MovieChat Forums > For Your Eyes Only (1981) Discussion > who else thought this movie sucked?

who else thought this movie sucked?

posted 10 years ago by mrrockey
26 replies | jump to latest

I'm sorry, Bond fans, but I thought this was one of the worst installments in the series. Carole Bouquet was extremely flat and wooden in it, Moore started looking old and unconvincing here, the dialogue scenes are boring, the score is RIDICULOUSLY dated, the brief appearance of Blofeld is embarrassing, the usual tongue-in-cheek humor feels out of place here with the more serious story, and the message of the film about how revenge is the wrong path to go down on is completely ruined at the end when Columbo just kills Kristatos anyways! I may be in the minority on this but who else thought this film sucked?

[–] thelastfaceyouwillsee 10 years ago

The premise of the mission is fine but I hate the pre-titles sequence, the Bill Conti score and the p!ss-poor humour so prevalent during the Moore/Glen era especially the Thatcher kitchen epilogue. Carole Bouquet looks pretty but there is no chemistry between her and Moore. As for the plot here didn't seem to be any real threat - where was the danger, especially since it gets resolved by throwing the ATAC odd the mountain. Was it the only one in existence? How would that cause the Russians to laughingly withdraw and not gun down the foreign agents in their grasp. Gogol didn't seem to even recognise Bond.

It's my least favourite Bond movie.

"Remember, you have to make it home to get paid" (The Dogs of War)

[–] philoj 7 years ago

Carole Bouquet looks pretty

Every time I watch the movie, I'm startled that with legs like hers, the aquatic / scuba scenes, and the movie poster, her legs get so little screen time and are never framed well.

--
Philo's Law: To learn from your mistakes, you have to realize you're making mistakes.

[–] mrrockey 10 years ago

bump

[–] MarraHorra 10 years ago

I liked it as a kid and I still like it now. Yes bits of it are dated, but in a good way as I personally dig the 80s!

[–] shabdo 10 years ago

well, even though Columbo & Kristatos were long time enemies/rivals, I don't think Columbo killed him out of revenge, but to save Bond's life....remember, Kristatos had pulled a knife out of his pocket & was about to stab an unaware Bond with it....when ZIPP!,,,Columbo stopped him via throwing knife.

[–] mrrockey 10 years ago

Yeah, but it sorta ruins the message of the whole film.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BertramWilberforceWooster 10 years ago

It's far from the best, but it's far from the worst.

--
If I cannot smoke cigars in heaven, I shall not go!

[–] pking-2 10 years ago

The joke's on you.

You actually spent time watching Bond movies while not liking Bond movies.

Oh no. If only Bond looked two years younger! Then...you'd grant...drum roll...belief. Apparently, like you did for Moonraker, of all stories.

And, no, tongue in cheek humor is never out of place in Bond. Nor are contemporary scores designed to be dated. (Damn, I hate that Matt Munro sounds like he's from the sixties! Bond movies are DATED! That Shirley Bassey sounds like she's from another generation, can you believe it!?!?!! Oh no, Duran Duran is so eighties!)

And if you thought the message was that revenge was the wrong path...you really don't qualify to post another syllable about James Bond. You can't even identify what you're watching, accurately.

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

[–] mrrockey 10 years ago

You actually spent time watching Bond movies while not liking Bond movies.

When did I ever say I don't like Bond movies in general? I just happened not to like THIS Bond movie.

Oh no. If only Bond looked two years younger! Then...you'd grant...drum roll...belief.

Well, it's hard to suspend your disbelief that a man of this age can do all these theatrics. Unless if he was Jackie Chan or Chuck Norris, THEN I might buy this a little more.

And, no, tongue in cheek humor is never out of place in Bond.

It is if the writers were trying to tell a serious, dramatic story. Imagine if there were gags like the bit with Margaret Thatcher in Casino Royale. Imagine how out-of-place it'd be.

Nor are contemporary scores designed to be dated.

What the hell...

Bond movies are DATED! That Shirley Bassey sounds like she's from another generation, can you believe it!?!?!! Oh no, Duran Duran is so eighties!)

To quote The Angry Video Game Nerd, there's a difference between something that's old-school and outdated. Old-school means something that's definitely not from our generation, but still enjoyable to this day. Outdated means something you never want to go back to. Shirley Bassey and Duran Duran's music were old-school, not outdated. This film's score was.

And if you thought the message was that revenge was the wrong path...you really don't qualify to post another syllable about James Bond. You can't even identify what you're watching, accurately.

Okay, then tell me. What's the real message of this film? And why are you acting as if James Bond is something so special and precious? They're just silly spy flicks most of the time. They're not high-art, son.

This was one of the stupidest posts I've ever read. Go *beep* yourself.

[–] pking-2 10 years ago

I just happened not to like THIS Bond movie.

But you like the rest? Tell the truth, now.

Well, it's hard to suspend your disbelief that a man of this age can do all these theatrics. Unless if he was Jackie Chan or Chuck Norris, THEN I might buy this a little more.

Is it hard?

There's no rational reason for it to be hard to accept. Moore at 52 can do what Moore at 48 what Connery at 34 what Craig at 38 can do, after all. Utterly negligible actual difference.

Sure, I know you're not alone. Folks say this. "I can accept that Moore can do <whatver magic Bond has up his sleeve> but not when you add a few wrinkles to his face. Then, of course its hard to do!" It's valid. Valid nonsense. But valid, like any opinion.

You either watch a Bond film wanting to grant belief or wanting to withhold it. It's up to you. It's not logically up to a bit of a receding hairline or 10 lbs of fat whether or not one can do the winter olympics while being chased by assassins or fly space shuttles and so on.

It is if the writers were trying to tell a serious, dramatic story.

No they weren't.

They were clearly trying to tell a story that had serious parts and comedy parts.

It's just not to your taste.

But you're wrong to say they failed in trying to tell a serious story; they never tried simply for that. By a long (delicatessen) long (hockeysassin) long(Margaret Thatcher) shot.

What the hell...

You think they insert trendy music because they think it will "age well?" That it will be the style 30 years later?

They never ever never ever ever try for that. They want Bond to be contemporary to the year the movie comes out. Every damn movie.

And Bond fans are typically appreciative of this. Which you claim to be one of...hmmm...

While not liking that an old franchise seems old in style. It has old music. And a tongue in cheek franchise (particularly Roger's era) was tongue in cheek. And that its not really believable to do what James does.

there's a difference between something that's old-school and outdated. Old-school means something that's definitely not from our generation, but still enjoyable to this day. Outdated means something you never want to go back to. Shirley Bassey and Duran Duran's music were old-school, not outdated. This film's score was.

