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

11920212224

Comments

  • AstonLotus wrote: »
    I think Skyfall is the most boring Bond film.

    Eh? Is this early April's fools?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,370
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    I think Skyfall is the most boring Bond film.

    Eh? Is this early April's fools?

    I think every Bond film is at least one person's favourite, and at least one person's most boring Bond film. That's fine.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,824
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    I think Skyfall is the most boring Bond film.

    Eh? Is this early April's fools?

    I think every Bond film is at least one person's favourite, and at least one person's most boring Bond film. That's fine.

    It's like Tosca, as Mr. White said, "it's not for everyone".
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,889
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    I think Skyfall is the most boring Bond film.

    Eh? Is this early April's fools?

    I think every Bond film is at least one person's favourite, and at least one person's most boring Bond film. That's fine.

    It's like Tosca, as Mr. White said, "it's not for everyone".

    There are no boring Bond movies. Even my two least favourites are not boring.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,241
    I’ve recently re-watched FYEO, it’s a Bond film that gets better and better the more I view it.
    I enjoy its more grounded and realistic story, compared to the outlandish MR that preceded it.

    Is it a boring film or story?
    Compared to some Bond films the story isn’t quite saving the the world scenario, but it’s still got a story that has purpose.
    In comparison is no less threatening than say FRWL, LALD and especially TMWTGG.
    The threat might not be a global one, but the implications are far from weak.
    One of the highlights for me, aside from the more realistic angle, is the impressive action sequences. They’re plentiful and inventive. Using a 2CV to escape goons, the ski action that has Bond using his wits instead of a gadget. Similarly the keel hauling scene that imo is quite underrated is not only straight from Fleming, but is also beautifully shot.
    So while FYEO may not have as large as scale threat as other Bonds, it’s not boring, at least to me. If Bond 26 has this back to basics approach, I’ll be a happy Bond fan.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,705
    Something about FYEO's "boring" nature actually makes me pay more attention, it's the rare Bond film where you actually have to watch, it's not all big stunts and loud music telling you what's going on. It's more character driven, and for some like me, that pulls me in closer rather than pushes me away. I love FYEO. To me, I agree, Skyfall is easily the most boring film in the franchise. Very one-note, but I do love the last act in isolation. Just hate the build up.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,560
    I always have trouble with the end of FYEO. The fact that Bond simply tosses the device to be smashed gave the film a "what's the point" feeling. I think of Luigi, Lisl and the Havelocks dying in vain. For at the end Bond can only destroy the device and make the flippant remark that "You don't have it and I don't have it." But wouldn't the British be able to recreate ATAC? Or was it so complicated and expensive that it can't be re-produced?

    Is this the first mission that Bond failed? I know that Craig's Bond also suffers quite a few failed missions but I think depending on what lens you put on the ending this might be the first time Bond has failed the mission. His objective was to return ATAC to London.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,043
    FYEO is excellent, with some of the most consistently entertaining action sequences and set pieces throughout the series (and especially during Moore's tenure).
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,121
    thedove wrote: »
    I always have trouble with the end of FYEO. The fact that Bond simply tosses the device to be smashed gave the film a "what's the point" feeling. I think of Luigi, Lisl and the Havelocks dying in vain. For at the end Bond can only destroy the device and make the flippant remark that "You don't have it and I don't have it." But wouldn't the British be able to recreate ATAC? Or was it so complicated and expensive that it can't be re-produced?

    Is this the first mission that Bond failed? I know that Craig's Bond also suffers quite a few failed missions but I think depending on what lens you put on the ending this might be the first time Bond has failed the mission. His objective was to return ATAC to London.

    Ultimately destroying the ATAC was the only reasonable goal of Bond's mission. Remember that it should have been destroyed by the crew of the St. George's in the first place, and their failure to do this was the start of the whole thing. The main objective was that the Soviets wouldn't get it. Of course the Brits could replicate it. Bond's flippant remark to his almost-pal General Gogol refers only to what turned out to be a sort of tie in the race to get it. But Bond's mission was still accomplished.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,560
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    I always have trouble with the end of FYEO. The fact that Bond simply tosses the device to be smashed gave the film a "what's the point" feeling. I think of Luigi, Lisl and the Havelocks dying in vain. For at the end Bond can only destroy the device and make the flippant remark that "You don't have it and I don't have it." But wouldn't the British be able to recreate ATAC? Or was it so complicated and expensive that it can't be re-produced?

