Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

post #1 of 37
Thread Starter 
ronsreviews_covers_MGD011671.jpg

For Your Eyes Only

Release Date: Available now (original release date October 21, 2008)
Studio: MGM Home Entertainment
Packaging/Materials: Single-disc Blu-Ray case with cardstock slipcover
Year: 1981
Rating: PG
Running Time: 2h08m
MSRP: $34.98

MAIN FEATURE
Video 1080p high definition 16x9 2.35:1
Audio DTS HD Master Audio: English 5.1 / Dolby Digital: English 2.1, Spanish Mono, French 5.1
Subtitles English, Spanish

Note: Portions of this review include material from my review of the two-disc DVD included in the "James Bond Ultimate Collection, Volume 3." You can read the entirety of the review here.


The Feature: 3/5
James Bond (Roger Moore) must locate a sunken British spy ship and recover a device that can control the fleet's nuclear submarines.


Video Quality: 4/5
The film is correctly framed at 2.35:1, encoded in AVC and devoid of blemishes. Black levels are generally quite good - struggling a bit in some nighttime scenes, though that could easily be the limits of the film stock used at the time. Sharpness is variable in the second half of the movie - not as dramatically as it is on the DVD release - but wide shots tend to drop in detail while some shots simply lack the crispness found in ones immediately before or after. While noticeable, it is subtle enough - particularly with the increased resolution of HD - to keep it from being considered a major problem. Outside of those few minor issues, the transfer generally displays good contrast, color depth and clarity, with grain structure appearing nicely preserved with no obvious signs of noise reduction or artificial edge enhancement.


Audio Quality: 4/5
Presented in 5.1 DTS HD Master Audio, I noticed similar qualities with the mix as I did with the previous DVD release. Surround and front channels are used rather aggressively, which befits the cartoonish action, but dialogue can seem a touch low at times in comparison, more so in the first 20 minutes. Nonetheless, the high activity across the array makes for an enveloping and dynamic experience. The highly localized source music during Bond's entrance into the Cuban compound remains, though for whatever reason it is no longer so disorienting, connecting better with what is happening in the scene. Overall it's a very good, if not particularly subtle, track.

Also included is the original Dolby Surround track. Though not as detailed, dynamic or crisp as the lossless option it is not a bad way to go and in some cases may seem more natural given the film's vintage.


Special Features: 4/5

All the special features from the "Ultimate Edition" DVD release have been ported over and some have been upgraded to high definition video! Though the "007 Mission Control" random access piece is merely grabbing in and out points from the feature, deleted scenes, a documentary, and the theatrical trailer are now in high definition - a nice touch.

Audio Commentary with Sir Roger Moore: A few interesting stories spread over two hours make the commentary difficult to recommend, especially with the frequent moments of dead air and Moore's tendency toward mere description/reaction to scenes. There also doesn't seem to be much information offered that can't be learned on the other special features.

Audio Commentary Featuring John Glen and Actors: John Cork of the Ian Fleming Foundation returns, but this time to introduce the commentary track ported from the previous release (not sure of the point there). The commentary follows the same scripted format as the others, combining pre-recorded audio interviews with bits of movie history and trivia, which gives the listener plenty to take in.

Audio Commentary Featuring Michael G. Wilson and Crew: Cork introduces another ported commentary track, this time centering on the experiences and memories of the crew. Once again the scripted commentary and inclusion of pre-recorded interviews make for an overall more interesting and consistent experience.

Deleted Scenes and Expanded Angles: Deleted scenes include one from the hockey scene (2m05s), in which Bond dumps a load of snow on his opponents, and the other a shortened bit of dialogue between Bond and Melina (1m07s). The "Expanded Angle" segment makes use of the multi-angle feature, allowing the user to switch between the original cut and unused footage of the same scene. A third video track puts the two side-by-side for comparison. Mildly interesting but not likely one to revisit. All clips are in high definition with stereo audio.

