So by this point the Bond films have developed a pattern. The series will start off relatively grounded, slowly escalate the fantastical elements more and more, and then reach a point where it just becomes so ridiculous that the only thing to do is try resetting back to square 1. For Your Eyes Only is probably the most obvious contrast, though that might simply be because it would be hard for any movie to be as ridiculous as Moonraker. Nevertheless, this is the closest to reality of any Bond film since From Russia with Love. That’s a big part of the film’s strengths, but it does cause some hiccups as well.
Starting off, the pre-titles sequence is a mixed bag. Seeing Bond place flowers at Tracy’s grave is effective, and confirms that Roger Moore’s Bond is the same person as the previous two. But the return of Blofeld feels undercooked, and the helicopter sequence drags on just a bit too long to maintain its momentum. I like the ideas and certain shots, but it feels like a little more was needed. It also throws a major wrinkle into how the film deals with the topic of revenge, which we’ll get to later.
Diving into the main film (pun completely intended), the story takes several cues from From Russia with Love. Bond and his enemies are both after a piece of tech that doesn’t really affect the plot beyond everyone wanting it, much of the story takes place in a nation that borders the Mediterranean Sea, and the tone is much more spy thriller than spy fantasy. The result is actually quite refreshing after the last several films.
One of the things that helps the tone land is actually Roger Moore’s performance. While he was always the most lighthearted and quickest with a quip of the Bonds, he still has a sense of humanity beneath the surface. That humanity is at its most prevalent in this film. Both his interactions with Melina and his brief displays of grief over Tracy and Countess Lisl show the man beneath the superspy. In many aspects it’s truly Fleming-esque.
Unfortunately, there is a problem with Bond’s interactions with Melina, and that comes down to how the film handles the topic of revenge. Bond’s warnings against it ring quite hollow when the opening features him killing Blofeld to avenge his wife. Theoretically you could try and justify it by saying that Bond wasn’t killing him for revenge but for duty and the fact that he did kill Bond’s wife is irrelevant, but it’s a pretty weak justification. And when the ultimate perpetrator is finally killed, it’s another person getting revenge for how he was betrayed. It gives off the implication that revenge is a boys-only club. While that’s hardly the most misogynistic thing we’ve seen in this franchise, it is still a flaw in the movie.
But aside from that thematic flaw, Melina is a solid character. She’s capable, smart, and looks really cool with a crossbow. Plus, Carole Bouquet has mesmerizing eyes. And in a vacuum, her arc of letting go of revenge is a solid one. Her romance with Bond could’ve used a little more development, but overall Melina Havelock is a fine addition to the pantheon of awesome Bond Girls.
The rest of the supporting cast is good too. Tupal is a lot of fun as Columbo, and harkens back to Kerim Bey in a good way. Julian Glover is solid as Kristasos, even if he doesn’t shine quite as much as he did in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. And Lynn Holly-Johnson is fun as Bibi Dahl. I know that she’s a divisive character for many, but personally I think she’s quite funny. Plus it’s nice to see that there are lines that Bond won’t cross, even if Carole Bouquet is only a year older than Johnson. Bernard Lee is missed, but Desmond Llewelyn gets a fun, quaintly dated scene.
I want to note that the action sequences in this one are really top notch. This is John Glenn’s directorial debut, and he really pulls out all the stops. From car chases to showstopper climaxes, this film’s among the best when it comes to excitement. The only ones that doesn’t fully work for me is when Bond and Melina are attacked underwater. There’s some good ideas there, but they don't completely come together. I will say though that the effects work to make it look like Carole Bouquet was actually underwater are marvelous. If I hadn’t been told that she has a sinus issue that actually prevents her from actually being underwater, I never would have known. To this day the effects are still seamless.
So that’s For Your Eyes Only. It’s regarded as one of Roger Moore’s best films as Bond, and that reputation is well-earned. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that I think it deserves to be considered among the best of Bond in general. It’s proof that down-to-earth and fun don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Combine that with Moore’s most human performance, and this is a recipe for success.
