Is 'For Your Eyes Only' the most boring James Bond film?

11819212324

Comments

  • edited December 2023 Posts: 1,708
    If FYEO is boring, then I'll take that any day over exciting-but-over-the-top.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,627
    I’ve often viewed FYEO as a reaction to the perceived “excesses” of MR. And, as with any reaction, there is a tendency to throw out the baby with the bath water – which may have contributed to a certain degree of purposeful understatement in the film.

    That said, for me, FYEO has really risen in my rankings over the past few years – as has MR (in somewhat of a surprise). Far from dull, I find FYEO to be quite enjoyable, even if the chief villain Aristotle Kristatos is a bit meh.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,790
    Maybe not the most eccentric of Bond entries, but really I can't say no to a Fleming-inspired Cold War espionage adventure across 80's Southern Europe, featuring phenomenal stunt work, and with a superb Sir Rog and ditto Bond girl.
  • FYEO is great but I think it is too dry for Roger's fans.

    But it can't be the most boring movie when you have endless movies like SPECTRE or NTTD.
  • Posts: 6,820
    I dont find FYEO boring. I do think it has a weak villain, but it moves fairly well for me and has strong set pieces!
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,697
    FYEO too dry for Roger's fans? "I love a drive in the country, don't you?" "You get your clothes on and I'll buy you an ice cream!"? "Whoops, me nightie's slipping!"? And the admittedly somewhat silly Margaret Thatcher scene at the end - just to name a few?

    OK, dialogue-wise it doesn't hold a candle to MR (although the really intelligent lines there are all Drax's). But if anything, it's some of the overblown comic-relief scenes and lines that bother me in FYEO. There has been a shift in my preferences, but personally I like it more than TMWTGG and waaaaaay more than OP. My top three RM films (in rotating order) are MR, LALD and FYEO.

    And needless to say, I find none of those three boring. But not even the worst Bond films are boring IMO. Just to get back to the subject in point.
  • j_w_pepper wrote: »
    FYEO too dry for Roger's fans? "I love a drive in the country, don't you?" "You get your clothes on and I'll buy you an ice cream!"? "Whoops, me nightie's slipping!"? And the admittedly somewhat silly Margaret Thatcher scene at the end - just to name a few?

    OK, dialogue-wise it doesn't hold a candle to MR (although the really intelligent lines there are all Drax's). But if anything, it's some of the overblown comic-relief scenes and lines that bother me in FYEO. There has been a shift in my preferences, but personally I like it more than TMWTGG and waaaaaay more than OP. My top three RM films (in rotating order) are MR, LALD and FYEO.

    And needless to say, I find none of those three boring. But not even the worst Bond films are boring IMO. Just to get back to the subject in point.

    They love Octopussy. I guess FYEO is too dry for them.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,882
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I wouldn’t call any Bond film boring in a collective sense, especially not FYEO for me. Personally, the one that tends to bore me the most is TWINE.
    peter wrote: »
    TWINE was a brutal bore and I think it may nudge DAD out of my last spot.

    You guys are on the same wavelength as me. I find TWINE a bit of a struggle to get through.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,979
    I don't know exactly why, but I too have found TWINE unwatchable since CR came out.

    It's like the paradigm shifted.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2023 Posts: 14,962
    I don't entirely agree with the supposition of the thread, but I'd say it is a Bond film which lacks sparkle to some extent, so I can see where the complaint comes from. On rewatching I start to hover my finger over the stop button when we get to stuff like the nighttime attack on the docks- I find it's just not terribly gripping.
    echo wrote: »
    I find TMWTGG much more boring than FYEO.

    But the point is well-taken about FYEO. The action sequences are amazing but the novelty wears off after a while. There is something about the story itself that is slack--and they kind of lose the thread of Melina's revenge (unlike, say, LTK).

    I think that's true, especially when she has to disappear for almost all of the ski section.
    Also if you think about Melina's appearance in Cortina too hard it starts to fall apart completely. The baddies sent her a letter which was supposed to be from Bond? How did they know about him? Or her for that mater?
    echo wrote: »
    I don't know exactly why, but I too have found TWINE unwatchable since CR came out.

    It's like the paradigm shifted.

    Good way of putting it, yeah. I remember being slightly stunned coming out of TWINE because it did so many new things (and it really does), but it also aims for being more dramatic than previous Bonds, and compared to CR it does now feel quite half-hearted and fake in that regard.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    I don't have many issues with FYEO at all. I find TMWTGG and DAF, and even SP far harder to get through for a variety of reasons.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,790
    I've got soft spots for several mentioned here, including DAF, TMWTGG and TWINE.

    For me the closest a 007 film ever came to being boring, is actually SF. I realise that's not a popular opinion, but that's how I feel about it nonetheless.
  • Posts: 6,820
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I've got soft spots for several mentioned here, including DAF, TMWTGG and TWINE.

