*NSNA - Critic’s Score 70%, Audience Score 37%* Well, that just proves it, doesn’t it? Film critics are just a bunch of hoity-toity out-of-touch elites whose views in no way reflect those of ordinary cinema goers, the humble everyday people who have to pay to see these films. *Licence to Kill - Critic’s Score 78%, Audience Score 61%* Well, let’s not be too hasty, quite a few of those film critics have some rather intelligent things to say. They’re the sort who can truly appreciate proper filmmaking, which can sometimes go unappreciated by the uncultured hoi-polloi who wouldn’t know a film from their elbows.
@@calvindyson Speaking of critics, it would be interesting to see you react to Siskel & Ebert's Bond special they did back in the day. Some of their views have not aged well, thats all Ill say. But it does give you an idea of contemporary views on the older films.
@@dj71162 As I recall, they don’t consider OHMSS worth talking about because of Lazenby’s one-film status. I guess maybe they had limited time (it being a half-hour show, or rather 22 mins due to commercial breaks), but still, emblematic of OHMSS’s reputation back then and how much it’s changed.
it's not that simple. it's all about balance. there's a lot of fans that love shitty movies like venom or justice league. in the case of bond In my opinion things like the spy who loved me or moonraker are terrible yet loved by fans. amd then you have OHMSS with low audience scores but anybody that knows anything about movies knows that it's by far one of the best, so you have to look at the movies as movies and as a fan combined. it's not as easy as critics bad audiences good
Only? Only? Not hardly. Connery is awesome, obviously. But he's giving his best performance since Dr. No, FRWL, and Goldfinger. Klaus Maria Brandauer is one of the all time best and most entertaining Bond villains. Barbara Carera as Fatima Blush is outstanding. Sultry and alluring and completely unhinged. Bernie Casey is excellent as Felix. This version of Q is a friggin delight. Rowan Atkinson is silly fun. Kim Basinger is drop dead gorgeous and instantly lovable. The ONLY negatives to this movie are: This version of M is annoying. But it's making fun of the Thatcher Administration, so it gets a pass from me. The legal limitations (no gun barrel, no traditional Bond style opening). Michel LeGrande's music feels out of place in multiple scenes (not the entire movie, but a lot). And the Lani Hall song. It definitely should have been the Phyllis Hyman song instead.
It’s important to remember how RT scores are calculated - it’s not an aggregate score, it’s the % of reviewers who said “this movie is good vs this movie is bad”. So if 100% of critics give a score of 2/5, it gets 0%. If 100% of critics give a score of 3/5, it gets 100%. It’s a dumb system
@@TheT3rr0rMask Same. RT just has a lot of problems. Like don't get me started how I would sometimes find reviews call a film "average, but a fun time" negative. It's wack. The site also takes away from the actual reviews and nuances of the critics and (sometimes) audiences.
I'm always amazed at the general disrespect given to Brosnan. I feel like people unfairly judge his entire tenure based on Die Another Day. While I do think that Tomorrow Never Dies is somewhat "middle of the road", GoldenEye and TWINE are both phenomenal films. Oh well, it took 30 years for Dalton to truly become appreciated so maybe we just need to give it a few more years for the same to happen with Pierce.
remember this is just rotten tomatoes. EVERYONE loved Brosnan back in the day, but like you say its like they are just judging DAD as the culprit, but thats not fair . like you say GE and TWINE is great no dought :)
Indeed, I feel like everyone was generally very positive about Brosnan in the 90s. When the question came up 'Who is the best Bond?" it would often be Connery and then Brosnan in second place in articles and talking heads on TV etc. I feel like we'll get to some newfound general appreciation of his films soon enough though!
@@calvindyson Yea it really seems like as soon as Craig showed up Brosnan was immediately cast aside! But I think you are right - you will see a much greater appreciation for those light and fun Brosnan films as time goes by. In fact - coming after the emotional weight of Craig’s finale - you are already starting to see a longing for that breezier more relaxing style of Bond film. I am actually willing to bet the next version of Bond we get will be much closer to his more traditional classic version of James Bond. I think people are really craving it at this point!
7:30: From what I remember, 'Spectre' did relatively well with critics when it first hit the UK market. At that point, it was around the mid 70's or so on RT. The reason why it dropped down is that a lot of U.S. critics HATED it and their reviews for it were quite brutal.
