›

RottenTomatoes ratings of Bond films

Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
edited June 2013 in Bond Movies Posts: 11,119
Ratings by critics / Tomatometer (in case of a draw, the one with the highest average rating is placed higher):
01. 98% --> 'Doctor No'
02. 96% --> 'Goldfinger'
03. 96% --> 'From Russia With Love'
04. 95% --> 'Casino Royale' (2006)
05. 92% --> 'Skyfall'
06. 85% --> 'Thunderball'
07. 82% --> 'GoldenEye'
08. 81% --> 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'
09. 78% --> 'The Spy Who Loved Me'
10. 75% --> 'The Living Daylights'
11. 74% --> 'Licence To Kill'
12. 73% --> 'For Your Eyes Only'
13. 71% --> 'You Only Live Twice'
14. 65% --> 'Diamonds Are Forever'
15. 65% --> 'Live And Let Die'
16. 64% --> 'Quantum Of Solace'
17. 62% --> 'Moonraker'
18. 59% --> 'Never Say Never Again'
19. 57% --> 'Die Another Day'
20. 57% --> 'Tomorrow Never Dies'
21. 51% --> 'The World Is Not Enough'
22. 46% --> 'The Man With The Golden Gun'
23. 43% --> 'Octopussy'
24. 36% --> 'A View To A Kill'
25. 27% --> 'Casino Royale' (1967)

Ratings by the audience on RottenTomatoes (in case of a draw, the one with the highest average rating is placed higher):
01. 88% --> 'Skyfall'
02. 87% --> 'Casino Royale' (2006)
03. 83% --> 'Goldfinger'
04. 79% --> 'From Russia With Love'
05. 78% --> 'Doctor No'
06. 78% --> 'GoldenEye'
07. 71% --> 'The Spy Who Loved Me'
08. 70% --> 'Thunderball'
09. 68% --> 'You Only Live Twice'
10. 65% --> 'Live And Let Die'
11. 62% --> 'Quantum Of Solace'
12. 62% --> 'For Your Eyes Only'
13. 62% --> 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'
14. 61% --> 'Diamonds Are Forever'
15. 61% --> 'The Living Daylights'
16. 60% --> 'The Man With The Golden Gun'
17. 60% --> 'Tomorrow Never Dies'
18. 58% --> 'The World Is Not Enough'
19. 56% --> 'Licence To Kill'
20. 53% --> 'Die Another Day'
21. 52% --> 'Octopussy'
22. 47% --> 'Never Say Never Again'
23. 47% --> 'Moonraker'
24. 46% --> 'A View To A Kill'
25. 42% --> 'Casino Royale' (1967)

Not so many differences between the critics-listing and the audience-listing. Off course one should take into account that more people have voted for the newer Bond films. And the newer films also tend to have more critical reviews. The older ones are mostly DVD/BD reviews.

Still, it gives a nice overview :-).

What ratings are you surprised at? Which rating would you change in favour of another Bond film?

Comments

  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    GF overrated, AVTAK underrated.
  • myworldisenoughmyworldisenough
    Posts: 1,143
    DAF too high up and TMWTGG to high up on the audience list. Got the bottom two about right on the lists. OHMSS should be much further up on both lists. Each to their own though!
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited June 2013 Posts: 7,314
    I suppose my biggest gripe would be having Dr. No at the top spot. The audience list seems a little more sensible by placing it at number five but this is still too high in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I like the film. Connery is fantastic in it and I can appreciate how it stays pretty faithful to the novel. It's just that it's so underwhelming to many of the films that followed it. It will always be a middle of the pack movie to me.
  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    Dr no my fave is king.Yes.... Should be 100 % :)
    The Living Daylights shoild be much higher.
  • hullcityfanhullcityfan Banned
    Posts: 496
    (critics) Dr. No is too high so are FRWL .TB,TSWLM,YOLT,GF,NSNA,MR and QoS. AVTAK,OP,TWINE,TMWTGG,TND,LALD,DAD and SF are too low.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    I don't know why DN is rated so high......I find it quite striking too. I expected GF at that spot.... More interesting is how both CR and SF are rated so similarly.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,343
    Perilagu_Khan wrote:
    GF overrated, AVTAK underrated.

