For Your Eyes Only Widescreen Edition

1, Best Bond title track. This Sheen Easton hit from the 80's even beats Paul McCartney's Live and Let Die. Popular, contemporary and original hit that fits the seductive tone of a Bond movie opening sequence.2. Roger Moore at his peak. Sure, he is starting to show his age a little as Connery did, with noticeably fewer if any shirtless scenes and zero sex scenes, which is quite odd for any Bond film. In fact, he even turns down sex once when a young vixen strips down and tries to seduce him which makes us consider him as more sophisticated than the brutish Bond that Connery played. Moore also does eyebrow expressions masterfully whenever he is threatened or angry, he raises an eyebrow in a distinctly British manner and it is just chilling to watch. No other Bond had this level of eyebrow Charisma.3. Best chase scene ever. Hands down. Period. Sure, Lazenby did a skiing sequence in Her Majesty's Secret Service, but this ski scene is extraordinary for several reasons. For one, intensity and duration. This is a solid 10 minutes or more of the film and the skiing stunts are absolutely insane. Good old fashioned stunt work trumps special effects as this scene clearly shows. Also, for a chase scene it is unique because it features 3 different types of vehicles, more or less. A car, two motorcycles, and a man on skis. Next the setting is unique because not only does this great chase take place on a ski slope but an Olympic training course which takes us over long jumps and bobsled runs. It holds up well with age and is a breathtaking chase to watch even to this day.4. This plot actually makes sense. You really have to suspend disbelief to accept that some Bond plots are actually a matter of British national security. Here, there is a clear threat. A decoding device is lost at sea and the English must recover it before the Russians, otherwise all hell would break lose. It is a valid threat and compelling enough to warrant the use of their top agent, 007.5. Great opening sequence involving a helicopter. There are so few films with helicopter stunts in them. In fact, I can think of hardly any except for this one. Perhaps a helicopter is limited in what it can do stunt-wise or it is just too dangerous. But forget that, this is the crazy 80's and the helicopter scenes are quite exhilarating. Bond gets locked in the back of a helicopter that has no pilot and has to exit the craft and re-enter from the front to regain control. These poor underpaid stuntmen! All the while narrowly missing buildings and bridges and flying inside a warehouse. Good stuff!The only weak points are the lack of exploitation that we usually see in Bond movies, a very underwhelming villain, and having only one Bond girl in the entire film who somehow manages to keep her clothes on the entire time.

For Your Eyes Only: 7 out of 10: A semi-remake of On Her Majesties Secret Service this Roger Moore outing takes Bond closer to his roots as he investigates the assassination of a salvage expert who was recovering a nuclear McGuffin.If you recall, On Her Majesties Secret Service would have been one of the best Bond films had it not starred that black hole of charisma George Lazenby. Remaking it with Roger Moore seemed like a good idea. In addition, after Moore’s last outing was Moonraker, bringing the series back to something resembling Earth also seemed wise.The Good: Leaving aside the pre-credit sequence this is actually a grounded story that seems like an actual mission an agent for British Intelligence would have. One of our guys was killed we think this is the killer so go rattle his tree and find out who hired him. The film also manages to have actual double-crosses and surprises. In addition, neither Bond nor the bad guys have entire armies of people in identical jumpsuits shooting wildly at each other. Bond actually uses stealth.The underwater shots in this film are gorgeous. The underwater action is well done as well. Like male cinematic Lara Croft, Bond has had trouble with underwater levels in the past (The entire Thunderball movie being prosecution exhibit one) but they really hit this one out of the park.There is also some quality acting outside of Moore’s usual bit. Topal, in particular, needs his own movie.The Bad: The film lacks that wow moment. It has some spectacular stunts and bits but none of them are all that memorable. One of the downsides of being grounded I am afraid. You need to have a stunt or set-piece that makes one wonder how did they do that.The Bond girls are an overall weak sauce in this tome as well. We have an underaged Ice skater, Pierce Bronson’s actual wife and a French actress that doesn’t speak English. This makes for an overall poor showing. Also, in reality, Roger is looking a bit long in the tooth to be chasing any of these women James Bond or no.The Ugly: I am not going to say that the pre-credit sequence was the worst in any Bond film. There really is some pretty stiff competition out there. But this has to be one of the most misguided. In an attempt to tie up loose plot holes we have Bond laying flowers at the grave of his wife that was killed during In Her Majesties Secret Serice. Then a helicopter, that might have had the words “It’s a Trap” written on its side, shows up and spirits him off to London where Blofield is controlling it remotely. Now the producers apparently couldn’t afford the star of Pumaman himself so Blofield is played from behind by both a bald man that looks nothing like Donald Pleasance and at a time by a dummy that looks just like a shop mannequin from Macy’s tied to a helicopter. It has nothing to do with the rest of the movie and it is awful. I mean not as awful as the Margret Thatcher impersonator at the end of the film awful but still.In Conclusion: Forgettable but an overall good time is had in this again surprisingly grounded and reasonable James Bond outing. I am not sure grounded and reasonable is the reason I watch James Bond but I enjoyed myself nonetheless.

