20 replies to this topic

[broadshoulder]

I posted this on MI6 forums but you might have an opinion on the below theory.

With the exceptions of From Russia With Love, Dr No, Casino Royale & For Your Eyes Only alot of the more serious vein Bonds havent done too well with the critics. I will go into why I think so in a minute but look at the evidence. The critics dont seem to like the left turn Bonds.

On Her Majesties Secret Service

The mother of all kickings. OHMSS got such a kicking it didnt recover for twenty years. At the time it got almost universal bad reviews. Not for filmaking, production design or stuntwork but mainly due to the leading man. It also followed the OTT YOLT with its white cat and volcano lair. Although OHMSS had many Bondian elements it deviated from the formula in as such it was a human story of Bond falling in love. They had been used to secret bases and bowler hat throwing henchman for seven years - suddenly a human Bond appears. New Bond and left hand turn seems to have been too much

Of course when the video age came along it was re-evaluated without the baggage and seen to be one of the best int he series.

The Living Daylights

Back in the summer of 1987 I do remember one excellent review by the Daily Telegraph but there were a few complaints of a left hand Bond. Critics like Alexander Walker complained of the 'seriousness' and 'where were the supervillains and humour'. I distinctly remember the Evening Standards headline 'The new Bond blows it!"

Of course TLD is considered by Bond fans to be the best of the eighties and appears in many a top five now.

Licence to Kill

I was at the premiere of this back in 1989 and got to see down Talisa Sotos cleavage (from a distance) but it didnt get good reviews from the press. I remember the headline 'Bond meets Miami Vice and loses'. Once again they lamented the humour. The press corps acutally cheered when Q appears on the screen.

LTK is still divisive but I consider it to be one of the best scripts of the series.

Quantum of Solace

Seems to be getting mixed reviews as well. Its a tight little thriller with a good script and superb performances. Its a left turn with the plot mainly being about finding your 'Quantum of Solace'. The critical mauling from Kermode, Ebert and even Graham Rye (I bet he changes his mind in the future) has been savage.

Time will tell, but I truly belive it to be one of the better adult Bond films with good rewatch value.

My point is are they looking for something different for me? Are the Bond films looked differently at by the critics then the fans? For it to be a Bond film does it have to be a submarine swallowing supertanker, a laser satellite, Q and Moneypenny and an invisible car? Do they need the crutches of a Bond film to identify it as a Bond film? Do they need the familiarity of the cliche?

Interestingly Die Another Day got good reviews from the critics because it did what they expected. I remember one reviewers saying it 'ticked all the boxes' and was 'reviewer proof' and it was a collection of Bond cliches stuck together badly. It was what they expected from a Bond film.

I think the critics review them like this because they dont take them seriously. They can pigeonhole them as Bond films and be dismissive of them. If one tries to be different they dont quite get it or want to get it.

Or of course it could simply be that they didnt like it

[HH007]

According to Leonard Maltin, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY had the fans divided. And CASINO ROYALE seemed to split people quite a bit. Maybe Craig will go down as "the most controversial" Bond.

[broadshoulder]

And yet the likes of Diamonds, Moonraker and Die Another Day get good reviews as it is what they expect from Bond.

[HH007]

And yet the likes of Diamonds, Moonraker and Die Another Day get good reviews as it is what they expect from Bond.

What can I say? Anytime something sways from the norm, some people get upset. It's just the way it is.

[dinovelvet]

Quantum of Solace

Seems to be getting mixed reviews as well. Its a tight little thriller with a good script and superb performances. Its a left turn with the plot mainly being about finding your 'Quantum of Solace'. The critical mauling from Kermode, Ebert and even Graham Rye (I bet he changes his mind in the future) has been savage.

The general critical consensus of QOS is leaning towards positive though. (And Graham Rye is nothing more than another fan, albeit one with a bigger microphone). It currently sits at 70% on rottentomatoes, which isn't as good as CR's 94% obviously, but hardly a mauling. By comparison, the four Broz films score 79 GE, 56 TND, 51 TWINE, 60 DAD, so generally QOS is being received as One Of The Better Ones.

[broadshoulder]

I was referring to the critical mauling from them specific critics - and I do belive Graham Rye who I hve submitted articles when he was president of the James Bond British fan club - will view it differently in a few years time.

I hate to see it get a scragging - I thought it was great but some critics have portrayed it negatively. My point is that do they like the Bonds which can be pigeonholed as Bonds (ie innuendo, underwater car, Q Branch) rather then ones which take a left turn.

