even Stamper was more intimidating.

Kristatos is actrually one of my favorite villains...he's not as OTT. There's a certain menace to him and Glover plays the part perfectly. I also like Locque and wish that he hadn't been dispatched so soon. Still his death did provide for a great moment.

I'm always amused when people say that FYEO did not have a big enough plot because Bond is attempting to stop the hijacking of control of the entire British polaris fleet.

Two movies earlier it was just one British submarine - here it is the whole fleet and the subsequent nuclear strike on British cities. In many ways it is one of the biggest plots. It certainly had more relevance to Britain than say Sanchez's drug operation did in LTK.

[Qwerty]

Qwerty, I think maybe you should have waited until the CBn main page review of FYEO to put this thread up, but here it is.

No biggie. This can be something we can compare to the For Your Eyes Only reviews when I mainpage those.

[tdalton]

I really like For Your Eyes Only, and have it ranked #2 behind The Living Daylights. It was definitely Roger Moore's finest Bond film, and easily one of the best in the series, IMO.

[Turn]

I'm always amused when people say that FYEO did not have a big enough plot because Bond is attempting to stop the hijacking of control of the entire British polaris fleet.

Two movies earlier it was just one British submarine - here it is the whole fleet and the subsequent nuclear strike on British cities. In many ways it is one of the biggest plots. It certainly had more relevance to Britain than say Sanchez's drug operation did in LTK.

I'll agree with you there, which is why I didn't mention it, although I don't remember whether I did or not in my other review. It's certainly a Bond situation, and he's doing what he normally does, going after something that could cause chaos in the world. The ATAC is more threatening than the Lektor, even if the dangers seem a little less realistic.

Don't agree on the comparison to LTK. It's apples and oranges really considering it's a purely personal mission and not a secret service mission.

[Mr. Somerset]

FYEO was always one of my favourite Moore films growing up. Great collection of stunt-work and setpieces. Also, Moore has a harder edge this time. The other characters, obviously seem to be more in the FRWL/OHMSS vein, and not so fantistical. Topol is one of my favourite Moore allies.
My main flaw with the film, now, is the absence of John Barry to provide an atmospheric film with the appropriate score. It seems the film is often remembered for Bill Conti's outdated music. A shame really, as it defeats the purpose of the film having a FRWL feel .

[Righty007]

I've started to warm up to For Your Eyes Only but I still think it's boring at some parts. I love the score, though.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

Let's take Moore and put him in an early Connery film situation and to be safe, put in big things that worked in the past as far as stunts and situations - car chase, check; ski chase, check; underwater action, check.

Bang on.

It's very underwhelming as a Moore Bond film. Stick Connery or Dalton in there and you may have something, though. Even the comedy bits in it are pretty dry in comparison to the other Moore outings. Although I always find the bit with the foreign guy doing a bellyflop because of an arrow in the back to be pretty damn funny.

Admittedly, I haven't sat through the whole thing in years, so it may not be as slow as I remember. Like it better than A View To A Kill, at least.

[freemo]

Yup, it's a bore. No colour, no dash. It's just so "blah". Where's the panache? Where's the element of the bizarre? I'm not asking for Moonraker-levels of bizarreness, but give us something. Here we have no memorable dialouge, no grand set pieces, or much of anything really.

It's not all bad of course. Part where they drag they along the coral is the best bit (when in doubt, throw in some sharks), and the rock climbing bit is well done and one of the more suspenseful scenes we've had in a Bond film. But aside from that?

The first one not to offer anything new. The first "just another Bond film".

[Genrewriter]

I give it an above average rating simply because it's so odd to see Moore in a Bond film that is more like a Dalton outing than the usual fare up to that point. While I do agree that the stuff after the rock climbing stunt is pretty drab, it works well enough for the tone set by the rest of the movie. What makes it work for me are the ski chase, Roger Moore's quite excellent job as Bond, Julian Glover's low key villain and Columbo. Is iot Moore's best? Not as long as prints of Octopussy and The Spy Who Loved Me are still available. Does it work as a more down to earth 007 flick? Yeah, despite a rather blah ending and some slow patches here and there it does. It's a nice change of pace.