Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

pyrocitor In 1969, George Lazenby's 007 stampeded the screen with the exquisitely '60s marketing battle cry of "Far up! Far out! Far more!" (and how! Like, wow!). Unfortunately, it's advice that Mr. Bond, James Bond continued to follow, well into the Roger Moore era, until the franchise had somewhat written itself into a corner of exponential excess, cultivating in the grotesque, campy bloat of Moonraker. So how to top Bond in space? Bring him back down to earth, naturally, with a cracking, gritty tale of espionage, to reestablish Bond as secret agent rather than Jedi Knight. And For Your Eyes Only nearly works as a welcome revitalization of Bond's class and spy credibility (even if it borrows even more liberally from From Russia With Love than The Spy Who Loved Me did from You Only Live Twice). It's just a shame that director John Glen seems to have overcompensated somewhat, endeavouring so tirelessly to deliver 'serious Bond' that his resulting romp, while pleasant, remains one of the blandest and least memorable outings of the series. To his credit, Glen rides the 007 franchise's most flamboyant, pointedly responsive tonal shift with ease, conjuring a distinctly vintage Fleming/John Le Carré vibe, and that rare shocker of a Bond film where (gasp!) the plot is actually its main selling point. And no, that's not just a jab at the comparative lack of 007 razzle-dazzle populating the spectacle frontier. Indeed, Glen stages a good action scene (the opening double-whammy of shipwreck and aeronautical murder are both genuinely alarming), even if many could do with having the pace and intensity accelerated to avoid pacing drifting into worrisomely laggy territory (the underwater submarine subterfuge and cliffhanger finale are all fun, but so lugubrious they're - literally, in the case of the shark-baiting water skiing - a drag). Glen makes good use of his experience as a veteran 007 second unit director, and evocatively captures the natural flavour and unassuming beauty of Italy and Greece. Still, the restrained spectacle and distinctly grey colour palate - set largely at night or in earthly locales, the only real colours pop up in Moore's gaudy wardrobe - do lend the film a disappointingly muted feel, which can't help but suck a lot of the fun out of proceedings. Serious is one thing, but snoozy is a step too far. Equally, the fawning fandom renown for the film's grit and credibility do demonstrate some selective memory: a somewhat shambling subplot having Bond subdue assailants by use of every Olympic winter sport is a strained contrivance whose fun factor wanes quickly, while a 'deus-ex-parrot' has to be one of the lamest plot devices of the entire franchise. Then there's the pre-credits sequence, which takes its place as the least thrilling and most idiotic offloading of Bond's legendary arch-nemesis imaginable (its inclusion being a thinly-veiled middle finger to Kevin McCrory, who hoarded Blofeld's rights for the execrable Never Say Never Again, is droll, but still self-indulgently stupid). And then there's Bibi - Lynn-Holly Johnson's contribution to the 'most annoying Bond girls' pantheon, whose infamous whiny, childhood petulance is excused only as cue for Moore's most amusingly acrid one-liner in his 007 tenure ("Put your clothes on and I'll buy you an ice cream"). Perhaps said ice cream could help sooth that burn. Bill Conti's jaunty disco synths and cowbells are groovy, but toe the line of distracting silliness, saved only when weaving the Bond theme in (more sparingly than usual, though - boo), while Glen anchoring the film's predominant car chase with a VW Beetle is really pushing the limit of tongue-in-cheek. And speaking of cheek: Daniel Craig's 007 may have met Queen Elizabeth, but it took Moore to take the p*ss out of Margaret Thatcher. It's a closing note of such amusing ballsiness you have to wonder how many shaken-not-stirred martinis Cubby Broccoli imbibed in before signing off on. Pairing the legendarily droll Roger Moore with the film's self-declared serious ethos could have misfired terribly, but Moore flexes his acting chops and keeps the British end up masterfully. He's starting to look a touch too old for the part here, and tempers his Bond appropriately - more sparing with the quips (though his incredulous eyebrows provide perennial punchlines in themselves), sombre and dignified visiting his wife's grave, and even more so when cautioning Melina not to be consumed by vengeance. As said vengeful firecracker, Carole Bouquet may be a touch flat, but she's elegant and credibly fierce, and welcomely far more capable than the average Bond girl. The same cannot be said for Julian Glover, whose adversary is so dull and immediately forgettable he's almost invisible while sharing scenes with his fellow actors. Thankfully, as the film's Kerim Bey surrogate, Topol is practically bursting at the seams with bawdy, infectious charisma (ten points if you recognized him without his Tevye beard, too). Cassandra Harris (Pierce Brosnan's late wife), is charmingly prissy as one of Bond's motivationally vaguer trysts. Finally, Desmond Llewelyn and Lois Maxwell's Q and Moneypenny are charm incarnate as always, while James Villiers, dripping with snide contempt, covers the vacancy of M well, after Bernard Lee's tragic mid-film passing. For Your Eyes Only marks a valiant social experiment in fighting against the decade's excesses in the interests of re-grounding the ethos of the character, and for this it deserves credit. Ultimately, it's one of Bond's quieter, more sombre and reflective outings, and in somewhat steadier hands could have served as a strong character study. As it stands, it's a pleasant, suitably engaging watch, with many strong moments undermined by inconsistent silliness and a general sense of hazy disengagement. Ultimately, for better or worse, it's a moment of zen for Bond - intriguing but scarcely memorable for many outside of die-hard fans, and unlikely to spur any new recruits into posing in tuxedos (or powder blue snowsuits) in changing rooms. Maybe if you offer to buy them a delicatessen...-6.5/10

