How many of the James Bond movies are silly and how many are serious? It’s a common question, and given the ridiculous nature of the 007 installments it’s not entirely unreasonable. moonraker or even die another day. But as all serious 007 fans know, the pattern of Bond films going from serious to silly is something of a cycle. Although Daniel Craig’s casino royale It was conceived in 2006 as a modern, dark, realistic reboot of Timothy Dalton’s Living Daylights The same thing was done in 1987 also. But, there’s one groundbreaking Bond reboot that everyone forgets: 1981’s for your Eyes OnlyAn unusual Roger Moore-era 007 adventure that defies the notion that all Moore Bonds were absurd.
On June 24, 1981, 45 years after its American release, for your Eyes Only It is by no means the best James Bond film ever. Some might even call it “bad”. But the truth is, Roger Moore’s fifth Bond film is much better than casual fans remember. And it’s notable for trying to very clearly and consciously bring 007 back to Earth, and remind us that having a license to kill actually means that Bond is a dangerous person.
Directed by John Glen, who had served as second unit director on several previous Bond films, and would later helm the remainder of Moore’s tenure. a view to a Kill, for your Eyes Only There was a very clear and deliberate attempt to bring Bond back to the reality of the early Connery era films. While the story is largely based on Ian Fleming’s short story of the same name, as well as the short story “Riccio”, elements of for your Eyes Only combine familiar topics with thunderballAnd The Detective Who Loved Me; We have underwater operations and are missing technology that is critical to the sustainability of nuclear weapons. Bond also gets to work with a capable female companion, the crossbow-wielding Melina Havelock (Carole Bouquet), one of the coolest and coolest Bond girls of all time.
In fairness, individual elements of For Your Eyes Only feel like other Bonds’ greatest hits: the aforementioned underwater action, skiing, gambling, and cars driven very fast. The difference is, for your Eyes Only What makes Bond cool is his actions, not his fancy accoutrement. Bond has virtually no gadgets in this film, and the most memorable car chase involves Bond and Melina driving a small Citroën 2CV, a low-horsepower vehicle, as Moore wrote in his memoirs, my word is my bond“Wasn’t Bond’s car of choice by any means.”
The classic car chase in the little yellow Citroën is, in a way, a microcosm of for your Eyes Only. After an absurd pre-title sequence in which Bond is seen throwing a worn-out version of Blofeld into a plume of smoke, for your Eyes Only It appears that audiences want to know that at every turn, this Bond adventure will be short, and will be portrayed like a traditional mystery-thriller, and not like an over-the-top spectacle. moonrakerExactly two years ago. Bond leaving Fox-Blofeld in the smokestack is almost a wink to the audience: this kind of thing won’t happen anymore. “for your Eyes Only was an effort to step back from those excesses,” Michael G. Wilson said in a documentary about the film in 1999.
everything about for your Eyes Only The plot is about: Where can Bond and Melina find the ATAC device? What did his father know about it? What is Kristatos (Julian Glover) plotting? Where is the money coming from? Who are these other henchmen? The result of this focus is for your Eyes Only Old school pace. Although Bill Conti’s bombastic musical score would make you think this is a fun Bond adventure, in reality, the film comes closer to the spirit of Ian Fleming as Bond is portrayed as a man with a gun on a mission to save the world.
The film epitomizes this grassroots ethos in a famous and somewhat controversial scene in which Bond confronts a henchman named Locke (Michael Gothard). Bond is alone, with only one gun, and Locke driving a car at him. Bond stands firm, firing at the oncoming car, sending the car and Locke careening towards the edge of a cliff. Bond then kicks the car, killing Locke. Moore was concerned that this was going too far, and worried that “my Bond wouldn’t do it.” But, I am writing My word is my bond, Moore acknowledged that Bond’s brutal execution of Locke is a scene that Bond experts and critics have described as “…an important scene in the evolution of the Bond films. So maybe I was wrong?”
Moore’s desire to make Bond a more family-friendly hero was understandable, and yet, it’s not exactly in the character’s DNA. since 1971 diamonds are foreverIt could be argued that the Bond franchise was flirting with self-parody, or, at least, self-awareness galore. It can be further argued that, first for your Eyes Only, was the least meta bond film thunderball in 1965, and he was Moore’s only true grounded Bond before 1981 live and Let Die In 1973. None of this is to say that Bond films have to be grounded or realistic to be considered high quality. Most fans would agree that the outrageous 1977 film the detective who loved me Proved Roger Moore Was a Great Bond, and This Is Basically His gold Finger Moment.
But then, the point here is for your Eyes Only More curious and strange than any great movie of all time. This may not make anyone’s top 10 of the best 007s of all time. But could we really have reached The Living Daylights or Casino Royale without this simple adventure from Roger Moore?
As the Bond franchise attempts to make a relevant comeback, the powers-that-be should take a closer look at what makes the franchise tick, and that should include revisiting the deeply underrated cool for your Eyes Only.