    Is this the first mission that Bond failed? I know that Craig's Bond also suffers quite a few failed missions but I think depending on what lens you put on the ending this might be the first time Bond has failed the mission. His objective was to return ATAC to London.

    Ultimately destroying the ATAC was the only reasonable goal of Bond's mission. Remember that it should have been destroyed by the crew of the St. George's in the first place, and their failure to do this was the start of the whole thing. The main objective was that the Soviets wouldn't get it. Of course the Brits could replicate it. Bond's flippant remark to his almost-pal General Gogol refers only to what turned out to be a sort of tie in the race to get it. But Bond's mission was still accomplished.

    Then why does Bond and Melina retrieve it from the wreck? They should have just finished the detonation and blown it up in the ship.

  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,121
    You are absolutely right, but the scriptwriters obviously decided that retrieving it first would be the only way. Especially if simply blowing it up might endanger those who have come to find it. Plus the remainder of the story wouldn't have come about if the McGuffin had been destroyed instead of temporarily retrieved. But that's really something from the giant heap of Bond plot holes.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2024 Posts: 16,844
    thedove wrote: »
    I always have trouble with the end of FYEO. The fact that Bond simply tosses the device to be smashed gave the film a "what's the point" feeling. I think of Luigi, Lisl and the Havelocks dying in vain. For at the end Bond can only destroy the device and make the flippant remark that "You don't have it and I don't have it." But wouldn't the British be able to recreate ATAC? Or was it so complicated and expensive that it can't be re-produced?

    Yeah it doesn't really make much sense. The British must still have it or the codes it runs, otherwise they wouldn't be able to communicate with their fleets, which would be mad.

    Bond does play it quite strangely in this one: he should have just destroyed it immediately when they were in the St Georges: just set the bomb timer. But instead he removes it...? And in the sub on the way up too: destroy the ATAC. And yet he doesn't. It almost seems like he's a Russian double agent: at the climax there are too many people around so he can't hand it over to Gogol- notice Gogol takes it well and isn't angry with Bond... perhaps because Bond is his agent? :D
    Bond is a KGB plant!! :P
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,370
    Many Bonds have struggled with their endings. I guess FYEO is no exception. The ATAC was always more of a MacGuffin anyway, so I've never thought about it that hard. But now I can't "unthink" it. :-O
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,705
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Many Bonds have struggled with their endings. I guess FYEO is no exception. The ATAC was always more of a MacGuffin anyway, so I've never thought about it that hard. But now I can't "unthink" it. :-O

    For me it's all about the message of detente. I love FYEO for the ending just because I love the Bond franchise staring the Cold War in the face and laughing at it, which this ending does perfectly. Shows how silly all this is, and that no side ever really wins in war. We're even, at least until the next macguffin. Love it. Doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense because the filmmaking sells that message for me.
  • I suppose Bond taking the loss here sets up Pushkin similarly enjoying a failure in TLD!

    But seriously, I quite enjoy FYEO, even if I wish it was Dalton's debut. The locations are nice, and it does a good job of blending the two plots of FYEO and Risico while adding the ATAC on top. However, as a MacGuffin I always thought the ATAC was unoriginal. It felt like a mix of the Spektor/Lektor from FRWL and the submarine control system from TSWLM. And ultimately I think the score is mostly awful and doesn't sound like an action score at all. Never mind the whole revenge subplot with Melina which is so incredibly silly. She gets her revenge once, and doesn't feel bad about it for the rest of the film but Bond has to try and guilt her out of killing anybody else. Ultimately Colombo gets his revenge, and he even feels happy about it!

