For Your Eyes Only in Review

For Your Eyes Only begins by quickly cutting ties with past Bond adventures and moving the character into a new direction. Notorious SPECTRE mastermind, Blofeld makes an ill-fated attempt on Bond's life, only to find himself at the bottom of a smokestack. This short prologue sets into motion a very different Bond tale; one of international espionage and revenge, that focuses more on personal vendettas against the backdrop of nuclear calamity. Bond (Roger Moore) is tasked with locating a missing piece of British naval hardware known as ATAC. It's been pilfered by a rival nation and can be used to launch the Royal Navy's submarine-based nuclear missiles. Bond encounters Melina (Carole Bouquet) on his quest to recover the missing system; her father having been killed while helping retrieve the ATAC, she has vowed to hunt down and kill those responsible for his death. Together, Melina and Bond will scour the globe, landing in Greece, Italy and the Bahamas, before coming face to face with the men responsible for stealing ATAC and killing Melina's father.

There's no doubt that For Your Eyes Only has a much different tone than Roger Moore's previous Bond films. Unfortunately, Mr. Moore's less physical presence in the role keeps him from maintaining a convincingly menacing presence; he doesn't seem capable of being a foreboding, scary Bond. Melina's story is compelling; her quest to find revenge is a rewarding counterpoint to Bond's more dutiful role. She breathes a much-needed sympathetic element into the plot. Just about everything in the film works, with the exception of Moore. One can't fault the guy for trying, though.

For Your Eyes Only is one of those films that is easy to enjoy, while managing to disappoint. There are quite a few impressive scenes, to be sure. The underwater sequences are expertly filmed and effective, there are exciting car chases, a nifty snow chase is always entertaining and Bond drives a kick-ass Lotus. Most of the performances are passable and the film moves in the right direction by showing a more brutal Bond who is unafraid to get his hands dirty. As it stands, For Your Eyes Only serves as an example of a move in the right direction that wasn't quite executed as well as it could have been.

(Ben Williams)

Hailed for bringing Bond back to earth...literally. What are your thoughts on For Your Eyes Only? Write your review in this thread.

Yeah, found more.

For Your Eyes Only is always going to be in my top 10. Moore provides his most rounded performance as James Bond, and it ranks as one of my favourite overall. Melina and Countess Lisl make for an excellent combination of Bond girls. The villains are superb and I'd happily keep Kristatos and Locque in my top 10 villains and henchmen. The action is thrilling, which is largely complimented by Conti's flamboyant score. What I like most about For Your Eyes Only however, is it's intertwining stories that flesh out the characters (even the supporting cast like Bibi, Gogol and Ferrero). Each character has a goal, a purpose, which emotionally connects them to what's a stake.The theme of vengeance makes a welcome appearance throughout, which the writers define in many ways through friendship (Columbo/Kristatos); family love (Melina); love (Bond/Tracy) and alliances (Gogol/Russia). There is permission to invest emotionally into these layered characters - a refreshing change from the 70s, where only a small handful of people you could actually care about (Corrine, Anya and Scaramanga).

Downfalls? The direction. From what I can remember, there weren't many interesting camera angles or lighting choices, but in terms of guiding the franchise, I'm glad they chose to move down a more harder edged direction, which would continue throughout the 80s.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Yeah, found more.

FYEO was on tv the other afternoon and I wound up laughing through the whole scene... sure it was flash at the time.

And I hate to say it, but as much as Barry's scores add to films, Conti's work here subtracts from it. It completely detracts my enjoyment of the film in places.

Also John Glen was shit.

Also I found Carol Bouquet bland if edible.

Also Johnathan Glover has to be one of the blandest villains in the series.

Bland pretty much sums up my thoughts on For Your Eyes Only.

I'm sure Peter Hunt would've done a good job with it were he not committed when Cubby called him.

Vesper wrote:

I'm sure Peter Hunt would've done a good job with it were he not committed when Cubby called him.

Hunt was under consideration? Didn't know that. The 1980s Bonds directed by Hunt would certainly have been improvements over Glen's. Probably no pigeons though.

It's Julian Glover and he's generally a very reliable actor. Good in Roy Ward Baker-St's Quatermass and the Pit.

ambler wrote:

It's Julian Glover and he's generally a very reliable actor. Good in Roy Ward Baker-St's Quatermass and the Pit.

He's also one of the finest living reciters of Beowulf. His one man show is astonishing. Highly recommend.

One day I am going to rotisserie this film.

ambler wrote:

It's Julian Glover and he's generally a very reliable actor. Good in Roy Ward Baker-St's Quatermass and the Pit.

Reliable yes, I'm not saying he's bad. He isn't. He just lacks a certain punch in this. It's more Glen's fault as a director than anyone else's.

GeneralGogol wrote:

Vesper wrote:

I'm sure Peter Hunt would've done a good job with it were he not committed when Cubby called him.

Hunt was under consideration? Didn't know that. The 1980s Bonds directed by Hunt would certainly have been improvements over Glen's. Probably no pigeons though.

In an interview that was done around the late 80s/90s I'm guessing, he mentioned how he was offered to direct a couple of more times after Diamonds Are Forever, but was always busy. He specifically mentioned being committed to Death Hunt, which was released the same year as For Your Eyes Only and I assume was in production at the same time. It's an interesting interview and he's pretty candid, I had posted it on MI6, will have to find it again. I'd always assumed he'd fell out with Cubby and EON after the Lazenby fiasco, but he insists he was on good terms and was just busy whenever they called. He turned down Never Say Never Again because he knew it would affect his relationship with them.

Vesper wrote:

It's an interesting interview and he's pretty candid, I had posted it on MI6, will have to find it again.

That would be great if you could, I love Peter Hunt.

For Your Eyes Only (1981) - 7/10
I was slightly disappointed after re-watching For Your Eyes Only. A movie that I thought was a clear cut above many, ended up being elementary. There is nothing seriously wrong with this film, it’s just that there’s nothing seriously fantastic about it, either. For Your Eyes Only is simply another Bond picture. That being said, the movie does have some advantages. Firstly is the stunt work and action, which is truly top notch. From Bond’s car chase in a Citroen to the thrilling ski chase, FYEO handles it’s chase sequences well. I also cannot help but love Bill Conti’s undeniably dated 80s score. And as the score is one of the few more unique things in the film (and series), I can enjoy it even more. The supporting cast is fine, overall. Melina as the main Bond girl works, but I’m not sure why Bond had to have sex with her at the end; not once in the film is there even the slightest hint to a love story. And while Julian Glover and Lynn Holly Johnson (especially the latter) seem out of place, Topol makes a good ally. For Your Eyes Only is no doubt better than the film it followed, but is too routine overall and nothing more than above average.