The Brosnan adventures are very underrated on that site. (And on some other ones, too.) Those films will forever get all my love, and I'll always spread the good word about them! This autumn, actually, my youngest sibling came up with the Rotten Tomato ranking for TWINE, what are the odds, eh? He had just found it, showed me it with the preface; "Oof, seeing this percentage will make you really sad". And then, to his amazement and confusion, I wasn't. Kids, amirite?
Yes, i actually think they will hold up alot better then NTTD, QoS, Spectre, its the perfect formula for a bond movie and i hope they return to that style next, now that they have done the whole backstory/personal journey with Craig
That's the critic trend. They tend to praise the current bond and sh*t on the previous bond in order to stay relevant. Critics of the 90s ripped Dalton apart. And early 2000s boycotted Craig before his 1st film. And when casino Royale silenced them, they soon changed colors and started to worship Craig as the best bond ever. But As of Now, ppl have already started hating on Craig and started to appreciate Brosnan.
Little off-topic here. I'm not a big fan of Never Say Never Again, but here in Russia, this movie is well regarded. From what I know, this film was the first Bond movie to be distributed and shown in Russia after 1991. This film was easy for local cinemas to acuire. But some years later EON came to us and knocked it out of the park quite literally. We unapologetically love Brosnan films. Be safe, Calvin, your content is amazing 😎🇷🇺
Very interesting comment! Similarly, I've read that the Star Wars prequels are more popular than the original films in Russia, precisely for that "novelty" factor, is this true ? (please read these last three words with Ourumov's accent in mind^^). I also happen to think that the cultural differences play a part in how the various James Bond actors are perceived - Roger Moore, in particular, seems to be less regarded in the US than he is in Europe, and since Rotten Tomatoes is an american website...
@@b.chaline4394 While the nostalgia factor probably does play a role in the Prequels' popularity out here in Russia, I would also say that the absolutely superb Russian dub helped A LOT. Anakin in particular feels like a complete 180 when voiced by Andrei Zaytsev and is probably closer to what Lucas intended him to be.
@@AllardRT my Russian is very rudimentary, but every time I had a look at these various Revenge of the Sith dubbing montages that you find on YT, I was very impressed with the Russian dub, it sounded like one of the better ones! You're absolutely right that it contributes to one's perception of a film abroad. I'm French myself and again, I think dubbing played a key part in the appreciation for Roger Moore over here, since the actor voicing him in French also did the voice of Charles Bronson! So the alleged lack of "toughness" and "believability as a spy" that are too often used by Roger's detractors were never a thing for me growing up :D All Bond actors had terrific voices in French, I must say (even though it was jarring that the guy who did Craig's also voiced Gustav Graves just a few years ealier in DaD!)
I'm not a fan of rotten tomatoes. But when I do check it out, I always compare the critic score with the audience score. And I most definitely don't trust rotten tomatoes for Bond films. I'll leave the Bond reviews to Bond fans, especially Calvin Dyson. Great video as always, Calvin!
Never Say Never Again’s high critics score probably comes from the reviews from 1983 - they (and probably a lot of audience members too) were so wowed by Connery coming back that they were blinded to some of NSNA’s lesser qualities, especially to all those who hadn’t liked Moore. It seems NSNA could’ve simply been 2 hours of Connery (in character as James Bond) filing his tax return and it would’ve gotten rave reviews. But hey, it was the 80s, they were probably all high off their faces on coke. Of course, to fans born after 1983, watching NSNA after the fact on home video, there is no novelty of Connery coming back because it’s just as much a piece of the past as the other Connery’s, which would explain the discrepancy between the critic score and the audience score.
I see people on these comments sections bash Craig sometimes but there were a lot of people who didn't like Moore back in the day [US film critic Gene Siskel from Siskel and Ebert fame for one] so were very much 'the real Bond is back'.
@@jamesatkinsonja Yea, I was about to bring up Siskel and Ebert. I watched their review of NSNA and they were practically tripping over each other to praise it, with the sentiment very much being that the real Bond is back.
The reviews in 1983 were much, much, MUCH kinder to NSNA than people would probably expect. Yes, so much of it was Connery being back, but it was also the immediate comparison with Octopussy, which wasn't quite widely-panned but was pretty widely mocked for a lot of things, including and especially its title. NSNA also serendipitously seemed to tag along on the coattails of (believe it or not) WAR GAMES, because of the casino video game scene, and Klaus Maria Brandauer's emergence as a critical darling after MEPHISTO.