[jaguar007]

Basically all Ebert said in his review of the film is that it did not have the provocative female names, the overblown villian etc. Like many other critics, he did not rate the film on its own merit, but how unlike the previous Bond movies it was.

[MarkA]

I was referring to the critical mauling from them specific critics - and I do belive Graham Rye who I hve submitted articles when he was president of the James Bond British fan club - will view it differently in a few years time.

I know Graham too, and I bet he doesn't change his mind on this one. I too tend to agree with the main thrust of your argument though. Mainstream critics wouldn't know what constitutes a good Bond film if it bit them on the backside. That's why (and I know many people disagree) I listen to people like Mark Kermode and Kim Newman because they understand and are fans of genre cinema. And I personally think there are major problems with QOS.

[Otis Fairplay]

Nice post on an interesting subject, broadshoulder. As far as I am concerned, I say the crux of the matter is that the Bond series pretty much has been a film genre in itself for as long as anyone would care to remember. Whether this is a blessing or a curse could be debated, though I think it has been both. This development has of course not happened strictly by accident. Rather, Eon has encouraged it through the years, at times discreetly and often rather shamelessly.

The perks of this approach are pretty obvious, since the accumulated built-in audience returning over the years as long as the films stayed appealing enough has been pretty staggering. From a marketing perspective, in the long run I suppose it would be downright foolish not to cultivate the franchise’s trademarks. If you want to see an action film at the cinema, you have plenty to choose from. If you want to see a Bond film, on the other hand, the odds are decidedly in Eon’s favour. And curiously, I think this approach has often helped the Bond films when presented to the critics. I suggest the series has gotten away with entries that would have been in for a far rougher treatment had they not been Bond films. But since they were, they tended to be appraised in the light of the series’ history, rather than against the actual competition of their day. I think it is fair to say nostalgia likely comes into the picture as well.

So, according to this line of reasoning I find it understandable how more cliché ridden Bond films has been met with critical approval as long as they were updated enough to keep in with the times. By the same token though, stepping out of the formula becomes more troublesome. Not only are the films running the risk of disrupt any nostalgia among the critics. I also think that the further a film distances itself from the Bondian trademarks – be it laser satellites, poor puns, sidekick characters, catchphrases or gadgets – that has come to be expected over the years, the lesser the incitement to review the film in relation to its predecessors and the greater the tendency to actually pit it against other Box Office successes of today or yesteryear. And if a critic finds for example Licence To Kill to resemble a mediocre episode of Miami Vice or the Craig era to be a Bourne rip-off – and I am not suggesting anyone really should – I do not think it is unfair to criticise them as such. So, while breaking with the formula offers a certain creative freedom, I think some closer scrutinising also comes with the territory which may indeed be something of a mixed bag.

Quite a simplistic, speculative point of view, I will agree. I do think, however, that if critics do not take the Bond films seriously then Eon’s creative decisions over the years are largely responsible and I think it will take more than Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace to stem the tide. There is also the distinction between not taking something in a none too serious manner and to dismiss it. I stand by my assertion that more than a few Bond films have benefited by not having been taken very seriously by the critics. The latter may not need the familiarity of the clichés as such, but for better or worse I think they may work in a rather disarming, tongue-in-cheek manner.

That said, I still find a review like Roger Ebert’s to be quite a lazy piece of writing. While I for now will settle for calling myself mildly appreciative of Quantum of Solace, I think the film is ambitious enough to warrant an assessment that is not mainly concerned with the fact that grave clichés may be missing. On the other hand, indifference tends to be more tiresome still.


On another note, broadshoulder, it sounds like you might have an interesting report to give from the premiere of Licence To Kill?

[broadshoulder]

I think this approach has often helped the Bond films when presented to the critics. I suggest the series has gotten away with entries that would have been in for a far rougher treatment had they not been Bond films. But since they were, they tended to be appraised in the light of the series’ history, rather than against the actual competition of their day.

I think Die Another Day, and, as much as I love it - Moonraker - both fit into this category.

Edited by broadshoulder, 14 November 2008 - 09:47 PM.

[Hockey Mask]

QoS has taken a pretty good beating so far. I enjoyed it quite a bit. I dooubt may lovers will turn and hate it. But I could easily see haters learning to love it. Time will tell but I think it will go down as one of the best.