For Your Eyes Only would have been very interesting with Peter Hunt at the helm. He actually did a sterling job with Death Hunt, staging several explosive gun battles and chases.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Vesper wrote:

It's an interesting interview and he's pretty candid, I had posted it on MI6, will have to find it again.

That would be great if you could, I love Peter Hunt.

Quote :

Q: My feeling has always been that what the Beatles did for music, James Bond did for film.

A: Right, exactly, at that time. Of course everybody has forgotten that now, because we've all fallen into that idiom in the way of presenting films. We always cut films in the way I did Dr. No, but at that time that was something completely different to do. If you looked at any films made before 1961, even American films, they always have the guy walking down the steps, through the gates, getting into the car and driving away. We don't do any of that anymore [laughs]. The fellow says he's going, and he's there.

Q: Cut to the chase.

A: Exactly, which is what I did in Dr. No in order to make it move fast and push it along the whole time, while giving it a certain style. Now, of course, that style is standard for everything. It's very interesting, really, when I think back to it all. What's really funny is that the Beatles used to come to our showings. I knew them all. They were good kids, really. We had offices in London, and in the basement we had a theatre, and they were often guests. They also were great fans of James Bond.

Q: One question I've always pondered, is Terence Young's statement in one of the Bond fanzines that Goldfinger was in serious production and editing trouble, when the decision was made to shoot Thunderball quickly, release it first, and then release Goldfinger about six months later. But Young supposedly made editing suggestions that saved Goldfinger.

A: [laughs] I don't know anything about that, but I don't think that can be true, because Thunderball was going through litigation at that time. Remember, it belonged to Kevin McClory. That was one of the ones that didn't belong to Broccoli, Saltzman and United Artists at the time, because Fleming had written the book Thunderball from a screenplay which Kevin McClory claims--and he won the case--he and Jack Wittingham wrote, which was not a book, but because they could never get it lifted off as a film...Fleming had run out of ideas, or was running out of ideas, and said, "Oh, I might as well write and publish this as a book," and then of course McClory said, "You can't do that. You haven't even said that I contributed to it or Jack Whittingham did." They had a big court case, which I think was settled out of court, and then of course the screen rights became Kevin McClory's. If you look at the titles of Thunderball, Kevin McClory is the producer. After Goldfinger there was some talk where everyone debated whether they should do Thunderball or one of the others.

Q: I had read that they were planning on doing On Her Majesty's Secret Service after Thunderball.

A: Originally, yes, which I was going to do. I was promised the film after Thunderball, but they found themselves in a contractual mix-up with other directors on hand, and I got pushed out into the cold, because it was going to be my first film. Eventually, though, I did do it, because what they did...you see, On Her Majesty's Secret Service should have come before You Only Live Twice in the series of events that Fleming wrote. At the end of On Her Majesty's Secret Service the wife is killed, and then in You Only Live Twice he is sent to Japan to extract revenge from Blofeld, and the series went on from there. But they did it the other way around and altered the ending of You Only Live Twice. At that time, in fact, I know they had branched out and had put several directors under contract to do other things for them, and they decided they wouldn't do the other things, and they found themselves either having to pay off these other directors or use them. So they were used in various ways for other things. For instance, Lewis Gilbert, whose editor I had been for many years, was signed to direct You Only Live Twice, which is how that came about. But Thunderball interested me insofar that until the court case was settled, they wouldn't touch it at all, and the case was still going on while we made Goldfinger, so I don't know what events he is talking about.

Terence was extremely instrumental in the whole style of the films. He was extremely encouraging to me in our early style of Dr. No and From Russia With Love, and one cannot underestimate the personality of Terence that was interjected into the character of James Bond and Sean Connery's playing of it in the early films. There's no doubt about it, and he was the right man for the job at the time; a very good filmmaker. He's getting on a bit now, I suppose, like us all [laughs].

Q: Bond was so different for its time. As far as you're concerned, how did the whole thing come about?

A: I was a top English film editor in those days. Harry Saltzman, who came across to England and the first film he made was Look Back in Anger, which starred Richard Burton, had been connected to theatre and various things during the early fifties. The war was over, and I was editing, and Harry had always wanted to use me. When he made a film he'd call me and say, "Come on, let's make a film together," and each time I was either in the middle of a film or about to do another film, so I had never been able to do it. But we kept on good terms, and it was Harry who got a hold of me when he was doing Dr. No. It happened that I wasn't do anything else at that time. I've known Terence since I was a boy; I'd been assistant on several films with him, and I'd always liked him. So all of that sort of slotted into place, and I found myself editing Dr. No.

Now on Dr. No, of course, they had a lot of production problems; it was a very cheap production, completely unlike the amount of money they spend today. There were an enormous amount of challenges and problems. They had terrible weather in Jamaica, and they didn't shoot half of what they were supposed to shoot, so there was a great deal of ingenuity and creativity that went into the making of the film. That's really how Dr. No was born, as it were, and at that time, in fact, nobody gave much thought to the film. They just thought it was a cheap film being made at Pinewood, and it was only when it finally....all cutters, editors and people like that are cynical beings because they see the material so much, so often, but we thought Dr. No was marvelous fun, and we tried to make it more amusing wherever we could. Terence wasn't quite so sure about all of that. He thought we were setting him up with this film [laughs]. Anyway, he went along with it and various things that I suggested, because we had to get it moving as a film and make it all work. Out of necessity, the problems of production, Dr. No was born.

I don't think that before it was run with an audience anyone knew what we had, and it was only when a large audience at the London Pavilion saw it that they fell about and enjoyed it, that it suddenly dawned on them what we had here. We had an entirely new type of film. You must remember that the climate of the audiences at the time was very "kitchen sink." It was all for actresses doing the washing up, and the housework, the sleazy back room about hard lives, which I guess the audience had become a bit bored with. Here was an absolute breath of fantasy, glamour, and they loved it. Like everything, it had a certain amount of luck when it came out, which is why I guess it took off. That's what I think, anyway. Then after the opening it was very successful, and United Artists was pleased, although I don't think they originally thought too highly of it. Then, when the returns started to come in, they seemed very pleased.

Q: I guess the production problems you faced on Dr. No were actually beneficial.

A: It all helped, as it worked out. I really have to point out that at that time we had had many serious films, and I got a feeling that audiences were getting bored with them. The films were about angry, earthy people, and here was something that had suddenly gone back to sort of a 1940s glamour Hollywood type style film, with a special film style, which Spielberg did not very long ago with Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Q: I was going to add that I thought Dr. No really seemed to capture the flavor of the Saturday morning serials.