    No changes there, then.
  • DB5DB5
    Posts: 408
    Not at all surprised that "Goldfinger" is as high as it is, it remins the classic quintessional James Bond movie. Also not surprised that OHMSS is rated higher by the critics than the general public.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Goldfinger is nothing but a mundane banal snooze-fest for the most part, and only really picks up when you get to Kentucky and towards the closing stages, I can never, and will never, see the appreciation or indeed hyperbole, that particular release gets

    Disappointed to see titles such as LALD, MR, TWINE and TMWTGG so far down the listings, thought they should of been held in higher regard than that. AVTAK in the right place for sure, but don't think CR 67 deserves the bottom place, and even then it's not an official James Bond release (as with NSNA) so wouldn't have included them myself, but some of those releases indeed need to be moved around and better positioned

  • DB5DB5
    Posts: 408
    Hey Baltimore, are you kidding me? The PTS, the Aston Martin, Bond strapped to a table with a laser beam approaching his genitals, and you call "Goldfinger" a snooze fest? If anything the film drags a little in the second half, not the first.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    I could feasibly fall asleep on these pages..

    No sorry @DB5 but I can't change that thinking. Some people like the laser table incident, classic car etc, but that doesn't make it into an enthralling or exciting adventure. As for the pre credits sequence, it really doesn't offer much, but of course was the first real 'action' PTS of the franchise. The only saving graces are Harold Sekata, the golf game perhaps, Fort Knox timer countdown and Gert Frobe offers one or two memorable moments

    Blackman is one of the most forgettable Bond girls ever, despite being an actress of caliber, Connery looks bored most of the time and wishing he were somewhere else, and the bottom line is, little occurs and you spend more time looking at your watch than events on screen

    Not a release for everyone
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited July 2013 Posts: 14,680
    DB5 wrote:
    Hey Baltimore, are you kidding me?...a laser beam approaching his genitals...a snooze fest?
    Exactly. I'm wide awake for GF, especially in regards to this scene. I mean, how on earth can any man snooze, knowing another is reluctantly partaking in an unorthodox new kind of castration?...
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited July 2013 Posts: 11,119
    I think 'Goldfinger' injected the 'cheese' and 'camp' in the Bond films. We tend to judge all the later Bond films on the fact that they have too many gadgets, that Bond is not a cool blooded killer anymore. Well, let's judge 'Goldfinger' in that same sense too.

    By the way, good to see that Sean Connery's last outing as 007 in 'Never Say Never Again' is rated much better than a couple of official EON-Bond films.
  • Dr_YesDr_Yes
    Posts: 169
    Gustav_Graves wrote:
    I think 'Goldfinger' injected the 'cheese' and 'camp' in the Bond films. We tend to judge all the later Bond films on the fact that they have too many gadgets, that Bond is not a cool blooded killer anymore. Well, let's judge 'Goldfinger' in that same sense too.

    That's a fair point but for me, "Goldfinger" kept just far enough from the absurd to entertain me without forcing my eyes to roll. Perhaps it's ironic that I love "Goldfinger" so much because I generally prefer my Bond films to be more serious-minded and light on the gadgetry. I admit that "Goldfinger" paved the way for not only the silliness that plagues "You Only Live Twice" and - even worse - inspired cheap imitations like those God-awful Matt Helm films. I still enjoy "Goldfinger" even if I really prefer "From Russia With Love" in terms of overall quality.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited July 2013 Posts: 3,494
    Any poll that recognizes NSNA and CR67 is highly suspect to begin with and not one to be taken seriously. If you want to see a serious poll from some real Bond fans and not a bunch of critics and members of the general public for whom Bond is a job or curiosity, please stop by the original fans thread.