    Slightly unrelated, but the Wikipedia page claims that the film takes from Fleming's FYEO, Risico (both fairly obvious), LALD (the keel-hauling sequence), Goldfinger (the Identicast), but also from OHMSS. And I can't think of what that could be. Is that just the reference to Tracy?
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,560
    The Bonds and Friends podcast made a case for a double bill of OHMSS and FYEO.

    Some of the similarities:
    • the PTS of Eyes having Blofeld like he was at the end of OHMSS, neatly passing DAF version.
    • Bond wearing similar ski attire in both movies
    • Both movies having extensive ski and snow action
    • Both films have a romantic slant, though I always thought the Melina Bond dynamic to be forced.
    • Columbo and Draco being anti-heroes.
    • Bond mucking up the initial mission and then having to right things.
    • No real gadgets to speak of in either film.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited December 2024 Posts: 724
    It's more unfocused than boring, but it's definitely frustrating due to the presence of so many superfluous scenes and characters. The sequence of Bond going to the casino, playing cards, dining with Kristatos, and then sleeping with Lisl only seems to be there so Bond could eventually be captured by Columbo, but it takes way too long. That plot beat could've been achieved at the ice rink, when Ferrara is killed, and the rest of the movie would've played out the same way. The entire casino-Lisl sequence gives us no new information other than Kristatos telling Bond that he might have to kill Columbo, something which we already assumed from their initial meeting.

    The submersible fight and motorcycle attack on Melina could also have been excised. It's not even clear why Kristatos lured Melina to Italy just to kill her. She shows up for a few minutes and then Bond quickly sends her off. This happens again in Greece, where Melina and Bond go shopping for food, and then Bond tells her he has to go meet Kristatos in the casino (why?). Melina doesn't actually become relevant to the story until Bond meets her at the underwater temple much later in the film.

    And then there's the scene where Bond meets Q in a church only to be told that they can't find out which St. Cyril's the ATAC is at, to which Bond replies that Columbo would know. So why not go to him first? Why not just cut from Max dropping "St. Cyril's" to Bond and Columbo's team arriving there?

    FYEO probably has more scenes like this any other Bond movie. The travelogue aspect is nice, but it also pads the runtime with scenes that aren't relevant. It's a shame, since so many other aspects of FYEO are so good, namely Moore and Bouquet, the chases and stunts, Locque, and the Cold War intrigue. Along with TWINE, FYEO would benefit more than any other Bond movie from a fan edit that trims the fat.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,760
    007HallY wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Apparently, in his infamous 1983 interview with Starlog Magazine, Richard Maibaum expressed his dissatisfaction with the film. Maibaum felt that director John Glen did not properly exploit the love story between Bond and Melina and he felt that Roger Moore was not capable of portraying a harder edged Bond. Once again, sometimes actors are as strong as their material and directors. In Glen’s defense, it was his first truly directed movie. However, a few actors have said that he wasn’t always the best with directing their performances. It really shows here. Same with Michael G Wilson, it was his first true screenplay. At it’s core, FYEO is really about the series (and it’s creative team) finding their footing in reality again. That’s why some people might call it boring or unmemorable. The above interview just further proves that Richard Maibaum blamed other people for not doing his scripts his way.

    It’s an odd Bond film in terms of its production. I think this is the point in the series where the budgets became frozen (which seems to be the main reason why Glen was hired as even Peter Hunt was out of their price range at the time) which didn’t help. You also have a pretty wide range of different voices involved in the script, including Maibaum, Wilson, Broccoli, early drafts from different writers, and notes from Stunt Coordinators. That’s actually not a bad thing - TSWLM was partly created from several cobbled together drafts from different writers. Pretty much all of the modern Bond films are written this way too, but with FYEO it feels as though they missed those initial pre-production meetings where they map out what the film is about/what they want out of it. As it is it feels like they went all in with the ‘back to basics’ concept but missed out what they wanted to do with character. It could have been done at the time - TSWLM for all its grandness and outlandishness has a pretty strong central story with Bond and Anya, and it even touches on the idea of revenge.

    Maibaum’s criticisms of the script make sense in this context, but going from his own words I’m not sure if even he was the right writer to be tackling this. Ie.

