Thunderball - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Thunderball Reviews

Page 1 of 3
Scott G. Mignola
Common Sense Media
January 2, 2011
Even James Bond can miss his mark.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/5
Philip Martin
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
July 29, 2002
Read More | Original Score: 2/5
Austin Kennedy
Sin Magazine
October 19, 2012
The ambition is evident throughout, but the execution just doesn't have enough energy to sustain it. THUNDERBALL is very sluggish.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/4
Nick Rogers
Suite101.com
June 30, 2012
Turgidly paced and overly reliant on less-than-thrilling underwater sequences, it's the "Moonraker" of Sean Connery's run -a misstep defined by heyday technology that the producers thought would look cool in the era but feels hopelessly stale today.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/5
Andy Klein
Los Angeles CityBeat
May 23, 2004
Read More | Original Score: 2/5
Top Critic
Dave Kehr
Chicago Reader
May 6, 2008
Slightly bloated Bond, with too much technology for my taste and a climactic slaughter that's a little too mindless to be much fun.
MFB Critics
Monthly Film Bulletin
October 23, 2015
Terence Young's direction is nothing if not taut, whisking the narrative along with the speed and precision of a jet plane, defying one to express boredom.
Top Critic
James Berardinelli
ReelViews
January 1, 2000
Classic 007 -- not the best picture in the long-running series, to be sure, but a more-than-worthwhile diversion for the action-loving escapist in us all.
Full Review | Original Score: 3/4
Scott Nash
Three Movie Buffs
December 20, 1965
With a few edits Thunderball could have been one of the best Bond films, but as it is, it's still one of the better ones.
Full Review | Original Score: 3/4
James Rocchi
Netflix
November 7, 2002
It's remarkably good fun. It's retro enough to be amusing in the dull bits and timeless enough to be fresh and vital today.
Full Review | Original Score: 4/5
Scott Weinberg
eFilmCritic.com
July 26, 2002
| Original Score: 5/5
Rob Vaux
Flipside Movie Emporium
April 14, 2003
A big step down from Goldfinger, but still moderately entertaining.
| Original Score: 3/5
Jeffrey Lyles
Lyles' Movie Files
October 23, 2015
Connery's last exceptional Bond as it gives 007 a competent villain, a thrilling adventure in an unusual setting, great Bond Babes and one of the series' all-time best scenes.
Full Review | Original Score: 8.5/10
Tim Brayton
Antagony & Ecstasy
June 17, 2012
A particularly energetic, jaunty Bond adventure, the kind that is just plain fun to watch, in a perfectly relaxed and undemanding register.
Full Review | Original Score: 7/10
Top Critic
Variety Staff
Variety
May 6, 2008
There's visible evidence that the reported $5.5 million budget was no mere publicity figure; it's posh all the way.
Christopher Null
Filmcritic.com
January 1, 2000
It's too long and doesn't make any sense at times, but it's a real jaw-dropper (especially for 1965).
Full Review | Original Score: 3.5/5
Jeffrey Westhoff
Northwest Herald (Crystal Lake, IL)
August 9, 2002
While enjoyable, this is probably the most overrated Bond movie.
| Original Score: 3/5
John J. Puccio
Movie Metropolis
November 21, 2003
If it doesn't live up to its illustrious predecessors...well, it still has Connery, and that's a plus in anybody's book.
Full Review | Original Score: 7/10
Robin Clifford
Reeling Reviews
November 19, 2004
| Original Score: 3/5
Dennis Schwartz
Ozus' World Movie Reviews
February 12, 2009
It was still fun despite its shortcomings.
Full Review | Original Score: B
Page 1 of 3