@@ryanoneill3192 As I recall, they praised NSNA for having a more human villain and for getting away from the typical megalomaniacs. But when the EON series did that in the Dalton films, they criticised them for not having the typical megalomaniacal villains.
I was going to say much the same thing; in 83 the majority of critics, at least in the US, were of an age to have been into the Connery films when they hit cinemas, and very much took the "classic" view that no one had, and perhaps even could, live up to Connery, and that the films had gone downhill after the 60s, and perhaps even after Thunderball, and his return was treated in a similar way to how people treat films like The Force Awakens and Ghostbusters: Afterlife today. And like many "out of retirement" films, there is a sense that the initial reviews might have been a little too driven by hype and overexcitement. That said, back when I used to post on a Bond forum in the 00s there was a guy on there who was a big Moore fan, but his favourite of all was NSNA, and he used to talk about how it was "a braver, more exciting film than anything EON could ever come up with". I don't mind the film, but I was always jealous of his passion for it!
Also, based on the modern perception it seems Roger Moore and Brosnan are even more underrated than Dalton at this point which is crazy since everyone loved both back in the day during the 70s-90s. Brosnan was my first Bond overall, and Moore was the first retro Bond I ever watched.
I think Never Say Never Again was lauded by the critics when it came out. For instance, Siskel and Ebert were ecstatic to have Connery come back and gave it big thumbs up. If rotten tomatoes aggregated the older critic scores, I can understand why it is so high. However, NSNA seems to have not withstood the test of time with fans or critics.
With RT it’s important to remember three things: 1) Percentages are not scores. They are just measures of how many critics recommended seeing the movie vs. skipping it. It’s more useful in how it gathers reviews for you to look at than the percentage provided. 2) Critics are not general audiences and not necessarily fans. They’re people who are paid to watch dozens of movies a year. Their view will naturally be different from the average Joe’s. 3) Audience scores aren’t always reliable due to review bombing, artificial inflation, etc. It’s the same reason IMDb’s rankings aren’t worthwhile, anyone can give it ranking and not have to justify it. Bottom line: the scores aren’t as important as what people actually say about the movie.
I think review bombing is way overblown. I have personally hardly ever seen a movie where I couldn't understand the audience score. Especially the movies that get called out on it the most like last Jedi or some marvel movies. Generally I think there are positive review bombs that balance out the negative. I trust the audience score way more then the critic score. The other two points are very true. I would say its always best to ignore the 1 stars and the 5 stars and focus on the remaining in judging a film.
This is a fun little exercise; however, the problem here is that unless the same exact critics and the same audiences are "grading" each film individually and the exact same RT criteria is being used to determine if a review is interpreted as being a recommendation or not, a lot of the nitty gritty in the numbers is basically pointless. That's exactly why there's no consistency in the overall summary of the critic responses to each movie. It's why they sometimes contradict each other. If the same audiences/critics were reviewing each movie individually, that would eliminate or mitigate this flaw. In short, when it comes to RT, the variability in the source of the data is just too high to really make any significantly definitive conclusions for this exercise.
This is the exact example as to why listening to a critic review feels pointless. Having NSNE so high while then having TWINE so low blows my mind. I feel like there is a bias against Moore and Brosnan and a bias towards Connery.
I think most critics would rather you read the review in full rather than the star rating/ summary on Rotten Tomatoes. I remember Siskel and Ebert said the discussion would tell you there actual feelings more than just the 'thumbs up/down' But it's all subjective as we find on this comments section all the time given one fan's favorite Bond is at least one other fans least favorite Bond which for me the variety of opinions is one of the best things about the Bond fandom.
@@jamesatkinsonja same with Anthony Fantano and his numbering score. He'll make a 10+ minute review of an entire album, but people will skip to the end. So if he gives an album a 5 (out of 10), then they'll automatically hate on him, despite an entire video explaining what he likes/doesn't like about the album.
@@btf_flotsam478 I know right? Amazing. The critics summaries on rotten tomatoes are crazy.....so much love for Die Another Day, back in 2002. Seriously.
