Day 12 - For Your Eyes Only (1981) - Film Review

Starring: Roger Moore, Carole Bouquet, Julian Glover & Topol

Screenplay: Richard Maibaum & Michael G. Wilson

Directed By: John Glen

Certificate: PG

Onto Roger Moore's fifth Bond film, which begins with a British spy vessel sinking after accidentally trawling an old naval mine. The ship contained a piece of equipment which could be used to communicate with submarines around the world and coordinate ballistic missile attacks. Fearing the Soviets could retrieve the system from the sunken wreckage, MI6 sends Bond to obtain it first. But on his mission Bond comes into contact with rivals and smugglers, who are all too aware of the opportunity presented and will stop at nothing to increase their fortune.

Every time I've watched one of the Bond films, I've mentioned to my parents or friends which one I'm watching next, and usually they'll say whether they like it or not, anything I should watch out for etc. It was strange therefore that when I came to watch 'For Your Eyes Only', no-one really had anything to say about it. But I think I've figured out why that is - there's nothing much that especially stands out about this one. Most of Roger Moore's Bond films have relied on a certain gimmick or have explored a particular niche to make themselves distinctive and to prevent the series from drying up, whether it's blaxploitation, martial arts, sci-fi etc. But 'For Your Eyes Only' lacks that distinctive component that sets it apart. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - after all 'The Spy Who Loved Me' didn't exactly have a particular niche - but 'For Your Eyes Only' feels like it's relying almost entirely on different bits of previous films stitched together. Melina for example isn't a bad character, and following the trend started by Agent Triple X, she at least has motivations and some narrative agency. It might still be crumbs but at least the female representation has come some way since 'Dr. No', and hey Bond is actually emotionally supportive when he learns about her parents rather than trying to immediately f*ck her. However, Melina wanting to get revenge for her murdered parents is mostly just an expansion of Tilly's role in 'Goldfinger' - it's nice to see that kind of role get expanded, but it's nothing especially groundbreaking.

The lack of originality is perhaps even more noticeable with the antagonist. Kristatos is played by Julian Glover, and I was hyped when I saw his name on the cast list as just two years prior to this film, he gave a superb performance as Count Scarlioni in 'Doctor Who's 'City Of Death'. But it would seem I should've kept my hype in check, because besides the fact that Glover is in the role, I have nothing to say about Kristatos. Glover himself is fine, but I definitely prefer him as Scarlioni simply because 'City Of Death' gave him far superior material to work with. It's your standard James Bond villain - out to steal a technological McGuffin, escalating Cold War tensions in the process, and planning to conquer the world with it/sell it to an enemy side (delete as applicable). Appropriately, Kristatos' plans end with a damp squib, with perhaps the most noteworthy thing about that pretty lame attempt at a humorous ending being an appearance from Margaret Thatcher... aw, that was a shame. 

There doesn't even feel like much originality in the action department either. To their credit, while the Moore era has been pretty rocky thus far, I've struggled to fault the action scenes - often they're still daring and very impressive. While I can't really fault their execution here either, it's rare that they feel like anything we haven't seen before. It almost feels compulsory by now for there to be a ski chase rather than there being a need for one, and it gets dragged out here ad nauseam. This one is mixed up a little with motorbikes and a bobsleigh and has a decent score, but I just didn't feel any emotional reaction when watching it.

The pre-titles sequence is another amalgam of recycled material, and a bizarre one at that. As Bond gets into a helicopter supposedly taking him to MI6, it's hijacked by a strangely unnamed villain who's not credited, named or even appears again in the rest of the film. With the bald head and him seen stroking a white cat, it's heavily implied to be Blofeld, but why bother? Blofeld just randomly hijacks helicopters now and messes around with Bond by trying to crash it? It's just a bit embarrassing isn't it? I understand that there were disputes at the time over the rights to Blofeld as a character, but surely it would've been better to just leave him out of it if that's the best we could get.

Being such a composite of re-used parts, 'For Your Eyes Only' also ends up extremely thin in terms of plot. There's not enough of a story here to sustain a 2hr film, which is why it seems to fill itself up by prolonging certain actions scenes and detouring to other completely tangential parts. Take for example, Bibi, the ice-skating prodigy. Why is she here? Seriously she gets about ten-fifteen minutes of screentime, and I'm pretty sure that you could remove her character altogether and still get the same experience.

In case it hasn't come across too well, I was left pretty cold by 'For Your Eyes Only', but in the interest of balance before we wrap things up, there are still a couple of positives to be found. If there's one that the film absolutely improved on over 'Moonraker', it's the way it handled the comedy. After finally going too far in the last film, 'For Your Eyes Only' reels the humour back to a point where it's effective again. There are still chuckles and laughs to be had, but it doesn't seep into the rest of the plot and doesn't obstruct things this time around. The theme song was another pleasant surprise too. The eponymous theme sung by Sheena Easton is one of the Bond themes I don't think I'd heard before, but it turned out to be a hidden gem. It starts out almost mystical and ghostly, with Easton herself actually appearing in the accompanying visuals, before developing into a pleasing bit of laid-back 80s pop.

But that's about it for things that I liked here. I can completely understand why no-one I know seemed to have much to say about this one. While entries like 'The Man With The Golden Gun' or tomorrow's 'Octopussy' seem to be maligned by the bulk of critics as the weak links of the Bond franchise, 'For Your Eyes Only' takes that prize as far as I'm concerned. The Moore films have had their issues yes, but 'For Your Eyes Only' is the first one that honestly just bored me. It failed to evoke much of a reaction at all, and while this franchise has proven its versatility and staying power over the years, Bond being dull is where it's at its worst.

4/10

NEXT TIME - Octopussy