For Your Eyes Only

For Your Eyes Only

Albert Broccoli was a smart man.  As I've already mentioned, part of what enabled the Bond franchise to last as long as it did was its ability to adapt with the times.  So science fiction is the new fad?  No problem, let's send James Bond to a space station!!  But Broccoli was also smart enough to know when he had gone too far. Despite the fact that Moonraker had been one of the biggest blockbusters in franchise history, Broccoli knew that he couldn't go any bigger. You can't get much crazier than space.  So instead, he took a 180 turn and brought Bond back to Earth, literally and figuratively.  For Your Eyes Only is a smaller affair, more in tune with the tone of earlier films and Fleming's source novels.  Oh, there were still plenty of quips and silliness floating around the film (this was all happening under Roger Moore's watch, after all), but this is a remarkably simple film, with no gadgets, no huge special effects, and some really, really solid stunt work.  And after the insanity of Moonraker, it really is a breath of fresh air.

A British spy ship is sunk in the Mediterranean Sea, and it contains a secret encryption device called the ATAC.  When the British ask salvager Timothy Havelock is retrieve the ATAC, he is betrayed and brutally murdered.  James Bond is sent in to investigate Havelock's death and locate the ATAC before the enemy does - but who is the enemy?  Certainly there are some vicious henchmen on Bond's trail, including the quietly efficient Locque (Michael Gothard), blonde super man Kriegler (John Wyman) and blink-and-you'll-miss-him Claus (played by Game of Thrones badass Charles Dance).  But who is the real enemy?  Is it the KBG, once again led by General Gogol (Walter Gotell) or is it businessman and ice skating patron Kristatos (another Game of Thrones alum Julian Glover) or smuggler Milos Columbo (Topol)?

Out of all the Bond films, I have to admit this is the one most of my friends and I disagree on. They generally think it is just okay...probably better than the worst of the franchise, but certainly nothing to write home about.  And they have some good points.  First of all, the opening sequence of the film, featuring a deadly encounter with long-time enemy Blofeld, is possibly the worst beginning in the entire series, full of terrible puns, bad acting, non-sensical action, awful music, and just some truly bizarre head scratching moments (why does Blofeld offer to buy Bond a delicatessen?!).  We also have a subplot with a ditzy, underage ice skater Bibi (Lynn Holly-Johnson) who becomes obsessed with Bond and continually tries to sleep with him.  Thankfully, Bond is never even tempted or else this movie would have gotten really awkward really fast.  And while this relationship does give the film its best line, the whole subplot is uncomfortable and inappropriate.

I also have to point out the score by Bill Conti, which just confuses me.  Why Broccoli didn't turn back to John Barry just befuddles me, especially after his stunning work on Moonraker.  Perhaps he wanted something more hip and modern and cool.  But the poppy, synth work by Bill Conti (an Oscar winner for The Right Stuff) just dates the film and worse, hangs over its shoulders like a musical albatross. Whether fairly or not, For Your Eyes Only is doomed to never feel timeless, unlike other Bond films, even some inferior ones. It will always feel like an early 1980s film, and that is the fault of Bill Conti.  Let me cut to the chase.  The score for For Your Eyes Only is just awful, plain and simple.  It is easily the worst score of the entire franchise, possibly one of the worst scores of Conti's otherwise solid career, and just makes me want to jab a pencil into my ear.  Because that would be less painful than having to listen to this again.

It sounds like I have a lot to complain about.  And rightfully so.  But...but...damn it, despite all of this, For Your Eyes Only is actually pretty darn good.  This is an enjoyable and creative movie.  First of all, coming to this from Moonraker is like night and day. The plot is interesting. I like the villains. Carol Bouquet is a great Bond girl with an actual real storyline (she is trying to avenge the death of her father, the aforementioned Timothy Havelock). Roger Moore is at the peak of his abilities before he started to look too old. John Glen, the editor and second unit director of three earlier Bond films ascends to the director's chair this time around and brings fresh energy and much needed new blood to the proceedings - especially to the stunt work.  For Your Eyes Only has some of the most creative stunt work of the franchise.  Among some other crazy stunts, we have characters being dragged behind boats, a crazy ski chase down a bobsled course, and a harrowing climb up the Greek mountain, Meteora. It's all hugely impressive.  I mean, look at the picture.  Some poor stunt man had to climb that - and even fall off at one point!

In the end, what it all comes down to is this - what is not good about For Your Eyes Only are some details, while what is good about the film is its potential, what it could have been, and that is kind of exciting to see.  So let's take a second to rewrite the film.  Let's take out the ridiculous opening sequence and replace it what was originally supposed to be the opening sequence - the Havelock's murder.  Let's get rid of Bibi the ice skater, which cuts about 15 minutes of unnecessary padding from the film.  And for the love of all that is good in this world, replace Bill Conti's monstrosity with a new score by John Barry. And you know, with these small changes, you know what you get?  Possibly Roger Moore's best Bond film.  And that simple fact is why I disagree with my friends, and find For Your Eyes Only to be so fascinating.

Or it is possible that I was just so desperate for something halfway decent after Moonraker that I have inflated this film with artificial importance.  Who knows?  I'm not a psychiatrist!

RANKINGS:
So where does that put For Your Eyes Only in the rankings?  I would certainly put it in the top half, though it doesn't deserve to be with the real champs.  I'd probably put it right under Dr. No, and right above Live and Let Die.

