The New York Times Bond Film Reviews: A True Time-Machine Trip *SPECTRE included!*

Comments

• chrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm

  June 2015 Posts: 17,804

  Thanks, that was a nice trip!
  
• DoubleOhhSeven

  June 2015 Posts: 1,778

  Gustav_Graves wrote:

  Have a great trip in this time machine of Bond reviews from 'The New York Times'. By reading these reviews you can understand how initial opinions later on became the driving force, the decisive 'breeding ground' on how much 'evergreen status' a Bond film would get. But also, be surprised how certain 'evergreen' Bond films, weren't that very well received/reviewed at the time of the premiere:
  
  
  "Doctor No", by Bosley Crowther, May 30th 1963
  "From Russia With Love", by Bosley Crowther, April 9th 1964
  "Goldfinger", by Bosley Crowther, December 22nd 1964
  "Thunderball", by Bosley Crowther, December 22nd 1965
  "Casino Royale", by Bosley Crowther, April 29th 1967
  "You Only Live Twice", by Bosley Crowther, June 14th 1967
  "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", by A.H. Weiler, December 19th 1969
  "Diamonds Are Forever", by Vincent Canby, December 18th 1971
  "Live And Let Die", by Roger Greenspun, June 28th 1973
  "The Man With The Golden Gun", by Nora Sayre, December 19th 1974
  "The Spy Who Loved Me", by Janet Maslin, July 28th 1977
  "Moonraker", by Vincent Canby, June 29th 1979
  "For Your Eyes Only", by Vincent Canby, June 26th 1981
  "Octopussy", by Vincent Canby, June 10th 1983
  "Never Say Never Again", by Janet Maslin, October 7th 1983
  "A View To A Kill", by Janet Maslin, May 24th 1985
  "The Living Daylights", by Janet Maslin, July 31st 1987
  "License To Kill", by Caryn James, July 14th 1989
  "GoldenEye", by Janet Maslin, November 17th 1995
  "Tomorrow Never Dies", by Janet Maslin, December 19th 1997
  "The World Is Not Enough", by Janet Maslin, November 19th 1999
  "Die Another Day", by A.O. Scott, November 17th 2002
  "Casino Royale", by Manohla Dargis, November 17th 2006
  "Quantum Of Solace", by A.O. Scott, November 13th 2008
  "SkyFall", by Manohla Dargis, November 7th 2012

  
  Awesome idea for thread. Thanks @Gustav. I can't wait to read thru these.
• PropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO

  June 2015 edited June 2015 Posts: 3,675

  Very very cool! Be sure to add Spectre to the list too! Of interesting note is how much they liked DAD.
• bondjames You were expecting someone else?

  June 2015 Posts: 23,883

  Fascinating. Thanks for posting @Gustav_Graves.
  
  The DAD reviewer may want to reconsider his profession for his misguided opinion imho ("............making it perhaps the most satisfying Bond movie since 'The Spy Who Loved Me.'').
  
  The QoS review is bang on, particularly in its critique of brooding Bond.
• Gustav_Graves

  June 2015 edited June 2015 Posts: 11,119

  bondjames wrote: »

  Fascinating. Thanks for posting @Gustav_Graves.
  
  The DAD reviewer may want to reconsider his profession for his misguided opinion imho ("............making it perhaps the most satisfying Bond movie since 'The Spy Who Loved Me.'').
  
  The QoS review is bang on, particularly in its critique of brooding Bond.

  
  I was actually quite baffled by the mildly average review of "Goldfinger". It makes the reviews for "From Russia With Love" and "Thunderball", which were much better, stand out even more.
  
  Also glad to see "Octopussy" gets a good review. Surprised "Never Say Never Again" got such a good review, although it doesn't surprise me much. NSNA for me always had slightly more memorable actors in it than OP.
  
  "Skyfall", but especially "Casino Royale", must have gotten the best reviews ever since the first four Bond films, reviewed by Bosley Crowther.
• Sharky

  June 2015 Posts: 266

  bondjames wrote: »

  Fascinating. Thanks for posting @Gustav_Graves.
  
  The DAD reviewer may want to reconsider his profession for his misguided opinion imho ("............making it perhaps the most satisfying Bond movie since 'The Spy Who Loved Me.'').
  
  I remember when DAD was originally released and it got pretty good reviews (in the UK, not sure about other countries), Empire film magazine gave it 4 stars, I think Total Film gave it 3 stars and I remember some of the tabloid papers giving it 5 stars (News Of The World, reviewed it at 5 stars and that was Paul Ross).
  
  So i'm not entirely surprised that the review for DAD was pretty positive, I did like his remark about the effects though, especially THAT infamous scene.
  
• Suivez_ce_parachute

  June 2015 Posts: 2,015

  Some reading for those who think the 80s were a low point for Bond with respect to popularity...
• ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España

  June 2015 Posts: 2,541

  Great work, @Gustav_Graves! Congratulations!
• Gustav_Graves

  June 2015 Posts: 11,119

  Suivez_ce_parachute wrote: »

  Some reading for those who think the 80s were a low point for Bond with respect to popularity...