Rodrigo Amaro And so James Bond enters the 1980's decade with this spectacular entry, one of the many greatest moments from Roger Moore as 007, and the first film directed by John Glen, previously an editor of several Bond films, who dominated that decade with all the 1980's Bond films. Besides the grandiosity usually brought and developed each episode goes by, this is a definitive work of the era and one that saved United Artists from vanishing after the huge financial losses they had with Cimino's "Heaven's Gate", so there's plenty reasons to be thankful to "For Your Eyes Only". Moore's fifth entry in the series is an adventure following a mysterious encryption device stolen by a powerful tycoon (Julian Glover), who as usually with the series, wants to control all the powers of be. To assist 007 there's the mortal yet lovely Melina Havelock (Carole Bouquet) whose parents were killed by this tycoon and she wants revenge; and there's also a Greek intelligence chief (Topol) who'll help MI6 and Bond in getting the device back and get rid off of the bad guys. In between, there's a forced "romance" between James and a teenage roller-skater (Lynn-Holly Johnson), protegé of the millionaire. That last part was just lame and gladly, Bond refuses her advances in between her training for the Olympics. "For Your Eyes Only" conquers viewers and Bond fans from the get go, a magnificent opening sequence where Bond is challenged by this Blofeld-like character (they couldn't use Blofeld name due to legal reasons), inside of a helicopter whose pilot was killed and Blofeld controls the air vehicle from afar, doing all possible ways to kill James - frightening sequences and greatly filmed. But there's some changes too, good and sad. Bill Conti takes over as composer, creating a nice soundtrack and a memorable theme song sung by Sheena Easton; and on the sad factor, M character is gone due to Bernard Lee's passing a few months before shooting - instead they have a ministry as head of the operation.Now the film: it's routine but the makers always find a way to break routine with outstanding action/adventure sequences that tops the ones presented in previous films. The bobsled chase is amazing (sadly, a stuntman died during the making of it); the underwater scenes when Bond and Melina are searching things inside the sunken ship is mind-blowing and there's even the villain's mini-submarine involved; a lethal henchman played by the great Michael Gothard (quite an ironic casting since his character here doesn't mutter a word while in Ken Russell's "The Devils" he was the loudest voice in the room, also a diabolical evil guy), who steals the show whenever he appears. And dramatically speaking this movie is quite well, specially when it comes to Melina's revenge about her parents killing, the movie never lost momentum when it came to those sequences - sometimes in other 007 flicks the drama is distracting. The major problem was the pacing in parts, even in some action moments and the whole thing about the teenage girl, which was embarrassing to watch, not because it couldn't happen but because it doesn't have much room to be there.Moore, as always, was a delightful class act who never missed an opportunity to throw hilarious one-liners and never failed with any of those (I think he has several during the car chase sequence). However, this has a more serious tone than some of his previous films since the producers wanted to avoid the riot and feast of absurdity "Moonraker" was - lots of fun though. Why you should go ahead with this? Well, the fore-mentioned reasons are enough; it's entertaining, exciting, rich in greatness of action, suspense and adventure, a ridiculous body count - James did the most of it -, the usual tolerable romance and Topol is a kick-ass sidekick, and let us not forget that Desmond Llewelyn as Q is also present to steal the show with his remarks and utility gadgets - the sequence where he does a profile sketch of the villain's henchman is hilarious. Bond entered the decade with grace, style, charm and lots of kills to his count. 10/10

templar77099 Not the typical Moore era film. After "Moonraker" the direction taken was more serious and realistic. "For Your Eyes Only" takes a lot of queues from "OHMSS" and I quite enjoyed it. It drags a bit, and surely it could have benefited from a shorter running-time but it still makes for a pleasant watch. Moore is really at ease in the character at this point, and you can see that he's just having such a good time playing Bond. The very well crafted action set-pieces make up for the somewhat thin plot and its interesting to see how the franchise constantly evolved, entry after entry, technically wise in order to remain fresh and appealing. Although not anywhere near greatness when comes to acting, Carole Bouquet still makes for a compelling Bond Girl. The all around cast is quite a good ensemble."For Your Eyes Only" is one of the better Moore films and still holds up as a good action piece up to this day.

LeonLouisRicci After the Enormous Financial Success of the Ridiculous 11th Bond, "Moonraker" (1979), the Producers must be Given Credit for Returning Bond from Orbit.But the Movie is a Mixed Bag. The Numerous Chase Sequences have Gags Galore and the Bill Conti Musical Score is Unfitting and Cringe Inducing as it Prompts Scenes with a Disco Beat and almost Destroys any Thrills that Unfold.Roger Moore's Smirk and Eyebrow Arching are Toned Down a bit and that Helps and the Plot is Terra Firma Involving Spy Agencies and the Search for a Missing, could Threaten World Peace, Device and Mistaken Identities.It's Hit and Miss as the Silly First Act Involving a Manical Comic-Book Laugh from a Wheelchaired Blofeld and whose Idea was it to Show Sheena Easton's Face throughout the Title Sequence Completely Destroying the Ethereal Imagery that had Become Iconic Bond for 11 Movies. It could Make the List as one of the Biggest Missteps in Franchise History. A Franchise that Holds the Record for the Longest Continuous Ever.Overall, there are other Cringes that could be Pointed to as Unacceptable, one For Example is the Unneeded Byplay between Bond and the Underage Teenager. But the Movie's other Bond Girls are Multi-Dimensional Figures with Agendas and Respectfully Fulfill the "Character" and here are More Serious than Ever.The Good does Outweigh the Bad as Bond Films Go and this is Considered by many as the Best Roger Moore, but is Nowhere Near the Best Bond Film that, as Stated Earlier, is Still Going Strong.Long Live James Bond, Your Film History is Plentiful, but Inconsistent. This one has Plenty of the Expected and Needed Experience that Fans Demand, but the Movie is Inconsistent.