A: That's right, it did. It projected itself backwards, rather than forward, and it worked remarkably well and that's the luck of the draw. Sometimes you need a tremendous amount of luck.

Q: When you get to From Russia With Love, it looks so different....

A: Well, they had more money then, and then I had the bit between my teeth. I knew we were going to be okay, and I was determined that it was going to be okay. Dr. No had been made for just under a million dollars. You couldn't possibly make it today without it costing twenty or thirty million dollars. The returns, again, were greatly increased. The funny thing is that they make such a big deal about every latest Bond breaking all the records. They break the records, because the price of tickets have gone up. For instance, Thunderball was the most successful. I don't know if you remember, but they ran in 24 hours a day in New York. It was amazing.

Q: Thunderball was not one of the best films....

A: NO......

Q:....but they could have James Bond Does Dinner as a plot and it probably would have done the same amount of business.

A: Exactly. Again, you have the luck of the timing and that type of thing, and then you come back to the point that this was the middle of the sixties, and Thunderball came out a time when the Beatles were now big successes, and suddenly everyone--I presume--had a great, euphoric attitude about the British and British products, which happens whether it be British here or America in London. There are areas where it suddenly goes through, and we were in the middle of it by the time Thunderball came out here. It just automatically took off. I remember once coming to America to run the film, or something, for United Artists executives, and I was in a cab from the airport, when the cabdriver--who had heard my English accent--wanted to talk to me about a great little British film he had seen, even though he had no idea that I had anything to do with the film industry. That great little British film he had seen was called Dr. No, which thrilled me. I'll never forget that, because I found it so strangely interesting.

Q: From your point of view, how did production of From Russia With Love go?

A: It was the third film of the deal made between the producers and United Artists. Dr. No was a big success, even Call Me Bawana wasn't a bad success. Bob Hope once told me that it was the only one of his films at that time that had made him money. We were in great, confident spirits at that time, and while we couldn't go mad, I don't think there was a problem regarding production or money. If we needed another day or some extra shots, we got them and did them. So the production was a far better laid out production, although it was entirely the same crew. I think that's what happened, and that there was a great deal more confidence. We were also much more respected by the studio then. They no longer thought of us doing a little crappy picture [laughs]; suddenly we were the big boys, and demanded all sorts of things.

Terence, I think, was a little nervous, because it was the second one and he wasn't sure how it was all going to come out. He soon overrode that, and the confidence came back, helped, in no small way, by one of the definitive fights of all time on the train. The carriage was built on the set, and we had three cameras filming that scene, which was great. The scene took a lot of manipulating in the cutting, but anything good almost always does.

Q: The editing in that scene is fantastic.

A: Again, I was much more confident by then. I now knew that what I had done was good and that it had worked, so there was no holding me back.

Q: The interesting thing about From Russia With Love is that it seems to stick out from the rest of the series, in a good way, while the pacing is just incredible.

A: The pacing was the most important thing. If you analyze the story, it's an impossible one. Why did they go by train? Why didn't they take an airplane? [laughs] It had to move fast in order to hold you. The whole idea of the Bond films--and I don't know if they haven't lost a bit of that now--was that they were paperback films, as it were. They were the sort of thing that the commuters and the average guy working in New York and living outside read on the train. They were his fantasy world because of the way Fleming wrote them. They were all about good wine, well-dressed spies, and all that sort of thing. He brought into the book style great lengths of description regarding the shoes and the cotton shirts, ties, the food that James Bond was eating, and the beautiful girls, and all that--if you analyze it--incredible, but superficial grammar that rubbed off the page onto all of these people, and they were enjoyable because of that. I think we had to get the same thing into the films. My feeling was always that one should make the films seriously, but never take them seriously, if you see what I mean. The humor of the thing has to come out of the film itself. You can't sit down and say, "How can we make this funny?" In other words, it has to be there and work itself out.

Q: Unlike what Roger Moore so often did.

A: Absolutely. I love Roger, he's a lovely man and I've done three films with him, but he was never my idea of James Bond. In fact, I think that one of the better of the films, and of course I would feel that way, was On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Did you enjoy it?

Q: I rank it as number two, right behind Goldfinger.

A: [laughs] I'll accept number two. Had George Lazenby been more sensible, and had Broccoli and Saltzman been more sensible with him, I think he would have made a very credible Bond. He was a great looking guy and he moved along very well, although he wasn't really an actor. He was a model who had not done any acting before that. I think if things had gone the other way, he would have gone on to be a very good Bond. I'm sure they're not going to worry. They've made a fortune anyway [laughs].

Q: Before we move on to OHMSS, let's backtrack a little more. What was your view on the production of Goldfinger?

A: I got a little angry with Goldfinger, because I didn't think it was being made properly. In fact, I did quite a lot of work on that insofar as second unit shooting.

Q: Why did you feel it wasn't being made properly?

A: I just didn't feel that it was coming out the way it should have been coming out. We changed the theme a bit, there was a different director...I just felt it wasn't quite right. I must say that from the producers' point of view, they must have thought the same thing too. They really let me have a much freer hand on that in every way, and I was able to bang and boost that about. The whole car chase was actually a good lesson in editing. It was cut and edited and made to be entirely different from the way it was shot. It was very interesting, actually, but you wouldn't know, of course. Again, one of my favorite sayings is "Thank goodness the audience hasn't seen the script."

Q: How was it originally staged that was different from what we saw?

A: It was very poorly done, in my opinion, but eventually it came out right. As I say, that's all part of filmmaking, I guess. Oh, I remember another reason it was so tough. I had given up smoking, and I was a real bull in a china shop at that time, saying, "No, no, no, no. That's not the way it should be done." I was very autocratic about it all, although in fact it worked in the film. I had to pummel it into the same sort of style that the other two films were; taking what I was given and shaping it like the other two. It was not coming out like them, and my confidence was based on what I had already done. I must say, because it's definitely true, that those two producers always stood behind me very well. They were extremely cooperative and extremely appreciative of all the hard work I did. It is hard work, especially when you consider that the films are ninety percent hard work and ten percent cleverness. They were extremely hard work, and some were more difficult than others. Goldfinger was one of them. But as it worked out, it became one of the better ones. It had a good cast, which I also had in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I insisted on having a very good actress, and got Diana Rigg. Even all the smaller parts were very good actors, and that makes all the difference. Go back to Dr. No, for instance, all the people sitting around debating about everything were all local actors from Jamaica, and when we were cutting it together we had to put in all new voices. It was an amateur acting society, and for economic sakes they were used. Again, that's just to emphasize the point that as the films got more competent, they got bigger budgets and better casts. Using a barometer, Dr. No was such a success, that you simply had to go up with the next film and become more popular. Goldfinger, like On Her Majesty's Secret Service, had a good story.