    Goldfinger is f'n brilliant and innovative, iconic/quintessential Bond and that's that.
    DB5 wrote:
    Hey Baltimore, are you kidding me? The PTS, the Aston Martin, Bond strapped to a table with a laser beam approaching his genitals, and you call "Goldfinger" a snooze fest? If anything the film drags a little in the second half, not the first.

    Keep in mind that @Baltimore thinks Moonraker is a great film.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Dr_Yes wrote:
    Gustav_Graves wrote:
    I think 'Goldfinger' injected the 'cheese' and 'camp' in the Bond films. We tend to judge all the later Bond films on the fact that they have too many gadgets, that Bond is not a cool blooded killer anymore. Well, let's judge 'Goldfinger' in that same sense too.

    That's a fair point but for me, "Goldfinger" kept just far enough from the absurd to entertain me without forcing my eyes to roll. Perhaps it's ironic that I love "Goldfinger" so much because I generally prefer my Bond films to be more serious-minded and light on the gadgetry. I admit that "Goldfinger" paved the way for not only the silliness that plagues "You Only Live Twice" and - even worse - inspired cheap imitations like those God-awful Matt Helm films. I still enjoy "Goldfinger" even if I really prefer "From Russia With Love" in terms of overall quality.

    Goldfinger being pumped vacuum and then playing his golden harp? I think it was the first ever cheesiest Bond scene ever :-). Not to mention the doll being ejected from 007's DB5 :-). It was something.....quite different from Connery's previous two outings. Whereas Terence Young added some seriousness to the series in his three films, Guy Hamilton always admitted that he fancied this kind of 'bullocks' :-).
  • DB5DB5
    Posts: 408
    GF may have had a few cheesy moments but compared to TMWTGG and MR it's Citizen Kane!
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    The fact of the matter is though, both Golden Gun and Moonraker are exciting entries and you simply can't get bored with either, there is so much going on. Connery may have been a fantastic Bond in his early appearances, but Goldfinger is such a shame at a time when he was around his supreme best. If any Bond film simply bores or doesn't generate any thrills or excitement, I see that as a bad entry, and that's simply what you get with Goldfinger, but you can see why many people hold it in such high regard, but it's not a title for everyone
  • Dr_YesDr_Yes
    Posts: 169
    One of the great things about the Bond series as a whole is that it can be enjoyed by its vast number of fans on many levels. Two fans can even like the same film for different, entirely subjective, reasons. To me, there is no such thing as an unwatchable Bond film, even if I must rank some of the "fun" entries lower than the "serious" ones. Since I'm the sort of person who finds "The Ipcress File" to be a brilliant spy film, I just won't respond to "Die Another Day" with much enthusiasm yet I can't dismiss it as pure trash.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Dr_Yes wrote:
    To me, there is no such thing as an unwatchable Bond film, even if I must rank some of the "fun" entries lower than the "serious" ones. Since I'm the sort of person who finds "The Ipcress File" to be a brilliant spy film, I just won't respond to "Die Another Day" with much enthusiasm yet I can't dismiss it as pure trash.

    I concur. Personally I don't ever rank the films, you won't find me popping up in any of the ranking threads as I simply don't feel the need to objectify my passion. It really depends what kind of mood I'm in as to whether I stick in FRWL or AVTAK. I genuinely love them all, even QoS ;)
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited July 2013 Posts: 11,119
    I think it's the same for me @RC7. I don't create ranking threads to make people 'objectify their passions'. I just create them for fun and discussion. The fact that AVTAK is usually on the bottom of my rankings doesn't mean that I find it unwatcheable. Every Bond film has its own quality I think. For pure entertainment purposes and sole popcorn fun I still think 'Moonraker' is a typical 'for all the family'-Bond film. I find that a quality too. It's just that I haven't discussed that quality yet.

    And also.....it depends on my mood too. Ranking the films also gives me some new insight in the Bond films as well....and it's good stuf to start a discussion with.

