For Your Eyes Only (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Empire Admin -> For Your Eyes Only (27/4/2006 12:08:28 PM)

Post your comments on this article




Manfrendshensindshen -> Moore's best (For Me, That Is) (4/2/2007 2:30:05 AM)

After the awful Moonraker and right before Moore turned into 00Geriatric, Rog tried his hand at a serious Bond. FYEO doesn't bother with ridiculous gadgets and non-stop oneliners, but instead relies on the classic From Russia With Love Formula: there's no monstrous villain's lair, no fun henchman, but a serious sense of threat, relatively simple décor and a keen eye for atmosphere. Which is all the better for it, as it thus really stands out from the mostly utterly mediocre Moore era.

The cast (Julian Glover as the baddie, Topol as the dubious helping hand and the wonderful Carole Bouquet as a rather serious Bond girl) is able and the action scenes well-conducted, including the best skiing sequences since On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

FYEO's main problem lies with Sir Roger himself - he doesn't seem at ease with the fact that this Bond is given some actual work to do instead of just bedding girls and barking out witty jokes. This would have been an excellent starting point for one Timothy Dalton, though. Shame.




Bond -> For Your Eyes Only (12/5/2007 4:02:43 PM)

This film was a great improvement for Bond espacially after the appalling Moonraker. For once this Bond film was low tech, and this one reminded me of From Russia With Love, FRWL is better though. That caused a problem for this film though, Moore wasen't quite used to it. This film tried to have a more serious Bond, which it suceded with but Moore looks uncomfortable in the role, for the first time. A good thing about this film is that it has a good solid plot, which with some of the Moore Bond films haven't got. The plot is intelligent and exciting and the script is good. The Bond girl is probably the worst one, apparently the actress used to be a man. Anyway a good films, but does suffer from some bad acting.




RJNeb2 -> RE: For Your Eyes Only (20/5/2008 12:28:10 PM)


After the excesses of "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "Moonraker", everything gets reeled back to basics for what is probably Moore's best Bond movie. It tells an interesting tale of double-crosses as various parties vie to obtain a valuable decoding device, Moore seems more invested in his role and has a feisty female sidekick this time around. There are some miscalculations - Bill Conti's awful disco score, and an ill-advised Margaret Thatcher parody at the end - but generally this is sterling stuff.




matty_b -> RE: For Your Eyes Only (14/6/2008 8:30:11 AM)

My review from www.hollywoodbitchslap.com

Ask any casual film punter about 'For Your Eyes Only' and the response will probably be "Er, which one was that?" "The one in Greece" "Right. With George Lazen-what's his face?" "No, with Roger Moore" "Er, pass?". A great shame that 'For Your Eyes Only' has slipped from everyone's memory as it's one of the best and Roger Moore's finest two hours as Bond.
 
After a dizzying bout of helicopter flying and apparently finishing Blofeld off, we have the drippy Sheena Easton ballad (notable only for the fact we see her singing it during the credit sequence).

After the excesses of 'Moonraker' we have a much more down to Earth plot. A submarine command unit, the ATAC device has been sunk off the coast of Greece and a pair of divers assigned to find it have been murdered. Bond is sent to find the murderer and recover the device before it can be sold to the Russians and put Britain's entire submarine force into their hands. This teams Bond up with the divers orphaned daughter Melinda (Carole Boquet) and into a conflict between two men, Kristatos (Julian Glover) and Columbo (Topol).

The reason that people tend to forget 'For Your Eyes Only' is because it isn't a Roger Moore film at all really. In terms of mood, tone and plotting it's like an early Sean Connery or as a sequel to 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'. This tone is set right from the start as it opens with Bond visiting his wife's grave for the first and only time in he series. And throughout there's a theme of personal vengeance, mainly from Melinda trying to kill her parents murderers. However this is done with intelligence and the killings aren't just tossed off with a quip and a smile. This is the first Bond film in an age, that's genuinely tough and gritty.

