Critics’ reviews

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 46: 2 positive, 3 mixed, 4 negative.

Back to our review of The Man with the Golden Gun

46
Positive
2
Mixed
3
Negative
4

The reviews lean negative, and almost every one of them agrees on the same thing: Christopher Lee. His Scaramanga is praised across the board as suave, aloof and the film’s chief pleasure, with several critics calling him its only saving grace. The car jump across the broken bridge is singled out as one of the series’ great stunts, and the locations get a word of approval. Beyond that, praise is thin.

The reservations cluster on the script and on Roger Moore, whom several critics find bland next to Connery, and on comedy that lands as fumbled or overdone. The spread is wide. Empire and Total Film both rate it a solid entertainment, Total Film admiring John Barry’s uneasy score where Eye for Film hears a weak one; Britt Ekland is funny to Radio Times and dim to Eye for Film. Den of Geek is harshest, calling the plot shambolic and the premise wasted.

Empire
22 September 2006 · Ian Freer
70*

The film delivers an entertaining 007 adventure that fits tonally with the Connery era, with strong action sequences and a memorably quirky villain in Christopher Lee’s Scaramanga. It suffers from an overemphasis on knockabout comedy and underdeveloped female characters.

Read the full review →
Total Film
19 July 2012 · Nick Setchfield
70*

The movie has a uniquely queasy, macabre atmosphere with surreal set-pieces and an uneasy John Barry score that makes Bond’s world feel dangerously strange. It also features one of the franchise’s great stunt sequences in the car jump across the broken bridge.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★ · Adrian Turner
60

The critic notes it improves on the novel, with fine villain Christopher Lee and funny Britt Ekland, but criticizes repeated climax scene and return of a character from previous film, while praising the location.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
19 December 1974
30*

The critic finds the film characterized by poverty of invention and excitement, with Roger Moore lacking Sean Connery's impudence and the script delivering dull chases and routine explosions. Christopher Lee and Herve Villechaize provide the only energetic moments with their sinister vitality.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · VG
30*

The critic finds it formulaic and lacking style, with a banal script and bland Bond performance from Roger Moore, but praises Christopher Lee's suave villainy as Scaramanga.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1973 · ** · Variety Staff
30*

The review notes the screenwriters aimed for more maturity and fewer gadgets but delivered comparatively spare mechanical devices and fumbled humor. The story diverts Bond to hunt a hit man using gold bullets, with Bond predictably conquering obstacles and ending with time for one of the Bond girls.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
11 June 2015 · Jennie Kermode
50*

The film is deeply uneven and unsure of itself with a weak score, dim Bond girl, silly lyrics and comedy missteps, but features impressive cinematography and Christopher Lee’s magnificent, aloof performance as Scaramanga.

Read the full review →
Film Stories
9 June 2022 · Mark Harrison
50*

Christopher Lee’s Scaramanga is the standout saving grace of this kitschy, frazzled Roger Moore Bond adventure weakened by production turmoil and silly elements. The piece emphasizes the strong villain performance amid middling franchise quality.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
19 December 2019 · Max Williams
20*

The critic deems the film lousy, criticizing its shambolic plot and wasted potential despite a brilliant premise. They single out Christopher Lee's compelling performance as the villain Scaramanga for praise.

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