Review of For Your Eyes Only (1981) by Brandon S — 11 Jun 2011

I have a love/hate relationship with Sir Roger Moore's James Bond films. I've always found his outings as 007 to be uninspired and more a reinterpretation of the Bond character, rather than a genuine continuation of the man made popular by Sean Connery. It doesn't help that Sir Roger's films have been upstaged in recent years by the likes of Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig; two men who redefined the character by trying to make him more true to his literary roots. Apparently, my sentiments are shared by many, including the producers of the Bond franchise. When For Your Eyes Only was released, it was one of the first attempts from the Broccoli family at returning Bond to a more rugged and authentic interpretation. The film eschewed the 70s influenced "Leisure-Bond" of previous Moore films, in favor of a more rough and tumble version. After the near-franchise-ending disaster that was Moonraker, the fabled series needed a shot in the arm. While many argue with the success of the endeavor, For Your Eyes Only was a drastic change for the series that managed to set Bond back on course. For the time being.

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 (John Hollis), makes an ill-fated attempt on Bond's (Roger Moore) 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 is tasked with locating a missing piece of British naval hardware called the Automatic Targeting Attack Communicator, 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 a young woman called Melina Havelock (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. He's less campy and much more serious in this go-round; there are fewer one-liners, the film remains serious and decidedly dark. 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 counterpart 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. Many of the underwater sequences are expertly filmed and effective, there are several exciting car chases, a nifty snowmobile 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. If the film's producers had continued this course, the Bond franchise might have avoided some of the later, unfortunate Moore films, the dark and boring Timothy Dalton years and, perhaps, might have made a faster recovery. As it stands, For Your Eyes Only serves as an example as a move in the right direction that wasn't quite executed as well as it could have been.

So, can I recommend For Your Eyes Only? Sure, why not; it's easily one of the best of Roger Moore's films in the series. Is it a great Bond movie in the tradition of Goldfinger and Casino Royale? Not a chance. Either way, For Your Eyes Only serves as an interesting diversion in an otherwise sad time for the franchise.

While not being particularly fond of many of Sir Roger Moore's adventures as James Bond, I must admit that For Your Eyes Only is amongst his best films as the legendary spy. Moore's take on the character tends to rub me the wrong way, with his silly attempts at action and his focus on style over substance, but he does butch things up a bit with this outing. The film is easily the most realistic of Moore's contributions; the producers made a point of trying to bring the Bond character closer to that of the books.