This is best represented in Moore's best performance as Bond. Gone are the quips and smugness that ruined his performance in 'Moonraker', and instead we have a toughness, edge and depth that was Connery's trademark. Just watch the scene where he disposes of an assassin by quietly reminding him of who he's killed before his face twists and he boots him off a cliff. It's a remarkable scene and Moore's single-best moment as Bond. The treatment of women has also noticeably improved. He doesn't want to bed Melinda instantly and is far more concerned with getting her out of danger. He also turns a girl down at one point because - gasp! - he's too old for her.

The plot's intelligent too, actually going back to proper spying and intrigue instead of being gadget-laden (hardly any gadgets and Bond doesn't even know who the villain is for the first hour).

But if all this sounds boring, then you should also bear in mind that this contains some of the finest action sequences seen in a Bond. John Glen shows all his experience of working on previous Bonds, as he shows a steady hand and great eye for a action that's thrilling, but never silly or out of tone. A car chase with Bond and Melinda in a VW Beatle stands out for the sheer fact that the car's about to drop to pieces any minute. And action such as a ski/tobogan chase and a vertigo-inducing assault on a monastery, are comparable with anything seen before or since.

Boquet stands out as a Bond girl that's genuinely beautiful, and not just sexy, with real brains and purpose to her exceptionally-written character. There's a sad lack of M here after Bernard Lee's death (two faceless Defence ministers step in) but we get far more of Q instead. Glover and Topol go for understated and over-the-top for their roles to make them effective, if unmemorable. Although the villian does display a great sadistic edge by keel-hauling Bond and Melinda. Michael Gothard as the ruthless hitman Locque gives the film a cold core of villainy the main villain perhaps lacks, saying a lot with no dialogue at all.

All in all, the characters display the virtue of great writing over cartoonish writing.

If you're one of the many that's also forgotten 'For Your Eyes Only' you should really do yourself a favour and re-discover it, if for nothing else to put it in its rightful place as one of the best Bonds ever. After all it's the best Sean Connery Bond that Sean Connnery never made.




bedraggledfox -> (11/2/2009 4:58:23 PM)

Moonraker: Tipping the balance into absurdity, maybe. Critical derision, not quite. Many reviewers of the day quoted Moonraker as a 'fun, summer extravaganza', and 'you might as well stuff yourself silly now'.

The action in FYEO is extremely tame, and the score for the Citreon CV chase and ski chase in particular are terrible. Bond deserved better films in the 80s- virtually all the films released up until '89 seem old-fashioned, which considering this was post-Star Wars and betwixt-Indiana Jones sequels- I could have sworn that films had moved so much further from what we see in these films. The direction seems flat and with no depth. And I would have preferred the staple, commando style battle at the end, which could have been scored also. Topol's friends could have had more involvement in it too. I appreciate the turn to more realistic adventure, but FYEO is a film that forgets to have fun.

The opinion on whether it is better or worse than Moonraker is often split down the middle. No matter how many times I see I couldn't find anything that redeemable about it.




rwillis122 -> Bond Travesty (23/3/2009 4:57:59 PM)

You know your in trouble when from the opening set-piece a rubbish Blofeld bossman( in an obvious ill-fitting rubber bald hairpiece) is being dispatched down a chimney. Roger Moore was looking old and past it; the action was Benny Hillesque with speeded up stunt work. I could go on endlessly, but I'm half way through watching the bleeder as I type this, and cannot stand it anymore. An hour of my life I will never get back. It's going off NOW!!
Utter bollocks then. The extra star is for the fact that it's so bad it's almost funny. Avoid, unless you've had several Vodka Martinis.




napchier -> A back to basics Bond. (17/1/2013 4:35:13 PM)

Most certainly a strong Roger 'Bond' in a style reminiscent of the Connery 'Bonds.' Having just gone through the entire Bluray box set, this was a very, very welcome return to form following Moonraker, which was really quite dreadful in my opinion.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.078125