  
  Funny you say that. Because after reading all reviews, the ones from the 1980's actually seem a bit....lacklustre or mediocre. They lack the enthusiasm that went with the 1960's reviews. Even TSWLM and MR seemed pretty much a -tiny- high point in the franchise.
  
• chrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm

  June 2015 Posts: 17,804

  Gustav_Graves wrote: »

  after reading all reviews, the ones from the 1980's actually seem a bit....lacklustre or mediocre. They lack the enthusiasm that went with the 1960's reviews. Even TSWLM and MR seemed pretty much a -tiny- high point in the franchise.

  Face it, the 60's were Bond's era. Moore kept it afloat, Dalton sparked a bit of new interest, Brosnan gave the public what it wanted, now Craig is making him current again. But no one will ever outshine Connery in the role as far as the public is concerned.
  
• Gustav_Graves

  June 2015 Posts: 11,119

  chrisisall wrote: »

  Gustav_Graves wrote: »

  after reading all reviews, the ones from the 1980's actually seem a bit....lacklustre or mediocre. They lack the enthusiasm that went with the 1960's reviews. Even TSWLM and MR seemed pretty much a -tiny- high point in the franchise.

  Face it, the 60's were Bond's era. Moore kept it afloat, Dalton sparked a bit of new interest, Brosnan gave the public what it wanted, now Craig is making him current again. But no one will ever outshine Connery in the role as far as the public is concerned.

  
  And fact also is, that the Craig-era seems to be a bit more like the 1960's again. If not critically, then especially financially. Just...read the reviews from CR and SF. They have a similar positive vibe as those from the early Connery flicks.
• Perilagu_Khan

  June 2015 Posts: 2,483

  Thanks for posting. I admit that I love reading criticism.
• Gustav_Graves

  June 2015 edited June 2015 Posts: 11,119

  Perilagu_Khan wrote: »

  Thanks for posting. I admit that I love reading criticism.

  
  Do you perhaps know someone who has a subscription to Time Magazine Online? I saw those Bond reviews are available too, all the way down to the 1960's Bond films. But sadly, you have to be a paid member to read them all :-(. I want to put links to these Time Magazine reviews as well....
  
  I could only find this one, from "Skyfall":
  http://entertainment.time.com/2012/11/09/skyfall-bond-and-bardem-go-boom/
  
  But this one, from 1965's "Thunderball" is locked for reading :-(:
  http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,834870,00.html
• Perilagu_Khan

  June 2015 Posts: 2,483

  I'm afraid I don't know anybody who has a subscription.
• Gustav_Graves

  June 2015 Posts: 11,119

  Perhaps you can ask around a bit?
• Thunderfinger Das Boot Hill

  June 2015 Posts: 45,489

  Finally read them all. Thanks for posting. Interesting read and some stunning opinions from time to time.
• Perilagu_Khan

  June 2015 Posts: 2,483

  I particularly respect the reviewer who stated that SF is superior to CR. Occasionally the NYT gets something right.
• Thunderfinger Das Boot Hill

  July 2015 Posts: 45,489

  FYEO is far from the best Bond film. That would be either Goldfinger or Moonraker...
• CrabKey

  July 2015 Posts: 1,999

  A great resource. Ought to have a place on its own on this site, rather than allowing it to disappear somewhere into the hundreds of discussions.
• Dragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com

  July 2015 Posts: 18,281

  Perilagu_Khan wrote: »

  Thanks for posting. I admit that I love reading criticism.

  
  Me too. Thanks very much for providing the links to these, @Gustav_Graves. :)
• Gustav_Graves

  November 2015 Posts: 11,119

  I think it's very interesting to read all these reviews.....
  Like our dear @AlexanderWaverly mentioned in here, many of the insanely negative US critics should take some time and read these old New York Times reviews. Then they probably would have some more respect for our beloved Godfather of action/thriller/espionage films:
  

  AlexanderWaverly wrote: »

  Here's the review of The New York Times for Dr. No. Overall it's positive. But it has some passages that some fans today would consider horrible.
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9807E7D9123CE63ABC4850DFB3668388679EDE
  
  This lively, amusing picture, which opened yesterday at the Astor, the Murray Hill and other theaters in the "premiere showcase" group, is not to be taken seriously as realistic fiction or even art, any more than the works of Mr. Fleming are to be taken as long-hair literature. It is strictly a tinseled action-thriller, spiked with a mystery of a sort. **And, if you are clever, you will see it as a spoof of science-fiction and sex.**
  
  For the crime-detecting adventure that Mr. Bond is engaged in here is so wildly exaggerated, so patently contrived, **that it is obviously silly and not to be believed.** It is a perilous task of discovering who is operating a device on the tropical island of Jamaica that "massively interferes" with the critical rocket launchings from Cape Canaveral.
  
  Nonsense, you say. Of course, it's nonsense — **pure, escapist bunk, with Bond, an elegant fellow, played by Sean Connery, doing everything (and everybody) that an idle day-dreamer might like to do.** Called from a gaming club in London to pick up his orders and his gun and hop on a plane for Jamaica before a tawny temptress leads him astray, old "Double Oh Seven" (that's his code name) is in there being natty from the start. And he keeps on being natty, naughty and nifty to the end.
  
