Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Suman Roberson It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Jerrie It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

bowmanblue I don't know why, but Roger Moore's 'For Your Eyes Only' never really gets mentioned in 'Bond circles.' It's as if it never really happened and was just some sort of way of killing time in between his (usually agreed as the best) 'Spy Who Loved Me' and his slightly less serious and slightly less capable 'Octopussy/View to a Kill.' Perhaps it was because it never seemed to be on TV during the time when people actually watched terrestrial TV in the eighties and nineties. However, just because it's not up there with the best (or down there with Bond swinging through the jungle making Tarzan noises!), doesn't mean that it's not pretty good fun.Maybe this is Roger Moore's 'comfort period' where he was certain that he'd laid Connery's ghost to rest and made the role his own enough to just simply cruise. The story is nothing new (certainly not be today's standards, but perhaps it was slightly more original at the time); it revolves around the Russians trying to get their hands on an important piece of British tech and Bond having to get there first before an unscrupulous third party sells it to our Soviet foes. And, as is customary, there are plenty of beautiful women along the way, wonderfully-exotic scenery courtesy of the Greek islands and underwater diving moments and all manner of car chases and punch-ups (plus a chase scene on skis which – although well-choreographed – does come across as a little over-the-top and cartoony!).It's a pretty standard affair, but good with it. Special mention to some moments like Roger Moore's Bond exhibiting possibly his 'darkest' moment when he kills a henchman out of revenge. But then that sort of this is counter-balanced by the humorous moments when a young (and by 'young' I'm guessing she's roughly eighteen years old) constantly comes on to Bond, scaring him more than Jaws and Oddjob ever could! Plus the Bond girl Melina Havelock, played by Carole Bouquet, does possibly save Bond's backside more than any other girl before him, showing how far the representation of women in Bond films has come since Ursula Andress came out of the water in 'Dr No.' No one has used a crossbow more fiercely until 'The Walking Dead's' Daryl Dixon! Overall, if you're in any way a fan of Moore's why interpretation of the superspy, you really should settle down for this one. It may not be the best, but it certainly isn't the worst and the rock-climbing scene/fight near the end really is pretty tense. I just wonder what the (then) Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher thought about her 'cameo' in the film?

