Critical Response
I follow Rottentomatoes, so their scores are the ones I have used and its average critic scores are as follows: Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace had a combined average of 79.5%, with consensus being that the first one was excellent and the second one was a bit of a stinker. Mission Impossible III and Ghost Protocol had a combined average of 82%, with consensus being that Mission Impossible III was good and Ghost Protocol was excellent. The Bourne Trilogy had a combined average of 85.6%, with consensus being that the first two were good and the last one was excellent. What this tells me, first of all, is that we have been spoiled with great spy movies recently. Secondly, there is a trend of better and better reviews for Jason Bourne and Ethan Hunt while Bonds high stock fell drastically from Casino Royal to Quantum of Solace. Indeed, given the relative pummelling Quantum of Solace got from critics compared with the others, it just shows how much goodwill there still is for James Bond, regardless of who plays him and seemingly regardless of how good the movie is. In any case, if judged on critical response alone, The Bourne Trilogy does best overall. Now, this is a really important factor as after box office income the next most important thing film producers pay attention to are hacks. Which is remarkable, given what I know about people who review films. Anyway, let's see how the Box Office and critics moved producers to tamper with their secret agents' winning formulas. Click "next" for "Tampering With The Formula"