Q: I would imagine that something like Thunderball was an editing nightmare.

A: I don't know if it was a nightmare, but it was certainly a challenge. There were moments, I suppose, where I had nightmares [laughs] about what we were going to do with it. It was the biggest film of the lot. Funnily enough, it doesn't matter to the audience. It's whether it captures them or not. It was the most successful at the time, and it was also the most expensive. I think the final negative cost was about eleven million dollars, which was a tremendous amount of money in those days. Of course there was a tremendous amount of underwater material, which is very difficult to edit and to make move along and make a good story out of it. Underwater by its nature is slow and therefore trying to keep a pace going all through it is the difficult thing. Actually, I'd love to do Thunderball again in the future, which, of course, they eventually did [as Never Say Say Never Again].

One thing I said at the time of Thunderball and again later on, was that we had to be careful that we didn't become imitators of our imitators, because by then everybody had gotten on the bandwagon, so we had to be very careful of copying them, because that would have been a disaster. But they seem to have outlived everything and gone on and on and on, although they've changed tremendously. They're not the sort of thing that Ian Fleming wrote.

Q: Although they seem to be trying to get back to it now.

A: They keep trying. They always run On Her Majesty's Secret Service before they begin a new one, and wonder why they can't get back to that.

Q: Did you enjoy Thunderball?

A: I liked the film, particularly the underwater material, because it was a great challenge to me as editor, and I was out in the Bahamas with them, and a great deal of responsibility was laid on my shoulders by them in the making of the film, and in the finishing of it. I don't think Terence really saw the film until much later on, because he was off doing another film. Then, of course, I went on to became a production associate for Cubby on Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, which didn't move fast enough for me. I didn't actually edit it, I'm afraid. By that time I was preparing On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and I didn't want to find myself becoming involved in that capacity, because once you get involved with the editing, it takes up a great deal of the time.

Q: What was your experience on You Only Live Twice like?

A: There were always problems on all of the Bonds for various reasons, because they were tremendously ambitious and it wasn't always possible to do what the written word said; what people imagined. It was a compromise, like most films are.

Q: I thought the film had one of the most disjointed stories.

A: Yes, it was, I'm afraid. It was great for me, because I spent six months in Japan and did all the second unit on it, all the aerial stuff, the helicopter fight..all of that, which was great to make and get done, and it was a tremendous training ground for me for when I came in for On Her Majesty's Secret Service, so all that worked out. And it was a successful film. The problem with it, however, is that it was difficult to put You Only Live Twice in the same style as all the others, because he got married--you had to make that look beautiful, and it was--you had the settings in Japan, and all that stuff, and you had a whole different culture, so it became a whole different style in a way, which is why I think you felt it was disjointed.

Q: I also thought that it had gotten a little too big, if you know what I mean. Things like the scene, no matter how funny it may have seemed at the time, when the helicopter picks up the car with a magnet and drops it in the ocean, seem to be a bit too much.

A: [laughs] I shot all of that in Japan. They had a fit when I flew that over the harbor. They wouldn't let me fly it over Tokyo, but they did let me fly over the harbor. They didn't think I was going to get quite so close to all the buildings. It was a little on the fantastic side, and I think that's the thing about the film. It's a merge between the fantastic and the real and the beautiful, like the wedding, which was very realistic and beautiful, and yet we suddenly pushed into the fantasy-action material. It had two different tiers, as it were, and it didn't really juxtapose together quite evenly. So I can understand what you're saying.

Q: Let's talk about On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

A: Another challenge. Each one was a challenge. That was the thing. I suppose it was a slightly bigger challenge, but by then I had done a great deal with the films, and was very confident and happy in my role. Of course it was a great challenge finding a new actor to play James Bond.

Q: Frankly, I'm rather amazed that you were able to convince the producers to let you go back to a more serious style of Bond film, particularly after the success of the previous films.

A: I'm delighted you felt like that, because I wanted to make it different; I wanted it to stand out from the other films. It was my picture, not anybody else's. It was a very good story, too, and very different. I had the luck, I suppose, to have skiing, which we'd never done before. Up until then, and even today, distributors said that they didn't like snow pictures, because they all think they're going to be a disaster for one reason or another, although I did a snow picture in Canada called Death Hunt, and it was very successful.

Q: What was truly wonderful was the fact that the script went back to the original Fleming novel.

A: During the entire shooting schedule I had a copy of the paperback of the book, where I had written various notes and things, and I was very insistent that we stay with the story of the book.

Q: But why? As I said, the rest of the series tended to drift away from the novels.

A: It was just that it was a good stories; a very fine one. I don't know how much it really stands apart from the others, because it's difficult for me to look at it in the way that you are, and unfortunately I don't think I can comment on that. I took the book, combined with various ideas I had of my own, banged our heads and made the film. I didn't think about the previous Bonds or anything else like that. I knew that it was certainly a Bond film, and we had to make it into a good story.

Q: Were you intimidated by the fact you didn't have Connery?

A: I would have loved to have Connery, because if we had had him, it would have been the best of the lot. But at that time we couldn't, so there was really no point in wishing that we could.

Q: I would just think that at that time, most people would be saying, "Jeez, Connery helped make the series. What are we going to do without him?"

A: I'm sure they did. They're notoriously known for not making their minds up, and I think we were like two weeks off of shooting, when one had to say, "Who are we going with? We're supposed to be starting, but we haven't got a Bond yet," so it got almost to the last moment before the decision was made. The decision to use Lazenby was not left in my hands, but they did say to me, "Can you do it with him?" And I said, "Yes, I can. Let's get somebody we can all agree on," because United Artists, Broccoli and Saltzman were the ones who had to say yes or no.

Q: Lazenby, I felt, turned out to be quite good as Bond.

A: Oh yes, he was very good. And I had a big job directing him, even though he seems to think he wasn't directed, and it was quite a job to make him Bond. But he took it and did it, and that's the important thing. I'm not questioning how difficult it was, because that's part of the director's job. You don't just stand up there and say, "Cut, action," and that sort of thing. You've got a lot more on your plate than that. It was a difficult job, but the answer for me was that it worked, and it worked for the producers as well.

Q: In Bondage, the magazine of the James Bond 007 Fan Club, Lazenby was quoted as saying that he wasn't directed in the film, and that you weren't even talking to him.

A: I don't know why he should say that, because it's quite untrue. You can't possibly have a new, young, guy who has never been an actor and not talk to him. You simply can't do it. I had to tell him where to go and what to do. The whole thing with him is that he changes his mind all the time. But he had to do what I wanted him to do. Indeed, we had long conversations during and before we even started shooting. I wouldn't have gone with him if Diana Rigg hadn't assured me that she liked him enormously at that time before we started shooting, and that she would do everything to help and work with him.

