How much does critical commentary influence fan opinion of the Bonds?

Silhouette Man

This is something I've been wondering about for a while and so I thought I'd create a Ronseal-type thread on it - i.e. It does what it says on the tin, or rather in the thread title. It's one of those topics I create every so often that doesn't require me to say a bit amount more past the thread title but here in the OP I will say that I'm referring here to fan opinion on the James Bond films being influenced by the likes of film reviews or reviewers, books on the Bond films, word of mouth reviews etc. It's basically about anything one reads or hears or sees in terms of reviews or critical commentary that may then go on to broadly influence fan opinion on a particular Bond film or even a particular era of Bond films.

For a small example, something I see repeated on Bond forums like this one a lot is that Sean Connery gave a "phoned in" performance in You Only Live Twice (1967) and was simply sleepwalking through the part of Bond or "going through the motions". This, though it may indeed be the case, derived from, I think, John Brosnan's James Bond in the Cinema.

Another example of critical commentary or reviews influencing fan opinion (again in a negative way) would be those that initially reviewed George Lazenby's performance as Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969). These reviews were on the whole very negative, both about Lazenby and the film itself, yet today OHMSS is considered a classic and the best Bond film of the lot by many people (myself included). Could it even be that the influence of such critical commentary or review on Bond fan opinion is largely subconscious?

I don't believe this has ever come up as a topic for discussion here before, perhaps because it seems too obvious, and so it has been overlooked. I think it's important enough though, hence the creation of this thread. Hopefully the ensuing discussion will bear this out...

Barbel

Silhouette Man wrote:

This, though it may indeed be the case, derived from, I think, The Essential Bond book on the Bond films.

If I can correct you without weakening your case, that's been around decades longer, at least since 1972:

Silhouette Man

Barbel wrote:

Silhouette Man wrote:

This, though it may indeed be the case, derived from, I think, The Essential Bond book on the Bond films.

If I can correct you without weakening your case, that's been around decades longer, at least since 1972:

Ah, I stand corrected. Knew I'd read it somewhere!

Dirty Punker

I can't call myself a legitimate reviewer but I'll try and give my own opinion on this phenomena, from my own experience.
Most people don't care enough and are too lazy to watch a movie and consequently form their own opinion and instead watch/read a film review and if they decide to go against the odds and watch the film they tend to notice and stick with the opinion that their favourite reviewer originally formed, something commonly evidenced in the videos of the likes of Stuckmann.

(Side note: my reviews are supposed to be seen after someone has watched the movie and are chock-full of spoilers, something that more conventional reviewers lean away from in, for example, YouTube videos and I never have and never will give a score for any film.
You're going to have to figure out what I think of it while discussing parts of the movie. It's much free-er that way.)

superado

In regard to the example about Connery's performance in YOLT, I think it's a case in which truth is truly universal and his lack of enthusiasm is evident. However, the paradox of Bond movie reviews just as with anything with a built-in fan base, are what professionally trained film critics vs. those who have become Bond subject matter experts like John Brosnan, Raymond Benson, John Cork, Lee Pfeiffer, Dave Worrall, et al. ...and of course are the amateurs like our lot here, which I don't think should be underestimated. Before his death, I always turned to Roger Ebert for his take on the newest Bond movie, as well as looking at his older reviews and he pretty much called it, even against my own biases in favor of the Brosnan movies for example.

