--- title: "For Your Eyes Only: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/for-your-eyes-only/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/for-your-eyes-only" critics_score: 56 critics_reviews: 7 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # For Your Eyes Only (1981): what the critics said Critics' score 56 from 7 reviews: 2 positive, 3 mixed, 2 negative. Most critics agree on what For Your Eyes Only is trying to do: after the excesses of Moonraker, it strips the gadgets back and aims for a leaner, more grounded Bond adventure. The reviews are split on whether that works, but the praise clusters consistently. John Glen’s direction is credited with keeping the action tidy, Carole Bouquet is noted as an appealing, classy heroine, and Topol’s turn as the rogue Columbo is singled out more than once as the film’s most colourful presence. The spread is wide. Variety calls it among the most enjoyable entries in the series, while Time Out finds it flat and undercooked despite the sterner approach. The reservations cluster on Roger Moore, whose drollery several critics feel sits awkwardly with the more serious tone, and on a plot that offers few surprises; Roger Ebert finds the central relationship routine and short on chemistry. The contemporary reviews are the warmest, and the later retrospective assessments the coldest. ## Variety — Variety Staff Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 31 December 1980. It emerges as one of the most thoroughly enjoyable Bond films to date, even without many of the usual franchise ingredients. The direction by John Glen stands out as among the best in the series since On Her Majesty's Secret Service, aided by a sympathetic heroine. [Read the review](https://variety.com/1980/film/reviews/for-your-eyes-only-1200424986/) ## The New York Times — Vincent Canby Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 26 June 1981. It is far from the best Bond film but also far from the worst, with a strong opening sequence that the rest of the movie struggles to match. It offers slick entertainment with an appealing lead actress in Carole Bouquet. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/26/movies/bond-in-for-your-eyes-only.html) ## Radio Times — John Ferguson Rating 3/5. This 12th entry in the 007 series provides no real surprises, with the exception perhaps of Roger Moore, who gets the chance to show a little more grit than usual. The plot revolves around the hunt for a device from a sunken spy ship, with French star (and Chanel model) Carole Bouquet providing class as the girl who may hold the key to the puzzle. If Julian Glover is rather subdued as the number one villain, there's a colourful turn from Fiddler on the Roof star Topol as a rogue with shifting loyalties, and the eagle-eyed will spot Charles Dance as a killer. Bond veteran John Glen ensures that [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-80agtg/for-your-eyes-only/) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 1981. The film is a competent but unremarkable James Bond entry that lacks surprises or standout elements compared to earlier films in the series. The relationship between Bond and the lead actress lacks chemistry and feels routine. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/for-your-eyes-only-1981) ## Empire — Ian Nathan Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 27 April 2006. The film attempts a leaner, more realistic Bond adventure after the excesses of Moonraker but remains one of the most forgettable entries, hampered by Roger Moore's unsuitable droll performance and an awkward mix of tones. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/eyes-review/) ## Time Out Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 3 October 2012. This is Roger Moore playing serious Bond, with a minimum of gadgetry and effects; it’s a sunken soufflé, unfortunately. Sheena Easton’s much-maligned title number has stood the test of time, though. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/newyork/film/for-your-eyes-only) ## Den of Geek — Max Williams Fi1m's normalised score 60/100 (inferred from the text). 24 June 2016. The film is an outlier in the Moore era, a low-key and more realistic outing that grounds the franchise after Moonraker but never quite takes off as a full reinvention. The critic singles out the strong characterisation and performance of ally Columbo for praise amid otherwise mixed elements. [Read the review](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/for-your-eyes-only-the-last-good-roger-moore-james-bond-movie/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/for-your-eyes-only.md