Bond in Greece (5m56s): Producer Michael Wilson comments on behind-the-scenes footage from the shoot in Greece.

Bond in Cortina (4m19s): Wilson comments on behind-the-scenes footage from the shoot in Cortina, Spain.

Neptune's Journey (3m33s): Wilson comments on behind-the-scenes footage from the underwater shoots, which were directed by Al Giddings. Turns out the sub built for the film was the catalyst for the formation of the Ian Fleming Foundation.

Credits (1m15s): Production credits for the "MI6 Vault."

007 Mission Control: An interesting feature, giving random access to scenes around a particular character or theme, all in 5.1 DTS HD Master Audio and 1080p high definition 16x9 2.35:1 video. Better than skipping through the feature disc? It depends. For fans of the opening title sequence (with and without text), this is an easy way to access it. And obviously users aren't meant to watch all the clips, but only access their favorites; otherwise, why not just watch the feature disc? The one departure from simple clips from the film is the "Exotic Locations" item, which is a montage of film locales with narration by Maude Adams, presented in high definition with stereo audio.

Inside "For Your Eyes Only" (29m46s): Brief history of the film, featuring interviews with cast and crew and archival photos and film. Spends time on the filmmakers bringing Bond "back down to earth" after the outlandishness of "Moonraker" and the various stunt sequences. Nicely produced, entertaining, with interesting archival footage. In high definition with stereo audio.

Animated Storyboard Sequence - Snowmobile Chase (1m13s): Intercut with actual footage and set to the film score.

Animated Storyboard Sequence - Underwater (1m47s): Intercut with actual footage and set to the film score.

Sheena Easton Music Video (2m46): Music video of "For Your Eyes Only." 4:3 matted widescreen and in stereo.

Theatrical Trailer (2m06s): In high definition with stereo audio.

TV Broadcasts (11m44s): Three (rather long for) TV trailers.

Radio Communication (1m06s): Two promotional radio spots.

Image Database: Large image gallery with the requisite mix of promotional stills, on-set shots, and advertising materials.

"Quantum of Solace" Movie Cash: In promotion of the upcoming Bond film starring Daniel Craig, a cover sticker has a code to access an online coupon worth up to $10.50 toward the purchase of a ticket for the movie. The sticker left a fair amount of adhesive on the cardstock cover, though it was easily removed with duct tape.


Title Recap

The Feature: 3/5
Video Quality: 4/5
Audio Quality: 4/5
Special Features: 4/5
Overall Score (not an average): 3.5/5

For new fans of "For Your Eyes Only," the Blu-Ray release is an obvious choice, having very good audio and video to go along with a decent number of extras, several of which are now in high definition. For previous owners of the DVDs, the decision to re-purchase the title on Blu-Ray will ultimately come down to how much they enjoy the film. I found the movie one of the weaker titles in the franchise, though the special features are plentiful and the upgrade to high definition for several of them makes for a nice bonus. Ultimately, "For Your Eyes Only" won't be for everyone but should please fans of the film.

Gear mentioned in this thread:

For Your Eyes Only (James Bond) [Blu-ray]
post #2 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Quote:
Ultimately, "Live and Let Die" won't be for everyone but should please fans of the film.

I think you meant to write "For Your Eyes Only" .
post #3 of 37
Thread Starter 

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Thanks. Fixed.
post #4 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

I spun the first 15 minutes of this not too long ago and was very impressed with what I saw. I'm a big Roger Moore Bond fan and could not be happier with the way this turned out, I can only hope the others are as good.
post #5 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Love this one as well. Nostalgia, I guess. I thought the Blu-ray looked fantastic. Audio was good, although I did also find the dialogue to be a bit low, compared to the music and FX tracks. And I love dynamic range, but this was a balancing issue IMHO.

Love the HD upgrade on the documentary as well.

