For Your Eyes Only

Audience Reviews

View More

Lanfranco C @Lanfrancobz Dec 21 The best end credits of all the Bond movies! See more Michael C @Michael71 Dec 10 "The Spy Who Loved Me" is my favorite James Bond movie of the Roger Moore era. With that being said, for me "For Your Eyes Only" ranks as very close second. A seemingly universal consensus among fans is "For Your Eyes Only" is great for the reason of the movie does not focus on gadgets and gimmicks and focuses on the story itself. I agree with that opinion. I never thought the gadgets were a problem or a liability, but it was nice to see a change. The late Roger Moore is terrific as always. Moore is helped by a terrific supporting cast. The late Topol is excellent as Milos Columbo. The movie also has what is probably the greatest pre-credit sequence of the Bond movie franchise. It is soon followed by the most frightening moment in the entire franchise with the terrifying sinking of the British spy ship St. Georges. It is just as frightening after repeated viewings. There is a little bit of everything in this great chapter of the Bond franchise. It is well worth seeing. See more Oliver J @Ollie1997 Oct 28 Critics Consensus: “For Your Eyes Only” grounds the Bond franchise with a return to espionage and suspense, trading some of the Moore-era spectacle for a more realistic, character-driven adventure that delivers steady thrills. Review: Roger Moore’s For Your Eyes Only marks a shift toward a grittier, more grounded Bond. After the excesses of space-bound and gadget-heavy entries, this film focuses on espionage, Cold War tension, and human stakes. The story, revolving around a sunken missile command system, is straightforward but effective, allowing for real suspense and grounded action sequences. Moore’s Bond retains his signature charm, and the supporting cast, including Carole Bouquet as Melina Havelock, brings depth and emotional weight. Director John Glen stages thrilling sequences, from cliffside chases to underwater pursuits, with a palpable sense of realism. The absence of over-the-top gadgets and larger-than-life villains helps the story feel tighter, though some fans might miss the more flamboyant Moore-era spectacle. Verdict: For Your Eyes Only is a smart, suspenseful Bond entry that balances character, action, and espionage, proving the franchise can deliver excitement without relying on excess. See more Marco L @decatur555 Aug 27 (CASTELLANO) Después del disparate espacial de Moonraker, esta entrega quiso devolver a Bond a un terreno más realista. Se nota que ya estamos en los 80: hay más cuidado en la acción, los efectos lucen mejor y el ritmo, aunque irregular, resulta más terrenal. John Glen debuta como director en la saga y se percibe esa intención de recuperar la seriedad de los primeros tiempos. La secuencia inicial con el helicóptero marca un arranque potente, aunque su desenlace bordea lo ridículo. Aun así, escenas como la persecución con el 2CV o el clímax en Meteora aportan momentos de gran tensión y paisajes que todavía impresionan. También hay una apuesta interesante por un Bond más contenido, menos dado a los excesos, quizá porque Roger Moore ya estaba en los cincuenta y el personaje necesitaba adaptarse a su edad. Carole Bouquet cumple como chica Bond, aunque la química con Moore no termina de despegar. Julian Glover aporta sobriedad como villano, pero sin llegar a la altura de antagonistas memorables de otras entregas. La música de Bill Conti, con un aire disco muy de su época, es quizá lo que más chirría en un conjunto que buscaba recuperar sobriedad. En definitiva, Sólo para sus ojos es una película entretenida, con secuencias de acción notables y un intento sincero de volver a un Bond más clásico. No alcanza las cotas de sus mejores predecesoras, pero se deja ver y supuso un necesario ajuste de rumbo en la saga. (ENGLISH) After the space extravagance of Moonraker, this installment tried to bring Bond back to a more realistic ground. You can tell we’re in the 80s: the action looks sharper, the effects are more polished, and the pace—though uneven—feels more grounded. John Glen makes his directorial debut in the series, and his intention to recover some of the early seriousness is noticeable. The helicopter sequence provides a strong opening, although its resolution borders on the ridiculous. Even so, scenes like the chase with the Citroën 2CV or the climax in Meteora deliver great tension and landscapes that remain impressive. There’s also an attempt to portray a more