For Your Eyes Only Reviews

September 6, 2020
One of the more unspectacular entries in the series.
October 29, 2019
The picture can't quite shake off the increasingly silly legacy which had mired the franchise in the Roger Moore era.
April 27, 2018
For Your Eyes Only, however, looks like the work of people too smug in the belief they've got a good thing going to bother to make it interesting. It oozes unwarranted condescension.
October 30, 2015
No. 12 in the phenomenally durable James Bond series. For Your Eyes Only is undeniably easy on the eyes. Maybe too easy to prevent the mind from wandering and the lids from drooping.
December 15, 2010
Sea and ski with 1981's Bond in an average outing.
February 17, 2009
It's the only Bond film where M didn't appear.
October 13, 2008
Moore just looks confused.
October 13, 2008
Moore is merely the best-oiled cog in this perpetual motion machine.
February 10, 2008
too down to earth
January 26, 2006
Look, Ma, no plot and poor dialogue, and Moore really is old enough to be the uncle of those girls.
May 19, 2005
October 23, 2004
Let's face it: When you've seen one impregnable mountaintop fortress, you've seen 'em all.
November 7, 2002
Roger Moore has always been my least favorite James Bond, and For Your Eyes Only is possibly the worst of Moore's Bond films.
October 3, 2002
January 1, 2000
How one misses Goldfinger and the early Bond films in which the gadgets had more style and imagination.