http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2146799/for_your_eyes_only_19 81_a_forgettable.html
After going way too far for its own good with its predecessor "Moonraker" (1979), the James Bond series goes back to basics and keeps things somewhat simple this time around with "For Your Eyes Only".
I agree. I'm currently watching the Bond series in order and FYEO is thus far my least favorite. Unless the Dalton Bond films are garbage I would assume this would also be my least favorite installment overall.
"Well...I've seen enough. Come on Charlie, we're going home."
You obviously know nothing, how the hell could you not like this movie over the garbage that is Moonraker, OHMSS or Diamonds Are Forever
"Listen, do you smell something?"
Ray Stanz-Ghostbusters
You obviously know nothing
trekkie, I wholeheartedly agree that Moonraker was down there - but to put OHMSS anywhere near it is...well...
"Her Secret Service" is notably one of the better and most underrated of the Bond's.
As for "Diamonds"?...it had it's moment's.
I have to admit that FYEO dragged on a bit⦠even the action scenes. I think the music killed the movie.
Smoke me a kipper. Iβll be back for breakfast
It's now on Dutch tele. Watched it back then in the cinema. Didn't like it then, but it seriously is one of the worst movies ever made. Besides Roger Moore was already to old in his first James Bond, but in this movie it is just painful to watch him.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
You obviously know nothing, how the hell could you not like this movie over the garbage that is Moonraker, OHMSS or Diamonds Are Forever
[deleted]
OHMSS is not garbage. Just a very different Bond movie.
shareIts one my favourite Bond movies, but i agree. "For Your" Eyes Only" just isent that spectacular as some of the others to be remembered. I still favour it tough.
Lakin-ite member since... well, today...
I'm Jon, and Jon is me. Together, we're one!
I don't think For Your Eyes Only is a bad movie, but it is very forgettable. The plot is pretty much pointless, centered around this ATAC device, a complete MacGuffin the purpose of which I still don't really know. Something about communications between submarines or something, it doesn't really matter though. It was such a poor plot device that in the end Bond just destroys it (had that just been done at the beginning or even halfway through the film it would have saved a lot of time and lives) and Gogol doesn't even seem to mind much, he just smiles and gets back in his helicopter. That ending always leads me to feel like the entire film was pretty pointless. The fact of the matter is that For Your Eyes Only was constructed in brain storming sessions in which they came up with a bunch of different ideas, some that just seemed like something cool for a Bond film, and others picked out of various Ian Flemming stories, and started writing the movie without any real plot in mind. The ATAC device was created near the end of the writing process as a way of tying all of these unrelated scenes together with some semblance of a plot.
As for Moonraker, I don't think it's that bad of a movie, at least not as bad as some people make it out to be. All Bond movies have a certain amount of unbelievability, but it's all in good fun. They don't go into space until the very end, it's not like James Bond is flying around in an X-Wing from start to finish and is rubbing elbows with aliens. And while it is a little cheesy, I have seen things in Bond movies that were just as far fetched. My biggest gripe about Moonraker isn't the plot, it's the way they turned Jaws into a joke. I don't think it is any more far fetched than You Only Live Twice which also had a space plot, only Bond never goes into space himself. And that whole part of passing off Sean Connery as Japanese is one of the most unintentionally comedic ideas from any Bond film. Moonraker is good if you remember the time it was made and don't take it too seriously. At least it had an actual plot, which is more than I can say about For Your Eyes Only, which is a collection of cool scenes tied together with bland and pointless plot.
"IF THE DEVIL HAD A NAME, IT WOULD BE CHUCK FINLEY!!"
The plot was McGuffin driven, much like the similarly Cold War-themed From Russia With Love. The device is essentially Lekter 2.0. The story simply isn't as good or intriguing as FRWL, unfortunately. There is no Red Grant, Rosa Klebb, or Blofeld (he is killed off early on) that is really worthy of Bond.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
i know... it's boring as hell... this is moore's "thunderball", a complete drag... well almost, the opening sequence is pretty cool. i liked this when i was a kid, but you just watch anything when you're a kid. well, at least movie critics got what they wanted... a bone dry flick in moore's otherwise entertaining streak, now go ahead and enjoy your dalton, brosnan and the latest whose name i'm afraid i can't spell, can you imagine if one of those later bond actors starred in this, hehe, i mean to make it extremely boring, critics would be wild about this, people say "i don't tune into bond to see drama", right, today some mention moore's age, but up to 1987 there had only been two actors (aside from once lazenby) of similar birth years to portray bond, so it was like the role aged with the actors and maybe people weren't thinking of bond being a specific age at that time and didn't think of replacement. fitting that "never say never again" (connery's return) was made after this bore. i've read that this is one of few bond girls who got a decent career, yet in all my life i've never seen her in any other movie than this, the soundtrack to this also is one i can't get hooked on, still i like bill conti, he made the music to the "rocky" movies for goodness sake, but for bond it's too much all over the place and one of the bond soundtracks cds i most seldom listen to, even the poster / cover to this is simple and lame, the bond movies are currently airing on television and this will be on tonight, i'm thinking of skipping it and just wait for octopussy. q: - "whoops.", bond: - "a nose. not a banana, q."
π π π’ βοΈ π π π₯
tell me what i have to do,
to set things like they used to,
its the only role i can play,
but you left me alone on stage,
thought youd always stay but out of the blue,
i no longer can get through to you,
on stage in script was the only thing i knew.
Well said π
At least they corrected course with Octopussy...
I love the opening scene with the remote control JetRanger, otherwise it's memorable for Moore's Bond's silliness at times.
shareIt would have been one of the better Bond films if:
1) John Barry (or someone more appropriate than Bill Conti at least) had done the music.
2) if the villain had been played by a more interesting and formidable actor (Maximillian Schell, for example)
3) the henchman had been more interesting
4) Timothy Dalton (or Sam Neill) had made his Bond debut here instead of The Living Daylights
*if they wanted to be really daring they could have had Irene Pappas play a female villain. I would have bought here as a former Greek Resistance fighter turned bad.