pyrocitor In 1969, George Lazenby's 007 stampeded the screen with the exquisitely '60s marketing battle cry of "Far up! Far out! Far more!" (and how! Like, wow!). Unfortunately, it's advice that Mr. Bond, James Bond continued to follow, well into the Roger Moore era, until the franchise had somewhat written itself into a corner of exponential excess, cultivating in the grotesque, campy bloat of Moonraker. So how to top Bond in space? Bring him back down to earth, naturally, with a cracking, gritty tale of espionage, to reestablish Bond as secret agent rather than Jedi Knight. And For Your Eyes Only nearly works as a welcome revitalization of Bond's class and spy credibility (even if it borrows even more liberally from From Russia With Love than The Spy Who Loved Me did from You Only Live Twice). It's just a shame that director John Glen seems to have overcompensated somewhat, endeavouring so tirelessly to deliver 'serious Bond' that his resulting romp, while pleasant, remains one of the blandest and least memorable outings of the series. To his credit, Glen rides the 007 franchise's most flamboyant, pointedly responsive tonal shift with ease, conjuring a distinctly vintage Fleming/John Le Carré vibe, and that rare shocker of a Bond film where (gasp!) the plot is actually its main selling point. And no, that's not just a jab at the comparative lack of 007 razzle-dazzle populating the spectacle frontier. Indeed, Glen stages a good action scene (the opening double-whammy of shipwreck and aeronautical murder are both genuinely alarming), even if many could do with having the pace and intensity accelerated to avoid pacing drifting into worrisomely laggy territory (the underwater submarine subterfuge and cliffhanger finale are all fun, but so lugubrious they're - literally, in the case of the shark-baiting water skiing - a drag). Glen makes good use of his experience as a veteran 007 second unit director, and evocatively captures the natural flavour and unassuming beauty of Italy and Greece. Still, the restrained spectacle and distinctly grey colour palate - set largely at night or in earthly locales, the only real colours pop up in Moore's gaudy wardrobe - do lend the film a disappointingly muted feel, which can't help but suck a lot of the fun out of proceedings. Serious is one thing, but snoozy is a step too far. Equally, the fawning fandom renown for the film's grit and credibility do demonstrate some selective memory: a somewhat shambling subplot having Bond subdue assailants by use of every Olympic winter sport is a strained contrivance whose fun factor wanes quickly, while a 'deus-ex-parrot' has to be one of the lamest plot devices of the entire franchise. Then there's the pre-credits sequence, which takes its place as the least thrilling and most idiotic offloading of Bond's legendary arch-nemesis imaginable (its inclusion being a thinly-veiled middle finger to Kevin McCrory, who hoarded Blofeld's rights for the execrable Never Say Never Again, is droll, but still self-indulgently stupid). And then there's Bibi - Lynn-Holly Johnson's contribution to the 'most annoying Bond girls' pantheon, whose infamous whiny, childhood petulance is excused only as cue for Moore's most amusingly acrid one-liner in his 007 tenure ("Put your clothes on and I'll buy you an ice cream"). Perhaps said ice cream could help sooth that burn. Bill Conti's jaunty disco synths and cowbells are groovy, but toe the line of distracting silliness, saved only when weaving the Bond theme in (more sparingly than usual, though - boo), while Glen anchoring the film's predominant car chase with a VW Beetle is really pushing the limit of tongue-in-cheek. And speaking of cheek: Daniel Craig's 007 may have met Queen Elizabeth, but it took Moore to take the p*ss out of Margaret Thatcher. It's a closing note of such amusing ballsiness you have to wonder how many shaken-not-stirred martinis Cubby Broccoli imbibed in before signing off on. Pairing the legendarily droll Roger Moore with the film's self-declared serious ethos could have misfired terribly, but Moore flexes his acting chops and keeps the British end up masterfully. He's starting to look a touch too old for the part here, and tempers his Bond appropriately - more sparing with the quips (though his incredulous eyebrows provide perennial punchlines in themselves), sombre and dignified visiting his wife's grave, and even more so when cautioning Melina not to be consumed by vengeance. As said vengeful firecracker, Carole Bouquet may be a touch flat, but she's elegant and credibly fierce, and welcomely far more capable than the average Bond girl. The same cannot be said for Julian Glover, whose adversary is so dull and immediately forgettable he's almost invisible while sharing scenes with his fellow actors. Thankfully, as the film's Kerim Bey surrogate, Topol is practically bursting at the seams with bawdy, infectious charisma (ten points if you recognized him without his Tevye beard, too). Cassandra Harris (Pierce Brosnan's late wife), is charmingly prissy as one of Bond's motivationally vaguer trysts. Finally, Desmond Llewelyn and Lois Maxwell's Q and Moneypenny are charm incarnate as always, while James Villiers, dripping with snide contempt, covers the vacancy of M well, after Bernard Lee's tragic mid-film passing. For Your Eyes Only marks a valiant social experiment in fighting against the decade's excesses in the interests of re-grounding the ethos of the character, and for this it deserves credit. Ultimately, it's one of Bond's quieter, more sombre and reflective outings, and in somewhat steadier hands could have served as a strong character study. As it stands, it's a pleasant, suitably engaging watch, with many strong moments undermined by inconsistent silliness and a general sense of hazy disengagement. Ultimately, for better or worse, it's a moment of zen for Bond - intriguing but scarcely memorable for many outside of die-hard fans, and unlikely to spur any new recruits into posing in tuxedos (or powder blue snowsuits) in changing rooms. Maybe if you offer to buy them a delicatessen...-6.5/10

Patrick Bateman After Moonraker was released in 1979, the series knew it had to be brought back down to earth. When a British spy ship sunk with an important device on board, 007 is sent to retrieve it before the Russians can. This in my opinion is the most underrated James Bond film. I completely forgot about this movie and I think the general public did too. Many people say Timothy Dalton was the first dark Bond, to them I now say no. It actually was right here with Roger Moore. They express James as a killer, he still is funny but he is a killer. Some of the humour works, but some is just out of place. The score gives the score by Bill Conti adds a fast pace to the action sequences. I think this film is forgotten about because the Daniel Craig films have perfectly succeeded in the dark Bond.

KineticSeoul This is such a 80's action movie, it just really has that vibe going for it. It doesn't have the over the top silliness of the previous Bond films with Roger Moore, except one security device in the Bond car that make it explode when threatened. The drawback however is that the story just isn't all that engaging, there isn't any sharp or stand out dialogue and the action which is executed well is easily forgettable. It's not a memorable Bond film but it gets the job done. The story is really repetitious and just really seemed to drag on. Sure the formula of Bond digging for clues and the bad guys constantly after Bond's life has been done many times and over. But it's just so darn noticeable here, it's like they just didn't have enough story so they focused on a lot of scene with the bad guys trying to kill James Bond. There is the longest ski chase scene in the Bond franchise so far in this as well. That and the underwater sequences were shot quite well, especially for a early 80's film. Overall this is a forgettable Bond film with forgettable characters, but has enough right elements to make is watchable.6.5/10