I’m not surprised the critic and audience scores differentiate quite a bit. I was actually surprised that Dalton’s films were highly rated critically, and just above average with audience ratings. I’ve always admired Dalton as bond and he’s my second favourite just below Connery. The common complaint for Dalton with audiences seems to be Dalton’s lack of humour and “It” factor to be James Bond (the latter which I disagree with). Flipping through the audience reviews it appears that people just don’t think he has the bond “Feel”. Well that’s probably true in the cinematic bond sense but Dalton played it like the early Fleming novels so not everyone likes that.
When it comes to older films, including the Bond series there are fewer reviews so it is easier for films' scores to eschew very positively or very negatively. Octopussy only has 49 reviews from critics, and Never Say Never Again has 53, whilst Die Another Day had 222 reviews on RT.
Somebody posted on Reddit recently about the bottom 5 on Rotten Tomatoes and I couldn’t believe it! Brosnan takes a brutal and very much undeserved beating on this silly site.
In regards to NTTD… its videos like Calvins and certain podcasts that have managed to balance the opinions of fans. Listen to Smershpod’s episodes on NTTD, not only hilarious but actually raise a point or two on how to improve the film.
I sad and shocked by how low Goldeneye was in audience score and even critics. It was such a huge film when it released and introduced Bond to 90s kids like myself. I thought for sure it would have more love than the more dreary Craig entries.
Siskel & Ebert's review of the various Bond films including a retrospective of the series is on youtube and its very inconsistent. It's very clear the two are big Connery fans and they write off Lazenby and Moore. Gene Siskel states in his Living Daylights review that they should've gone with Brosnan. Skip ahead to Goldeneye and he hates it. They both seem to take the position that Connery IS Bond thus their positive review of Never Say Never Again. Although Roger Ebert did write back in 1969 that he enjoyed Lazenby and OHMSS, stating that he could see future Bond films with different actors.
I'm usually a fan of rotten tomatoes - But I can not for the life of me understand how Die Another Day is the second highest rated Brosnan film, or even close to the mid-range for that matters.
It would be very interesting to see some follow-up videos comparing how imdb and letterboxd rates the films by comparison. I always found the latter to be the best when it comes to finding a consensus on a film.
I disagree with Rotten Tomatoes on a lot of the Roger Moore Bond films and Never Say Never Again but then again I disagree with Rotten Tomatoes on a lot of movies in general. I rely more on Rotten Tomatoes audience scores, Metacritic audience scores and IMDB and Letterboxd scores.
That moment Calvin realises License to Kill is a legit good Bond movie. Definitely picked up a cult following. I believe the audience back in 89 was still prepared for a campy adventure and they were hit with a gritty revenge story. One of my favourites for sure.
@@Anawackp15 same for me. He's a bit of a tart. But then he does vote Lib Dems and Labour (despite the fact they lied about tuition fees and started the bleeding Iraq war) apparently aslong as they're leftwing that means they're a good party and worthy of our vote... LOL
I agree with your opinion that we here in the Bond community share very similar views to how we feel about the films more or less. It's a bit jarring to see some of the audience scores for these films and just how they differ from what Bond fans think of them.
Really enjoyed this as usual. The 'live reaction' format was a bit different for a list video which was funny. The pics used on RT are from the post skyfall releases,hence why the Bond is looking stern in most of them!
TWINE is my favorite. It was the first 007 movie I watched in full after having played the gaming and getting stuck in Kazachstan. I did not know I had to cling onto the bar in order to avoid the blast. We played the mission over and over again but Renard always got us until we watched the movie. Okay, a bit of Nostalgia involved, but I still think it´s the best movies whenever I rewatch them. It finds the perfect balance between silliness (e.g. too much in Moonraker) and seriousness (too much in many Craig movies) in my opinion and has the best bondgirl/villain in the series with Elektra King. BTW I made a song about her with AI.
Re: The RT summary... Perhaps you could say CASINO was a more daring than NTTD as it stripped most of the popular elements away from the general public's perception of a 'Bond Film' versus adding extra twists
I didn't like "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" very much first time I watched it, because I didn't like George Lazenby as Bond, but after I have watched it sometimes and gotten used to George Lazenby I enjoy it a lot more.
The strange scores you are seeing for some of these films are probably just emotional reactions from critics and audiences at the time they were released - especially OHMSS. That one was probably just everyone being traumatized by the absence of Sean Connery! I remember most people used to hate that one. It was only us die hard fans that recognized it as a great film early on. In fact - believe it or not, I remember critics actually LOVED Never Say Never Again when it came out simply because Sean Connery was back! It was thought to be a classic and far superior to Octopussy!! Funny how time has changed things - especially that - rather DRAMATICALLY LOL!
