It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I remember watching that. It seems dreadful now.
Anyway, for the longest time FYEO was at the bottom of my list. The last time I did a Bond ranking list I had moved it up to my second to last place, with AVTAK at the bottom. I have a feeling it's since moved up a spot or two. Every time I watch it I seem to enjoy it a bit more. I still don't like the anti-climatic ending though. It's probably one of the reasons I have a hard time ranking it higher than I do.
'Bad in your eyes only', surely?
This reminds me of the sort of thing Alan Partridge/Steve Coogan parodied in Knowing Me, Knowing You.
However, that's not what the film is trying to do.
It certainly wants to be taken more seriously, but fundamentally it wants audiences to know that it's still a Bond film. Therefore, there is a lightness of touch and a sense of humour. Albeit, with a sense of mischief.
Perhaps that is embodied best in the opening, which is both dour and cheeky....or even the Citroen chase. It's a thrilling chase, but it has a sense of humour.
Does anyone agree with this assessment? Or is the film tonally all over the place?
Also, the wardrode is quite dodgy in this film. Look at these outfits:
For Your Eyes Only grounds the franchise after the space oddity of Moonraker but the changes, while admirable, aren’t a cause for complete celebration. Under pressure to restore credibility, the franchise harks back to its golden years without quite convincing anyone that a full overhaul is in progress. Reactive more than proactive, but For Your Eyes Only is a step back in right direction towards a Fleming inspired story.
It’s a good Bond film with some classic moments and a welcome darker tone for Roger’s Bond.
Take the pretitles: Here we have Bond's biggest enemy, we're reminded a few minutes before he killed Bond's wife and it's time for closure. Instead, we get cheap quips about his head and delicatessens and dumped in a smokestack. I wasn't expecting a YOLT novel form of revenge and I know he wasn't able to be referenced by name due to legal matters with McClory and all that, but if so why not just scrap the thing altogether?
The hockey scene, which was discussed in another thread recently, is another great example of this. The car chase is original but also dependent on the levity along with the thrills.
Then there's the ski chase which has to toss in the tumbling beginning skiers and the inevitable guy with the drink back for his third film. It's capped by that final scene when Kriegler picks up the motorcycle and tosses it at Bond. What the hell was that? Was it meant to be a build-up of rage or did he think he was going to somehow hit Bond? It's a real WTF moment.
As far as the wardrobes, I couldn't exactly seen Bond scaling the cliff in a tux. There are plenty of decent costumes. I particularly like Bond on the beach still in his tux when attacked.
Same here. Seeing MR in the summer of '79 was what made me the Bond fan I am today and watching FYEO 2 years later was a let-down. It remains in the lower rungs of my favorite Bond films while MR still delivers the fun.
The sole film of the series I'd consider boring at times is, you guessed it, TB. But I'm rather resistent against "boring" movies, and it takes a lot more ennui to make me turn it off. so all is not lost.
There is only one scene I think is dragging a bit, and that´s the overlong underwater action scene. Quite unecessary and badly done. The film has plenty of good action elsewhere, and Bond and Melina retrieving the Atac from the shipwreck was exciting enough as it was. Apart from that I think the film is brilliantly paced - which is not something you can say about every Bond film...
I see FYEO as a largely successful synthesis of tones. It's a Moore Bond film first, albeit one that draws more heavily on Fleming. It works for me, but I understand why it doesn't work for everyone.
=D> Yes, I agree and I'm glad that you reassessed the film and found a new appreciation for it.
Well said.
Also, when mentioning the choice of clothes, it was the early 80's. What do you want?
As far as the complaints about Moore not liking the scene where he kicks Locque off the cliff... It's called acting. Who cares about his personal feelings? Not only did he pull it off, but it's one of his finest moments as Bond. He gave a great performance in this film that is underrated by some fans if I'm honest.
Yes, the film has some unnecessary "humor" in it. If that's a deal breaker for you then so be it, but you're missing out on a real gem.
+1. It’s a great Bond film.
After the gross excesses of MR, at times the low-key nature of FYEO does come across as “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” Not only will we not show a pigeon doing a fake double-take, but we’ll just show it walking around instead!
That said, I find FYEO to be one of Roger’s best Bond performances and a film that is usually in my top 10. My only real knock against it is that I’ve never completely accepted Conti’s score – too 80 ish.
I absolutely agree. It's probably the least thought about film in the series for me and probably the one I've watched the least amount of times.
But I do really enjoy FYEO! I return to it all the time.
Is it the only Bond film to have a pre-titles sequence that genuinely has nothing to do with the main plot at all? Other than it's got Bond in it! :) Even Goldfinger leaves Bond to travel on to Miami to meet Goldfinger himself. Actually I guess Thunderball :)
Another thing that I often recall is Glen and Moore having an argument about Loque going over the cliff. Moore wanted it to be caused by Bond flipping the Dove pin at Loque. I can't imagine the scene playing out that way. Moore brought a lot to the role but playing Bond tough wasn't one of the things he brought. When you look at the timeline of things Moore's contract was finished with MR. I personally think Wilson and Maibaum were writing the movie for another actor in the role. It has many of the touches of a Bond. It was Moore's first card gambling scene and only one if memory serves. It references Tracy Bond and has a thinly disguised Blofeld. To me it was written for another Bond. I would have loved to see this film with Dalton in the role. To me it needed what Dalton could bring to the character.
I remember watching for this last time I watched FYEO which was pretty recently, and it was in fact the kick that sent it over the edge. The car's precarious position on the edge of the cliff, and Locque moving around in the car did 98% of the work, and the kick was the last straw. I don't think the pin moved the car at all (but would have been great if this is what did it).
No I don’t think so: the car is still, he tosses the pin in, you hear rocks moving, it cuts to the car wheel with rocks giving way under it and the car starting to slide, and he kicks it after it’s moving. Have a watch:
I enjoy FYEO, I just wish it had a Bond to match.
The kick in that scene has always seemed a bit redundant to me: because the car was already sliding off! :)
I stand corrected!
I think Moore nailed the role in FYEO. I think it´s his best performance as Bond and the one that shows he in fact had a great range as an actor.
His greatest weakness was action. Looking at the footage om him running makes it look very obvious. So slow and clumsy... Imagine the urgency Dan or Tim would have had running those stairs. Well, well... I still love the guy. RIP