30 Years of For Your Eyes Only

It's the Bond film the public can never remember. But, for many a Bond diehard, it's the Roger Moore Bond film they'll never forget. For those who (unfairly) baulked at the inspired lunacy of double-taking pigeons, Dracula rising from his coffin, being knifed then falling back in, Jaws falling in love and our man engaging in a bit of laser gun combat and space sex during 1979's Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only was at the very least something approaching what they wanted from Bond: A return to the more comparatively grounded, steelier and more plausible heroics delivered by the likes of Terence Young and Peter Hunt during Bond's 60s heyday.

For Your Eyes Only also marked something of a turning point for Roger Moore's 007, now an ageing agent forced to rely on his wits and skill as opposed to the usual plethora of gadgets which conveniently bailed him out in previous escapades. This Bond makes a sombre pilgrimage to the grave of his late wife, before later revealing the toll of age as he struggles to run up a long flight of steps. This Bond, in an act of revenge, ruthlessly kicks a man's car from a cliff and remorselessly watches the man die. This Bond knows the inner torment of killing and, drawing from experience, advises others not to follow the same path. This Bond stops to notice and actually care when now-obligatory sacrificial lamb characters die through their involvement with him.

But let's not fool ourselves into believing this film to be some kind of deep character study or the total "return to Fleming" it's hardest defenders sometimes suggest. What it is is a welcome step in the right direction from a franchise with, quite frankly, nowhere else to go at this point. This film manfully serves up a bravura collection of daring ground-level setpieces to replace the previous film's more outlandish forays, each of these setpieces positively storming along to the rousingly pulsing and celebratory cues of composer Bill Conti, whose score here lends the film it's own distinct soundscape among the Bond canon while still managing to provide most of the key elements loved by so many during John Barry's legendary turns with the baton.

Long-term Bond alumni John Glen takes over the director's chair for the very first time here and, while his place in Bond history may have subsequently been relegated to the status of merely a "meat and potatoes" director, there's no denying the thrust, energy and urgency with which he brings this film storming out of the traps. Glen pays attention to telling the story, but also brings fine performances from many of the cast here and, bookends aside, keeps his thriller plausible and tonally satisfying whilst capably pulling off the balancing act of delivering fun mixed with steely espionage, a balance very rarely achieved by any of his successors. And sure, For Your Eyes Only may lack the grand cinematography of a Freddie Young or a Jean Tournier but, in it's blend of shimmering snowy vistas, winding country roads, beautiful Corfu sunsets, ancient cliff faces and abandoned monasteries, the film more than delivers the travel magazine escapism for which the series is so often renowned.

And then there's the plot and characters, the believability of which are arguably the main reasons the film is so often unfairly forgotten. Nobody aims a lazer at the Earth in this movie. Villains no longer have the unerring coincidence of physical deformity or megalomaniacal uber-delusions. The leading lady has a believable name. Q is a believable technological assistant to Bond as opposed to the Santa Claus of previous films (he even tells his assistant to leave and that he'll lock up; this is a flesh and blood nine to fiver simply putting in a good honest shift). Bond's ally is a real winner too; a man of great charisma, a quality which thankfully spares us any comedic asides. Bond even sits in a casino with the villain without exchanging the usual thinly-veiled "I know you're the villain" repartee. An exciting warehouse raid is shorn of men in red or yellow jumpsuits, and not a single man falls over railings accompanied by a Wilhelm scream. The film boasts a stellar stretch of ground-level Bondian excellence during it's second quarter perhaps unrivalled since George Lazenby donned the tux back in 69.

And Fleming? He's there in dispatches; characters and a couple of scenes but, almost as importantly, his ethos is somewhat restored throughout much of the film, a film in which James Bond carries out a mission only occasionally peppered with the fantastical, and is much less the smug and flippant quipster of the 1970s, instead an experienced agent who knows the right time to make a quip and the right time to take things seriously. Again, For Your Eyes Only isn't exactly Fleming personified, but it's an admirable attempt to take James Bond out of the ridiculous and place him back in the category of heroes we can believe in and aspire to. And, while For Your Eyes Only might lack the distinctions necessary to elevate it from it's forgotten status in a fashion similar to that of the previously forgotten or overlooked On Her Majesty's Secret Service, it does have enough to perhaps guarantee it a very solid standing in years to come, once the dust has settled on it's more flamboyant series counterparts.