Yes all very true, I'm sure I'm remembering correctly that on Siskel and Ebert's At the Movies show they said NASA was better than Octopussy, in what universe did they watch those films?
I don't think it is about the reactions on release in this case, at least not for OHMSS, out of 54 reviews listed on rotten tomatoes only a single one is from before 2000 and that one is even positive. And the audience scores are pretty much just users that have rated on the site, so you are not going to find any that predate the site itself, unless you have older users that rate movies they have not seen in 30+ years. All that being said the stigma of the film being the one with the "one-off Bond" is something the film has been stuck with long after the initial reactions and the shift in opinion about it is pretty noticeable even just in the last couple decades.
ITV usually skipped OHMSS when they used to show Bond films in prime time slots during the 90's/early 2000's, usually bunging it on the Sunday afternoon slot instead.
@@alwaysOPEN4business Gene Siskel from the Worst of 1985 episode where 'View to a kill was a dishonorable mention 'I hope this is the last James Bond film with Roger Moore who is largely responsible for ruining what was once a great movie series'.
I think Daniel Craig's rating will fall significantly in a few years... The same thing happened to Pierce Brosnan after the end of his term... *** In fact, the best Bond films ever are: 1965, 1967, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987(!!!), 1989, 1995.
My girlfriend and I have been watching the entire series from beginning to end for the first time and I gotta say I'm not shocked to see Thunderball so high up. It was so entertaining! The last fight in the boat had me gasping for air it was so funny.
I generally use Metacritic instead but, now that I look at it, their Bond list has other positions that would make a Bond fan’s blood boil! Interesting to compare though.
Very enjoyable video, Calvin, with lots of commensurate and indeed shared head shaking on some of the rankings. I was very, VERY surprised to see that the top 3 are also my top 3 favorite films, but as for the rest, I can only say that way madness lies. Like you, I never used to think much of DR. NO, but in the last couple of decades it has slowly creeped up to being my third fave. Studying the era in which it was made and learning how to place it in its context substantially increased my admiration over the years. Maybe it will with you as well once more perspective sets in as you get older. It's funny how often my Top 10 Bonds have changed, always a work in progress. 🙃
People underestimate the polarity factor with Bond movies. Especially on "yay or nay" aggregates, where it's not which ones anyone likes most but which ones cause people to break away altogether and how many.
Watching this again - when For Your Eyes Only came up, I had a bit of brain freeze, and just couldn't for the life of me remember which one it was. So I checked out the trailer - it is nearly FOUR minutes long! And I can't believe Never Say Never got 70% - that's mental..... 👍😊❤
I’m 61 so I’ve lived most of these new and the list is decent. I have Goldfinger on top followed by Casino Royale, Skyfall and believe it or not, Spy Who Loved Me. I think that one saved the franchise.
I mostly agree with your rankings. I have From Russia with Love on top followed by Goldfinger, Casino Royale, Skyfall, Dr. No and then The Spy Who Loved Me. But I do think that TSWLM did save the franchise from oblivion.
Those critic summaries are ridiculous 🙄 I understand that people's opinions are entirely subjective - it's okay if like me you love NTTD, and it's equally okay if you hate it, for example - but how can anyone claim that DAD is somehow more finely crafted than TWINE or TND? 😳
My fav bond films ranking 1) Skyfall 2) no time to die 3) casino Royale 4) golden eye 5) goldfinger 6) dr no 7) from Russia with love 8) license to kill 9) tomorrow never dies 10) thunderball 11) you only live twice
You should consider doing a ranking video of your favorite Bond titles. It's an underrated but important aspect and I'd be curious to hear which ones you think best suit the genre and provoke the most intrigue and which ones fall flat (could even include the short stories). I personally always loved "The World is Not Enough". Good filler video while we wait for announcements on the next movie!
I generally look at not really the percentage of the critic score. More than average score out of 10 that the critics gave. Dr No has a 95% rating compared to Skyfall’s 92%. But on average, critics gave Dr No a 7.5/10 compared to Skyfall on average getting a 8.2/10. Rotten tomatoes gets a bad rap, mostly because we look at the percentage and nothing else.