However, no matter how learned and honed these critics are, their appreciation and knowledge of Bond will always stop at a point short of a full appreciation of the subject matter. For example, Bond is almost always perceived along the tagline of Austin Powers, as an international man of mystery. However, often overlooked is Bond's literary origins and the critical nuances of the character. So there's a point where criticism diverges and where Bond fans have actually become more qualified to know what they're looking at. Personally, I find about 60 or 70 percent of Bond reviews I read today fairly shallow and unqualified, journalism perhaps fitting for the general populace, which is less pressure on these "reviewers." Tell-tale sign that a hack wrote a Bond review, are those leading edge interesting facts like "Quantum Of Solace is the only film in the series that’s considered to be a direct sequel" (?!?!) ...errr, what was FRWL and the scenes with Sylvia Trench?

caractacus potts

I would think Bond films are pretty much critic proof.
The brand is so well known people who like that sort of thing go see the movie regardless and those that don't, don't.
There's been a bit written recently about Disney refusing to let critics see the new Star Wars movie before it came out, in revenge for some bad press the megacorp had gotten for completely unrelated real estate dealings.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/star-wars-promotion-reveals-the-dark-side-of-disneys-future-forfilm/article37314391/
I'm sure the film will do just fine.
Nobody needs a critic to tell them whether or not they want to see the new Star Wars , and they probably don't need a critic to decide to go see the next Marvel movie or whatever new guaranteed megabucks franchises Disney just bought from Fox.

In a wider sense, over the decades critical thought has favoured or disfavoured the Bond franchise, regardless of any inherent qualities within the latest film. Not whether Sean looked bored in one of his seven films, but whether the Bond concept itself was socially responsible. This evolving philosophy has greater effect on any new films' success.
In the 80s the whole concept was popularly deemed obsolete, a hangover from a more violent, sexist, imperialistic era ... course I was personally in Art School then, and influenced by my trendy new friends who deconstructed the fun out of everything ... but amongst the general population, the 80s were pretty earnest times.
I actually remember reading reviews of License to Kill, and thinking it sounded like they were finally doing Bond films right, but not being able to get anyone to go with me so we went to see some pretensiosity by Peter Greenaway instead. Good reviews couldn't sway the populace when the general mood had turned against the franchise.
Ten years later irony was now the general aesthetic, and you could have a film like Goldeneye with its own dialog referencing the critique while the plot unabashedly revels in all those old outdated fantasy elements. Then Mike Meyers quickly started doing that sort of thing better than Pierce Brosnan and the Bond films once again looked uncool.

Dirty Punker

caractacus potts wrote:

Ten years later irony was now the general aesthetic, and you could have a film like Goldeneye with its own dialog referencing the critique while the plot unabashedly revels in all those old outdated fantasy elements. Then Mike Meyers quickly started doing that sort of thing better than Pierce Brosnan and the Bond films once again looked uncool.

Well, I would go so far as to say that as the Bonds had been spoofed in the 60s and 70s and the 70s Bond movies were a parody of themselves yet nobody could say that for example Sean Connery was uncool because Carry On Spying was released on the same year as Goldfinger which introduced the whole "camp" element.

philpog

I'm convinced that Danny Peary's review of OHMSS in the book Cult Movies 3 (1988) had a lot to do with the positive re-evaluation of that film, at least in the U.S.

chrisisall

I read most reviews after I watch a movie unless I never planned to watch it at all. BUT, fan reviews have made me take different looks at Bonds and gotten me to re-evaluate (positively) at times.
And say he phoned it in in YOLT all you want- I still like the film and his performance in it. A less interested Connery makes for a Bond nearing burnout. -{

zaphod99

chrisisall wrote:

I read most reviews after I watch a movie unless I never planned to watch it at all. BUT, fan reviews have made me take different looks at Bonds and gotten me to re-evaluate (positively) at times.
And say he phoned it in in YOLT all you want- I still like the film and his performance in it. A less interested Connery makes for a Bond nearing burnout. -{

I think that could have worked better if the narrative supported a 'burnt out' Bond a bit like In TLD when Bond seems almost keen to resign if M asks for it. I just don't get that sense from YOLT, in the Novel it's there is spades but absent from the film. However even a Connery ' phoning it in' is better than no Connery at all.

What is of interest to me is how CR survived and flourished despite the savage pre, and in production Reportage. ' Can't do action,' ' can't drive stick' shift blah blah blah. What is refreshing is that people did make up their own minds. I was very sceptical at the time, but when I saw the film I had to admit that it was superb and that DC was great in it.