For Your Eyes Only was an attempt by Eon Productions to return to a story inspired by Ian Flemming’s James Bond books. That’s shown right at the start as Bond’s longtime foe Ernst Stavro Blofeld of SPECTRE attempts to kill Bond (Roger Moore) by taking over a helicopter he’s riding in. The plot revolves around Bond attempting to recover a British defense communication system before the Soviets get it. Along the way Bond runs into rival businessmen, a woman seeking revenge, and a very young and impressionable ice skater that falls in love with him.The film was largely successful in getting back to the roots of the series. The previous two films, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker suffered from ridiculous plots. Moonraker also began to mock itself and the franchise. For Your Eyes Only had a much more straight forward and believable story and events. It was nice to see that Eon Productions hadn’t lost sight of what a Bond film was supposed to be about.C

Done when cinematography was at it's peak. Locations used in this movie are just out of this world... From the Italian Alps with their majestic peaks and snowy slopes to the Aegean Sea and the Greek backgrounds, to the unbelievable Holy Trinity Monastery at Meteora, these are all unbelievable backgrounds used to film this masterpiece. Lots of "Bond" action, sexy women, fast cars (for the era) and suspense, this is what this movie is all about. Great underwater cinematography as well.

1981’s For Your Eyes Only was memorable for me as the first Bond film I saw at the cinema, although had at that point watched up to The Man with the Golden Gun on TV. Despite having seen the film on video and TV a few times over the years, watching the Blu Ray on my HD Projector and in 5.1 digital surround and after recently watching all the other Bond Films brought home again just why this is an excellent James Bond film and certainly ranks alongside Live and Let Die or The Spy Who Loved Me as Roger Moore’s best outing as 007 and deserves a place in most fans top ten Bond films.Why is it so good? After the excesses of the Spy Who Loved Me and even more so Moonraker, EON went back to basics remembering not all of James Bond novels where about supervillains wanting world domination but Bond battling mid-level gangsters and operatives.For Your Eyes only was the first Bond of the five 1980s Bond Films to be directed by John Glen. I understand the original intention was For Your Eyes Only and the opening sequence to introduce a new actor to play James Bond with Roger Moore only being enticed back at the last min. Was that a good or bad thing? Good because Moore certainly gives his best performance as James Bond possibly because the script was aimed at a back to basics Bond. Bad because it would have been better in the long run to have cast a new actor since Moore was clearly too old in both Octopussy and a View to A Kill and the producers were always to tempted to make things silly whilst Moore was Bond, hence the series lost impetus again until Timothy Dalton took over. Perhaps a new actor who made 5 Bond films in the 1980s might have successfully rebooted the franchise just like what was later attempted with Brosnan and more recently and successfully with Daniel Craig. Nevermind!The tone of For Your Eyes Only is not unlike earlier Bond films like OHMSS, Thunderball, From and Russia with Love and later films like Licence to Kill, Goldeneye or Casino Royale than what was typical of the Roger Moore era. This is also a film that is very much set in Ian Fleming’s books since the screen play was largely based on two short stories For Your Eyes Only – where a young woman called Havelock sets out to avenge the hitman who murdered her parents and Risico – where Bond teams up with Columbo against the double agent, traitor and opium smuggler Kristatos who tries to frame Columbo. In addition, the screenplay made use of un-filmed elements from other Bond Novels such as Goldfinger, OHMSS, and Live and Let Die. The Greek setting is also a homage to Kingsley Amis’s Bond novel Colonel Sun In in all, FYEO is almost as high in pure Fleming DNA as any of the films up to and including Live and Let Die and 2006’s Casino Royale.The action and the style generally much more gritty and realistic and exactly what you would expect from spy caper and thriller. It doesn’t venture too far into campy self-parody. OK there are a few such as the opening sequence where Bond kills Blofeld, the 2CV6 car chase, the ice hockey fight scene where Bond dispatches the baddies over the goal line and the ending with Thatcher talking to the parrot who she thinks is Bond. Yes these are a few moments of silliness but otherwise its it is how it should be.For Your Eyes Only was the first Bond Film to acknowledge the greatness and try to rehabilitate On Her Majesty’s Secret Service which had been considered the black sheep of the James Bond films. It offers continuity from OHMSS such as Bond visiting Theresa Bond’s grave and the killing of Blofeld (albeit unnamed for legal reasons) in same opening sequence. In addition, there are the skiing and bobsleigh sequences in Cortina that owe a debt to OHMSS. This continues when the action moves to Greece with the character of Columbo played by Topol a “good” criminal owes a lot to Marc Ange Draco (Tracy’s father) in OHMSS although one could say from the novels that character of Draco owes much to Columbo and other Bond allies like Karim Bey and Mattis that Ian Fleming deployed.There are some criticisms – Roger Moore was beginning to look a bit too old. The Villain Kristatos played by Julian Glover isn’t really menacing or memorable enough. He’s certainly not a typical Bond Villain or henchman and he does not seem to get enough screen time, mind there again he tries to set up Columbo for assassination by Bond. Perhaps he is just to subtle for a bond movie which is rather odd since Glover is usually great at playing villains but all in all he seems like a number two rather than a number one ok he works for the Soviet’s but it would have been more convincing to work for a really nasty Russian general like Orlov rather than the nice and cuddly & peace loving General Gogol. Then there is Bill Conti’s score which divides yes John Barry is missed overall but the score has some great moments including the Theme song and Ski / Motorbike chase in Cortina, but it isn’t quite the music needed for a Bond Film not enough of the James Bond theme – unlike when Michael Kamen covered for Barry for Licence To Kill or the work of David Arnold.As to the BLU Ray. The picture and sound are fantastic.A great purchase for all James Bond fans