    Having said that, we haven't always been nice to each other. But @RC7, I am sorry if you feel offended at times by my remarks. Just know that whatever I write down is from a sense of passion and pleasure. Especially since we all share the same hobby....
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    The fact of the matter is though, both Golden Gun and Moonraker are exciting entries and you simply can't get bored with either, there is so much going on. Connery may have been a fantastic Bond in his early appearances, but Goldfinger is such a shame at a time when he was around his supreme best. If any Bond film simply bores or doesn't generate any thrills or excitement, I see that as a bad entry, and that's simply what you get with Goldfinger, but you can see why many people hold it in such high regard, but it's not a title for everyone

    For me GF is a few great/iconic clips spread over two hours!

  • ThunderballFeverThunderballFever
    edited July 2013 Posts: 23
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    Goldfinger is nothing but a mundane banal snooze-fest for the most part, and only really picks up when you get to Kentucky and towards the closing stages, I can never, and will never, see the appreciation or indeed hyperbole, that particular release gets

    Disappointed to see titles such as LALD, MR, TWINE and TMWTGG so far down the listings, thought they should of been held in higher regard than that. AVTAK in the right place for sure, but don't think CR 67 deserves the bottom place, and even then it's not an official James Bond release (as with NSNA) so wouldn't have included them myself, but some of those releases indeed need to be moved around and better positioned

    ThunderballFever said:

    Your comments concerning GOLDFINGER are certainly outlandish, if not superfluous. I believe you are being a devil's advocate, so I'll play along.

    GOLDFINGER represents the high-water mark in the James Bond film series as it proved to be the catalyst for the popular "Spy Boom" that occurred during the 1960s. Sean Connery was so idolized as James Bond during that period that he became the #1 Box-Office Star in 1965. He was also the #1 Male Box-Office Star in 1966, coming in 2nd overall to Julie Andrews who had done THE SOUND OF MUSIC. He was the #5 Box-Office Star in 1967. Most of his popularity during that decade was generated basically by five films--DR.NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, GOLDFINGER, THUNDERBALL and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. No other Bond lead actor (to my knowledge) has ever rivaled Connery's popularity in his own era.

    Your reference to GOLDFINGER as a mundane banal snooze-fest is "Shocking. Positively shocking!" Do you seriously believe that GOLDFINGER is lacking in originality? It seems that an entire generation of moviegoers, film enthusiasts, journalists, film critics, and historians disagree with your opinion. GOLDFINGER (as many believe) is an improvement over the original Fleming novel by updating the story line, courtesy of screenwriters Richard Maibaum and Paul Dehn. GOLDFINGER has much to offer the viewer. The film boasts an excellent pre-titles sequence (epic in scope), superb character development, witty dialogue, innovative editing, superior sound effects (which won an Academy Award for Norman Wanstall), an original and unforgettable motion picture soundtrack, memorable set pieces, and a hair raising climax inside Fort Knox. GOLDFINGER succeeds on virtually every level of excellence that one could possibly imagine.

    Cheers!

    :)>-
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Gustav_Graves wrote:
    I think it's the same for me @RC7. I don't create ranking threads to make people 'objectify their passions'. I just create them for fun and discussion. The fact that AVTAK is usually on the bottom of my rankings doesn't mean that I find it unwatcheable. Every Bond film has its own quality I think. For pure entertainment purposes and sole popcorn fun I still think 'Moonraker' is a typical 'for all the family'-Bond film. I find that a quality too. It's just that I haven't discussed that quality yet.

    And also.....it depends on my mood too. Ranking the films also gives me some new insight in the Bond films as well....and it's good stuf to start a discussion with.

    Having said that, we haven't always been nice to each other. But @RC7, I am sorry if you feel offended at times by my remarks. Just know that whatever I write down is from a sense of passion and pleasure. Especially since we all share the same hobby....

    I'm not quite understanding what you're getting at, but if you think I'm criticising you for discussing rankings I'm definitely not. Everyone on here seems to enjoy rankings, I was just mentioning that it's something I don't really do and never have done.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Not only that....it's also in other topics :-). Just wanna be good mod friends @RC7
Sign In or Register to comment.