Spectre seemed to get favourable reviews in the UK but faired less well stateside from what I can recall so it's a bit of a lottery but on the whole people seem to make their own judgments (I hope)

Dirty Punker

Yes, SPECTRE was a review-coq-a-thon.
Positives, neutrals and negatives left and right.
Truly baffling!
Wonder how would anyone go watch that movie based on reviews alone.

Mr Snow

As the saying goes "one mans trash is another mans treasure".

Reading a review (that I try to avoid before I see a film anyway) wouldn't influence me anyway. I will always go with an open mind before I see a film and hope for the best whether it be Bond or any other genre.

Quite simply, if someone loves it or cans it, that is their opinion only so it doesn't make it any better or worse and if there in a so called position of expertise it still comes down to what the individual likes.

chrisisall

Dirty Punker wrote:

Yes, SPECTRE was a review-coq-a-thon.
Positives, neutrals and negatives left and right.
Truly baffling!
Wonder how would anyone go watch that movie based on reviews alone.

I saw it based on ten seconds of the trailer. I was rewarded for my decision. -{

lueth2048

In my case 'd the effect is zero. The critic whose tastes seemed the closest to mine was Gene Siskel and he rarely had anything good to say about the Bond franchise.

heartbroken_mr_drax

^ I'm interested in what the critics say about new releases, and on some previous reflection may check out a few reviews if I feel slightly differently about a film from a viewing.

Thing is, James Bond typically has some pretty poor ratings even on IMDB. I typically ignore most people outside the fan universe and anyone who can't suspend enough disbelief to just "enjoy Bond" for what it is.

clublos

I like to think that society has the ability to make up their own minds and form their own opinions about something as trivial as film.

But let's be honest, a blind man can see that Connery was painting by numbers after Goldfinger.

walther p99

clublos wrote:

I like to think that society has the ability to make up their own minds and form their own opinions about something as trivial as film.

But let's be honest, a blind man can see that Connery was painting by numbers after Goldfinger.

I think his last great Bond performance was Thunderball.

Matt S

walther p99 wrote:

clublos wrote:

I like to think that society has the ability to make up their own minds and form their own opinions about something as trivial as film.

But let's be honest, a blind man can see that Connery was painting by numbers after Goldfinger.

I think his last great Bond performance was Thunderball.

He's fantastic in that film.

clublos

Matt S wrote:

walther p99 wrote:

clublos wrote:

I like to think that society has the ability to make up their own minds and form their own opinions about something as trivial as film.

But let's be honest, a blind man can see that Connery was painting by numbers after Goldfinger.

I think his last great Bond performance was Thunderball.

He's fantastic in that film.

Oh, I get it: Connery was playing Bond as a bored superhero plugging away at gadgets.

Seriously, though, I love Thunderball and I love Connery in it. But the spark from his first three simply wasn't there.

Matt S

clublos wrote:

Matt S wrote:

walther p99 wrote:

I think his last great Bond performance was Thunderball.

He's fantastic in that film.

Oh, I get it: Connery was playing Bond as a bored superhero plugging away at gadgets.

Seriously, though, I love Thunderball and I love Connery in it. But the spark from his first three simply wasn't there.

Thunderball's slow pacing is why it doesn't have that spark. I don't see Connery as bored in it at all. YOLT has the opposite problem with the film being fast-paced and Connery being slow.

Cheverian

Matt S wrote:

clublos wrote:

Matt S wrote:

He's fantastic in that film.

Oh, I get it: Connery was playing Bond as a bored superhero plugging away at gadgets.

Seriously, though, I love Thunderball and I love Connery in it. But the spark from his first three simply wasn't there.

Thunderball's slow pacing is why it doesn't have that spark. I don't see Connery as bored in it at all. YOLT has the opposite problem with the film being fast-paced and Connery being slow.