    "We tried to return to the earlier films with For Your Eyes Only but we didn't have Sean to make it real. And I was very disappointed with the way the love story was handled. The whole idea was that the great lover James Bond can't get to first base with this woman because she was so obsessed with avenging her parents' death. Nothing was ever done with it. It was as if the director didn't feel there was a love story there at all."

    Yeah, even that seems a bit superficial and very much in ‘missing the point’ territory. The first base stuff comes off as a bit crude. I’m actually glad Moore played his scenes with Melina the way he did.

    Yes, as you said @007HallY it feels like EON wanted old mixed with new. And didn't know exactly how to mix the two together. I think for the flaws, all team members should have some blame. But it all starts at the writing for me. Richard Maibaum always bragged about how he was the pro at writing Bond, but I don't think he should have been used here. Same with TMWTGG (along with Guy Hamilton). I think he liked to think that he could co-direct a Bond movie, but EON would know better. It also seems that one of the four main producers could be called a co-director of Bond: Cubby, Harry, Michael and Barbara. Instead of being a director, he'd be a script dictator, akin to James Cameron.

    As for FYEO being boring, I wouldn't call it that. However, I would call it one of the least memorable Bonds. They almost grounded themselves to be too real.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,560
    Bond would likely always use official channels for information and when those fail he would go digging. Look at OHMSS he was using Mi6 intel and then scrapped it when M removed him from the case and then used Draco and the Union Corse route.

    We can nitpick or plot hole any film. A good film keeps you engaged and you just go along for the ride. The ones that don't keep us engaged and the ones where the holes become apparent.

    To me the ending of the film un-does some of the wonderful things that came before. When Bond hurls that keyboard I am left to say why? Why destroy the thing you were meant to retrieve? If your mission was to destroy it, which I don't think that is Tanner's direction, then leave it in the St. Georges and blow it up real good. As double-o-6 days "Finish the job James."

    Instead he retrieves it and then we have a third act that basically renders the mission and the whole story redundant since Bond hurled the damn thing off the cliff.

    The involvement of Melina is problematic. She comes into the story with force and kills with ruthless actions. Then it's like Bond pets her on the head and tells her it is a too dangerous world for her. The rest of the movie she loses her agency and becomes a side kick.

    We have some travelog shots in Greece. We have an attempt to do romance? Or is it just two people having fun and looking pretty in a pretty locale? After perforating Gonzalez Melina becomes a compassionate person. Even trying to save one of Columbo's goons at the end of the film. Then at the end when we need her to have her big ending with Kristatos, Bond intervenes again and tells her to behave.

    This film could have been so much better with some tweaks.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,844
    I suppose Bond taking the loss here sets up Pushkin similarly enjoying a failure in TLD!

    But seriously, I quite enjoy FYEO, even if I wish it was Dalton's debut. The locations are nice, and it does a good job of blending the two plots of FYEO and Risico while adding the ATAC on top. However, as a MacGuffin I always thought the ATAC was unoriginal. It felt like a mix of the Spektor/Lektor from FRWL and the submarine control system from TSWLM.

    Yeah, I don't think it's a coincidence that they said how they wanted a more grounded film more in line with FRWL and then put in exactly the same macguffin, only the British version rather than the Russian this time!

    And FRWL has issues with that macguffin too: Bond steals it in such a way they know it's missing, so why don't they just change the codes to make it useless?


    slide_99 wrote: »
    It's more unfocused than boring, but it's definitely frustrating due to the presence of so many superfluous scenes and characters. The sequence of Bond going to the casino, playing cards, dining with Kristatos, and then sleeping with Lisl only seems to be there so Bond could eventually be captured by Columbo, but it takes way too long. That plot beat could've been achieved at the ice rink, when Ferrara is killed, and the rest of the movie would've played out the same way. The entire casino-Lisl sequence gives us no new information other than Kristatos telling Bond that he might have to kill Columbo, something which we already assumed from their initial meeting.

