sqdb

For Your Eyes Only was the first of the 1980's Bond films. It was released in 1981 and was the first Bond film to be directed by John Glen, who had worked on previous Bond films.

The film, for me, marked a welcome return to the more realistic and back to basics Bond films, after the appalling OTT Moonraker. The plot revolves around Bond's hunt for a stolen submarine tracking device. I found the story easier to follow than some other Bond films, it was well-acted and the action scenes were very realistic, but spectacular. Moore was starting to look his age in this film, but he is a more grittier Bond in this film, which I liked. There are fewer gadgets, less silly humour and Bond has to use his wits more to survive in this film. I also thought that FYEO features some fantastic stunts and action sequences, notably the pre-credit scene, the snow chases and the mountain-climbing scene towards the end.

The supporting cast are also exceptional. Carole Bouquet is the Bond girl and I thought that she was stunningly beautiful. Julian Glover is the villain, though he doesn't have much to do. I also enjoyed the performance of Fiddler On The Roof star Topol, who I found very amusing as Bond's ally Columbo. Cassandra Harris, formerly Mrs Pierce Brosnan, also has a small part as another lady whom Bond seduces. Although a lot of people seem to have found Lynn-Holly Johnson annoying as Bibi Dahl, I found her to be quite amusing and endearing. She is the only Bond girl that he has ever turned down to date, though.

To sum up, I have always enjoyed FYEO and I think it is extremely entertaining and one of the most action-packed Bond films. I much prefer it to most of the other Roger Moore Bond films, with the exception of The Spy Who Loved Me. FYEO is the least silliest and more grounded of all of the Moore Bond films, which is why I have always liked it. I doubt that I will ever tire of watching it. I give it a solid 8 out of 10. The film was followed by Octopussy, which I also enjoy nearly as much as this. I recommend FYEO to any serious Bond fan, or fans of the earlier Bond films, to which this is very similar.

This film was originally released in 1979 and was Roger Moore's fourth Bond film.

I cannot think of words appropriate enough to describe this abomination to cinema. I have always regarded Moonraker as Moore's worst Bond film and one of the worst and certainly one of the silliest Bond films in total. This film was a blatant cash-in on the success of Star Wars in 1977 and shares that film's problem of being all spectacle and virtually no plot.

There are very few positive things that I can say about Moonraker. It features a lot of references, both visual and audio, to other, more superior films. All of these nods are cringe-worthy and do not work in the context of a Bond film. The special effects now look very dated, there is no decent eye candy and the film seems to go on for much longer than its 2 hour running time. Bond films are usually renowned for their spectacular stunts and action scenes, but even those seem lame in this film. I found the pre-credits skydiving scene enjoyable, though even that was ruined by the very noticeable and obvious stunt doubles. I also quite enjoyed the cable car fight but hated the action scenes that were set in space towards the end of the film. These outer space scenes were a step too far in my opinion, even by the Roger Moore standards.

So, to sum up, this really was one of the worst ever Bond films and still is to this day. Roger Moore really phoned in his performance in this film. It is easily the weakest of the Lewis Gilbert Bond films, in my opinion. Thank God that For Your Eyes Only followed this, to bring back the decent Bond films and make them more grounded again. They certainly couldn't get much worse than this...

I simply cannot recommend this film to anyone, other than dedicated Roger Moore fans or Bond completists. It will pass a couple of hours quite nicely, though, as long as you switch your brain off and don't think about the plot too much. I hate to be unkind to a Bond film, but I just cannot defend Moonraker at all. Thank God for the 80s Bonds...

This film was the first official Bond film to hit cinemas back in 1962. It kick-started Sean Connery's career, introduced the world to the cinematic James Bond and is, to many people, a truly iconic and important film...

Okay, let's get straight to the point. Dr No is not a great Bond film or even a great film in general. I know that a great deal of people have a special place in their hearts for this film and I respect that. However, modern audiences may hold an entirely different opinion of this film. I know that a lot of people may not agree with my opinion and that is their choice, but I still maintain that this film is nowhere near as good as most of the Bond films that were to follow.

There are some good points about Dr. No, though. Everyone knows about the "spider" scene and Ursula Andress looks great in that iconic white bikini. Sean Connery has also never looked cooler as Bond as he was in this film. The film also introduced audiences to the now instantly recognisable James Bond theme, which is first heard over the starting credits. It is also used several times throughout the film.

However, I think the negative points outweigh the positives. The film is now hopelessly dated and I think it has dated more than any other Bond film. The portrayal of the black characters can also, in some ways, be seen as stereotypical and even borderline racist. Bond's "fetch my shoes" line to Quarrel never fails to make me squirm with embarrassment. There are also very few action sequences and no stand-out set-pieces. I also believe that Dr. No, although worthy of a viewing, would not stand up to repeat viewings, as it is simply not entertaining enough. Even the Roger Moore Bond films are more entertaining than this and yes, I do include Moonraker.

As I mentioned, this was Connery's first Bond film and I know, to many people, he will always be the ultimate Bond. I do agree with that, up to a point. However, even he made some real stinkers as Bond. Goldfinger, in my opinion, is vastly over-rated and not much better than Dr. No in terms of entertainment value. Thunderball is too long and is the most boring Bond film, in my opinion, due to the long and slow underwater scenes. I am not even going to comment on the execrable Diamonds Are Forever...

So, to sum up, Dr. No is a film firmly of its time. I would imagine it had much greater impact when seen in cinemas for the first time back in 1962, but I just don't think it has stood the test of time very well. I would recommend a viewing for any serious Bond fan, but they will probably find that one viewing is enough. Connery made much better Bond films than this, so I would instead direct people to check out either From Russia With Love or You Only Live Twice. I find these films endlessly watchable. I give Dr. No four stars, because it was a ground-breaking film, but very far from the best of Bond.