[Ravenstone]

Maybe there's the old fashioned 'Tall Poppy Syndrome' in effect. CR was so well received, the critics all raving, and QOS has been eagerly anticipated for two years - so the critics decide to bring it down to earth again. Some of the reviews sound like they were written before they'd actually seen the film.

[sharpshooter]

I agree, the more serious Bond films are not as universally accepted. That's mainly why the series is dominated with OTT and less of the down to earth plotlines. I think this has to change. I don't know what it is, maybe people think it is a departure from what Bond 'is'. It's not fun enough, it's boring and too serious.

I for one think this series has to be less self concious and stick to the approach adopted by the Craig era. It is closer to Fleming, that's for sure. The pressure will mount for the embellishments to return. The series has received a shot to the arm and it feels like anything could happen, and people will want the same old, safeness of the previous 20 films. I hope they don’t falter completely to the ‘criticism’. If things do return in some fashion, I hope they continue to be remixed and played with.

[Paul Scrabo]

I don't think feel that people need a "safe" Bond, just a good Bond film. I feel the negative reviews are pretty right on for QOS. It's not that QOS was too serious, but that it was uneven, IMO. And kudos to the poster that said that Brosnan got a raw deal. I thought he did as best as he could with the material.
Paul

[ImTheMoneypenny]

I agree, the more serious Bond films are not as universally accepted. That's mainly why the series is dominated with OTT and less of the down to earth plotlines. I think this has to change. I don't know what it is, maybe people think it is a departure from what Bond 'is'. It's not fun enough, it's boring and too serious.

I for one think this series has to be less self concious and stick to the approach adopted by the Craig era. It is closer to Fleming, that's for sure. The pressure will mount for the embellishments to return. The series has received a shot to the arm and it feels like anything could happen, and people will want the same old, safeness of the previous 20 films. I hope they don’t falter completely to the ‘criticism’. If things do return in some fashion, I hope they continue to be remixed and played with.

Totally agree sharpshooter.

[marktmurphy]

I disliked it because it was weak, scrappily handled and an underwhelming sequel to Casino Royale that came nowhere near to the quality of it's predecessor. Not because it didn't have a hollowed-out volcano or whatever but just because it's a poor example of this type of Bond film: Casino Royale was a superior example.

[plankattack]

The "serious" Bonds definitely get more of a beating. As I think Fairplay, mentioned, there is a built-in double-standard when the press judge a Bond. If it's a formula Bond, they don't bother to hammer it (at times they've almost been cheerleaders); to an extent, a traditional formula-Bond is what it is and it's almost critic-proof. Rather like doing a review of Aladdin - what's the point? Back in the 70s and 80s, there was a sense that one film was no more than a new version of the preceeding film, so really, why should the review be any different? I remember one review (I think the London Times, that criticised FYEO for being just like MR, but without the glamour....WTF?)

Serious Bonds do get judged at a different level, but unfortunately they're judged not just as films, but as Bond-films; it's the latter that makes it tougher on them to get a positive review. Take QoS, most bad reviews have criticised the film for what it is, but have backed up their criticisms with some version of it's "not like the others." A serious Bond almost can't win critically - the press aren't able to seperate the film from the franchise. It's an apples and oranges situation, and ultimately, either the apple or the orange loses (stop me, before I completely butcher the fruit metaphor).

At the same time, I think QoS was always going to get it from the press. They'd been very kind to CR and the whole underdog-actor sticks it to fanbase-internet whack-jobs was too good a story to pass up. But second-time around, the press can do what they seem to enjoy doing the most, which is sticking the boot in. The one saving grace of it all, is that in this day and age, the influence of the major critics is far less than it ever was.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Nice post on an interesting subject, broadshoulder. As far as I am concerned, I say the crux of the matter is that the Bond series pretty much has been a film genre in itself for as long as anyone would care to remember. Whether this is a blessing or a curse could be debated, though I think it has been both. This development has of course not happened strictly by accident. Rather, Eon has encouraged it through the years, at times discreetly and often rather shamelessly.

The perks of this approach are pretty obvious, since the accumulated built-in audience returning over the years as long as the films stayed appealing enough has been pretty staggering. From a marketing perspective, in the long run I suppose it would be downright foolish not to cultivate the franchise’s trademarks. If you want to see an action film at the cinema, you have plenty to choose from. If you want to see a Bond film, on the other hand, the odds are decidedly in Eon’s favour. And curiously, I think this approach has often helped the Bond films when presented to the critics. I suggest the series has gotten away with entries that would have been in for a far rougher treatment had they not been Bond films. But since they were, they tended to be appraised in the light of the series’ history, rather than against the actual competition of their day. I think it is fair to say nostalgia likely comes into the picture as well.