No probs playing this disc on my Panny BD-30 with latest firmware (2.5 I think is the latest as of this writing...?), but I do understand some players may have probs with this title.

However, the title sequence without credits feature (basically, the restored music video) had audio out of sync...
post #6 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-P
I spun the first 15 minutes of this not too long ago and was very impressed with what I saw. I'm a big Roger Moore Bond fan and could not be happier with the way this turned out, I can only hope the others are as good.

Yep, same here. Hell, I'm even looking forward to A View To A Kill.
post #7 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

A View to a Kill, the worst of the Roger Moore Bond films no doubt. But like you, I still have to pick it up.
post #8 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Yes doubt.
post #9 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Moonraker is worse than A View to a Kill (though it is a close call).
post #10 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

double post
post #11 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulDA
double post


I don't even really consider Moonraker a "bond" film, so purely from a camp factor I find it fun.

Doug
post #12 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulDA
Moonraker is worse than A View to a Kill (though it is a close call).

Well.....Moonraker at least had Richard Kiel as Jaws in it and Shirley Bassey doing the title track.....much more entertaining than Grace Jones IMHO.

As for 'For Your Eyes Only', it's one of my favourite Roger Moore Bond films and I'm glad to have this disc.
post #13 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

This is my favorite of ALL the Bond films.

I was absolutely thrilled with the quality of this one. Very well done!!!
post #14 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

I watched FYEO tonight and thought it looked terrific. This, too, is one of my favorite Moore Bonds (next to The Spy Who Loved Me). I'm really looking forward to watching the other five films, too, and cannot wait until the next set is released. Hopefully my favorite film -- Goldfinger -- will be in the next set.

BTW, A View To a Kill and Moonraker are equally bad. Probably the two worst Bond films in the series.
post #15 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Merryfield
I watched FYEO tonight and thought it looked terrific. This, too, is one of my favorite Moore Bonds (next to The Spy Who Loved Me). I'm really looking forward to watching the other five films, too, and cannot wait until the next set is released. Hopefully my favorite film -- Goldfinger -- will be in the next set.

BTW, A View To a Kill and Moonraker are equally bad. Probably the two worst Bond films in the series.

I cant in my conciousness call Moonraker worse then AVTAK, simply because of the first hour...the stunning pretitles, the suspenseful centrifuge scene, and the haunting death of Corinne. If the movie had kept on that track, it could have been one of the greatest Bond's ever.
post #16 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Since we have gone down this road....

People mock me for this, but Roger Moore is my favorite Bond.
The reason is simply because he was the very first Bond I grew
up with in the mid 70s.

Favorite Bond film is The Spy Who Loved Me, which I think
most will agree is one of the best Bond films EVER. My second favorite
Bond film? The Man With The Golden Gun just because of the
maze sequences and the little Tattoo guy. Of course, I get mocked for
that too.
post #17 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
People mock me for this, but Roger Moore is my favorite Bond. The reason is simply because he was the very first Bond I grew
up with in the mid 70s.

Well, Ron, I grew up with the Moore movies too, but my father and older brothers kept telling me about this Connery guy. Once I finally relented and saw Goldfinger, From Russia With Love, Thunderball, and so on, I had to admit Connery was the best. That doesn't take away from the fact that I think The Spy Who Loved Me (while essentially a remake of You Only Live Twice) is one of the three or four best films in the series. Moore made some great films, we shouldn't take away from that because we like another actor in the lead role.

I will also add that Craig is a terrific Bond, and if he stays with the role long enough and if the films live up to the standard of Casino Royale, his could be the best tenure in the series.
post #18 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Like Ron, I started seeing the James Bond movies in the 1970s and Roger Moore was the only James Bond as far as I was concerned. The first movie I saw was Moonraker, and while it is admittedly not the best in the series, I still derive much enjoyment from it for what it is.

After I read the Fleming books, I finally saw the Connery Bond pictures and my opinion ever since is that Sean Connery is the best Bond, period.