This may not be one of the more memorable Bond films, but it's a fun action flick all the same. It's Roger Moore's 4th outing as Bond and he has by now truly found his groove. He plays the superspy with a twinkle in his eye, and his humour is needed to tide over the cringeworthy affair of/with the flirtatious teenage ice princess. There are the usual exotic locations and exciting chases which make any Bond film worth watching. In my book anyway, but then, I'm a fan.What lets the film down a little are the lovely but rather bland main Bond girl (Melina, played by Carole Bouquet in case you're wondering) and one of the more forgettable villains (Kristatos played by Julian Glover) of the franchise. However, Topol is rather fun and one of the reasons I still enjoy watching this film once in a while.

Just a little background, please bear with me.I am watching all the Bond films through in chronological order. Starting out with 'Dr No' and now I am all the way along to this one 'For your eyes only'.'For your eyes only' is number 12. I feel I am able to make reasonable comment now that my journey is maturing.Let's take a look at the Roger Moore films, which is where 'For your eyes only' is his number 5.He started out with 'Live and let die'. In my humble opinion a cracker of a film and deserving five stars.Then we have 'The man with the golden gun'. Again a good film five more stars.Then 'The spy who loved me'. Whoops in my opinion the makers lost the plot here, overdone and ultimately boring.Then I hoped for a return to form in 'Moonraker'. Sadly if anything it was worse than 'The spy who loved me'. Just a trip on the same ride, not good.I cross my fingers and order 'For your eyes only'. Watching it over new years eve and into 2022. What a waste, same old, same old as the last two. No storyline that I could make out, and no I wasn't drunk it being new years eve.What were the production people thinking about? Basically the film isn't worth watching unless the consumer just enjoys the same tricks pulled out in slightly different guise.I have ordered 'Octopussy' with trepidation, in the hope things get better. Because I must be a masochist. I have started this journey through James Bond. And like Mastermind 'I've started so I'll finish'.I must remember that many of the films have been good fun. Sean Connery did a few classics and George Lazenby was OK.Surely things have to get better?Wish me luck.

Good to see a Roger Moore/James Bond film with a more inventive story that doesn't go off half way through, and doesn't rely too much on formulaic former glories.Though there are sharks. And motorbikes. And lots of underwater action.But at least we're spared the usual massive shoot-out with hordes of extras on the Pinewood sound stage. (Instead we get a smallish shoot-out at a Greek mountaintop monastery.)There are a number of genuinely exciting & tense sequences, but as always for this era, the "comic" ending is just embarrassing.

This was Roger Moore's 5th Bond film and I have always considered it to be one of his best. It was a breath of fresh air and brought the Bond films back to basics, after the appalling Moonraker that came before it. It was also nice to see a tougher Bond film again and to see him less reliant on gadgets. I have always enjoyed this much more than Octopussy and A View To A Kill. It is Moore's second best Bond film, in my opinion, after The Spy Who Loved Me. However, there are some aspects of this film that really bug me. The villain, played by Julian Glover, has to be one of the least menacing and physically threatening of all of the Bond baddies and the other minor villains in the film aren't much better. Secondly, the music in this film is absolutely awful and doesn't fit the tone of the film at all. It was written by Bill Conti, who I had not heard of before, but I have since learned that he scored some of the Rocky films. It made me yearn for the rousing music of John Barry like never before. However, the title song, performed by Scottish singer Sheena Easton is one of the best Bond themes in the whole series, in my opinion. The action sequences in the film are also very well filmed, especially the helicopter scene and the rock-climbing scene near the end of the film. So, despite my qualms, I do like this film a lot and it is one that I watch quite often. Three stars from me, for this flawed, but still enjoyable Bond film.