A fake Fabergé egg and a fellow agent's death lead James Bond to uncover an international jewel-smuggling operation, headed by the mysterious Octopussy, being used to disguise a nuclear attack on N.A.T.O. forces.
After disposing of a familiar looking face, Bond is sent to recover a communication device, known as an ATAC, which went down with a British Spy ship as it sunk. Bond must hurry though, as the Russians are also out for this device. On his travels, he also meets Melina Havelock, whose parents were brutally murdered. Bond also encounters both Aristotle Kristatos and Milos Colombo. Each of them are accusing the other of having links with with the Russian's. Bond must team up with Melina, solve who the true ally is and find the ATAC before it's too late. Written by
The expression "For Your Eyes Only" is a variation on the real life espionage term "Eyes Only" meaning restricted viewing to certain personnel. The Free Dictionary website defines "Eyes Only" as meaning "meant to be seen only by the addressee; confidential" and "official classification for documents; meant to be seen by only the person to whom it is directed". See more »
When Emile Locque's bibliography appears on the Identigraph screen, the first appearance of the word bibliography is misspelled "BIBLOGRAPHY". The second appearance, near the bottom of the screen, is spelled correctly. See more »
Mr. Bond, Mr. Bond. I'm so glad I caught you. Your office called. They're sending a helicopter to pick you up. Some sort of emergency.
It usually is. Thank you.
See more »
The discarding of Blofeld at the beginning (he is humorously depicted--to the offense of many!) serves another purpose besides being just the discarding of Blofeld--it is almost as if the film is making a statement about choosing to discard cartoonish villains and goofy humor, in one move. This scene provides a convenient rug to yank out from under the audience: The film that we get is more straight serious than we might suspect, based on this introduction. So the beginning of this film really sets us up for a surprise.
Out of all the Roger Moore Bond films, this one is most reminiscent of Connery's Bond. The violence repeatedly shows a mean, hard edge, and the joking (while there) is kept to a minimum. Guess what? This film works very nicely!
There are a lot of things I liked about this one. The requisite special effects, models and stunts are there, but used to surprisingly subtle effect. The story is simple and small, and allows the film to focus on believable human character details. Carole Bouquet's vendetta-driven "Melina Havelock" is well-acted and believably serious. She's excellent.
Character actor Michael Gothard (THE DEVILS, WARLORDS OF ATLANTIS) is very memorable as gun-for-hire Locque, who has no lines of dialogue whatsoever! Gothard delivers his performance entirely through visual expression. I imagine he must have had a wonderful time with this role, easily one of his best. Roger Moore's character, generally cool and under control, nonetheless grows impatient with Locque and seems to display some genuine, heartfelt anger when he finally...well, I don't want to spoil it, so you'll have to see the movie. Suffice it to say that it is one of my favorite "the bad guy gets it" moments in just about any movie.
I also recall that when the film was new, the application of synthesizers in the music (most obvious in the title song, and more subtly applied in the score) was very cutting-edge and tasteful; there were clearly synthetic effects to be heard, but they were not poured on liberally.(Everything in moderation?) It's a little harder to notice in this day and age of synthetic everything, but the careful incorporation of obviously synthetic sounds lent extra style. (Take note of those moments involving the "Dove" pin.) It helped the film achieve a modern character, and is doubly interesting and appropriate because the action scenes do not depend primarily on high-tech gadgetry. All in all, a classy application of synthesizer. Maybe I'm going on about nothing here, but I remember noticing this quality when the film was new, and I've always liked it.
So basically, without rambling on further, this film is good, and very enjoyable.
18 of 29 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?