I still love Roger Moore, and his Bond pictures are fun, but for me the best Bonds are with Connery. Roger Moore's tongue in cheek approach is much better suited to his role as the famous Simon Templar. Roger Moore is terrific as the Saint, and to this day I will still go out of my way to see a Roger Moore performance. His cameo as Inspector Jacques Clouseau in the Curse of the Pink Panther is priceless!
post #19 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Moore has been, and always be my favorite Bond. Like some here I grew up with him and there's a lot of memories tied to that. While I have seen all the Bond films I do not find Connery as the better Bond. And even though Craig is a fantastic Bond, I still enjoy Moore the most.

I really hope Octopussy isn't too far behind, that is another favorite of mine next to For Your Eyes Only.
post #20 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

I grew up with Roger Moore as Bond (in the 70s as well)--but once I'd seen them all (thanks to ABC Sunday Night Movie), I'd become a Connery fan, first and foremost. However, my favourite Bond film does not feature my favourite Bond actor. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is my all-time favourite and I can only imagine how much better it would have been with Connery as Bond. Ah well. It's still pretty good without him.
post #21 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

I can't play For Yours Eyes Only in either of my BD players. I'll need a replacement disk.
post #22 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulDA
I grew up with Roger Moore as Bond (in the 70s as well)--but once I'd seen them all (thanks to ABC Sunday Night Movie), I'd become a Connery fan, first and foremost. However, my favourite Bond film does not feature my favourite Bond actor. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is my all-time favourite and I can only imagine how much better it would have been with Connery as Bond. Ah well. It's still pretty good without him.

Substitute '...in the 70s...' with '...in the 80s...' and that would be 100% agreement here.
post #23 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

I agree that On Her Majesty's Secret Service is one of the best Bond pictures and I also enjoy speculating on what the movie would have been like if Connery had appeared in it, even though I thought Lazenby did a fine job.
post #24 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy E
I agree that On Her Majesty's Secret Service is one of the best Bond pictures and I also enjoy speculating on what the movie would have been like if Connery had appeared in it, even though I thought Lazenby did a fine job.

In a way, I almost think it works better without Connery. (Ducking from all the rotten tomatoes being thrown at me.) It might be for the same reason that both Richard Donner and Bryan Singer were so insistent on casting an unknown in the role of Superman - when you look at Superman onscreen, you need to see the character and not the actor, or the whole fantasy falls apart. In OHMSS, more so than any Bond film (at least until Casino Royale), Bond is a real, fully defined character. I love all of the 007 films, even the bad ones, and I love Sean Connery as Bond and would probably agree that he's been the best, but especially in the later Connerys, it's hard to separate the iconic actor from the part at times. I don't have any such issues with OHMSS because when I see Lazenby onscreen, I don't see an actor, I see Bond, and I'm not sure if that same reaction is possible in any of the other films just because Bond is played by a better known actor in every single other film. (Even the credits recognize this, though probably unintentionally: the early Bond films followed the formula "Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli present Sean Connery as James Bond 007 in Ian Fleming's From Russia With Love", and later on it was more like "Albert R. Broccoli presents Roger Moore as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in For Your Eyes Only". OHMSS is the only one to read "Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli present James Bond 007 in Ian Fleming's On Her Majesty's Secret Service". Now I'm sure the reason is that Lazenby wasn't a star while all of the other actors to play the part were known, but even if it's not meant to convey anything artistically, it still carries the vibe that it's very much a movie about James Bond instead of, say, a movie about Connery's Bond. Lazenby doesn't bring any baggage to the role; it's not because of his acting ability, it's because he didn't have any baggage to bring -- but it worked perfectly for the film.)

