For Your Eyes Only bears not the slightest resemblance to the Ian Fleming novel of the same title, but emerges as one of the most thoroughly enjoyable of the 12 Bond pix [to date] despite fact that many of the usual ingredients in the successful 007 formula are missing.
For Your Eyes Only is a solid adventure, although it could have been better. There's enough action to hold those with even a short attention span, and Roger Moore's deft charm hasn't yet begun to wear thin.
What a fantastic time Bond movie this is! The film is filled with car chases, gorgeous women, underwater scenes, and chases in the snow once more. Or to put it another way, a Bond movie. But that is also this film's only flaw—it isn't sufficiently unique or unique.
To evaluate For Your Eyes Only and the other Bond movies, it helps to think of them not as, say, different vintages of a fine Bordeaux but as successive models off the Pontiac assembly line. In one vehicle there may be an annoying ping in the engine of narrative; in another the dialogue may be as sleek as Genuine Corinthian Leather. But all meet the same standards of speed, styling and emotion control. If there is no Rolls-Royce in the Bond series, there is also no Pinto.
Moore just looks confused. He obviously wants to do his thing then hit the bar for cocktails, but John Glen is nagging him to add a roughness to the slick exterior. Equally, it just doesn’t fit. The news is clear, there’s only so far you can push a Bond before it breaks.
This is not the best of the Roger Moore Bonds(The Spy Who Loved Me) but it isn't the worst(a tie between **** and A View to a Kill) either- it is a film with its pros and cons and as an entry in the Bond franchise it is actually pretty solid.
CONS: There is nothing new really in the plot, there is little really of surprises. Also some of the humour came across as rather goofy and misjudged while Bill Conti's score is rather disappointing in the forgettable sense.(the theme song was pretty good though)
PROS: The set pieces are truly spectacular, even if the gadgetry and stuff is toned down here, while the cinematography and scenery are excellent. The direction and parts of the script are solid too and the pacing is fairly brisk, while I had little to criticise the acting. Roger Moore shows more grit than usual while Carole Bouquet is very classy as Melina. John Glover is suitably subdued, while there is a colourful turn from Topol and it was a surprise to see Chales Dance as a killer.
In conclusion, not great but solid enough. 7/10 Bethany Cox.
Having watched 25 Bonds from **** to Skyfall, I place this one at 12/25.
For Your Eyes Only is fairly simple: it's a generic Moore Bond, with a villain whose time onscreen is massively misused, and it has no exceptional qualities in its story, actors, or style.
But I believe that for its time, and perhaps even for much later in the series history, it has the best action of perhaps the whole franchise. There's a sense of real violence in the strikes, the shots, the moments. The ending sadly is quite boring, and there's a bunch of really poorly made scenes, but the overall movie is visually appealing and its action scenes, in the snow and the mountains particularly, are extremely well made. It's the only Bond movie to have 15 minutes of action scenes upon action scenes, and I still didn't feel bored or that it overstayed its welcome.
Otherwise, it's another Moore Bond, not his best, not one of his bad ones. They tried to give it a twist with a friend that turns villain, but he has so little character during his scenes that it's a moot effort. A special mention to Carole Bouquet, who was truly beautiful.
FOR YOUR EYES ONLY is a 1981 action and adventure film involving James Bond played by Roger Moore... There are a few good scenes such as ••• Roger Moore and Q (Desmond Llewellyn) identifying a villain on screen using Moore's description and Q messes up and Roger Moore says "His nose is not a banana, Q!" before eventually getting a match after a print out of the villain and his details. ••• James Bond climbing up a rock face with a badguy at the top trying to smash some clips above that are holding Roger Moore dangling from a cliff so that's all that's supporting him in terms of safety so in theory trying to kill Roger Moore so he falls but Roger Moore climbs up the cliff using rope and strangely his shoe laces before reaching the top and throwing a knife at the badguy before he plummets to his death... We have a beautiful Lynne Holly-Johnson who seduces Roger Moore who plays James Bond but Roger Moore refuses to sleep with her on the basis she's still a kid. A Lotus car similar to the one or the same as the one in The Spy Who Loved Me but painted a reddish colour and used to no great effort or effect. Carole Bouquet as a horribly unsexy Bond girl and who seems dull and uninteresting at times and boring and she uses a crossbow weapon, the villains are laughable and some of the characters are stupid and unnecessary. The under water scenes **** and some of the action is poorly done and the story isn't great. One of Roger Moore's worst Bond films that feels flat most of the time.
All in all, this is one of the worst of the Bond films and is really one of the entries that taint Roger Moore's run in the franchise. It is any wonder that Roger Moore managed to stay in the role after this atrocity. It's bad and there is little redemption to be had outside of the rather well done action sequences. Moore comes back for...more but we will discuss that ****