This is exactly why I don't ever go to Rotten Tomatoes. Film is art you can't put a definitive score on a piece of art and make it a competition by comparing it to others. Film criticism is far more undefined than what the internet would have you believe.
You know what would be an interesting Topic for Calvon to discuss? How Audience reacted when Sean Connery suddenly came back for a single Movie and more or less "replacing" Roger Moore for a bit. Also fascinating would be how Moore reacted and if he maybe thought he'd be replaced for good or something.
I think for Goldfinger, they were saying that it established the series blueprint, and they were using :"Martini shaken, not stirred" as just one example of it laying the groundwork. Kind of like how SAW II laid the groundwork for the rest of the SAW franchise, the energy and style that the series would have moving forward.
I love The World Is Not Enough too. Sure it ain't GoldenEye but it doesn't deserve to be considered the worst Brosnan movie when Die Another Day exists which I feel like Die Another Day is wayyyyyyy to high.
I have actually had a similar experience with Craig as I did Brosnan. I loved their first outing and bit by bit my interest dropped off for it, whereas initially getting into Bond with Roger Moore, I indulged myself in all of them over and over.
I actually understand the relatively split decision for OHMSS. Due to Lazenby's wooden performance, investment in the relationship with Tracy is required. Some audiences just don't have the level of investment needed.
Doesn’t surprise me. I became a fan in 2000 and the consensus of Brosnan’s films was very reflective of the time. It’s not that people thought Brosnan was bad, it’s the films that were seen as lesser. TOMORROW NEVER DIES and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH were my very first Bond films, but I sort of dismissed them as forgettable at the time. Only later did I see GOLDENEYE and that was the film that made me want to watch more Bond movies.
Rotten Tomatoes is just flat wrong here. They messed up the most crucial critical point of the Bond series: There isn’t a single bad official film and Casino Royale ‘67 and Never Say Never Again were both complete garbage.
We as Bond fans have to admit that we love Bond despite the fact that most Bond films are formulaic, repetitive and kind of crap. Of course film critics are gonna poo poo the Bond films, even the good ones. Bond films cannot be rated like average films. They must be rated on a Bondmetre instead, because even the worst rated Bond films like Diamonds and Golden Gun are so much fun to watch and re-watch.
Yes, and thats way they tried so hard to please critics and change up things with NTTD, Skyfall and Spectre, and i actually hate it, that formula is what makes a bond movie and not just another actionflick from hollywood.
I agree on you shouldn’t make a decision to see a movie based on a RT score, I also think it’s beyond stupid to claim it’s a terrible site and getting mad and bent out of shape because of not liking a films score from there. I’ve definitely disagreed with plenty of scores on there but it’s so eye rolling seeing people say “don’t trust this site” “Rotten Tomatoes should be shut down” and “they don’t know what they’re talking about” simply because you don’t agree with the score for a certain film. Also people need to remember, the score is not a grade for the movie
It’s important to remember that not only is RT an aggregator, but newer movies will have A LOT more reviews accounted for. New releases can have 200+ reviews while older movies will often only have 30 or less. Definitely skews the percentages.
Bond has a problem with many of the films being let down by a poor final act. I really liked Thunderball but the silly underwater action didn't cut it for me. Die Another Day was really good until they got to Iceland. The Man With the Golden Gun? The mirror maze was a let down even though the McGuffin was good enough. Moonraker at least embraced it even though the ending was just a redo of You Only Live Twice. Diamonds Are Forever. Dumb oil rig action sequences, although I loved the coda. I think 'Tomorrow Never Dies' is a far better film than people give credit to. I guess my problem was I'd read the books first before seeing my first film (For the record, 'The Spy Who Loved Me'.) The books were thrillers, not action adventures, The film 'From Russia With Love' is an underrated classic. Still love it and mostly book accurate. My favourite book is probably 'Moonraker' although the film deviated to the zeitgeist which I don't blame it for. And as for 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service', the film was very close to the book. Connery would have been dreadful in it!
I don't think your opinion of the list is unfair per se, but I think some useful context is those consensus scores are aggregated from the reviews of that day, meaning for Dr. No 1962 standards would have been applied. I don't think that film has stood the test of time. OHMSS has and frankly is rated fairly given how many people dislike Lazenby's performance (I felt he did a good job.) Also I'm guessing those summaries were written in batches by different staffers, one of whom obviously didn't like gadgetry.