I almost think that OHMSS wouldn't have been as good if Connery had been in it, at least if it had been made with Connery as the follow-up to You Only Live Twice (maybe it would be different if it had come much earlier in the series) - it wouldn't have been the same movie. I think they would have written it somewhat differently for him, and I think there's a chance that the film might have been loaded with some of the cheesier/more over-the-top moments that make You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever far less believable than, say, From Russia With Love. But even if it was the exact same script and exact same direction, I don't know that Connery would have made this film better.

Put it another way: there had been some talk, maybe just rumors, that after Die Another Day was finished that there was some consideration of doing Casino Royale with Pierce Brosnan continuing the role. I like Brosnan's Bond, but I don't think the movie would have been nearly as good if they would have went that route with it.

(Actually, now that I'm consciously thinking of it, am I the only one that feels that Casino Royale is the classiest Bond picture since OHMSS? Though the action is dirty and gritty, the way the movies are structured and the way they play out, they're very elegant, complete films, and they share a lot thematically as well.)
post #25 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

You are a brave man to suggest that OHMSS is better with Lazenby than with Connery. You may be right though. Even though I believe that Connery was the best Bond, I do believe that Lazenby has been criminally underestimated by fans and critics.

It is interesting that the series went from You Only Live Twice to On Her Majesty's Secret Service and then to Diamonds Are Forever. Those three films could not be more different in tone and style. Of the 3 films, OHMSS is the only one to closely follow Fleming's book whereas the movies immediately before and after it have very little in common with the Fleming novels, and those 2 movies are the ones with Connery. This gives some plausibility to the theory that OHMSS would have been filmed differently with Connery.
post #26 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy E
You are a brave man to suggest that OHMSS is better with Lazenby than with Connery. You may be right though. Even though I believe that Connery was the best Bond, I do believe that Lazenby has been criminally underestimated by fans and critics.

Fortunately I've survived the weekend without having to defend myself! Not a bad break I don't think Lazenby was spectacular by any means, but the way the film was written, designed, photographed and directed, he didn't have to be. I think I said this before, but for me at least, they did an incredibly effective job of introducing Lazenby in the film as 007 -- you see those close-ups of him with the familiar "Bond" items nearby, whether it be lighting the cigarette or driving in the Aston Martin. By the time they reveal his face, at least for me, this guy was Bond. And I love that this is the one film in the series where they break the "fourth wall" and address the audience directly - "This never happened to the other fellow." Acknowledges that things will be a little different but doesn't dwell on it. I also love the way the main title (which is actually my favorite piece of music in any Bond film, period) is instrumental, like the first Connery film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy E
It is interesting that the series went from You Only Live Twice to On Her Majesty's Secret Service and then to Diamonds Are Forever. Those three films could not be more different in tone and style. Of the 3 films, OHMSS is the only one to closely follow Fleming's book whereas the movies immediately before and after it have very little in common with the Fleming novels, and those 2 movies are the ones with Connery. This gives some plausibility to the theory that OHMSS would have been filmed differently with Connery.

From what I understand, Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli had wanted to do OHMSS for some time, but with scheduling issues and location issues and all of that, it just wasn't possible to get it made any earlier than it ended up -- so the plan at one point had been for it to be a Connery Bond film, before YOLT. And that certainly would have been a different film. It was announced very early on into the making of YOLT that it would be Connery's last film in the role, so I feel that they definitely did everything they could to make YOLT as big and over the top as possible, to really have the biggest possible experience. I don't think it turned out as well, and feel that it's easily the weakest of the first five films. It was a giant hit when it came out, but it had also been the most expensive of the Bond films to produce at the time, and took longer than the others had as well. Knowing they didn't have Connery, it made sense to take a different approach to the next film, and I don't think it's an accident that the tone of the film is so opposite to that of YOLT. I'd say it was an intentional creative decision. The producers had been great fans of the novel, and Peter Hunt (who had edited the previous Bond films but was making his directorial debut here) was not only a fan of the novel but of the earlier, nitty-gritty Bond films that relied more on spy work and plotting and character than spectacle. That's not to say that OHMSS doesn't have any spectacle--it has plenty--but it all feels motivated by the plot, whereas some sequences in YOLT seem like they were decided by committee, like "A hollowed-out volcano would look pretty cool, and that set would look pretty awesome being blown up at the end!"