Blah blah blah. If you like it you grant your "old-school" compliment and if its not to your taste you snipe at it as "outdated."

It's not about the merit of the music. Arbitrary. Subjective.

Those who like the FYEO disco stuff get a kick out if it for "old school's" sake. That's it.

Just like those who like the brassy jazzy stuff like Bassey and those who like Techno still get some joy from Madonna's Die Another Day. And the next style that comes along, same deal.

What's the real message of this film?

Bond films ain't big on heavy messages, period. Particularly back in Roger's old school days.

But it's mild, half-assed message about revenge was, at best, that it would be better for James to bear the burden so that Melena could remain, relatively, unscathed. In thematic form, best to leave revenge to the James Bonds of the world.

And why are you acting as if James Bond is something so special and precious?

But I thought you were a big Bond fan, like me? (See your protestations, above.)

If so, you already know the answer to that question.

If not....you'd ask.

They're just silly spy flicks most of the time. They're not high-art, son.

I know what they are. They are held in very high esteem to some of us.

My point is you're not one, therefore that's why you don't like FYEO. It's pretty simple, really. You complain about things you're not a fan of, which means the joke really is on you. You could have been choosing to take in art that you hold in high esteem, stuff that is not silly to you, instead.

Listen, of course you can be a big time Bond fan and not like a Bond movie, FYEO included. Just, ponder whether its because FYEO sucks (your premise) or that FYEO is a Bond movie that isn't your sort of Bond movie because you only like different parts of the Bond franchise...you're not so big a franchise fan as to like its seventies stylings, or its juxtaposition of serious and comedy...or its half-assed never wholehearted theming...

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

[–] mrrockey 10 years ago

But you like the rest? Tell the truth, now.

I just did. I like MOST of the rest. And why do you make it sound like I've been lying to you this entire time or I've been contradicting myself a lot? In my OP, all I said was that I thought this movie sucked, not ALL James Bond movies suck. You need to learn to read carefully and stop putting words in my mouth.

Is it hard?

There's no rational reason for it to be hard to accept. Moore at 52 can do what Moore at 48 what Connery at 34 what Craig at 38 can do, after all. Utterly negligible actual difference.

Sure, I know you're not alone. Folks say this. "I can accept that Moore can do <whatver magic Bond has up his sleeve> but not when you add a few wrinkles to his face. Then, of course its hard to do!" It's valid. Valid nonsense. But valid, like any opinion.

You either watch a Bond film wanting to grant belief or wanting to withhold it. It's up to you. It's not logically up to a bit of a receding hairline or 10 lbs of fat whether or not one can do the winter olympics while being chased by assassins or fly space shuttles and so on.

It's not just that he's old, it also has to do with the fact that Moore just doesn't look very fit or athletic to begin with. Not that he was out-of-shape or anything but I would've bought him a little more as an action star at this age if he put on a few pounds at the gym or something like Stallone did at 60-years-old when making Rocky Balboa. But since he didn't, seeing him do all those theatrics just can't help but make me think of stunt doubles.

No they weren't.

They were clearly trying to tell a story that had serious parts and comedy parts.

It's just not to your taste.

But you're wrong to say they failed in trying to tell a serious story; they never tried simply for that. By a long (delicatessen) long (hockeysassin) long(Margaret Thatcher) shot.

If they weren't, then why were they trying to deal with REVENGE as one of their topics? It is a pretty serious subject matter, after all. And it's not just that they incorporated HUMOR that bothered me. The problem is that the humor they DID put in was way too corny and tongue-in-cheek for a story like this. You can HAVE humor in a serious movie but it needs to be low-key enough for us to still be able to take the story seriously, this film just went way too far in the humor department.

You think they insert trendy music because they think it will "age well?" That it will be the style 30 years later?

They never ever never ever ever try for that. They want Bond to be contemporary to the year the movie comes out. Every damn movie.

The problem isn't that the style is out-of-touch with how movies are scored today. Heck, there's a lot of 80's scores that I like such as RoboCop or First Blood. The problem with this score is that it sounds really CHEESY and SILLY in a film that's meant to be taken seriously with the whole disco-like sound to it. It might've been fine if it was in something like The Spy Who Loved Me or Octopussy but this? No.

And Bond fans are typically appreciative of this. Which you claim to be one of...hmmm...

What kind of logic is that? I'm not a Bond fan just because I don't agree with one aspect of the filmmakers'decisions that a lot of people happen to appreciate? Are you serious with this *beep*

It's not about the merit of the music. Arbitrary. Subjective.

Those who like the FYEO disco stuff get a kick out if it for "old school's" sake. That's it.

If you are gonna bring up the whole "subjective" argument, then why are you even arguing with me about this? The word subjective implies that it's all up to taste and can't be argued on a factual level so why are you arguing with me about this then?

But it's mild, half-assed message about revenge was, at best, that it would be better for James to bear the burden so that Melena could remain, relatively, unscathed. In thematic form, best to leave revenge to the James Bonds of the world.

Okay, if this was the actual message of the film and I was just reading into it wrong, it's STILL ruined towards the end of the film since he just gets murdered by Columbo who isn't even a *beep* spy! If they were really going for that message, they should have had either Bond kill him or the authority take him in where it's implied that he'll get executed eventually.

But I thought you were a big Bond fan, like me? (See your protestations, above.)

Just because I'm a Bond fan doesn't mean I need to force it down people's throats how special and precious James Bond is like you.

My point is you're not one, therefore that's why you don't like FYEO. It's pretty simple, really. You complain about things you're not a fan of, which means the joke really is on you. You could have been choosing to take in art that you hold in high esteem, stuff that is not silly to you, instead.

What the hell? I've given perfectly legit reasons for not liking this film but all you're saying is that I don't like this movie because I'm not a Bond fan, *beep* off. Am I also not a Batman fan because I don't like Batman & Robin? Good God, you're an idiot.

[–] pking-2 10 years ago

I just did. I like MOST of the rest.

There are 22 others. How many of them "suck" to you?

And why do you make it sound like I've been lying to you this entire time or I've been contradicting myself a lot?

Not trying for that.

I just think that if you really like MOST of James Bond but out-of-the-blue think FYEO "sucks" is odd.

Now, if you didn't like, say LALD, TMWTGG, MR, OP...that would make a bit more sense. You'd be a Roger-hater. There are plenty of those.

But cherry picking FYEO out of the pile for a pin of "suckage" is unusual. Possible, sure, but odd. Makes me suspect you might not be as into James as you claim, in your desire for credibility.

Because...Roger lovers like FYEO because Roger. And "serious" Bond lovers tend to be charitable towards FYEO because they try to shift that direction.