    For me the closest a 007 film ever came to being boring, is actually SF. I realise that's not a popular opinion, but that's how I feel about it nonetheless.

    You're ok @GoldenGun
    I'm another who finds it hard to get through SF!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,480
    This isn't even in the "Top 10" of most boring Bond films.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,553
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    This isn't even in the "Top 10" of most boring Bond films.

    Agreed. Though I generally don't think of Bond films in terms of 'boring'. ;-)
  • FYEO is far from boring for me personally. It has everything that I could want out of a great Bond film, and it’s always great to see Sir Roger show a harder side to his portrayal of Bond. I think SP perhaps may be the most boring Bond film personally.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,962
    It's between TWINE and Thunderball for me.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    Posts: 1,006
    FYEO is probably the most action-packed, stunt heavy Bond film until that point. That, along with the beautiful Mediterranean setting puts it easily around my top 10. Does Octopussy have a bit more of that Bondian sparkle and flamboyance? Yes. But these two first films from Glen make for Roger's peak IMO.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,962
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    FYEO too dry for Roger's fans? "I love a drive in the country, don't you?" "You get your clothes on and I'll buy you an ice cream!"? "Whoops, me nightie's slipping!"? And the admittedly somewhat silly Margaret Thatcher scene at the end - just to name a few?

    I do like that Roger actually doesn't have much trouble making a more serious 007 flick work- he gets too much flack for being the lightweight Bond with no range.

    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    And needless to say, I find none of those three boring. But not even the worst Bond films are boring IMO. Just to get back to the subject in point.

    Yes, very true. It's all relative.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    edited December 2023 Posts: 4,977
    As someone who was 12 years old in 1981, I can tell you that between Raiders of the Lost Ark and For Your Eyes Only I wanted to see Raiders.

    I recall a cousin saying he saw it and enjoyed Eyes. He claimed it was a better film than Raiders. Both my Dad and I found that statement hard to believe. The first time I watched it I remember thinking, this is better than Raiders???? Nope.

    edit: Raiders premiered June 12 1981 and Eyes premiered June 24 1981

    As I watched it over the years I have found myself saying "if only they had a different Bond." To me it plays like an adventure to setup a new Bond. Moore is not quite right for the task and the age gap between him and Melina is jarring. I find it rich that he scolds Melina for seeking revenge and yet he's had his revenge with Blofeld, plus all the countless times he's gotten revenge before.

    Finally the plot makes little to no sense. Why the need to retrieve this device? Why not have it destroyed, which Bond does at the end of the film anyway. Never understood why the device needed to be brought back to London. If it's that top secret and vital why have the thing aboard a fishing ship in international waters?

    I love the rock climbing sequence, the car chase in the yellow car is a great piece of film. I enjoy the kicking of the car off the cliff and the dynamic between Bond and Columbo is a nice throw back to Bey and Draco.

    Overall a mid Bond picture that could have been so much more with a tighter script and a different actor playing Bond.
  • Posts: 6,820
    thedove wrote: »
    As someone who was 12 years old in 1981, I can tell you that between Raiders of the Lost Ark and For Your Eyes Only I wanted to see Raiders.

    I recall a cousin saying he saw it and enjoyed Eyes. He claimed it was a better film than Raiders. Both my Dad and I found that statement hard to believe. The first time I watched it I remember thinking, this is better than Raiders???? Nope.

    edit: Raiders premiered June 12 1981 and Eyes premiered June 24 1981

    As I watched it over the years I have found myself saying "if only they had a different Bond." To me it plays like an adventure to setup a new Bond. Moore is not quite right for the task and the age gap between him and Melina is jarring. I find it rich that he scolds Melina for seeking revenge and yet he's had his revenge with Blofeld, plus all the countless times he's gotten revenge before.

    Finally the plot makes little to no sense. Why the need to retrieve this device? Why not have it destroyed, which Bond does at the end of the film anyway. Never understood why the device needed to be brought back to London. If it's that top secret and vital why have the thing aboard a fishing ship in international waters?

    I love the rock climbing sequence, the car chase in the yellow car is a great piece of film. I enjoy the kicking of the car off the cliff and the dynamic between Bond and Columbo is a nice throw back to Bey and Draco.

    Overall a mid Bond picture that could have been so much more with a tighter script and a different actor playing Bond.

    I remember critic John Brosnan, who was a big Bond fan, claiming at the time that most people would go to see 'Raiders' twice rather than 'FYEO' once! A bit harsh imo!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,962
    thedove wrote: »
    As someone who was 12 years old in 1981, I can tell you that between Raiders of the Lost Ark and For Your Eyes Only I wanted to see Raiders.

    I recall a cousin saying he saw it and enjoyed Eyes. He claimed it was a better film than Raiders. Both my Dad and I found that statement hard to believe. The first time I watched it I remember thinking, this is better than Raiders???? Nope.