So little of the YOLT book made it into the film that if you watch YOLT, it doesn't make much sense. From his "faked death" at the beginning of the film (for which no explanation into the how or why is really offered), to the looking for Blofeld's liar in the helicopter sequence that seemed a repeat of them looking for the missiles by helicopter in Thunderball, it's almost like a greatest-hits mixtape of what came before. (It's definitely the film that Austin Powers got most of its source material from.) And then you have James Bond "turning" Japanese at the end for... well, umm, he does, in some bizarre sequence that has a bunch of scantily-clad Japanese women applying makeup to 007 but in a surgical environment. Just silly by that point. As I said, I'm a fan of all of the 007 films, good and bad, but YOLT can't really be considered the high point of the series.

OHMSS was a success, though not nearly to the degree of YOLT. Lazenby decided he didn't want to do another 007 picture, feeling that the Bond character was soon to be obsolete. After putting all of the effort into "relaunching" the franchise with OHMSS with the end result of a) not making as much money as they expected to with b) losing the lead actor, the easy, safe thing for the producers to do was to go back to what made them their last fortune -- Connery in the role, in a ridiculous, over-the-top thriller. Connery was offered what was at the time the largest salary ever for an actor for a single film (which he promptly donated to a Scottish charity, good for him!), a new writer was added to the mix (Tom Mankiewicz) who was hired specifically to give the film a more "contemporary" (read: early 70s) tone, and that's what they got. YOLT and Diamonds are cartoons compared to OHMSS. (That's one reason OHMSS ends as it does; the film was originally supposed to end at the wedding, and the "aftermath" that follows was to be the pre-title sequence to the next film, which would then have explained Bond's relentless pursuit of Blofeld through the next film. However, when Lazenby decided he was going to be done with the role after OHMSS, they decided to allow the film to end as the book had. So that's one thing right there that might have been different with Connery... and to anyone that's seen OHMSS, it simply *has* to end the way that it does. To have had it end any other way would have stolen a great deal of the film's power from it.)

Anyhow, the reason I think OHMSS is better without Connery is that I don't think the producers would have been able to follow the book as closely and come up with such a tightly-plotted, well-executed film with Connery in the role. For OHMSS to work dramatically, the film had to be bigger than its star -- and it was. But by the time YOLT came out, Connery had become bigger than the role, and I don't think they could have made the film in a way that didn't reflect that. Connery's Bond films also became bigger and more over-the-top with each passing adventure, and I think that trend would have continued with OHMSS if he had been in it (it certainly continued when he returned for Diamonds). Having an unknown in the role allowed all parties involved to focus on making the best film possible, without having to worry about the expectations of the audience (at least not in the way they had previously) and without having to tailor the script to please its star. No one working on or appearing in OHMSS was bigger than the film, and that's why it works so well.

There's always been this notion among some fans that OHMSS would be automatically better with Connery, as if the film would have been exactly the same, shot for shot, line for line, but with a different actor standing in front of the camera. I just don't see how there's any way it could have been made that way. What scenes would have been cut or rewritten had Connery been onboard? Somehow I can't imagine Connery donning a kilt and pretending to be gay in order to follow a lead, just as one example.

Could Connery have played the lead in OHMSS? Of course. Could he have played it as well or better than Lazenby, if given the same script and shooting conditions without the ability to call for any changes (which Lazenby did not have, but Connery did by the time of YOLT)? Yes, I believe it would have been possible. Would Connery ever have had a chance to star in the same script or make the film under the same conditions as Lazenby? I don't think there was a chance that ever would have happened. (If Connery had starred in OHMSS, I think the ideal time to have made it would have been as the follow-up to From Russia With Love, while he was still pretty young and before his Bond films started to venture into that silly/over-the-top area that they ended up in. After FRWL, the role was still bigger than the actor, which is what OHMSS needs...after Goldfinger, that was never the case with Connery and Bond again.)