For a film that wasn't even particularly celebrated even on it's release, it's solid standing with many Bond fans will hopefully help to trigger some favourable reassessments in the near future, given that the film still stands up solidly well at the 30-year mark. And, especially at this point in time, I'm sure there's many a Bond fan who would more than welcome a return to the balance of fun and plausibility which For Your Eyes Only so often achieves. Roger Moore is an iconic Bond, far more than just the Bond of his generation and, if many are to be believed in crowning this film as his finest hour, it's high time it had some proper public recognition. It's not the pinnacle of Bondian greatness, and not many would claim otherwise. But, on that one hand you use when counting the amount of good solid Bond films since the 1960s, it certainly deserves it's place.

Indeed, Lazzers ... FYEO, Spy and LALD are my favourite 3 Sir Rog 007 outings. It's a part of that pleasing occasional series tradition (YOLT/OHMSS, DAF/LALD, MR/FYEO, DAD/CR) whereby having had the previous film scale the giddy heights of outlandishness, the makers realise that 'back down to Earth' is probably the wisest course of action.

Fantastic write up Lazenby! For Your Eyes Only is for me, Moore's finest hour as Bond because he is actually Bond. Not himself like he was in Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me, and parts of Live and Let Die, and that's part of the reason as to why FYEO works so well for me. I only wish the cinematography was a bit more richer, but, like you said, it's the best looking Bond film from the 80s, maybe rivalled by TLD.

While FYEO is more down-to-earth than its predecessor not just in terms of plot, but in terms of production quality as well, it more than compensates for that with its earnest attempt to be an actual Cold War thriller that validates the use of Fleming's name in the titles. It's also fascinating how Moore gives his most focused performance in his fifth film, instead of growing tired with the role.

Great review on Moore's finest performance and entry in the series.

It's has it's share of problems the biggest one being Bibi Dahl but for most it's effective thriller which was much needed after the shenanigans of Moonraker.

Wonderfully written, Lazenby.

FYEO may not be perfectly true to Fleming, but I always appreciated the way it took two of my favorite Bond short stories and intertwined them to make an intriguing plot and give Moore the opportunity to make what I consider his best Bond film.

I can only remember the theme song

(sorry)

Bravura post, Lazenby. For some reason I've always liked FYEO, maybe it is the post-Moonraker thing but it's fairly enjoyable even allowing for the Bibi thing. It has Colombo, a decent enough score considering it's not John Barry, Melina, stunts and "a drive in the country."

Lobelia Overhill wrote:

I can only remember the theme song

(sorry)

Give it a rewatch. Least you can do for it's birthday ;)

I gave it a rewatch. What impressed me the most this time was that unlike many other Bond films, FYEO is so consistently well-paced and almost without any dull stretches. Sure, some bits like the silly hockey fight are out of place and should've been left out, but overall it's one entertaining and visually satisfying Bond adventure. The production values aren't as mediocre as I remembered them. I actually like the rural feel, as well as the humanity of Moore's Bond. Overall, I'd say that FYEO seriously challenges TLD as the best Bond film of the 1970s-1980s.

For Your Eyes Only was a tight little thriller with more believable action scenes than Moonraker (oh, definitely) and a selection of grittily menacing villains like the highly dubious Kristatos and the sadistic Locque. I also liked the blonde henchman and his fight with Bond at the end is very entertaining and not as comic book-like as the duels with Jaws.

I've always appreciated FYEO, but after watching it last year, I still think about it when I think of Bond. An underrated gem, this.

Probably would be in my top three had Peter Hunt directed it.

Underrated indeed, along with Marvin Hamlisch's handiwork.

Bill Conti's?