So, according to this line of reasoning I find it understandable how more cliché ridden Bond films has been met with critical approval as long as they were updated enough to keep in with the times. By the same token though, stepping out of the formula becomes more troublesome. Not only are the films running the risk of disrupt any nostalgia among the critics. I also think that the further a film distances itself from the Bondian trademarks – be it laser satellites, poor puns, sidekick characters, catchphrases or gadgets – that has come to be expected over the years, the lesser the incitement to review the film in relation to its predecessors and the greater the tendency to actually pit it against other Box Office successes of today or yesteryear. And if a critic finds for example Licence To Kill to resemble a mediocre episode of Miami Vice or the Craig era to be a Bourne rip-off – and I am not suggesting anyone really should – I do not think it is unfair to criticise them as such. So, while breaking with the formula offers a certain creative freedom, I think some closer scrutinising also comes with the territory which may indeed be something of a mixed bag.

Quite a simplistic, speculative point of view, I will agree. I do think, however, that if critics do not take the Bond films seriously then Eon’s creative decisions over the years are largely responsible and I think it will take more than Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace to stem the tide. There is also the distinction between not taking something in a none too serious manner and to dismiss it. I stand by my assertion that more than a few Bond films have benefited by not having been taken very seriously by the critics. The latter may not need the familiarity of the clichés as such, but for better or worse I think they may work in a rather disarming, tongue-in-cheek manner.

That said, I still find a review like Roger Ebert’s to be quite a lazy piece of writing. While I for now will settle for calling myself mildly appreciative of Quantum of Solace, I think the film is ambitious enough to warrant an assessment that is not mainly concerned with the fact that grave clichés may be missing. On the other hand, indifference tends to be more tiresome still.

Some good points there Otis.

[blueman]

EON started lessening the series in the 60s. Yet as GF and then TB and YOLT proved increasingly silly, box office increasingly skyrocketed (slight dip with YOLT but the market was getting saturated by then). Most general public audiences - and reviewers - prefer big fun Bond.

Regardless of what reviewers (and big-mouthed fans ) think of Craig-era Bond films, EON has made EVEN MORE money by taking this most recent left turn. However it's come about (my theory: better writing/acting/directing than usual for a Bond film), right now audiences are lapping up what EON is currently serving. IMO EON has only faltered when they've stayed static too long (the 80s with dullsville Glen directing increasingly unwatchable films): think if Cubby had had the confidence to switch horses/styles post-MR (as his children did post-DAD) AND hire legit directors for that decade's films, we could've had 5 films with Dalton perhaps on a par with what we're getting from Craig. If anything has cemented for reviewers what Bond "should be like," it's the Glen years IMO (talk about getting away with it!). One can see the Brosnan films trying to bust out, but with lead weights still strapped on (even some of that in CR IMO). QOS is the first Bond film since OHMSS to boldly go etc etc, of course it's gonna get some divisive reactions. But agree with those who say, in time it'll be much better regarded for it's savvy depth and "non-Bondish" (at least in the traditional sense) tone. In that respect QOS has more in common with DN IMO, it simply begins as if there's not been any Bond films before it (nods to past films that we nutjob fans see aside).

Fans - and reviewers - will re-evaluate over time, happened before and it'll happen again. Some will, at any rate.

[byline]

Basically all Ebert said in his review of the film is that it did not have the provocative female names, the overblown villian etc. Like many other critics, he did not rate the film on its own merit, but how unlike the previous Bond movies it was.

Exactly. Which I find a bit annoying. Roger Ebert's review is flawed on many counts. The fact that he complains about Bond not bedding Camille tells me he's going more for the old Bond iconology and failing to recognize that, given Camille's past, there was no way that Bond would have even tried to seduce her.

[Robinson]

Roger Ebert's review is flawed on many counts. The fact that he complains about Bond not bedding Camille tells me he's going more for the old Bond iconology and failing to recognize that, given Camille's past, there was no way that Bond would have even tried to seduce her.

The funny thing is that if QOS or CR had kept the iconography, the critics would've talked about how repetetive and uncreative the films are and how Craig is weighted down with cliches. I remember when Entertainment Weekly reviewed TWINE and the article was titled "Oldfinger." You knew what was coming after a byline like that.

Craig and EON are going to have to work a little harder to make the series fresh while somehow giving the (mainstream) audience what they "want." We'll see.