Q: He also noted how he and Rigg did not talk to each other.

A: I think it's a measure of the man's personality. He changed about all over the place, when it all went to his head. You must remember that he was an ordinary little guy from the backwoods of Australia and he was suddenly thrust into a very sophisticated area of filmmaking, and it was very difficult for him. I had to do certain things that directors have to do. For instance, one of the best things he ever did was when she's shot. We got up there at eight in the morning, I insisted he was on set, I sat him in the car and made him rehearse and rehearse all day long, and I broke him down until he was absolutely exhausted, and by the time we shot it at five o'clock, he was exhausted, and that's how I got the performance. He thought that was me being unpleasant to him, but I couldn't say, "Now, listen George, I'm going to do this because it's the best way to get you to react." Maybe I did things like that all the way through, because I knew how to get emotions out of him, but he didn't seem to think that that was fair.

Q: It really is a film that you should be proud of.

A: Thank you very much. I really am. I must say that I'm always complimented, because I get good notices every time it's run on television. Funnily enough, I don't know if it's me, but I believe they're giving it better notices now than they did when it first came out twenty years ago.

Q: Which leads me to my next question, why the heck did you leave the series?

A: At the end of that film, they didn't know what they were going to do, whereas prior to that we had gone on, and on and on. But the team sort of broke up and went on to other things. Then Broccoli asked me to come back for Diamonds Are Forever, but at that time he and Saltzman were fighting and I was involved with something else. I told them that if they moved the production date I might be able to, but they couldn't and so they went with Guy Hamilton. I did, however, get a beautiful review from Pauline Kael on that, who said, "The one thing missing from this film is Peter Hunt" [laughs]. Then, again, Cubby asked me when I was doing Death Hunt, and I couldn't. So each time he came to me, I couldn't do it for one reason or another, although I would have liked to, therefore the cycle broke, as it were. I did have heavy involvement in six of them, which must mean I brought something to the films. If Lazenby had done Diamonds, then I may have done it, as well as the next two, and I wouldn't have done anything else and whilst I've often been disappointed about things I wanted to do that never came off, I've done some films that I'm awfully proud of which are out of the Bond idiom, away from the protected society of Broccoli and Saltzman and all that. It was very protective for me, and very nice and good, but I was able to go off and make my own films, like Gold and Shout at the Devil, both starring Roger Moore, which I'm proud of and which were very different from Bond.

Q: To wrap this up, I thought it was disappointing that you weren't hired to direct Never Say Never Again.

A: Well, there hangs a story. I would have offended Cubby if I had done it. That whole situation was very poor in their thinking, and I think if I had done it, they would have thought that I was a traitor. We had talks about it, but I wouldn't have taken it for that reason.

I wish I could've found a good quote in the film for my title: For Your Eyes Only in review.

I dislike reviews that start with background, as if the reader isn't familiar with the circumstances that gave way to each Bond film (eg. 'it was 2006, Daniel Craig was blond and short and everyone hated him. Then he was awesome!'). But I'm going to do that anyway. For Your Eyes Only was conceived as a back-to-basics outing - in fact, it went so far as to directly reference in its pre-titles sequence the ending of the last 60s film, On Her Majesty's Secret Service. This was perhaps a suggestion that the SPECTRE-featuring timeline begun by Terence Young would finally be continued in Roger Moore's fifth outing. Bond visits the grave of his wife Tracy, who was murdered by SPECTRE leader Blofeld, in a scene surprisingly human for the series and only slightly marred by some strange 'whucka-whucka' porno guitar. Moore is appropriately sober when a clergyman informs Bond that he is needed for some emergency and that a helicopter is coming to pick him up; before lift-off, said clergyman crosses himself ominously. This would've made for a good scene in and of itself.

Then, for the first time in a decade, the SPECTRE mastermind himself shows up. "You are now flying remote-control airways..." Blofeld says sinisterly. Um... He tosses Bond's chopper around with a tiny joystick gripped with thumb and forefinger, and laughs. And laughs. Then laughs some more. Not maniacal, not sincere, just randomly tracked-in disembodied chuckling. Bond's nemesis outdoes his previous line's lameness with another one: "I trust you had a pleasant... fright!" Then he sends the chopper into an opening on some building, and we think Bond's about to crash inside. We linger on the building's exterior, as the director plays with this idea. After a few beats, we cut inside to find Bond's okay. Okay, what was the point...? Bond gains control of the chopper and Bill Conti's horrible TV-movie score finally enters. At this point, I've all but forgotten Tracy. I'm not sure this has much to do with James Bond. It's not Young's version of the man and his world, or even Gilbert's. For all I know, I'm watching some TV series that enacts fictional alternate realities, and this week's scenario is "What if James Bond had his revenge on Blofeld - as written by retards?" When Bond finally lifts Blofeld up, quips on the man's baldness, then drops him down a smokestack (with accompanying Looney Tunes sound effect), it begs the question: Who is this meant to satisfy? Sweet guinea pig of Winnipeg, the movie's just starting and we're already knee-deep.

The title sequence is excellent, the first and easily the freshest in a line of five Bond title sequences by Maurice Binder that were a bit too similar aesthetically. The song's got a strong mysterious vibe to it with the bass drum hits and spacey synths in the verses. But when the chorus - dominated by soft magical keyboards and featuring shouting rather than singing - kicks in, my finger hovers over the 'skip' button. The next bit is fantastic and should've been the pre-title sequence: the sinking of the St Georges ship. It ends with the relentless screams of crewmen and a chilling shot of a hand reaching desperately for a switch to destroy the weapon-controlling ATAC system. This onboard system is left intact, and so begins the British and Soviet efforts to retrieve it. There's some exposition on what just occurred from a few British cronies. Then a boring as f*** scene that provides the Bond girl's motivation in the story. Her name is Melina. She has the same dubbed voice all those '60s Bond girls had, which isn't so charming in 1981. She's visiting her parents, who are helping the British find the ATAC. She tosses a bag of nuts up and almost catches it. For some reason, the editor thought we wouldn't notice if he used a take where she dropped the nuts. Her parents get killed. There's no intrigue or humanity to any of this. We then zoom in on her face to see that she has a moustache, and then we cut back to England. The cronies go over with Bond what we've already seen onboard the St Georges and what they themselves just discussed moments ago (??), and Bond gives a dry explanation of what the ATAC is. 007 then heads off to crash a pool party and question the hitman who killed Melina's parents. The first thing he sees is a bikini-clad girl make out with what appears to Roger Moore's stunt double, which isn't confusing at all. After Bond is caught immediately, the hitman suggests that Bond has a licence to be killed, rather than a licence to kill. (I hope mine arrives in the mail soon. Criminal charges can apparently be pressed against those who get themselves killed without owning the licence that allows it.)