Film Course Correcting in a Major Way
So by this point the Bond films have developed a pattern. The series will start off relatively grounded, slowly escalate the fantastical elements more and more, and then reach a point where it just becomes so ridiculous that the only thing to do is try resetting back to square 1. For Your Eyes Only is probably the most obvious contrast, though that might simply be because it would be hard for any movie to be as ridiculous as Moonraker. Nevertheless, this is the closest to reality of any Bond film since From Russia with Love. That’s a big part of the film’s strengths, but it does cause some hiccups as well.
Starting off, the pre-titles sequence is a mixed bag. Seeing Bond place flowers at Tracy’s grave is effective, and confirms that Roger Moore’s Bond is the same person as the previous two. But the return of Blofeld feels undercooked, and the helicopter sequence drags on just a bit too long to maintain its momentum. I like the ideas and certain shots, but it feels like a little more was needed. It also throws a major wrinkle into how the film deals with the topic of revenge, which we’ll get to later.
Diving into the main film (pun completely intended), the story takes several cues from From Russia with Love. Bond and his enemies are both after a piece of tech that doesn’t really affect the plot beyond everyone wanting it, much of the story takes place in a nation that borders the Mediterranean Sea, and the tone is much more spy thriller than spy fantasy. The result is actually quite refreshing after the last several films.
One of the things that helps the tone land is actually Roger Moore’s performance. While he was always the most lighthearted and quickest with a quip of the Bonds, he still has a sense of humanity beneath the surface. That humanity is at its most prevalent in this film. Both his interactions with Melina and his brief displays of grief over Tracy and Countess Lisl show the man beneath the superspy. In many aspects it’s truly Fleming-esque.
Unfortunately, there is a problem with Bond’s interactions with Melina, and that comes down to how the film handles the topic of revenge. Bond’s warnings against it ring quite hollow when the opening features him killing Blofeld to avenge his wife. Theoretically you could try and justify it by saying that Bond wasn’t killing him for revenge but for duty and the fact that he did kill Bond’s wife is irrelevant, but it’s a pretty weak justification. And when the ultimate perpetrator is finally killed, it’s another person getting revenge for how he was betrayed. It gives off the implication that revenge is a boys-only club. While that’s hardly the most misogynistic thing we’ve seen in this franchise, it is still a flaw in the movie.
But aside from that thematic flaw, Melina is a solid character. She’s capable, smart, and looks really cool with a crossbow. Plus, Carole Bouquet has mesmerizing eyes. And in a vacuum, her arc of letting go of revenge is a solid one. Her romance with Bond could’ve used a little more development, but overall Melina Havelock is a fine addition to the pantheon of awesome Bond Girls.
The rest of the supporting cast is good too. Tupal is a lot of fun as Columbo, and harkens back to Kerim Bey in a good way. Julian Glover is solid as Kristasos, even if he doesn’t shine quite as much as he did in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. And Lynn Holly-Johnson is fun as Bibi Dahl. I know that she’s a divisive character for many, but personally I think she’s quite funny. Plus it’s nice to see that there are lines that Bond won’t cross, even if Carole Bouquet is only a year older than Johnson. Bernard Lee is missed, but Desmond Llewelyn gets a fun, quaintly dated scene.
I want to note that the action sequences in this one are really top notch. This is John Glenn’s directorial debut, and he really pulls out all the stops. From car chases to showstopper climaxes, this film’s among the best when it comes to excitement. The only ones that doesn’t fully work for me is when Bond and Melina are attacked underwater. There’s some good ideas there, but they don't completely come together. I will say though that the effects work to make it look like Carole Bouquet was actually underwater are marvelous. If I hadn’t been told that she has a sinus issue that actually prevents her from actually being underwater, I never would have known. To this day the effects are still seamless.
So that’s For Your Eyes Only. It’s regarded as one of Roger Moore’s best films as Bond, and that reputation is well-earned. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that I think it deserves to be considered among the best of Bond in general. It’s proof that down-to-earth and fun don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Combine that with Moore’s most human performance, and this is a recipe for success.