    The submersible fight and motorcycle attack on Melina could also have been excised. It's not even clear why Kristatos lured Melina to Italy just to kill her. She shows up for a few minutes and then Bond quickly sends her off. This happens again in Greece, where Melina and Bond go shopping for food, and then Bond tells her he has to go meet Kristatos in the casino (why?). Melina doesn't actually become relevant to the story until Bond meets her at the underwater temple much later in the film.

    Yeah there's a lot of it which doesn't really hold up to much thinking; especially that stuff about luring Melina to the ski resort. Why keep trying to kill Bond if you want him to get rid of Columbo for you and frame Columbo for the whole ATC thing?

    I guess one vaguely interesting thing is that Bond is never actually a spy/undercover in this one: everyone knows quite openly that he's a British agent all the way through.
  • thedove wrote: »
    The Bonds and Friends podcast made a case for a double bill of OHMSS and FYEO.

    Some of the similarities:
    • the PTS of Eyes having Blofeld like he was at the end of OHMSS, neatly passing DAF version.
    • Bond wearing similar ski attire in both movies
    • Both movies having extensive ski and snow action
    • Both films have a romantic slant, though I always thought the Melina Bond dynamic to be forced.
    • Columbo and Draco being anti-heroes.
    • Bond mucking up the initial mission and then having to right things.
    • No real gadgets to speak of in either film.

    Thanks. I suppose I can see the similarities between the films. It does seem maybe a bit of a stretch though. I'm also curious why Wikipedia mentions the novel as inspiration for parts of the plot?
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited December 2024 Posts: 724
    thedove wrote: »
    To me the ending of the film un-does some of the wonderful things that came before. When Bond hurls that keyboard I am left to say why? Why destroy the thing you were meant to retrieve? If your mission was to destroy it, which I don't think that is Tanner's direction, then leave it in the St. Georges and blow it up real good. As double-o-6 days "Finish the job James."

    Instead he retrieves it and then we have a third act that basically renders the mission and the whole story redundant since Bond hurled the damn thing off the cliff.

    It seems like the protocol for the ATAC was, if it's in danger of falling into enemy hands, destroy it, which is what the ship's crew tried to do in the opening. When Bond got to it, that wasn't the threat anymore, so he tried to retrieve it and return it to MI6 intact. He probably would've followed through on that if Gogol hadn't shown up at the end, at which point he had no choice but to destroy it.

    Also, it's not really clear if that's the only ATAC there is, or if there are several in use by the British. If the script had made it clear that the ATAC was either a prototype or the only one of its kind, it would've helped clear a few things up and added more urgency to the story.
    Slightly unrelated, but the Wikipedia page claims that the film takes from Fleming's FYEO, Risico (both fairly obvious), LALD (the keel-hauling sequence), Goldfinger (the Identicast), but also from OHMSS. And I can't think of what that could be. Is that just the reference to Tracy?

    Tracy, plus skiing and the villain having a mountaintop hideout that the heroes have to infiltrate.
  • Posts: 1,549
    slide_99 wrote: »
    It's more unfocused than boring, but it's definitely frustrating due to the presence of so many superfluous scenes and characters. The sequence of Bond going to the casino, playing cards, dining with Kristatos, and then sleeping with Lisl only seems to be there so Bond could eventually be captured by Columbo, but it takes way too long. That plot beat could've been achieved at the ice rink, when Ferrara is killed, and the rest of the movie would've played out the same way. The entire casino-Lisl sequence gives us no new information other than Kristatos telling Bond that he might have to kill Columbo, something which we already assumed from their initial meeting.

    The submersible fight and motorcycle attack on Melina could also have been excised. It's not even clear why Kristatos lured Melina to Italy just to kill her. She shows up for a few minutes and then Bond quickly sends her off. This happens again in Greece, where Melina and Bond go shopping for food, and then Bond tells her he has to go meet Kristatos in the casino (why?). Melina doesn't actually become relevant to the story until Bond meets her at the underwater temple much later in the film.

    And then there's the scene where Bond meets Q in a church only to be told that they can't find out which St. Cyril's the ATAC is at, to which Bond replies that Columbo would know. So why not go to him first? Why not just cut from Max dropping "St. Cyril's" to Bond and Columbo's team arriving there?