What ensues is a chase through a forest that features plenty of shaky-cam and is actually pretty damn exciting, and a cool car chase sans gadgets through winding roads with lots of mounted cameras and nifty stunt-work. There are a few moments of classic Moore humour included within: his double-take when the bad guys' vehicle pulls up next to his, and his announcement that he loves a drive in the country, don't you? There's another scene with the British cronies, who deride Bond for letting Melina kill the hitman. I get a chuckle out of Frederick Grey being played for laughs here, with his condescending interjections of "Mmm!" After this, Bond tells Melina not to get involved, and she responds by being wooden as shit and completely uninteresting. Honestly, I wouldn't notice if she never showed up again in the film. She's become irrelevant. Bond goes to Q and uses a machine to re-construct from his description the face of a man from the pool party. This man becomes Bond's new lead: Locque.

Bond heads to Cortina, and we meet a new contact: Ferrara. Then we meet another contact, Kristatos. We see a character skating on a rink from far off. Bibi Dahl. Bond's newest contact says that Bibi is his protégé, and his eyes well up with pride. At this point, I am so engrossed that I wouldn't notice if you bound me to my chair and robbed me of all my possessions. Bibi Dahl, an Olympic hopeful, sex maniac and about 50 years younger than Roger Moore, is enthralled with Bond. Because she's not played by an actress, she becomes a completely unlikeable character. She seems naive, but in a very phony way. (No one could be that cutesy unless they were putting on a show for some chump.) Her instructor, Jacoba Brink, is more attractive. Bibi ends up the series equivalent of Jar Jar Binks, and I hope she dies a horrible death later in the film. Bond shows a photo of Locque to Kristatos and we learn the name of Locque's employer: Columbo. Locque and Columbo are both given detailed back-stories that could've been lifted from the writings of Ian Fleming. So much exposition, so little real development. Kristatos, the boring white-bearded contact, says about Columbo, "Once we were like brothers, now he hates me," in a throwaway tone. It should come as no surprise that this shitty first-draft dialogue doesn't interest me, either.

Melina re-enters the film, showing up in Cortina to meet Bond because he supposedly sent a telegram requesting that she do so. It turns out that he didn't, actually, and it's never revealed who exactly sent this message or why anyone would want the pair together in the same place. (I bet Bond sent it because he wanted another chance to get her in bed. This is Roger Moore, after all.) Bibi shows up in Bond's hotel room, looking for sex and spouting creepy lines about breath control and building muscle tone. She must have been dared or something. Bond turns her down, breaking the fourth wall by announcing, "Even I wouldn't tap that!" She begs him to come say goodbye to her at the rink. I don't know why, she doesn't have any attachment to him. Bond and Bibi go skiing, and she reveals she has the hots for Eric Kriegler, Olympic-level skier and shooter. Bond tells her not to grow up any more, because the opposite sex would never survive it. Personally, I think I could resist. Bond is then chased by Kriegler, and manages to outmanoeuvre him in unbelievable ways and avoid all his bullets. So much for 007 being relatively vulnerable. And as if I could believe Roger Moore doing that stuff! Bill Conti provides scoring that alternates between bizarre and cliched. The actual chase is quite exciting, but is ruined by overbearing music that could be quieter and an ending that must be seen to be believed: Bond flies out a bobsled track on skis to another Looney Tunes ziiiiing! ...then we cut to a reaction shot of a mooing bull. Bond and Kriegler - who is on a motorcycle at this point - both crash. Kriegler pretty much has Bond, but instead of seizing 007, he takes the chance to throw a tantrum, lift his motorcycle up and throw it at Bond. With rampant cheesy horns in the soundtrack, it's quite the spectacle. Bond goes to the skating rink with Ferrara, I guess to say goodbye to Bibi. As if it matters, or as if anyone cares. She tells Bond about Kriegler, providing yet more back-story reminiscent of Fleming. Then she suddenly proclaims she could eat Bond up alive. Forgive me for being freaked out. After Bibi leaves, hockey players attack Bond. Random action sequence time! He defeats two of them 'comedically' and then sits in a zamboni. The third one just slams into the front of the zamboni. Ha ha ha. He leaves as well, only to find Ferrara dead in his Lotus. First Bibi leaves him to rabid hockey players, then she kills Ferrara. Bitch!

Bill Conti shows up well here, scoring Bond's discovery of the corpse with what could be the sonic equivalent of blood curdling. The movie finally relaxes, with Bond and Melina taking in some local colour and Bond spending his night at a casino. He plays against some guy with huge ears and an ear deformity. Is this our villain? Unfortunately no, but he would've made a good one. In a scene from Fleming's short story 'Risico', Bond has dinner with Kristatos and sees Columbo eating at another table; Columbo records the pair's conversation and sets up a trap for 007, which Bond willingly walks into. He hooks up with a Countess Lisl. He learns nothing from her; she learns nothing from him. And then it starts. The horrible schmaltzy porno music. OH PLEASE, MAKE IT STOP. They sleep together, then we cut to them walking on a beach the next morning. They start discussing what they'll have for breakfast. What the hell have I stepped into? At last some guys show up and kill her. No more lead there, then. Among the goons is Locque, and he's the only one who escapes. Bond says "Goodbye, Countess" while kneeling over Lisl's corpse, with a look on his face like he's displeased with the warmth of his soup. Then some guys with dove symbols on their chests (a symbol we've come to associate with Columbo) capture him.

Bond wakes up aboard Columbo's boat. Columbo asks simply what he should do with Bond, smiling and munching nuts. In what is maybe the worst moment in the film, Columbo rattles off all the misdeeds attributed to himself by Kristatos - only with Kristatos in his place. "Kristatos tried to kill you twenty times, not me. He smuggled heroin and was an asexual vegan Nazi sympathizer, not me. Locque and all the other leads you've chased worked for him. Just take my word for it. Pistachio?" He uses the same condescending inflection at the end of each revelation, drawing syllables out in an accusing and whiny way. It's bad enough that Kristatos is our main villain, but did we really have to learn this by having Columbo reverse everything he was accused of back onto his accuser? What boring writing. Another excellent action sequence follows when Columbo and Bond raid Kristatos' warehouse. The much-lauded final moment here, where Bond kicks Locque's car off a cliff, is undone by the fact that the car starts falling when Bond throws a little dove pin into it. Oh, and the standard one-liner: "He had no head for heights". Which seems to suggest that if one is no good with heights and careening in a vehicle on a cliff side, one is more likely to fall. (?) I guess this is poetic justice, but Locque has no character at all and I didn't care about Ferrara.