In my OP, all I said was that I thought this movie sucked, not ALL James Bond movies suck.

I know.

You need to learn to read carefully and stop putting words in my mouth.

I didn't. Reread and notice. I'm quite careful to simply respond to you, not to modify your position(s).

It's not just that he's old, it also has to do with the fact that Moore just doesn't look very fit or athletic to begin with.

He never did, though. Yet you were a big fan up til FYEO, right?

If you loved Roger in MR but then think he sucks in FYEO because suddenly he's not fit enough...you're quite the nitpick. Not a big difference, after all. James Bond looking two years older when on a mission two years after the last one you saw doesn't really seem like the sort of issue that would drive a big time Bond fan to "suckage."

If they weren't, then why were they trying to deal with REVENGE as one of their topics?

Because that's the "serious" part of "they were trying to tell a story that was partly serious and partly silly."

Only you then also concluded they were telling a story about the wrongness of revenge, which isn't true, because they usually if not always motivate Bond by revenge, to varying degrees, every story. Revenge ain't wrong for Bond. The story was simply that Bond wanted Melena to not be sullied. Not a greater statement about revenge. Heck, we're supposed to support Bond's revenge on Locque for Ferrara.

The problem is that the humor they DID put in was way too corny and tongue-in-cheek for a story like this.

I understand. This story style ain't for you.

I'm not a Bond fan just because I don't agree with one aspect of the filmmakers'decisions that a lot of people happen to appreciate?

Bond fans don't love 17 years of tongue-in-cheekiness then think tongue in cheek is cause for "suckage" all of a sudden, no.

If you are gonna bring up the whole "subjective" argument, then why are you even arguing with me about this?

Because if you were aware of this, you'd know FYEO doesn't "suck" but instead, that it is simply not the sort of Bond movie you prefer. And if you were as big of a Bond fan as you claim, you'd probably appreciate it more, since that's what Bond fans do. They like Bond movies. They don't tend to conclude the movies suck. That's what makes them fans.

he just gets murdered by Columbo who isn't even a *beep* spy!

How so? Bond isn't particularly vengeful here. Its Columbo who has a much deeper, long-standing feud and feeling for revenge on Kristatos than Bond ever did. His heart was not so heavy about his poor Lisl. Double agent betrayal of homeland during fighting in Crete, and so on.

Bond was primarily playing the game for the ATAC.

Bond knows that manly men like Bond and Columbo deserve their revenges and can handle them, and that gals like Melena should be shielded.

Hey, we're not in the "misogynist dinosaur" PC era of Bond quite yet, so try to lie back and enjoy it. Like good Bond fans do.

I need to force it down people's throats how special and precious James Bond is like you.

Well, saying a Bond movie sucks certainly accomplishes your goal of lightly selling your fanhood to us.

And if you feel like I was too forceful with "I know what they are. They are held in very high esteem to some of us" I apologize.

I've given perfectly legit reasons

I've pointed out that you've given the exact same reasons a non-Bond fan would give.

They are legit. You just don't want to own up to what not liking the humor, or the age, or the seriousness, or the period nature of the music and styles...all indicate. They indicate that the Bond franchise ain't for you....cuz they are instrinsic elements.

Am I also not a Batman fan because I don't like Batman & Robin

Depends on what you think of the rest of Batman, I suppose.

But...are you now making the point that FYEO is Bond's B&R?

you're an idiot.

Name calling. Note, you haven't been called anything worse than "not a big Bond fan."

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

[–] mrrockey 10 years ago

There are 22 others. How many of them "suck" to you?

Die Another Day, Quantum of Solace, and The Man with the Golden Gun.

I just think that if you really like MOST of James Bond but out-of-the-blue think FYEO "sucks" is odd.

What's so "odd" about this? Everybody has movies that they don't like but are really popular with the general public. Am I not allowed to have a differing opinion from the masses?

But cherry picking FYEO out of the pile for a pin of "suckage" is unusual. Possible, sure, but odd. Makes me suspect you might not be as into James as you claim, in your desire for credibility.

I never claimed to be a hardcore Bond fan, and I don't consider myself one either. I'm just a casual fan. And even if I WAS a hardcore fan, that doesn't mean I need to like this movie just because it's popular with the rest of the fans.

If you loved Roger in MR but then think he sucks in FYEO because suddenly he's not fit enough...you're quite the nitpick. Not a big difference, after all. James Bond looking two years older when on a mission two years after the last one you saw doesn't really seem like the sort of issue that would drive a big time Bond fan to "suckage."

I never said Roger's performance was BAD in this film or anything like that, all I said was that he was UNCONVINCING as an action hero at this age. Again, you need to learn to stop putting words in my mouth.

Because that's the "serious" part of "they were trying to tell a story that was partly serious and partly silly."

You can't have a story that's partly serious and partly silly. You can have a serious story with comedic elements or a silly story with serious elements but you can't have it half-half. All it does is make for a jumbled mess in tone.

Only you then also concluded they were telling a story about the wrongness of revenge, which isn't true, because they usually if not always motivate Bond by revenge, to varying degrees, every story. Revenge ain't wrong for Bond. The story was simply that Bond wanted Melena to not be sullied. Not a greater statement about revenge. Heck, we're supposed to support Bond's revenge on Locque for Ferrara.

Okay, even if the movie WASN'T about the wrongness of revenge, it's still a pretty bad message the way it says "Revenge is wrong... unless you have a licence to kill!" Does that sound like a good message to you?

Bond fans don't love 17 years of tongue-in-cheekiness then think tongue in cheek is cause for "suckage" all of a sudden, no.

Oh my God, how many times do I have to tell you this? I said that the problem isn't that it's tongue-in-cheek, but that it CLASHES with a serious story. This is the last time I'm gonna spell it out for you.

Because if you were aware of this, you'd know FYEO doesn't "suck" but instead, that it is simply not the sort of Bond movie you prefer. And if you were as big of a Bond fan as you claim, you'd probably appreciate it more, since that's what Bond fans do. They like Bond movies. They don't tend to conclude the movies suck. That's what makes them fans.

So because I'm a James Bond fan, that means I'm not allowed to criticize ANY aspect of James Bond? What kind of logic is that? That's like saying "If you love your parents, you're not allowed to disagree with them in any way whatsoever." It's just *beep* retarded.

Well, saying a Bond movie sucks certainly accomplishes your goal of lightly selling your fanhood to us.

Well, liking all Bond movies like a mindless drone just because you're a fan just makes you look like a mindless drone, not a devoted fan.

They are legit. You just don't want to own up to what not liking the humor, or the age, or the seriousness, or the period nature of the music and styles...all indicate. They indicate that the Bond franchise ain't for you....cuz they are instrinsic elements.