    FYEO probably has more scenes like this any other Bond movie. The travelogue aspect is nice, but it also pads the runtime with scenes that aren't relevant. It's a shame, since so many other aspects of FYEO are so good, namely Moore and Bouquet, the chases and stunts, Locque, and the Cold War intrigue. Along with TWINE, FYEO would benefit more than any other Bond movie from a fan edit that trims the fat.

    I think it's the fat that makes Bond movies interesting. Otherwise it would just be a Macguffin and action scenes.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 451
    IMO the only problem I have with FYEO is the villian, Julian Glover, who I don't find charismatic enough for a Bond villain.

    Others must have seen something in him though, as he also played a villain in "Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade" (Walter Donovan) and "The Empire Strikes Back" (General Veers) during the same period.

    Personally I've always thought Charles Dance would have been a much better choice, but sadly he was only assigned a minor role as a henchman.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,428
    Maibaum said that Melina initially was destined not to have sex with Bond because she was singularly focused on revenge...

    ...something they kind of resurrected with QoS.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,370
    echo wrote: »
    Maibaum said that Melina initially was destined not to have sex with Bond because she was singularly focused on revenge...

    ...something they kind of resurrected with QoS.

    Interesting. For a character singularly focused on revenge, Melina makes it rather easy for Bond to talk her out of it. However much I like FYEO, I was never too big a fan of Melina. She's in the passenger seat most of the film. I honestly wish they could have made her more like Camille.

    QOS, on the other hand, offers a course correction on this character, assuming we are, indeed, to take both characters as distilled from the same rudimentary outlines. I rather like Camille. She's bold enough to sleep with one man just to get closer -- literally -- to another man. Before she can do that, however, she must get deep enough inside Greene's organization to run errands for him. He, of course, is on to her, and yet that doesn't stop her from being formally introduced to Medrano; she's got some nerve, I'll give her that. I especially like her vigorous attack on Medrano in the Dune Hotel. She's also perfectly practical: job's done, the beast is dead, one kiss for James and a few kind words, and oh well off she goes. There's something very efficient about her. ;)

    I get that Camille doesn't necessarily feel like sleeping with Bond, possibly because she respects the emotional boundaries he's still visibly struggling with. I also get that QOS was released in 2008, whereas in '81, audiences expected Bond to bed his women, good and evil. My guess is that at some point, some serious "doing it" was expected from Bond and the leading lady in those days. Hence naked swimming with Melina and showering with Stacey.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,844
    It would have been pretty striking I think if they had gone down the Camille path with Melina though, I agree; I can imagine a Roger Bond film ending with Bond and Melina parting in a similar way (although of course it works better in QoS as there's meaning in the 'dead don't care about revenge' message for both of them, unlike here).
    Bibi could perhaps become a more conventional Bond girl who he does bed, and of course he also has Lisl as well.
    I always think Lisl is quite an interesting character note for Bond at this point: Bond is actually quite romantic with her, walking with her on the beach the morning after, and he feels a bit more shaken than usual by her death. Bond has grown a bit here emotionally since Connery's time.
  • Posts: 1,882
    No.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,428
    mtm wrote: »
    It would have been pretty striking I think if they had gone down the Camille path with Melina though, I agree; I can imagine a Roger Bond film ending with Bond and Melina parting in a similar way (although of course it works better in QoS as there's meaning in the 'dead don't care about revenge' message for both of them, unlike here).
    Bibi could perhaps become a more conventional Bond girl who he does bed, and of course he also has Lisl as well.
    I always think Lisl is quite an interesting character note for Bond at this point: Bond is actually quite romantic with her, walking with her on the beach the morning after, and he feels a bit more shaken than usual by her death. Bond has grown a bit here emotionally since Connery's time.

    The beach is another echo of OHMSS, now that I think of it.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    Posts: 1,037
    Love FYEO, especially the action set pieces and of course the more grounded Cold War plot. What I would give for a John Barry score though...
Sign In or Register to comment.