Where's the movie going now? Another lead is dead... I'm reminded of Quantum of Solace. At this point, every character has been introduced. What's noticeable is that a good deal of the script up till now has been exposition. All the characters, their affiliations and activities are described with way too much detail, and only Bibi has her own motivations outside chasing the bad guys and/or ATAC. (It's actually quite a short, bare-bones script.) Now we have a scene of Bond and Melina excavating some underwater ruins. It's a beautiful scene, accidentally made hilarious by Bill Conti. Then the pair finally go after the ATAC in a submarine. Conti's 'Submarine' track here is awesome, and he actually contributes a great deal to my enjoyment of the film's latter half. When we enter the wreck of the St Georges, the film grows chilling once again with images of the crew's suspended corpses, reminiscent of the chapter 'The Red-Eyed Catacomb' from Fleming's 'Thunderball'. Things go a little pear-shaped when we begin cutting to some POV shots with heavy breathing and ominous music laid over them. Suddenly, a clunky robot-thing smashes through a door on the wreck, Melina screams, and it's all I can do to keep myself from laughing. The music makes this thing out to be scary, but it can't move quickly and looks ridiculous. It's got claws for hands - why? To grasp the ATAC? Bond and Melina were able to remove the device with their hands... For some reason, they can't outmanoeuvre the villain inside this awkward diving suit. Bond places a bomb on the back of the suit, unbeknownst to the guy inside. A huge metal cabinet then falls on Bond. He struggles and struggles uselessly underneath, then gets out at the last minute almost by rote. The bad guy somehow becomes aware that a bomb's about to blow, mouths the word 'shit', and it explodes. Well, that was stupidtastic. But what's this? Bond and Melina get back on the submarine, only to be attacked by another robot thing! Needless to say, they defeat it. They are lifted back onto Melina's boat, which Kristatos has taken command of it. He insists on dragging Bond and Melina back and forth in the water on a rope, hoping to attract sharks, in a scene that should've featured in Moore's first, Live and Let Die. A henchman falls to the sharks, and Kristatos tells the others to leave him. As if good guys wouldn't react the same way. What a bore he is. His big villain quote: "I never go back on a deal." Bond and Melina escape; Kristatos takes the ATAC and leaves. So Bond and Melina go sit around on her boat, until a parrot who happened to overhear the bad guys' plan gives Bond his next lead: "ATAC to St Cyril's!"

Yes, the movie just went there. Columbo's uninteresting relationship with Kristatos is utilized briefly when Columbo tells Bond exactly which St Cyril's church Kristatos took the ATAC to. (It was apparently an agreed-upon hideout that the pair depended on ages ago.) Bond's scaling of a mountain to reach the church is a great climax, one of the series' best. I love the whole business with the grappling pegs and Bond's shoelace improvisation. Not to mention the cloak-and-dagger infiltration of the hideout and the numerous excellent fist-fights within. Because Kristatos is just waiting for the Soviets to show up, there's a good sense of immediacy to the proceedings. And the villain does become interesting for a moment when Bibi nonchalantly suggests that he's only her sponsor because he wants to sleep with her. And that's just about the only good purpose Bibi serves in the entire film - to frame Kristatos as more of a villain. It's a shame that this idea wasn't played with earlier, and that Bibi wasn't written and played like less of a twit. You know, she might have been tolerable if she was genuinely innocent and curious. Kristatos is eventually put at the mercy of Melina's crossbow, at which point Bond steps in to attempt talking her out of murder. Just when Kristatos is about to knife Bond, he himself gets it in the back from Columbo. Whatever, I don't give a shit about any of these characters. Kristatos and Columbo literally had no scenes together and all they did was talk trash about each other.

Gogol, the Soviet equivalent of M and a Moore-film regular since The Spy Who Loved Me, shows up in a helicopter to take the ATAC. Just when our hero's at gunpoint and we think he's going to hand the device over, he throws it off a cliff. It hits some rock, shattering upon impact. "That's detente, comrade," Bond says. "You don't have it - I don't have it." I love this ending, as well as the fact that Bond doesn't jump at the near-irresistible opportunity to kill Gogol in a comedic fashion (cough, cough Blofeld). Of course, we then return to Bibi and are assured that Columbo will sponsor her now that Kristatos is dead. Cut to Bond and Melina kissing, because this is a Roger Moore movie. Nevermind that there was nothing sexual between them anywhere else in the film. She asks for a moonlight swim, and Moore wrinkles his face up just like he did when Lisl died. We should have just cut to the credits right there. That would've been hilarious.

A good edit could have played down some of the film's less desirable elements, such as the presence of Blofeld or Bibi. However, without additional material, the film could only be improved so much. The lead villain and Bond girl are series stand-outs only for how incredibly dull they are. Columbo is written boringly - just keep chomping those nuts, buddy - but some credit must go to Topol, who does his best to make the character likeable. Bill Conti really colours the film, as well. There's no middle ground for his music - it's either great or terrible. And for better or worse, it demands your attention. The common thread running through the picture, of course, is Bond himself. Like usual, Roger Moore puts in one hundred percent. Is it bad that I take that for granted? I've said before that For Your Eyes Only reminds me of a Pierce Brosnan movie, but I can't say which one in particular. The characters are all undercooked (Locque, Kristatos, Kriegler and Columbo are all given grand back-stories, but never say or do anything of note in the here-and-now) and the film's emphasis is obviously action. A good subtitle for FYEO would've been 'Roger Moore does a series of action sequences and Fleming vignettes with nothing interesting in-between'. It's worth noting, however, that the action is top-notch and extremely enjoyable (with only a few exceptions - the pre-titles, hockey fight, underwater attacks and the ski chase's ending. It says something about the film's sheer amount of the stuff that four different sequences don't constitute the majority of its action!). But just like other action-focused Bond films, it's difficult for me to care what happens when I don't care about the characters involved. Ultimately, For Your Eyes Only's unfunny humour, lack of personality and overblown spectacle run counter to its attempts at evoking the better Bonds of yesteryear.

Bond 7/10
Moore probably gets just as many good and bad one-liners as usual, but the bad ones stick out more because nothing else around him is any fun. I feel he shows up well in dramatic moments, notably his reaction to Ferrara's death. The writing of Bond for this film hits a lot of right notes, for example his forcefulness with getting Melina on the carriage ride and the whole 'that depends on if you play the odds' bit in the casino. Moore's age serves him well, too - the part where he's huffing up the stairs trying to catch Locque was quite humanizing and his performance holds the grace of an old pro.

Girls 3/10
There's no sexuality or romance to speak of. No good, and one of the reasons the film fails as a Young continuation IMO. Maybe if Bibi was more likeable - written and cast - she would've worked as an object of sympathy. I cheer when Kristatos hits her.