1. Thunderball
2. From Russia With Love
3. Goldfinger
4. Spy Who Loved Me
5. Dr. No
6. For Your Eyes Only
7. Live and Let Die
8. Man with the Golden Gun
9. Diamonds are Forever
10. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
11. Moonraker
12. You Only Live Twice

BEST LINE:
James Bond to the underage Bibi: Yes, well, you get your clothes on and I'll buy you an ice cream.

TRIVIA:
So what was the point of the ridiculous beginning of this film?  It had been years since Blofeld had last menaced James Bond (in the over-the-top Diamonds are Forever).  Since then the character and SPECTRE had been caught up in a fierce legal battle with Kevin McClory who claimed he helped create the characters.  McClory had won the case and was now prepping his own James Bond film. Broccoli wanted to show McClory that James Bond didn't need SPECTRE to be awesome.  So he had put together this opening scene, which has nothing to do with the rest of movie and which exists solely as a way to ingloriously kill off the Blofeld character (while being careful to never mention him by name) in the stupidest manner possible.  The entire scene is only in the film as a big "F YOU!" to McClory. Which is a shame, because it all comes across as a bit petty.  It doesn't help that the scene is ridiculous.  Hands down, it's the worst scene in the movie.


MVP:
For Your Eyes Only might feature Roger Moore's best performance as Bond.  While he still quips his way through most of the film, he holds back from indulging too far in the silliness, and devoid of gadgets, he is left to his own devices and reminds us why Bond can be dangerous (I particularly like his takedown of Locque).  Moore was a good Bond, and an underrated one.  And he is the clear MVP of this film.

Blood from the Mummy's Tomb

Blood from the Mummy's Tomb

I am now convinced that the Mummy franchise was the weak link of the Hammer franchises. The original was alright, if a bit stuffy. Curse of the Mummy's Tomb was mediocre, and The Mummy's Shroud was terrible. I was dreading the thought of having to watch the fourth and final film of the franchise - imagine my surprise when I realized that Blood from the Mummy's Tomb is not half bad. It's actually one of the more creative mummy movies I've seen.

First of all, there isn't really a mummy. Archeologists led by Professor Fuchs (Andrew Keir) unearth the tomb of the evil Egyptian Queen Tera, but they don't find a decomposed and wrapped body. Instead they find a perfectly preserved (and barely dressed) body of the evil Queen Tera (played by Valerie Leon). That's strange. But even stranger is that her hand, which had been severed during her burial, still bleeds. At the exact moment the tomb is unearthed, thousands of miles away in England, Professors Fuch's wife dies in childbirth. But the child, Margaret, survives. What is weird is that as the older she gets, the more she begins to look like the young dead queen in the sarcophagus. That's odd. More years pass, and someone begins murdering members of the expedition one at a time. After her father is viciously attacked, Margaret (also Valerie Leon) begins to investigate the connection between the murders and Queen Tera's tomb.

It is a neat plot, based on a short story by Bram Stoker called Jewel of the Seven Stars. And this is actually an intriguing film. And I'm not sure why. There is a lot to not like here. First of all, the film can't make up its mind when it even takes place - sometimes it seems like 1970s swinging London, but certain characters are dressed as if it were half a century earlier. The acting is mostly unremarkable, and not even the usually dependable Andrew Keir is on his game.
And I think Valerie Leon was hired more for the way she wears the Egyptian neckpiece and not so much for her acting (see the picture over there). Oh, she's fine as the haughty and imperious Queen Tera, but as Margaret she isn't believable for a moment. Also, the ending of the film makes absolutely no sense. Just when we are going to get what I think is going to be an exciting climax, we get characters switching sides for no reason and then the movie just ends. Just ends. Without really even telling us what was happening.

And yet, there is a lot of good stuff in here. Maybe we can thank Stoker, but the story is actually interesting and creative. The movie leaves you guessing for most of its run time as to who the heroes and the villains are. Certain characters you are sure are going to live are killed off in surprising ways. The director Seth Holt (Scream of Fear) brings a lot of interesting tricks to the table with nice camera angles and atmospheric lighting that mask the film's small budget. And as usual, there is a flashback to ancient Egypt - scenes that invariably slowed down the previous Mummy movies, but here Holt incorporates the flashback into Margaret's nightmares, which gives them relevance.

I guess intriguing is the best word to use. Is Blood from the Mummy's Tomb any good? I don't know. Probably not. Too much of it doesn't work. But it is very intriguing and I found myself enjoying the journey it look me on. It's just a creative little oddity. If you're curious, check it out.

MVP: I'm tempted to say Queen Tera's neckpiece, but I think I might go with James Villiers as the scientist Corbeck. As one of the explorers on the expedition, he was present when the tomb was opened. He should be in danger like the rest of the group, but you would never guess so from his attitude. His snide and arrogant line readings are a hoot. He clearly thinks everyone in the world, with the possible exception of Tera, is beneath him and not worth his time. It's a fun performance.

Oh, who am I kidding? The MVP is supposed to be the best thing in the movie. And that is clearly Queen Tera's neckpiece. So there you go.


BEST LINE: Corbeck: "The meek shall not inherit the earth. They cannot be trusted with it."


TRIVIA: This movie seemed to be marked with tragedy from the beginning. Peter Cushing was due to star, but his wife passed away just before filming began. Andrew Keir stepped in to take his place. And then a week before the movie was due to be wrapped, director Seth Holt died and had to be replaced with producer Michael Carreras.