Just because they're "instrinsic elements" doesn't mean they always work. You need to change things up if you are trying to do something a little different which they were in this case.

But...are you now making the point that FYEO is Bond's B&R?

Stop putting words in my mouth, goddamn it!

Name calling. Note, you haven't been called anything worse than "not a big Bond fan."

No, I haven't. But you were the one who started being incredibly rude first, not me. How do you expect people to react to you when you are acting like an idiotic fanboy?

[–] pking-2 10 years ago

Wow. Four Bond movies suck to you, yet you still clambor for "I like Bond" status for cred. Okay.

Am I not allowed to have a differing opinion from the masses?

Of course.

Just like, you can think liking Bond means thinking four Bond movies suck.

You can think anything.

I never claimed to be a hardcore Bond fan, and I don't consider myself one either.

Hence, my accurate assessment that you don't like Bond movies.

Bond fans like Bond movies. NonBond fans do not. Liking a few but thinking four suck ain't fanhood. It's just par for the course. I like two Alien movies and think two suck. I don't qualify as a franchise fan. It doesn't work that way. Parts of it are for me and parts are not for me.

Parts of Bond are for you parts are not for you.

It's not really because FYEO sucks...would be the point.

It's because your taste differs. No big deal.

he was UNCONVINCING as an action hero at this age

Nobody is ever convincing as Bond. Nobody. I've never been convinced that Roger could do what Bond did. It's always entirely up to the viewer to grant or withhold for entertainment purposes, because we all know that nobody does what Bond does, convincingly.

You can't have a story that's partly serious and partly silly.

Yet here we have one.

The list of others available to us is literally too long to count...we couldn't ever finish.

Your point might be that you don't like stories that are partly serious partly silly. That point is not in question; clearly you don't.

"Revenge is wrong... unless you have a licence to kill!" Does that sound like a good message to you?

Well, "good" as in Bondlike, yeah.

I don't go to Bond movies for "good messages." That's not really what they're about, for me, for the most part. He an assassin, a bastard, and a liar and maybe a bit of a sociopath who doesn't lose sleep over the tribulations of revenge and so on. And we're supposed to hedonistically revel in his antiheroics the whole time.

it CLASHES with a serious story.

You falsely posit that the prior Bond tongue-in-cheek stuff wasn't in serious movies.

You are very wrong.

Try rewatching, well, any of them. They all put serious next to silly. It's expected.

You just don't like the way FYEO goes about it. But don't go misrepresenting the rest of an entire franchise to make your case.

I'm not allowed to criticize ANY aspect of James Bond?

Sure you can. But the more you think it sucks, the less of a fan you are. That's all. You think four Bond movies suck. That's why you don't like FYEO; there are apparently lots of things...four movies worth of things...in Bond that you think suck.

You don't like Bond very much. That's all. Some people hate Bond worse than you. It's no big deal. There's no accounting for taste and all that. But I'd dispute how much they "like Bond" too.

Granted you like Bond somewhat. That's better than nothing!

Well, liking all Bond movies like a mindless drone just because you're a fan just makes you look like a mindless drone, not a devoted fan.

So now you think that liking all Bond movies makes one a mindless drone?

Is that why you wouldn't want to be perceived as liking all movies in a franchise? Because you hold a demeaning view of those who do so? So you "like Bond" but actually find four movies not just the four weakest...but all the way down to "sucks?" Because it makes you feel better than a mindless drone?

You need to change things up if you are trying to do something a little different which they were in this case.

Because they are intrinsic, you need deeper analysis for your criticism to hold water.

Every Bond movie is stylistically period. If you don't like it...well then your issue is with the period. Meaning...you don't like disco or something. That's fine too.

But that's what Bond movies do. He wears the clothes and drives the car and there's a ditty playing from the year of release. Typically his movie is done in a trendy style of the era too, such as scifi or Bourne or Hitchcock or...

Point is...you don't like that part of Bond. Yet you choose to partake a disco era Bond, knowingly. Perhaps, masochistically.

Stop putting words in my mouth, goddamn it!

I asked you to clarify. By definition, the words are yours to illuminate.

But you were the one who started being incredibly rude first, not me.

Not at all. Reread. And grow a bit of a thicker skin.

What occurred was that you asserted that a Bond movie sucked, and your assertion was simply challenged. Don't make them if you don't want to engage. Can't stand heat, don't announce how sucky things are. You aren't the only one who gets to assess and assert, after all.

Expect the back and forth. That's why you came to a board and started a thread, after all.

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

[–] mrrockey 10 years ago

Wow. Four Bond movies suck to you, yet you still clambor for "I like Bond" status for cred. Okay.

Did you miss elementary school or something? There are 23 Bond movies in the Eon series and 26 if you include the non-Eon films. I dislike 4 out of the 23/26 Eon films which equals to 17/15%. That's not even CLOSE to the majority of Bond films! Do I have to jerk off to Ian Fleming every night before I go to bed to be considered a Bond fan?

Of course.

Just like, you can think liking Bond means thinking four Bond movies suck.

You can think anything.

Then why are you bothering me so much about it and claiming that I'm not a Bond fan because of it when you could be defending this film in an intelligent way instead?

Bond fans like Bond movies. NonBond fans do not. Liking a few but thinking four suck ain't fanhood.

Uh, 19 out of 24/26 is NOT a few.

Nobody is ever convincing as Bond. Nobody. I've never been convinced that Roger could do what Bond did. It's always entirely up to the viewer to grant or withhold for entertainment purposes, because we all know that nobody does what Bond does, convincingly.

Uh, Craig and Lazenby were PRETTY convincing to me. Especially Lazenby, who even trained with Bruce *beep* Lee! Back to Moore, I could suspend my disbelief with his earlier films since he looked quite young for his age but at this point, Moore's age REALLY started to show and it made it quite hard to suspend my disbelief that this man could survive fights with Jaws.

Yet here we have one.

The list of others available to us is literally too long to count...we couldn't ever finish.

Your point might be that you don't like stories that are partly serious partly silly. That point is not in question; clearly you don't.

Pking-2, it's Filmmaking 101 that you shouldn't try to blend two completely different tones in one movie in the same amount for both. Imagine if there were "cream pies to the face" gags in The Godfather, would you think it'd work well there?

You falsely posit that the prior Bond tongue-in-cheek stuff wasn't in serious movies.

Yeah, but they were subdued enough for us to still be able to take them seriously. This film on the other hand, just went too far with the gags.

So now you think that liking all Bond movies makes one a mindless drone?

Is that why you wouldn't want to be perceived as liking all movies in a franchise? Because you hold a demeaning view of those who do so? So you "like Bond" but actually find four movies not just the four weakest...but all the way down to "sucks?" Because it makes you feel better than a mindless drone?

No, but if there were more people like you who like all movies in a franchise without ever having ANY sort of critical-thinking and judgment just because you're a fan, THEN you're a mindless drone. If the next film was just two hours of Bond taking a *beep* you'd probably call it the best film of the year because that's how much of a mindless drone you're acting like right now.

Because they are intrinsic, you need deeper analysis for your criticism to hold water.

Why should I bother doing that when all you're gonna say is "You're not a Bond fan, mister! You're NOT!" without ever giving any real counter-arguments to what I said about this film?

Point is...you don't like that part of Bond. Yet you choose to partake a disco era Bond, knowingly. Perhaps, masochistically.

I haven't "partaken" in this film for YEARS now. I saw it maybe once or twice because I LIKE James Bond, and I LIKE Roger Moore as James Bond, that's why I saw it. And, "masochistically"? Really? It's just a *beep* MOVIE, you moron!

I asked you to clarify. By definition, the words are yours to illuminate.

I never said in my previous post that For Your Eyes Only is James Bond's equivalent to Batman & Robin in ANY way whatsoever. Does it suck? Yeah. But is it that bad? No.

Not at all. Reread. And grow a bit of a thicker skin.

Uh, you are the one who said this and I quote "And if you thought the message was that revenge was the wrong path...you really don't qualify to post another syllable about James Bond. You can't even identify what you're watching, accurately." Does that sound rude to you? Because it sure does to me. And "grow a bit of a thicker skin"? YOU'RE the one who needs to grow thicker skin, pking-2. You were clearly offended by what I had to say about this film which is why you made that stupid *beep* post of yours. And now, you say that I need to grow thicker skin? *beep* you.

[–] pking-2 10 years ago

hat's not even CLOSE to the majority of Bond films! Do I have to jerk off to Ian Fleming every night before I go to bed to be considered a Bond fan?

To simply "like" James Bond movies, you really can't think they suck. That's the way it works. Instead, you sometimes like James Bond movies, other times you think they suck. Fact.

And so...that's why you dislike FYEO.

Not because it sucks, but because you're not a fan of significant parts of the James Bond movie franchise. It's not all for you. Some of it caters to a different taste.

That's the point.

Why are you still clamboring to be perceived as someone who likes James Bond but also dislikes James Bond if it is James Bond in the style of FYEO?

Just embrace what you are. It's okay.

Some people hate James Bond. I mean, hate. Hate em all. Can't stand all JB movies. They're okay too.

But you know what? When they tell you and me that Goldfinger sucks...its not because Goldfinger sucks.

It's because they don't like James Bond. It's not about Goldfinger, which is exactly what it always has been, with or without the two cents from the nonfan considered. Rather, the assertion that "it sucks" is about their taste nothing else.

Just like your assertion, regarding For Your Eyes Only.

Get it?

So, that's the explanation. Don't continue to grasp for credibility as a Bond liker because you're not that (at least not much of a Bond liker). You have not one ounce more credibility than someone who hates Bond and could post that every single Bond movie sucks. You are exactly parallel to such a poster...the one who hates em all and wants to argue that Goldfinger and Skyfall and Dr. No and Thunderball and Goldeneye and and and all suck...except you do it on a scale simply focused on FYEO.

Now here's the kicker: this applies to everyone else everywhere telling you that ANY movie sucks. It's never true. It only indicates that the claimant has different taste than what is served by the entertainment.

So just embrace it. I do. I think On Golden Pond sucks. Does that mean it sucks? No, clearly millions love it and give it awards. Does that mean its not for me? Yes.

It's that simple. Don't be defensive about it.

why are you bothering me so much about it and claiming that I'm not a Bond fan because of it when you could be defending this film in an intelligent way instead?

Because you're not a Bond fan; you think four Bond movies suck.

And, I'm not bothering you; rather you're feeling bothered. I have defended this film and this franchise and all of moviedom, perhaps unassailably.

Your reaction is to be bothered. I'm just posting. Don't let it bother you. You don't bother me.

Uh, Craig and Lazenby were PRETTY convincing to me.

I understand.

Again, that's always a grant (or a withholding) from the viewer. It isn't, objectively, because Roger in FYEO would die but Roger in MR would prevail, because he had a few more wrinkles in FYEO. Think objectively for a moment about that claim. It's nonsense.

So, lots of people find James Bond (or action movie/fantasies) absurd because they know that NOBODY EVER could really prevail like James always does. They want another type of entertainment.

Others don't care one whit about James Bond but lap up stuff far beyond James Bond, whether its hobbits using the force to go to wizard school to defeat aliens...again its up the the viewer not up to whether the actor is two more years wrinkled than last time you saw the actor do magic.

Imagine if there were "cream pies to the face" gags in The Godfather, would you think it'd work well there?

Maybe not...but some properties rely on combining or juxtaposing tones and styles. James Bond has always been one of these.

The Godfather too, to some degree. (http://splitsider.com/2012/07/following-brandos-comedic-instincts-in-t he-godfather/)

Your assertion that its "Filmmaking 101" to stick to one tone for success is patently false. Might as well be telling me how Jaws shouldn't have tried to be both horrific and funny. Or how Star Wars shouldn't have tried to be both funny and adventurous. Or how ANY successful romantic comedy shouldn't be trying to be both romantic and comedic.

Or how Bond should be cracking jokes to Saint Bernards and machine gunning around mountaintops in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which clearly should have been a romantic tragedy and nothing but.

That just all so wrong.

This film on the other hand, just went too far with the gags.

Says you.

It's not like they had him disguised as a seagull or galavanting with Sheriff Pepper or interrupting fake moon landings or inflating folks like balloons or...

My point is you're ignoring the actual, prior content of the franchise. FYEO does nothing radical in the gag department. And since you claim to like Octopussy and its tarzans and clowns and gorilllas...hmmm...

But sure. For some esoteric combination of factors, you reject FYEO in particular as "too far." That's your prerogative.

I don't really like FYEO's sense of humor either. But...because I like James Bond movies...that's why I give FYEO a 7 instead of an 8 like Moonraker or 9 like Goldfinger or 10 like From Russia with Love. I like them all, and the variations in tone or comedy success are only factors. I don't decide FYEO simply "sucks" which is typically indicative of not being much of a James Bond fan to begin with, lest much the other James Bondiness of FYEO would still be liked and salvage its experience for you to be, well, still enjoyable.

giving any real counter-arguments to what I said about this film?

I've offered quite a lot, actually.

You don't seem to be noticing.

LIKE Roger Moore as James Bond, that's why I saw it

So, you like OP which is more absurd and he looks older and also has dated music.

So you're cherry picking. THere's something about FYEO not to your taste, but it cannot be the factors you've reported, because you like them in other Bond movies.

That's all I'm pointing out. Your basis holds no water, because you don't hold it consistently. You haven't accurately identified your basis for dislike, yet.

OU'RE the one who needs to grow thicker skin, pking-2.

Thick skin doesn't mean I agree, or remain mute, about whether James Bond movies suck.

Thick skin means I don't get all huffy, like you. Just put on your discussion/debate panties and play with the big boys. Be cool like James Bond.

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pking-2 10 years ago

Pking2, sucking up to something you like without ever having any sort of critical-thoughts isn't called being a fan, it's called being a drone.

No.

Because nobody typically loses all critical thoughts. Not fans, not haters, not the folks like you who are in between.

You're simply wrong that to have critical thoughts, one must think a movie sucks. That's but one, quite extreme form of criticism. There are many more.

I can criticize every single major aspect of every single James Bond movie, and am close to having done so already. I don't think FYEO's humor is as funny as other movies. I don't think its score is as impressive and it certainly isn't as timeless. I don't think Roger looks as young or fit as he used to, nor most other portrayals of James. And so on.

The difference is that you think I must conclude "therefore it sucks" or else I'm a drone.

You're wrong. I don't. Therefore, its not as good as Goldfinger. But I still enjoy it more than most other movies ever made. I still like it. Unlike you.

However, to like it, you pretty much have to conclude it doesn't suck. Or you must at least wield "that sucks" very judiciously. Four whole movies is not judicious restraint...rather its an indicator that there are hours worth of James Bond that suck to you. That ain't "like." Rather, that's, at best, a very mixed review.

If the next film featured Bond as a pedophile, would you be okay with that?

No. It would mean I would no longer be simply a James Bond fan. At best, I'd become a former fan, or a fan of the earlier form of the franchise, or something like that.

To think there is something more significant about my taste that that would be delusion, rather like yours.

To think..."now that I don't like the character that means the character sucks in any way other than to my taste"...would be self aggrandizing falsehood, nothing more.

For Your Eyes Only doesn't suck...with or without your approval. It's a successful, well liked entry into a franchise of hits. Like I said...the joke's on you, because it doesn't suck. Only your experience when watching it sucked. Sucks to be you. Sucks to be ANYONE who doesn't like FYEO, when watching FYEO I guess.

The fact that you're struggling with this self awareness is telling.

I DARE you to.

Oh, from what I've seen I think that movie sucks.

But...there is possibly (likely, somewhere) someone who likes it far more than James Bond.

The point is that neither one of us is correct, if we were to tell the other that what they like sucks. Perhaps they find it funny or entertaining or creative and have their reasons to hate James Bond; whatever.

Because...then you're definition of whether it sucks becomes contingent upon popular trend. That's bad. When the trendy winds change...you have no choice but to pronounce what used to have merit, now meritless. You'd have to revise your assessment because folks other than you have changed their minds.

Now, that would be an actual example of the "dronage" that you tried to use as the wrong way to criticize, earlier. Don't do that.

I'm feeling bothered"? What?

It's not that confusing. You're reacting as if bothered. You don't have to. Don't give me the power to bother you; don't make it my responsibility to end the bother. Take charge of your state. Own your reactions. If you don't want to be bothered because somebody is disputing whether For Your Eyes Only sucks...don't be bothered. It's up to you, not me.

Also...don't claim FYEO sucks if it bothers you when you get a counter response. That's pretty shortsighted, touchy, and hypocritical. You want to tell people what sucks? Be prepared to hear what doesn't suck, and handle it.

Wouldn't you be bothered if you were accused of being a devil worshipper just because you like horror movies?

No. Would you be bothered if I told you that you're a nice, civil poster on IMDb?

Neither telling is true. Since we know the truth, some differing text on the internet doesn't matter.

gritty, hard-edged films like Licence to Kill and Casino Royale. But each film on their own? [quote] You should definitely rewatch License to Kill (now Q's talking to a rake! ha ha) and Casino Royale (action adventure! romantic tragedy!) and all the others you tried to offer, because you just misdescribed them all as sticking to only one tone. They don't, sorry.

[quote]We never see scenes of brutal rape and child molestation in Goldfinger or Octopussy and we never see Three Stooges-style slapstick or cartoonish sound effects in On Her Majesty's Secret Service or Skyfall.

Well, we don't need child molestation, specifically, to qualify for a second tone. That's very erroneous logic.

Rather we just need two tones. We need Bond to be comedic at times, and seriously dramatic at other times, and romantic at third times, and action/stunt spectacle at fourth times, and tragic to varying degrees at fifth times, and we get that all, every movie, on purpose.

Is the slapstick less in some and the "grit" more in some and the tragedy greater in a couple and the drama more tense in others? Sure. But you're simply wrong to say that FYEO is different in offering two disparate tones. It's actually following a pattern.

FYEO would be a unique oddball of the franchise if it was just low key comedy with drama or just light drama with comedy, like you requested.

I'll give you the expression of complaint you're searching for: FYEO's mixing of comedy and drama just doesn't work for you.

But don't bother trying to tell us it sucks because the key is wrong. The key works well for those with that preference.

Rather it sucks because its not to your preference. You wish they would have done it like Moonraker or Octopussy, etc instead, which you say you like. (Ha ha, Bond's driving a gondola! Argh, Corrine just got eaten by dogs. Ha ha Bond's now in a gorilla costume! Hmmm, Bond's seriously hitting and almost raping Octopussy...) See? The key is what it is; don't misrepresent the content.

Octopussy wasn't taking itself nearly as seriously as this film did. It was much more tongue-in-cheek and goofy overall so it wasn't a problem there.

It's not a problem, period, except to folks like you.

My point is that you're nonsensical to tell others, to which it is not a problem, that is actually is a problem. That it sucks, when it does not.

That you think it sucks is not in question. You just don't like the insignificance of your position and assertion to be pointed out.

All you've been doing is accusing me of not being a Bond fan and using the tired, old "up to taste" argument.

That would be false.

But even if not false, that would be so much that you could not overcome it. That is quite a lot. The reason you don't like FYEO (but most Bond fans do) is because you're not that sort of Bond fan. You're the sort that thinks more than a few Bond movies suck. And don't like slapstick next to revenge, except when you do. And you do know that trying to campaign that your taste in what sucks applies beyond your own skin is nonsense. You know all this, yet you tried, anyways.

Like I said, joke's on you.

And thick skin doesn't mean acting rude and condescending to someone having a different opinion than you.

Only one of us is upset, while throwing insults.

I'm merely disputing your claim. This is, after all, a big part of why folks throw out "<x> sucks!" after all; for the ensuing dispute. Don't be hypocritical about what you're up to.

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

[–] mrrockey 10 years ago

The difference is that you think I must conclude "therefore it sucks" or else I'm a drone.

*beep* like this are why I think you're such an idiot. Every time you reply to what I say, you always have to twist my words around to make me look like a douche. When did I even say this? When did I say if there's anything you don't like in a movie, you should immediately hate it?

Four whole movies is not judicious restraint...rather its an indicator that there are hours worth of James Bond that suck to you.

Again, do you know not know basic math? 4 out of 23/26 is very few. If I got this as a test mark, it'd be a F. Using common sense won't hurt, you know.

No. It would mean I would no longer be simply a James Bond fan.

Again, if you aren't okay with Bond being portrayed as a pedophile, then that means you CARE, not because you're not a fan. The reason fans complain about films they don't like in the series is because they feel the filmmakers are not portraying these characters and the world they inhabit correctly. Not because they HATE James Bond, but because they CARE. Jesus Christ, how can you call yourself a "fan" when you're not willing to stand up and criticize aspects of the series that you feel were doing Bond an injustice?

To think there is something more significant about my taste that that would be delusion, rather like yours.

Again, when did I say this movie sucks because my opinion's more significant than others? I've been giving arguments as to why I think this movie sucks, sure. But when I have claimed it to be true because I say so?

For Your Eyes Only doesn't suck...with or without your approval. It's a successful, well liked entry into a franchise of hits.

Now you're just contradicting yourself. Earlier, you said there's no such as a movie that sucks or doesn't suck, it's all up to taste but now, you say it DOESN'T suck because that's what most people think? Make up your damn mind, you stupid *beep*.

The fact that you're struggling with this self awareness is telling.

What the hell are you talking about, you nutjob.

Sucks to be you. Sucks to be ANYONE who doesn't like FYEO, when watching FYEO I guess.

So you think it sucks to be able to form opinions that differ from the norm?

The point is that neither one of us is correct, if we were to tell the other that what they like sucks. Perhaps they find it funny or entertaining or creative and have their reasons to hate James Bond; whatever.

Has it ever occurred to that you can like films that you don't think are good? Haven't you heard of the phrase "so bad, it's good"?

Because...then you're definition of whether it sucks becomes contingent upon popular trend. That's bad. When the trendy winds change...you have no choice but to pronounce what used to have merit, now meritless. You'd have to revise your assessment because folks other than you have changed their minds.

Now, that would be an actual example of the "dronage" that you tried to use as the wrong way to criticize, earlier. Don't do that.

Do you think I really care about what other people think?

If you don't want to be bothered because somebody is disputing whether For Your Eyes Only sucks...don't be bothered. It's up to you, not me.

No, that's not what's bothering me. What's bothering me is how *beep* stupid and ignorant you are. I have no problem with smart, reasonable users who want to argue with me about a movie when they disagree but my problem with you is that you constantly make these BS accusations of me when there's no good evidence for it in the first place and you don't even seem to understand what I'm saying half the time. THAT'S what's bothering me, your stupidity and ignorance, not just that you're arguing with me about this film.

And human emotion isn't something you can just change in a switch like a machine, it's a little more COMPLICATED than that.

Would you be bothered if I told you that you're a nice, civil poster on IMDb?

Not really, because that's pretty much who I am most of the time. I'm generally pretty polite and friendly with fellow users on this site but what I WON'T tolerate are ignorant fools who act rude and condescending in the first place but then decide to soften themselves up just to make me look like a douchebag.

Well, we don't need child molestation, specifically, to qualify for a second tone. That's very erroneous logic.

I was just using that as an EXAMPLE, Einstein.

Rather it sucks because its not to your preference. You wish they would have done it like Moonraker or Octopussy, etc instead, which you say you like. (Ha ha, Bond's driving a gondola! Argh, Corrine just got eaten by dogs. Ha ha Bond's now in a gorilla costume! Hmmm, Bond's seriously hitting and almost raping Octopussy...) See? The key is what it is; don't misrepresent the content

Again, Octopussy and Moonraker weren't serious, dramatic stories. They were over-the-top adventures that just happened to have an occasional dark scene to establish the kind of threat Bond's dealing with(the scene where Bond "rapes" Octopussy isn't even dark, it's just screwed up gender politics from the 80's). They never tried to write compelling characters while serious dilemmas while still adding tongue-in-cheek humor like this film did.

It's not a problem, period, except to folks like you.

Again, contradicting yourself. Before, you said there's no such thing as a good or bad movie but now, "FYEO doesn't suck, just to you." Are you Gollum from Lord of the Rings or something?

The reason you don't like FYEO (but most Bond fans do) is because you're not that sort of Bond fan.

If more Bond fans were like you, I'm GLAD to "not be a Bond fan". Because I want to still be able to think like a free man and not a mindless drone like you.

[–] pking-2 10 years ago

twist my words around to make me look like a douche. When did I even say this?

Nope. Reread. Notice you were clear by deciding FYEO sucked, you were better than a drone, who would like all JB movies.

Stand by your words, or correct them if you must. Your choice.

When did I say if there's anything you don't like in a movie, you should immediately hate it?

YOU found stuff you don't like in a movie, and ultimately decided it sucks. And you decided that people who like said JB movie because they like James Bond, unlike you, would be drones to do so. YOU did that.

4 out of 23/26 is very few. If I got this as a test mark, it'd be a F. Using common sense won't hurt, you know.

It utterly fails to support any claim that you simply like James Bond. It only supports that you sometimes like James Bond, but reject multiple entire JB movies.

Not that these analogies equate...but if you get a case of soda and you think four of the cans suck, you don't really like that soda. If you drive your car for 23 days and 4 days you think your car sucks, you really don't like your car very much. If you've had a job for 23 weeks and your boss thinks you suck for 4 of them, he doesn't like you much as an employee.

In other words, there's a big difference between enjoying some JB movies and not others...which is the case for probably most people on the planet...and seriously "liking James Bond." The reason most people dislike some parts of JB is because they dislike those aspects of JB...whether its the music or the acting or the character or the tone(s) or whatever. That's you.

The reason your feelings are hurt is because this demotes your "criticism" to the obvious truth about it: you think FYEO sucks because its content is not to your preference.

The millions that think better of FYEO do so because they have different taste.

The others that think even worse of FYEO than you...also do so merely due to taste.

Making your critique no more significant than a wail of "I like what I like" but you wanted so much more. You wanted it to matter, to others. To be news, to have particular merit. But it doesn't. Sorry.

The reason fans complain about films they don't like in the series is because they feel the filmmakers are not portraying these characters and the world they inhabit correctly. Not because they HATE James Bond, but because they CARE. Jesus Christ, how can you call yourself a "fan" when you're not willing to stand up and criticize aspects of the series that you feel were doing Bond an injustice?

Because I haven't become deluded about the difference between "James Bond" and "what I would prefer James Bond to be."

I could still care and post and argue that they should change James Bond, back to something else. Back to what I prefer, what he used to be. But that would be because James Bond changed, and because I now dislike James Bond. I would only, accurately, be able to say that I like a different, prior version of James Bond. Therefore, I would only like some James Bond. Other components of James Bond (pedophilia or whatever you've concocted) would not be my preference, nor to my taste.

But, James Bond is not mine, nor the audiences'. Rather, James Bond is a fictional property, owned by a storyteller (employed by a business--perhaps he's owned by said business, ultimately, since they produce and approve the stories). So I wouldn't argue that my taste is the definition of James Bond, because that would be deluded. That would deny the actual definition of James Bond. I'm not deluded. I know what my taste signifies, and its not as significant as you imagine yours to be.

when did I say this movie sucks because my opinion's more significant than others?

That's foundational to this whole "argument." Your basis is that your opinions matter more than others'. You think others actually should think FYEO sucks, like you, instead of like <whatever everyone else already thinks.> My basis is that all opinions matter pretty much the same, at least regarding whether an entertainment sucked or was entertaining. You might not say that nor realize that, but it's still core to the difference in our positions.

So you think it sucks to be able to form opinions that differ from the norm?

Reread. It sucks to watch FYEO if you don't like that type of JB movie. And, it apparently sucks to try to argue about it, when you don't really know how to form coherent arguments with basis in reason.

wrong...if we were to tell the other that what they like sucks. "
Has it ever occurred to that you can like films that you don't think are good? Haven't you heard of the phrase "so bad, it's good"?

Sure. You found a concocted exception. We'd still be wrong to tell the other person that what they like sucks, generally. Most people like some things because "so bad its good" but like all other liked things because "so good I like."

Do you think I really care about what other people think?

Yes. So much so, you'd do this thread.

I WON'T tolerate are ignorant fools who act rude and condescending

You could. You tolerate such stuff from yourself, incessantly, without effort. Every person ever acting rude anywhere...imagines himself a stalwart of standing up to rudeness, as he does it. It's mere rationalization. The trick is to follow the golden rule.

Again, Octopussy and Moonraker weren't serious, dramatic stories.

Not simply serious dramatic stories. And, the neither is FYEO. So, your point fails to hold. Really. Anyways, already covered. You're circling. You are falsely presenting that any Bond stories as serious and dramatic rather than serious and dramatic combined with humor. Yet, all Bond movies are the latter, never the former, so its not the problem.

The problem is that the way they juxtapose the franchise tones doesn't work (for you) and nothing more.

Before, you said there's no such thing as a good or bad movie but now, "FYEO doesn't suck, just to you."

FYEO sucks to you. That much is true. You're just confused about whether that means its a bad movie beyond your own taste.

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mrrockey 8 years ago

No one goes to movies for specific life advice, but if there is a message in there, then it needs to be one that's honest and truthful about life. Otherwise, it just shows that the writer *beep* up.

[–] super-joey 10 years ago

I'm sorry, Bond fans

That's okay. To each his own.

Carole Bouquet was extremely flat and wooden

I've always found her portrayal steely and resolved. She's like a female Charles Bronson. With a crossbow. Very cool. And that hair! Beautiful.

Moore started looking old and unconvincing here

I love the "aging 007" thing. Just look at the opening scene. They didn't bother hiding the date of death on Teresa's headstone. Moore was old enough that he could easily be the same James Bond whose wife was killed in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." And the filmmakers make no bones about it. I think it's cool that we can pretend this is the same James Bond who saved the day in all the previous films. In fact, until Timothy Dalton was cast, it never seemed like keeping Bond young was a top priority. If it were, they never would have hired Moore in the first place (since he's only a year younger than Connery).

the dialogue scenes are boring

I guess I'd need a specific example. I can't think of any dialog that I found particularly boring.

the score is RIDICULOUSLY dated

It definitely celebrated its era. But I must admit (perhaps to my shame) that I have always enjoyed it. In fact, this movie is so serious and subdued at times that, in some scenes, the music is the only thing making it feel light and fun.

the brief appearance of Blofeld is embarrassing

If Blofeld came out of Diamonds Are Forever with any dignity remaining, this scene won't hurt him. :P But seriously, I think it's great that Bond visits his wife's grave and then finally gets revenge on her killer. It was long overdue. And the helicopter stunt was memorable. A lot of people who aren't die-hard fanboys tend to like the opening of For Your Eyes Only. It's often talked about.

Having said all that, I do NOT think this is one of the top films in the series (as some do). I think that opinion comes primarily from those who like their 007 to be deadly serious. So they count this as Moore's best Bond because he's less "jokey" this time out. Whatever. I think The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, Octopussy and Live And Let Die are all four better than For Your Eyes Only. BUT! I do love For Your Eyes Only too. :)

[–] TMC-4 8 years ago

I don't understand why people think that FYEO is a great movie? I don't necessarily think that it's as "bad" among Roger Moore's ones as say The Man with the Golden Gun, Moonraker, or A View to a Kill. But here are some of the things that I don't care about:
*Kristatos is probably the worst, least memorable, or most underwhelming villain of the Roger Moore era. And the way that he's killed is just anti-climatic.

*It wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to be a more grounded, gritty, serious movie to counteract the criticism over the comic book excesses of The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker and yet still has to make time for cheesy humor like among other things, the "Prime Minister's" appearance at the very end or the stuff between Bond and Bibi Dahl.

*Roger Moore has no chemistry with his leading lady Carole Bouquet. The producers rightfully didn't pursue a romantic angle (until oddly enough, the very end) given the major age difference (it's more of a father/daughter type of relationship between Bond and Melina) and given Roger's own advancing age. In fairness, it's kind of harder to judge Carole's performance given that she's dubbed.

*Other than the mountain climbing sequence during the climax, many of the action sequences are stuff that we have pretty much seen before in Bond movies. For example, the ski chase might as well have served as an update of the one from OHMSS.

*The movie feels awfully padded and has wonky pacing for such a relatively thin story. The whole underwater sequence in particular, where Bond and Melina are dive sea diving for the ATAC goes on forever.

*Bill Conti's disco-ized score is horrifically dated and cheesy (and not grand, serious and epic like you would expect from John Barry).