Critics’ reviews

Live and Let Die (1973)

12 reviews from 12 publications. Critics’ score 64: 6 positive, 4 mixed, 2 negative.

Back to our review of Live and Let Die

64
Positive
6
Mixed
4
Negative
2
Radio Times
★★★★ · Tom Hutchinson
80

Roger Moore's first Bond outing pits 007 against voodoo and Yaphet Kotto, with Jane Seymour as love interest. It delivers Saturday-matinee thrills and splendid action sequences including a record-breaking speedboat leap, though adversaries are as mechanical as Moore himself.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Ian Nathan
75*

The critic finds it good quality Bond that successfully updates the formula for Roger Moore with a lighter, more playful touch, particularly praising the Caribbean locations and voodoo elements, though noting it lacks an explosive finale.

Read the full review →
IndieWire
3 September 2026 · Jim Hemphill
70*

The critic argues that Live and Let Die demonstrates Roger Moore as the best James Bond. The film blends spy thriller elements with blaxploitation and establishes the tone for Moore's decade-long tenure in the role.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
28 June 1973 · Roger Greenspun
70*

The latest Bond adventure takes nerve in its premise and insolence toward pieties but delivers with clever pacing, photography, editing and effective use of its theme song. It features a phlegmatic but handsome Roger Moore as 007 amid grotesque killings and chases.

Read the full review →
Variety
1 January 1973
65*

Roger Moore makes an okay replacement for Sean Connery as Bond in a comic-book plot filled with hardware production numbers, chases and hazards like sharks and crocodiles. The film introduces a new direction for the series with voodoo and heroin schemes.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
9 July 1973 · Penelope Gilliatt
60*

The film is an accumulation of clever tricks and stunts with a funny amphibious speedboat chase but little else of substance or fright. It succeeds through buffoonish flamboyance and a benign view of the material rather than depth or snobbery.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
6 July 1973 · Roger Ebert
40*

The film has all the necessary girls, gimmicks and stunts but lacks the wit and style of the best Bond movies. The substitution of Roger Moore for Sean Connery contributes to a more superficial take on the role.

Read the full review →
Sight and Sound
1 August 1973
40*

The critic likens the film to old Saturday matinee serials full of cheap melodramatic perils like snakes, voodoo and shark pools. While the chase sequences are crisply filmed, the Bond formula feels expensively diluted and the verbal exchanges are ponderous and predictable.

Read the full review →
Film Stories
1 June 2022 · Mark Harrison
90*

The critic calls the film one of the series’ all-time bangers for its mix of gangsters, horror, and smut, crediting Roger Moore with establishing a more cynical and mean-spirited Bond who still lands witty lines. They single out Moore’s performance and the film’s successful Blaxploitation-influenced modernization for praise.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
28 June 2019 · Max Williams
75*

The critic views it as nearly a classic and one of Moore’s best Bond films, praising the memorable villains, Solitaire, crocodiles, and voodoo elements, but notes the final half hour and boat chase fall flat.

Read the full review →
Paste
27 June 2023 · Kyle Turner
60*

The critic explores how Live and Let Die positions Bond as an outsider confronting legacies of colonialism and race in America through its blaxploitation influences. It highlights the film's focus on death and rebirth as fitting for Moore's debut, while noting the unresolved tensions in its cultural depictions.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
26 April 2015 · Jennie Kermode
50*

The critic describes the film as a sleazy affair that falls short of its predecessors but still delivers for action fans due to its pivotal place in Bond history. They single out the stunts, supporting performances from Hendry, Holder, and Hedison, and the theme song for praise while faulting Moore and Seymour’s leads.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate