Is 'For Your Eyes Only' the most boring James Bond film?

1246724

Comments

  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    "He had no head for heights".

    A defining moment for Moore's Bond.
  • Posts: 1,146
    Connery, Craig or Lazenby would have shot him before pushing him off.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Rotten Tomatoes scores:

    LALD 66%

    MWTGG 46%

    SWLM 76%

    MR 62%

    FYEO 73%

    OP 42%

    VTAK 36%

    Yes, yes, yes, this is where a few of you write in and state that you don't consider film reviews when it comes to Bond films.


    To me, it's more of a fascination of how you constantly reference it as the supposed eternal truth of the universe. You like to criticize us for "cheerleading" and not being able to think for ourselves yet you treat Rotten Tomatoes as if it is your bible.
  • Posts: 1,146
    (shrug)

    I was answering the question posed in the previous post.

    A bad movie is a bad movie, and most of his films were judged as such.
  • It's a film at odds with itself but it has enough gripping and entertaining moments to ensure that it's far from the most boring Bond movie.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Connery didn't shoot Lippe.

    Craig didn't shoot Dominic Greene.

    It doesn't always have to come down to unqualified violence, as that is not the Bond character.

    The scene would have been less effective if he had merely shot him (although he did manage to get a shot earlier in the scene).

    And again, the Moore films are bad in YOUR eyes.
  • MooseWithFleasMooseWithFleas Philadelphia
    Posts: 3,369
    IMDB rankings differ from those you mention. Also RT is a binary aggregator. It is either Fresh or Rotten. Then the % shows the %fresh. So a 2.5/5 star is the same as 1/5 and a 3/5 is the same as 5/5. Very rudimentary reviewal system.

    That being said, I expect Moore's films to be low as we live in a more serious time in film history. Back in the late 80s, Dalton's films and OHMSS would be at the low end of the rankings as serious literary adaptations were not in. The most these aggregators can hope to catch is a current snapshot of society's attitude toward certain styles of Bond films.

    I never understood people getting upset or angry over what someone else enjoys or dislikes. We understand and respect that you hate Roger Moore and his films, no need to try to force us to believe that because we have our own tastes :)
  • Oh, the PTS of DAD is pretty good, one of the better sequences in a picture that was going along quite well…then just nuked itself in the second act.

    With this I very much agree.
  • Posts: 1,146
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Oh, the PTS of DAD is pretty good, one of the better sequences in a picture that was going along quite well…then just nuked itself in the second act.

    With this I very much agree.

    It's a fun first act, then meh.

    I did like the idea of genetic manipulation, but the kid that gets the diamonds blasted onto his face can somehow not have them removed?

  • Posts: 15,124
    Re: the character of Bibi. Am I the only one who finds her not annoying? I mean, she is a cheerful teenager, who has a talent and is taking as much freedom as she can in an overprotective environment. I find her quite believable. And she reveals Kristatos as very creepy, while Bond shows if has a libido, he is not a perv.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited November 2014 Posts: 15,718
    chrisisall wrote: »
    A bad movie is a bad movie, and most of his films were judged as such.

    If you find the Moore films to be bad films, that's like, your opinion, man. No matter how much you seem to hate Sir Rog, you can't stop all the people who love his Bond and his movies from thinking differently than you. And what do critics know about what is a good movie? Most critics almost 'assassinated' the first 'Taken' film when it got released, yet it became a cult classic film since then for the general audience.

  • I was annoyed by Bibi the first time I saw FYEO, but upon watching it later with a critical eye, I realized that there is a very good for Bibi to be written the way she is written. With that in mind, I like her unreservedly; she is exactly the character that this movie needs her to be.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Re: the character of Bibi. Am I the only one who finds her not annoying? I mean, she is a cheerful teenager, who has a talent and is taking as much freedom as she can in an overprotective environment. I find her quite believable. And she reveals Kristatos as very creepy, while Bond shows if has a libido, he is not a perv.

    Agreed, and Cedar Leiter in John Gardner's For Special Services published the following year presents James Bond with the same problem, only even more so as she is the daughter of his best friend!
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Quite @BeatlesSansEarmuffs - I, too, used to find Bibi annoying. She used to be a cute little irritant. Now she has evolved into a cute little character who, despite admittedly being somewhat out of place in a Bond film, at least establishes a little humanity for Bond and Kristatos. 
  • Posts: 15,124
    She makes Kristatos far more sinister.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Seriously??? FYEO is far from boring and albeit not perfect is in my opinion a better entry.
  • JWPepperJWPepper You sit on it, but you can't take it with you.
    Posts: 512
    the most boring Bond by far is TMWTGG.
    FYEO is so much fun (carchases and skichases and love Conti's score).
  • Ludovico wrote: »
    She makes Kristatos far more sinister.


    She's a total flop of a character. She's totally pointless, her inclusion puzzles me to no end. She doesn't contribute to the plot and nor does she 'sex up' the picture. The actress is clearly a very talented skater but it seems she was only included to be something of a stock comic character and her inclusion during the Cortina scenes distracts from Melina's sudden appearance there. The fact Bond turns her down contributes to the dry sexless nature of FYEO and thus makes Bibi one of the principle offenders of the film's banality.

    There is an opportunity later to use the character in an interesting way during the St. Cyrils scene with Kristatos but it's never properly exploited. I would have liked to see Kristatos actually attempt to rape her until the KGB arrive and cut him short. It would have made him far more repellent a character opposed to the complete bore he is. Also there is a totally missed opportunity to give Julian Glover a delicious villainous speech explaining the history surrounding keel-hauling before that sequence. It's a great idea to make Bond's ally the villain but the idea is wasted in the film.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 1,146
    chrisisall wrote: »
    A bad movie is a bad movie, and most of his films were judged as such.

    If you find the Moore films to be bad films, that's like, your opinion, man. No matter how much you seem to hate Sir Rog, you can't stop all the people who love his Bond and his movies from thinking differently than you. And what do critics know about what is a good movie? Most critics almost 'assassinated' the first 'Taken' film when it got released, yet it became a cult classic film since then for the general audience.

    It's my opinion, I agree, but also the opinion of the greater world around us. Certainly critics can be wrong, they are human, but in most cases the Moore films audience score are worse than the critics'.

    I admire the Connery films greatly, but they have their flaws. The space stuff in YOLT is just…especially after 2001's space stuff, not very effective to be overly kind.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Ludovico wrote: »
    She makes Kristatos far more sinister.


    The fact Bond turns her down contributes to the dry sexless nature of FYEO and thus makes Bibi one of the principle offenders of the film's banality.

    Aha! So that's why you find the film boring! Not enough tits? :>
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I would have liked to see Kristatos actually attempt to rape her until the KGB arrive and cut him short.
    Yikes, there's something that we really needed to see.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 4,409
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    She makes Kristatos far more sinister.


    The fact Bond turns her down contributes to the dry sexless nature of FYEO and thus makes Bibi one of the principle offenders of the film's banality.

    Aha! So that's why you find the film boring! Not enough tits? :>

    That's not what I'm saying. (Also if anything there are more nip-slips in this Bond film then any other).

    Bond films are sexy movies. Think of say FRWL, OHMSS or CR; they have an exotic and glamorous feel to them. Part of them comes from the locations, the girls, the clothes, the cars, etc (you get the gist).

    There is little sexy about FYEO, no one is looking at the locations and wishing to be whisked away to them, no one is really lusting over Roger or any of the girls in the film let alone in the audience. FYEO is a seriously unsexy film and it's one of the reasons it's so forgettable.

    Look at Roger Moore throughout the film: he's never really presented as the grand sexy hero at any point. Compare it to say Daniel Craig in CR, where pretty much every opportunity is utilised to showcase what a hunk he is. Roger, meanwhile, looks like he's never stepped foot in a gym, he's given awful clothes to wear and hardly looks like Mi6's best agent.

    Beyond coming up with a good plot and story, etc. Bond films need to establish and maintain a certain 'look'. For example, DN is a good movie but what makes it really sing is Connery in that central role and the way he holds himself. This issue isn't exclusive to the Bond actor himself but the entire film; for me FYEO is flat in this regard and the 'look' and style of the early Bond films is mostly disregarded for something altogether rather banal.
    pachazo wrote: »
    I would have liked to see Kristatos actually attempt to rape her until the KGB arrive and cut him short.
    Yikes, there's something that we really needed to see.

    I'm trying to make the point that they should have taken the opportunity to make Kristatos a more repellent character, as he is he too is a little flat. His obsession with Bibi is interesting but if you are going to include that character you need to justify why he's so into her, as it is she's complete cannon-fodder. Considering Kristatos is the main villain in a 'Bond film' I can't help but feel that he is very lacklustre, I understand he is supposed to be more 'real-world', but consider other 'real-world' villains like say Sanchez or Le Chiffre, you can see how much he pales in comparison.
  • Posts: 15,124
    Ludovico wrote: »
    She makes Kristatos far more sinister.


    She's a total flop of a character. She's totally pointless, her inclusion puzzles me to no end. She doesn't contribute to the plot and nor does she 'sex up' the picture. The actress is clearly a very talented skater but it seems she was only included to be something of a stock comic character and her inclusion during the Cortina scenes distracts from Melina's sudden appearance there. The fact Bond turns her down contributes to the dry sexless nature of FYEO and thus makes Bibi one of the principle offenders of the film's banality.

    There is an opportunity later to use the character in an interesting way during the St. Cyrils scene with Kristatos but it's never properly exploited. I would have liked to see Kristatos actually attempt to rape her until the KGB arrive and cut him short. It would have made him far more repellent a character opposed to the complete bore he is. Also there is a totally missed opportunity to give Julian Glover a delicious villainous speech explaining the history surrounding keel-hauling before that sequence. It's a great idea to make Bond's ally the villain but the idea is wasted in the film.

    Bibi is actually quite useful, She reveals a far sinister side to Kristatos, one who would not hesitate to use his authority to sexually abuse a teenage girl. He does not have to rape her, the fact that there is this Damocles' Sword over her head is enough. That she is naive and cheerful only stresses this. And she reveals something about Bond: while he is sexually active, he is nevertheless not a perv. Like Raymond Chandler said about his own character Philip Marlowe: "he is neither a eunuch nor a satyr; I think he might seduce a duchess and I am quite sure he would not spoil a virgin".

    Now is she annoying? Well, yes, sometimes, as a cheerful, carefree spoiled teenager can be.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 7,507
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    She makes Kristatos far more sinister.


    The fact Bond turns her down contributes to the dry sexless nature of FYEO and thus makes Bibi one of the principle offenders of the film's banality.

    Aha! So that's why you find the film boring! Not enough tits? :>

    That's not what I'm saying. (Also if anything there are more nip-slips in this Bond film then any other).


    It was a joke, don't take it too seriously :)>-

    There is little sexy about FYEO, no one is looking at the locations and wishing to be whisked away to them, no one is really lusting over Roger or any of the girls in the film let alone in the audience. FYEO is a seriously unsexy film and it's one of the reasons it's so forgettable.


    And here we disagree. Completely!

    FYEO really is one sexy movie in my opinion! The locations are beautiful, and the use of them is brilliant! Its probably one of the best films in the series in terms of locations and how they are used, and it makes me wan't to go there asap.

    And 'Carole Bouquet' is gorgeous with a capital G! You're right she's not portrayed in a particularly sexy fashion, but there's really no need for it. Her beauty speeks for itself and transcends perfectly on screen.
  • Posts: 15,124
    Didn't the poster of FYEO create a scandal because it was showing too much of her bottom?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    chrisisall wrote: »
    A bad movie is a bad movie, and most of his films were judged as such.

    If you find the Moore films to be bad films, that's like, your opinion, man. No matter how much you seem to hate Sir Rog, you can't stop all the people who love his Bond and his movies from thinking differently than you. And what do critics know about what is a good movie? Most critics almost 'assassinated' the first 'Taken' film when it got released, yet it became a cult classic film since then for the general audience.

    Some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like the enjoyment of a Roger Moore film. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the man burn.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2014 Posts: 23,883
    I'll agree that Bouquet is gorgeous in that film.

    Dressed quite plainly, but her eyes did have quite an impact on a young lad watching this film for the first time. She kind of scared me as a kid because I thought her character was a bit volatile/emotional.

    Actually she was my favourite of the 80's, all the way until Scorupco came along in GE.

    For Your Eyes Only:
    for-your-eyes-only-130.png
  • There is little sexy about FYEO, no one is looking at the locations and wishing to be whisked away to them, no one is really lusting over Roger or any of the girls in the film let alone in the audience. FYEO is a seriously unsexy film and it's one of the reasons it's so forgettable.

    And here we disagree. Completely!

    FYEO really is one sexy movie in my opinion! The locations are beautiful, and the use of them is brilliant! Its probably one of the best films in the series in terms of locations and how they are used, and it makes me wan't to go there asap.

    And 'Carole Bouquet' is gorgeous with a capital G! You're right she's not portrayed in a particularly sexy fashion, but there's really no need for it. Her beauty speeks for itself and transcends perfectly on screen.[/quote]

    Again. Yes,yes and yes!!!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    chrisisall wrote: »
    A bad movie is a bad movie, and most of his films were judged as such.

    If you find the Moore films to be bad films, that's like, your opinion, man. No matter how much you seem to hate Sir Rog, you can't stop all the people who love his Bond and his movies from thinking differently than you. And what do critics know about what is a good movie? Most critics almost 'assassinated' the first 'Taken' film when it got released, yet it became a cult classic film since then for the general audience.
    Whoah, that's not MY quote, man. That's doubleohdad talkin'! I love Moore, so hiss off!
    :))
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    The quoting function has been a bit wobbly all week. I keep quoting comments, but some of the text does not show in the quote box. Strange.
Sign In or Register to comment.