The critic consesnsus is: For Your Eyes Only trades in some of the outlandish Bond staples for a more sober outing, and the result is a satisfying adventure, albeit without some of the bombastic thrills fans may be looking for.. What reviews supported this critic consensus?
1. Roger Moore has always been my least favorite James Bond, and For Your Eyes Only is possibly the worst of Moore's Bond films.
2. Most of the outlandish silliness of a few other Bond issues is mercifully absent, replaced by a greater emphasis on believable thrills. The result is highly satisfactory.
3. One of Moore's best turns as 007.
4. The Bond series' most superb action assembly, plus a terrific performance from Roger Moore.
5. How one misses Goldfinger and the early Bond films in which the gadgets had more style and imagination.
6. Director John Glen took care of Bond for most of the 80s, arguably the agent's weakest decade. That said, his debut showed promise in its restraint.
7. By the end of the '80s, Bond would be viewed as something of a relic, but at least the decade opened with an enjoyable outing.
8. One of the better Roger Moore vehicles, thanks to a script that overflows with exotic locales and extreme adventures for our hero to undertake.
9. First-time director John Glen knows what's needed to create suspense...put the series' trademark wit, women, and song alongside the high-stakes adventure of a more brutal 007. [Blu-ray]
10. ...suffers from a disastrously plodding midsection that ultimately casts a pall over the remainder of the proceedings...