Do you like For Your Eyes Only (1981), as far as Bond goes?

Tools    





I can't decide if I like the movie or not, since it has so many pros and cons.

Mainly the cons are, it does have what is probably weakest Bond villain of the series.

SPOILER

He has a very weak character backstory, cause his main goal in life is to get Bibi Doll in the Olympics, hoping that she will bang him one day for it. Need I say more on that one?

The bond girl, is a strong character, but the actress plays her kind of wooden and bored, as if she really didn't want to be in the movie it seems.

But on the plus side, I do like the overall plot and action and I really like the Columbo character. So what do you think?



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



i like it a lot although i didnt like the 3rd act, but the ending was nice, i like how down to earth this movie feels



Hellloooo Cindy - Scary Movie (2000)
One of my favourite bonds and probably the best looking Bond girl although Denise Richards was on par. Very well made film, forget about the story on paper and enjoy the film.



Just when my coil's reachin' the green line!
Hell to the yeah.
__________________
Look, Dr. Lesh, we don't care about the disturbances, the pounding and the flashing, the screaming, the music. We just want you to find our little girl.



Very underrated film, and very grim by roger moore standards, RIP, a classic down to earth tale and yes very interesting characters.



Travelling among unknown stars
So what do you think?
I haven't seen it all the way through for a long time (I find myself saying that a lot). My recollection is that the comedic bits, such as the opening and closing scenes drag it right down. It was more down-to-earth wasn't it, after two more science fiction-oriented Bond films. I saw the underwater sequence recently and found that quite good, but it's like it's gritty and camp all at once – I wish they'd picked one.

I agree about Topol – I loved him in Flash Gordon too. And Julian Glover's quite good but he's definitely had better villain roles. Scaroth, Professor Kayn, Walter Donovan.



Oh okay, I think it's okay to have a more down to Earth Bond movie that still has comedic bits in. I didn't think it was as down to earth compared to say Casino Royale, cause the villains still choose to attack Bond with hockey sticks when they can just shoot him for example.

So in that kind of world, where villains choose hockey sticks over guns, how down to Earth is it really?



I quite liked it.
__________________
You cannot have it both ways. A dancer who relies upon the doubtful comforts of human love can never be a great dancer. Never. (The Red Shoes, 1948)



Yes, I like "For Your Eyes Only," very much. Some consider Roger Moore something of a lightweight in the role, considering his penchant for humor, but when 007 has the choice to either save one of the movie's evil henchmen or let him die, Roger Moore's performance is perfect! Very cold and vindictive. Oh, yes, even Moore's Bond has a dark side and it's heavy duty stuff.



Also answers to Jabba
I saw this a couple of weeks ago and found it pretty horrible. Then again, I dislike the Bond films to no end.



Quoted from a discussion I was having about it recently.
"I watched this last night and man these are getting worse and worse looking. The ridiculous fights, the bad performances -especially from people that were supposed to be (half) Greek- but the plot takes the cake. About 4 times during that film you get the same thing: Bond gets chased by an organization but barely escapes, cut to him finding a clue, optionally bang a chick and lather, rinse repeat. That is pretty much the whole movie after the first 20 minutes or so. I caught myself thinking more times than I remember "who the *bleep* pays people to write these screenplays?" (yes I know it's probably a loose adaptation of Fleming's story but still).

Anyway, it's not even worth going into the complete and utter inaccuracy in every single action scene. Seriously, they just made the same action scene 5 times: Once with a car chase, then on foot, then during skiing, then in the sea and then climbing a mountain. Jesus!"

and from a different segment on the ridiculousness and inaccuracy of most the action scenes...

"How about the action sequences? In the most recent one I watched, Bond is trapped by some goons in the mountain and among them is the world champion in skiing and shooting. He easily gets away from them without breaking a sweat. The world freaking champion in ski shooting has you trapped in a mountain on skis. He has a gun and you don't. He has help and you are alone. He is not even hurt or captured. At the end of the scene, the villain picks up a motorcycle and throws it several meters away to him. How about earlier in the film when he manages to get away from two armored cars with a small Volkswagen Beetle that is not secret service issued and not enhanced in any way? That little thing has tumbled and been knocked over so much that it shouldn't be able to start after a couple of knocks, let alone outrun two faster cars. How about later on in the sea, when Bond is bleeding like crazy in the water, sharks swimming next to him and ignore the blood, but when a villain with a slight scratch falls overboard he is immediately devoured? Is Bond's blood shark resistant? Or when he says to the girl he is underwater with, that they shouldn't talk to conserve oxygen, but he keeps talking throughout the scene to make jokes or read out loud written instructions as he performs them for exposition?"