I definitely agree about Thunderball. Connery seems to be enjoying himself in the PTS and the scenes at Shrublands especially.

walther p99

Cheverian wrote:

Matt S wrote:

clublos wrote:

Oh, I get it: Connery was playing Bond as a bored superhero plugging away at gadgets.

Seriously, though, I love Thunderball and I love Connery in it. But the spark from his first three simply wasn't there.

Thunderball's slow pacing is why it doesn't have that spark. I don't see Connery as bored in it at all. YOLT has the opposite problem with the film being fast-paced and Connery being slow.

I definitely agree about Thunderball. Connery seems to be enjoying himself in the PTS and the scenes at Shrublands especially.

Yeah I always thought the general census regarding the whole "bored" Connery observation starts with YOLT and beyond.

chrisno1

walther p99 wrote:

Cheverian wrote:

Matt S wrote:

Thunderball's slow pacing is why it doesn't have that spark. I don't see Connery as bored in it at all. YOLT has the opposite problem with the film being fast-paced and Connery being slow.

I definitely agree about Thunderball. Connery seems to be enjoying himself in the PTS and the scenes at Shrublands especially.

Yeah I always thought the general census regarding the whole "bored" Connery observation starts with YOLT and beyond.

In the UK we have the Radio Times Film Guide published through the BBC and I'm constantly amused by the star ratings it offers for many films which sometimes seem to be completely at odds with any kind of considered opinion. Dated movies by Preston Sturges for instance - an acquired taste at the best of times - almost always have 5 stars.

So does YOLT. The vastly superior OHMSS gets only 3. I can only conclude YOLT is considered better entertainment - but that - like all critical opinions - is subjective.

I'm not very influenced by critics (not any more and certainly not in regard OO7) but I do fail to understand the generally consistency of any of them or any rating system. Personally I prefer reviews to be fair and studied. The catch-all sentiments of newspapers disinterest me and the mind-numbing stuff you read in Sight & Sound rarely makes me want to go and see a film. IMB leaves me cold and is a platform for mass obscurity. Doesn't leave us much, does it?

Thunderpussy

Critics don't influence me but I have through discussions
On AJB. Changed or amended my views and opinions. As
Other members here, have pointed out things I've missed,
Or misunderstood.

caractacus potts

chrisno1 wrote:

I'm not very influenced by critics (not any more and certainly not in regard OO7) but I do fail to understand the generally consistency of any of them or any rating system.

Because they are unique individuals with their own personal tastes. Why would you expect there to be a consensus? None of my friends in real life precisely share my tastes in movies either and I don't tell them they're wrong. The difference with professional critics is they know how to write and get paid for it.

If you familiarize yourself with a critic's body of work you will see what their biases (tastes) are. You can even read a bad review and if you know the biases of that critic factor the bias out and glean useful information. I know I've many times decided to watch a movie (or buy a record, or read a book) after reading a negative review ... because in between the value judgements I can see enough description to tell me that's exactly the sort of thing I do like.

Revolver66

Interesting question from the op! I would say for me that critics do not influence my opinion on the Bond films too much, but they have to a degree in the past. Sometimes a review or a critic has highlighted a criticism or a positive about one of the films for me that I had otherwise missed and it has caused me to see the film in a slightly different light. Or at least that particular aspect of the film. I do think critics and opinion affect us all to some degree. Not everytime, but certainly from time to time.

In the case of Bond though I have to say that I don't really care at all what the critics say about them. I do of course love it when a new Bond film gets a great review, because it means the franchise is getting some well earned recognition, but when I go on Rotten Tomatoes and see the critics scores for the past 24 films, they mostly don't reflect my own viewpoints on them at all so I would have to say no. I'm a bit of a cinephile though so I do love the classic movies that are the typical critical darlings (The Godfather 1&2, Citizen Kane etc) but I couldn't give 2 pence for what a critic has to say about For Your Eyes Only. I'm going to love it regardless. In some cases we love what we love and the opinion of others doesn't change that at all.