  
  Today, in the 21st century, there are fans that would have a stroke if the same things were written about SPECTRE and Daniel Craig.

  
  And here is the latest New York Times review, from "SPECTRE":
  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/movies/review-in-spectre-daniel-craig-returns-as-james-bond.html?_r=0
• Gustav_Graves

  November 2015 Posts: 11,119

  Anyone?
• SirCLMDBCRaig

  November 2015 Posts: 205

  These are quite fascinating and give a great insight into how these movies were received at the time. At least by THAT particular publication. I've read enough Bond reviews at this point to know that there is no clear verdict on ANY of them. Everybody seems to have their own opinion on what Bond should be and so one man's shit ends up being another ones gold. I guess that's the wonderful thing about this franchise and why we continue to debate and talk about it for so long.
  
  Still, it's fascinating seeing some of these, especially the quite glowing review for Moonraker, a movie that regularly gets shipped into the "worst of the series" position by many.
• Gustav_Graves

  November 2015 Posts: 11,119

  SirCLMDBCRaig wrote: »

  These are quite fascinating and give a great insight into how these movies were received at the time. At least by THAT particular publication. I've read enough Bond reviews at this point to know that there is no clear verdict on ANY of them. Everybody seems to have their own opinion on what Bond should be and so one man's shit ends up being another ones gold. I guess that's the wonderful thing about this franchise and why we continue to debate and talk about it for so long.
  
  Still, it's fascinating seeing some of these, especially the quite glowing review for Moonraker, a movie that regularly gets shipped into the "worst of the series" position by many.

  
  Indeed. And for the very same reason people should understand why "OHMSS" got such lacklustre reviews back in 1969. I mean...it reminds me a bit of how "SPECTRE" got crucified by US critics.
• SirCLMDBCRaig

  November 2015 Posts: 205

  Gustav_Graves wrote: »

  SirCLMDBCRaig wrote: »

  These are quite fascinating and give a great insight into how these movies were received at the time. At least by THAT particular publication. I've read enough Bond reviews at this point to know that there is no clear verdict on ANY of them. Everybody seems to have their own opinion on what Bond should be and so one man's shit ends up being another ones gold. I guess that's the wonderful thing about this franchise and why we continue to debate and talk about it for so long.
  
  Still, it's fascinating seeing some of these, especially the quite glowing review for Moonraker, a movie that regularly gets shipped into the "worst of the series" position by many.

  
  Indeed. And for the very same reason people should understand why "OHMSS" got such lacklustre reviews back in 1969. I mean...it reminds me a bit of how "SPECTRE" got crucified by US critics.

  
  Opinions change as time goes on, I suspect SPECTRE will be regarded in a fairly positive manner once the initial disappointment wears off. It's interesting to note that most of these reviewers have the job of watching a movie once and then immediately writing a review based on their initial impression. Yet I know from my own experience that rewatching these movies has GREATLY changed my opinions over the years. Past favourites have fallen in my rankings and initially forgotten entries have slowly risen to overtake them.
  
• tigers99

  November 2015 edited November 2015 Posts: 582

  Wow, Moonraker gets called the best Bond movie alongside Goldfinger, OHMSS gets called the worst, GoldenEye gets a less than flattering review - interesting reading indeed!
  
  The Goldfinger review was surprising too, especially as it's followed by a very enthusiastic review of Thunderball.
• Perilagu_Khan

  November 2015 Posts: 2,483

  I particularly respect the reviewer who stated that SF is superior to CR. Occasionally the NYT gets something right.

  SirCLMDBCRaig wrote: »

  Gustav_Graves wrote: »

  SirCLMDBCRaig wrote: »

  These are quite fascinating and give a great insight into how these movies were received at the time. At least by THAT particular publication. I've read enough Bond reviews at this point to know that there is no clear verdict on ANY of them. Everybody seems to have their own opinion on what Bond should be and so one man's shit ends up being another ones gold. I guess that's the wonderful thing about this franchise and why we continue to debate and talk about it for so long.
  
  Still, it's fascinating seeing some of these, especially the quite glowing review for Moonraker, a movie that regularly gets shipped into the "worst of the series" position by many.

  
  Indeed. And for the very same reason people should understand why "OHMSS" got such lacklustre reviews back in 1969. I mean...it reminds me a bit of how "SPECTRE" got crucified by US critics.

  
  Opinions change as time goes on, I suspect SPECTRE will be regarded in a fairly positive manner once the initial disappointment wears off. It's interesting to note that most of these reviewers have the job of watching a movie once and then immediately writing a review based on their initial impression. Yet I know from my own experience that rewatching these movies has GREATLY changed my opinions over the years. Past favourites have fallen in my rankings and initially forgotten entries have slowly risen to overtake them.

  
  Were I a professional film critic, I would never rate a film after one viewing. I would always see the films twice before putting pen to paper.
  
  
• tigers99

  November 2015 Posts: 582

  But DAD the best Bond since TSWLM! That one got me.
• Thunderfinger Das Boot Hill

  November 2015 Posts: 45,489

  Is this the High Times Bond films review?