restrained Bond, less prone to excesses, perhaps because Roger Moore was already in his fifties and the character had to adapt to his age. Carole Bouquet does her job as the Bond girl, though the chemistry with Moore never really sparks. Julian Glover brings sobriety to the villain, but he doesn’t reach the level of the saga’s more memorable antagonists. Bill Conti’s score, with its disco flavor very much of its time, is probably the element that clashes most in a film that otherwise aimed for sobriety. In the end, For Your Eyes Only is an entertaining film, with solid action sequences and a sincere attempt to return to a more classic Bond. It doesn’t reach the heights of its strongest predecessors, but it’s watchable and represented a necessary course correction for the saga. See more Jacob B Aug 7 Of course For Your Eyes Only is an improvement on Moonraker. Almost as if this was meant to be the next James Bond film after The Spy Who Loved Me and not that blatant attempt to cash in on the success of Star Wars. So it stands to reason that the right direction was to, both literally and metaphorically, bring 007 back down to earth. That being said, I do think The Spy Who Loved Me was the better film whereas FYEO for me leaned more towards flawed but good territory. The cold open is noticeably disconnected from the rest of the plot, is never brought up again and relies on audiences knowing that EON legally couldn't use SPECTRE in their movies after Sean Connery's permanent departure meaning that this was the only way to get rid of Blofeld whilst also serving as a middle finger from one producer to another when the then-upcoming Never Say Never Again was about to go into production. Note that the prologues in the previous Roger Moore Bond films served a purpose whereas this one relies on a bit of continuity that not everyone might be aware of. I just hope Totally-Not-Blofeld's cat got taken in by someone. Maybe Jaws and his girlfriend from Moonraker. The story, while far from bad, suffers from the fact that its main revelation, while genuinely a surprise at the time, has gone on to be expected from anything in the spy genre. I also found Bibi Dahl to be fairly obnoxious and more at odds with this film's more serious tone than the Margaret Thatcher bit, which had the privilege of happening at the end of the film when the conflict has already been resolved. Yes, I get why Moore didn't like it but it didn't bother me that much. Let the British director have his fun, especially since Thatcher was, and arguably still is, a really easy target for mockery. But don't you worry, there's still a lot of good things about this film. Moore still does a good job, Melina Havelock is one of the best and more unique Bond Girls out there, the theme song is amazing and the action sequences, while not to the same level as TSWLM, are enjoyable. How has nobody made any "This is Sparta" jokes yet when Bond kicks a car to its death? Personally, while I agree that this is film is darker and more serious than the other Moore!Bond films, it's not THAT dark. It still has its share of humour such as Bond and Havelock having to make do with the latter's crappy car after 007's gets blown up, itself a bit of a self-deprecating gag meant to reinforce that this was going to be a more grounded film for Moore's Bond, and not just because he's not going to space this time. I heard stories about how amazing the underwater scenes were, due to the fact that it was mainly illusions to give off the impression that Moore and Carole Bouquet were underwater when they actually weren't, due to a medical condition the latter had, but damn, they do sell the illusion even if you knew in advance that it wasn't real anytime the stunt doubles couldn't cover for them. So yeah, For Your Eyes Only definitely earns it's position as one of the better films from the oft-criticised-as-campy Roger Moore era of Bond films but if I had to choose between this film and TSWLM...well, let's just say that nobody did it better ;) See more thiago s @Thiagostone Jul 14 Filme bacaninha, o roteiro é mais ou menos, as cenas são bacaninhas, a história é fraca, o elenco é bacaninha, e alguns ajudam a melhorar o filme, os personagens são bacaninhas, e o filme deveria ter cenas bem melhores e relevantes, e as cenas de ação salvaram o filme, Com cenas de ação no ar, na terra e no mar por causa das cenas, eu meio que recomendo esse filme See more Read all reviews

For Your Eyes Only

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now