    Yeah, I love Bond hugely, but your cousin was way off the mark! :D
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,391
    thedove wrote: »
    and yet he's had his revenge with Blofeld

    I think it's more meant as Bond's way of self defense, as Blofeld nearly killed Bond in that helicopter, so Bond needs to fight back, or else, he wouldn't make it to the MI6, I don't see it as a revenge for Tracy.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited December 2023 Posts: 2,514
    Boring is perhaps a touch harsh, least memorable would be better. I do think some of the Sir Roger films had pacing issues, I know I'm biased though, as I'm not a fan of the lighthearted tone.

    I'll always have a soft spot for FYEO as they got quite a bit of unused Fleming material on screen
  • Posts: 2,909
    It’s one of my least favourite Bonds, and I’d say one of the least exciting. It’s one of those films in the series where even the cinematography has a rather flat look to it.

    Concept wise it’s a bizarre film - it seems to aim at being a more ‘back to basics’ adventure, and yet you have these strange bits of outright comedy such as Bibi sneaking into Bond’s hotel room, a Thatcher lookalike appearing at the end, and whatever the heck is going on in that PTS. It incorporates a lot of Fleming material, and yet the take Bond is weirdly un-Fleming esque compared to Moore’s previous films (the ‘two graves’ is an example - it’s a bastardised line from the original story where Bond is being somewhat ironic/saying Judy is going to get herself killed. Bond in the film wags his finger and talks about the pitfalls of revenge despite killing constantly for this reason throughout the film, to the point it seems like the script isn’t aware of this irony). Personally, I find it a waste of good Fleming material.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,962
    007HallY wrote: »
    It incorporates a lot of Fleming material, and yet the take Bond is weirdly un-Fleming esque compared to Moore’s previous films (the ‘two graves’ is an example - it’s a bastardised line from the original story where Bond is being somewhat ironic/saying Judy is going to get herself killed. Bond in the film wags his finger and talks about the pitfalls of revenge despite killing constantly for this reason throughout the film, to the point it seems like the script isn’t aware of this irony).

    Yes, that is nicely bizarre that the film doesn't appear to notice Bond digging two graves all over the place! It's a shame that Melina disappears so often that she doesn't get to call him out on this double standard: it could make for a good scene. Even at the end we have Columbo getting his revenge on Kristatos, which is fine apparently.
    thedove wrote: »

    Finally the plot makes little to no sense. Why the need to retrieve this device? Why not have it destroyed, which Bond does at the end of the film anyway. Never understood why the device needed to be brought back to London. If it's that top secret and vital why have the thing aboard a fishing ship in international waters?

    I do think it's bizarre that Bond doesn't set the explosives as soon as they find it in the St Georges- it's what the actual Naval officers were trying to do after all. They probably should have set up some sort of plot where Bond needs the ATAC to swap in order to save a hostage or to flush the unknown baddie/mole out.

    As it is it does kind of make me wonder- is Bond secretly a Russian double agent in this one? Is he actually trying to make sure that the Russians get the ATAC but without blowing his cover? :D
  • mtm wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    As someone who was 12 years old in 1981, I can tell you that between Raiders of the Lost Ark and For Your Eyes Only I wanted to see Raiders.

    I recall a cousin saying he saw it and enjoyed Eyes. He claimed it was a better film than Raiders. Both my Dad and I found that statement hard to believe. The first time I watched it I remember thinking, this is better than Raiders???? Nope.

    Yeah, I love Bond hugely, but your cousin was way off the mark! :D

    Raiders has less action than it seems.
  • Raiders is, however, superbly paced and no shot is wasted.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,553
    mtm wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    As someone who was 12 years old in 1981, I can tell you that between Raiders of the Lost Ark and For Your Eyes Only I wanted to see Raiders.

    I recall a cousin saying he saw it and enjoyed Eyes. He claimed it was a better film than Raiders. Both my Dad and I found that statement hard to believe. The first time I watched it I remember thinking, this is better than Raiders???? Nope.

    Yeah, I love Bond hugely, but your cousin was way off the mark! :D

    Raiders has less action than it seems.

    That's an odd thing to say.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited December 2023 Posts: 4,114
    Raiders is, however, superbly paced and no shot is wasted.

    I still think that Lucasfilm could have easily made Indiana Jones their true equivalent to James Bond. Alas, George Lucas couldn’t stop pushing aliens into the plot, delaying the 4th movie. And that’s from someone who really likes Crystal Skull.

    As for FYEO, I don’t think it’s boring, it just lacks a bit of memorable elements of a Bond movie. John Glen didn’t direct certain actors, well. I know Raymond Benson called it the best RM movie, and it shows in his work. Namely with Blast From The Past, with Irma Bunt. Quite a few story beats and themes.
Sign In or Register to comment.