Feb 13 2013

Review: For Your Eyes Only

Welcome to my review of For Your Eyes Only, the twelfth part of my challenge to review all of the James Bond films. I’m watching each film in turn and trying to figure out which one is my favourite. For more information, see my introduction here. You can read my trashing review of the previous film, Moonraker, here. Spoilers follow.

For Your Eyes Only
(dir. John Glen, 1981)

For Your Eyes Only - trailerDuring my review of Moonraker, I mooted that the franchise seems to alternate between good and bad in terms of quality. This theory seems to stand more-or-less true for the post-Goldfinger films and doubly so for everything post-On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

This is probably because the James Bond films are nothing if not reactionary. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service was a critical failure, so Diamonds Are Forever was a clear attempt to regain the glory days of the Connery films (see my review for more on this). Diamonds Are Forever wasn’t very good, so Live And Let Die changed the formula, replacing Connery with Roger Moore and dropping the world domination for a more localised heroin-smuggling plot. And so on.

Moonraker was a clear reaction to Star Wars, but it is notable that For Your Eyes Only succeeds in almost all the ways that Moonraker failed. For Your Eyes Only loses the overt science fantasy, tones down the overbearing camp humour and strips out the more lunatic edge of the bad guys, giving us a flawed but fun Bond film with a plot not a million miles away from From Russia With Love.

Continue reading