Villains 4/10
I award three points for Gogol alone, and one point for Kriegler's cool back-story. If you don't know my issues with the rest, you obviously haven't read the review!

Action 8/10
Some of it doesn't work. But the film gives itself so many chances at a good sequence, and hits the nail on the head so often, that I can't help but forgive some of its action faux pas.

Music: 3/10
Conti's awesome at Epic, and epic at Awesome... but his Action and Romance sounds just aren't Bond.

The rough vs. the smooth: This isn't an especially classy film; the overuse of soft-lens sees to that. Its brutality is one of its greatest strengths, though, especially in moments like the St Georges' sinking.

Locations: The Greek scenery and muted palette bring a distinct atmosphere. Locations are captured better than in most Glen films.

Humour: Moore provides a few smiles like usual. But the stuff that's no good is worse than that, it's horrible. The death of Blofeld has no right being 'humourous'. That falls flat on its face. Hell, his 'death' in the Diamonds Are Forever PTS was more appropriate. And there's pretty much no real wit.

Overall: 5/10

I want to say FYEO could possibly be the closest to a PERFECT Bond film next to OHMSS

That's my opinion and I am sticking by it and no, I was not coerced or bribed or blackmailed or threatened by anyone on BAB to say this.

I always thought it was a middle of the road Bond. Especially in lowering the budget, handing over the reigns to John Glen, and attempting to tone things down after MR. All Bonds are more enjoyable for us rabid fans who read in all kinds of symbolism and meaning into dialogue because we've seen these films millions of times.
That said, this is really an editor's action movie. There is little done besides the action/second unit scenes and some of the dialogue scenes begins to fall a bit flat due to this and the lack of a really well developed story.
And the look of the film is rather bland and uninspiring, leaving one with a distinct made-for-TV feeling.

So for a while, FYEO had lost a lot of steam for me...until I ran it on a projector late one night.
When on a big screen with the sound cranked up, you can really get the idea of what they were originally going for. Plus the score actually works for the first time. FYEO is a simple espionage serial adventure, made just like something from years past. Sans the cheesy bits at the opening and ending, this is really a Bond in the real world movie where he does real human things with other real people. It one of the few Bonds where there is also a sense of period espionage and political struggles.
Even the JIM diving suit is kinda unsettling when you think about being attacked on the ocean floor by that behemoth. The little moments are great, as are the villains who are sadly underdeveloped.
This reiterates the film's main problem again. The story is really too underdeveloped, and should have delved even further into the backstories instead of just building up another plot around Risico.
I still loathe the song though. Easily the worst of all the original title themes, and the only one I always forwarded through on VHS.

The Good: A moore serious Moore, well cast villains, down to earth approach,
The not so good: Blandish visuals, underdeveloped story, Bibi, hockey fight,
The Bad: Title song, bits of Cnti's score, Moore's comb over hairstyle, the silly ending, and the freaking absolute worst most pointless line in the history of time: "I'LL BUY YOU A DELICATESSEN-IN STAINLESS STEEL!"
Note: I hated the color changes made on the UE DVD, plus the lack of the original sound mix. The US Widescreen Laserdisc is much better in both of the regards and is now my preferred way to enjoy the film.

I think FYEO boasts one of the best stories in the franchise, up there with FRWL, OP, TWINE, TND and DN. I also like the title song - much better than Nobody Does It Better and All Time High.

I can't decide if I like the movie or not, since it has so many pros and cons.

Mainly the cons are, it does have what is probably weakest Bond villain of the series.

SPOILER

He has a very weak character backstory, cause his main goal in life is to get Bibi Doll in the Olympics, hoping that she will bang him one day for it. Need I say more on that one?

The bond girl, is a strong character, but the actress plays her kind of wooden and bored, as if she really didn't want to be in the movie it seems. I also don't like how Bond keeps telling Melina that revenge is not the way, and tries to talk her into turning over the villains to the police, when Bond seems to be being a hypocrite cause he himself killed Blofeld and Locque in cold blood to avenge the murders of previous characters.

But on the plus side, I do like the overall plot and action and I really like the Columbo character. So what do you think?

Weakest villain? Not compared to Gustav Graves and Waltz's unthreatening take on Blofeld, he isn't.

FYEO is great. Regarding Kristatos, I don't think Bibi winning the Olympics is his main goal. His solid back story informs what's happening in the film. He's a decorated war hero who's actually a double agent. Not to mention he's played by Glover who, alongside Topol and Moore, adds a touch of class to the film. 

Bond doesn't quite kill in cold blood. Sure they are responsible for the deaths of other characters, but he is also being targeted by them and almost kill him. Plus, it's his job. Blofeld was (up until 2015) the world's most dangerous criminal in the world, so killing him has been on his to-do list for some time. Melina isn't usually in the same world as Bond, and exacting revenge could have negative psychological implications on her.

One of the best allies in Colombo, a decent villain in Kristatos, some good action scenes and music, and Moore playing Bond as close to he ever could to 'real' Bond. I even find Melina believable.

And it has one of my favourite Moore moments in kicking the car off the ledge.

ironpony wrote:

I can't decide if I like the movie or not, since it has so many pros and cons.

Mainly the cons are, it does have what is probably weakest Bond villain of the series.

SPOILER

He has a very weak character backstory, cause his main goal in life is to get Bibi Doll in the Olympics, hoping that she will bang him one day for it. Need I say more on that one?

The bond girl, is a strong character, but the actress plays her kind of wooden and bored, as if she really didn't want to be in the movie it seems.  I also don't like how Bond keeps telling Melina that revenge is not the way, and tries to talk her into turning over the villains to the police, when Bond seems to be being a hypocrite cause he himself killed Blofeld and Locque in cold blood to avenge the murders of previous characters.

But on the plus side, I do like the overall plot and action and I really like the Columbo character. So what do you think?

I tend to agree that Kristatos, although well played by Julian Glover, never really feels that interesting or threatening character. Equally while Caroline Bouquet is one of the most drop dead gorgeous Bond girl's ever to grace a frame she is awkward and wooden much of the time. Indeed for me much of the drama in FYEO is a bit of a misfire here John Glen, while brilliant when the action kicks in, perhaps is still finding his feet with those dramatic moments (something that visibly improves film on film from here imo).

Overall I do like the film and even find it one of the best Moore outings but it's a case of the whole being more than the sum of its parts.

I feel Roger Moore has one of his finest moments in the role when in the sleigh with Melina. And the scene where he meets Columbo. Maybe these are exceptions to your rule?

I also must be the only one here who feels Bouquet is one of the most plain looking Bond girls.