OHMSS really stands alone in the Bond canon - whether or not its your favorite or even a film you enjoy, there really isn't another film in the series like it. For me, it has all of the best that the 60s Bonds had to offer, with a great story to tell, a solid cast (and my favorite Bond girl ever), a strong script, amazing stuntwork, and a bit of "I've never seen anything quite like that before"-type action with all of its snow sequences, and of course what is arguably John Barry's greatest score for any of the films he worked on. I think the closest they've come to making a similar film was with the newer Casino Royale.

What does this have to do with For Your Eyes Only on Blu-ray? Absolutely nothing... thanks for indulging me here, folks!
post #27 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

What does this have to do with For Your Eyes Only on Blu-ray? Absolutely nothing...

It does have this much to do with For Your Eyes Only...

In the pre-credit sequence in For Your Eyes Only, James Bond is visiting his wife's grave when he is attacked by Blofeld, and Blofeld finally receives his comeuppance for killing Tracy. I enjoyed this sequence much better than the opener of Diamonds Are Forever in which Blofeld is dispatched a little too casually.
post #28 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy E
It does have this much to do with For Your Eyes Only...

In the pre-credit sequence in For Your Eyes Only, James Bond is visiting his wife's grave when he is attacked by Blofeld, and Blofeld finally receives his comeuppance for killing Tracy.

Duh! How did I forget that? Here, I must admit (and I probably will be killed for this) that For Your Eyes Only is not one of my favorite Bond films... I'm actually a little surprised that it's held in such high regard among Bond fans because I feel it's one of the dullest in the series. But, to each his own, and that hasn't stopped me from owning it in several different formats over the years.

Historical footnote: Kevin McClory, one of the co-writers and producers of Thunderball, had famously sued Eon Productions (makers of the Bond films), claiming SPECTRE was his invention and not Fleming's; the end result of years of legal wrangling was that a) McClory could go ahead and make as many films as he wanted as long as it was based on the story material he originally wrote, and b) Eon Productions could no longer use SPECTRE/Blofeld in their films. Well, McClory went on to produce "Never Say Never Again", which is practically a Thunderball remake, and almost repeated the trick in the 90s with another Thunderball ripoff project that was called "Warhead 2000" that was thankfully never made.

Anyhow, when the dust settled from the lawsuits and it became official that SPECTRE was off-limits, they decided on the pre-titles sequence to For Your Eyes Only... they couldn't mention Blofeld or SPECTRE by name, but if you've ever wondered what giving someone the finger might look like if done on a high budget, check out the first five minutes of FYEO... that's about as big of an "f-you" as Eon could have given McClory at the time.
post #29 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Steinberg

There's always been this notion among some fans that OHMSS would be automatically better with Connery, as if the film would have been exactly the same, shot for shot, line for line, but with a different actor standing in front of the camera. I just don't see how there's any way it could have been made that way. What scenes would have been cut or rewritten had Connery been onboard? Somehow I can't imagine Connery donning a kilt and pretending to be gay in order to follow a lead, just as one example.

This is the way I meant it when I said it would have been better with Connery. Now, if your suggestion that Connery would not have filmed the story as written, then I agree that it would NOT likely have been a better film. (very good discussion of the film as a whole, by the way)
post #30 of 37

Re: HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only

I believe that FYEO is held in such high esteem partly because its plot signifies a return to action without overuse of gadgets so prevalent in the previous film Moonraker. (Although I admit that Moonraker is a guilty pleasure of mine as the first Bond picture I ever saw.) I think FYEO was great for its time even if it does not hold up as well today.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray

Gear mentioned in this thread:

For Your Eyes Only (James Bond) [Blu-ray]
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: For Your Eyes Only