The new James Bond film Quantum of Solace opens in the UK this Friday, with America getting it a week later. I was looking forward to it until I saw the reviews. Almost without exception, everybody seems to be underwhelmed, with two stars out of five the most common assessment. To a large extent Bond films are critic-proof, a high-octane institution full of bangs and flashes [in more ways than one]. But a great Bond film is a treat to savour.Daniel Craig's first appearance as 007 in Casino Royale injected fresh like into a long-familiar franchise. Much the same happened when Pierce Brosnan took over as Bond in Goldeneye. Even the much-maligned Timothy Dalton was considered a breath of fresh air in The Living Daylights after the safari suit shenanigans of the 1980s. And Roger Moore brought new life and vitality to 007 when he made his debut in Live and Let Die some 35 years ago.
But all four of these Bonds had a considerably less successful second outing. Moore's sophomore effort The Man With the Golden Gun is less than memorable. License to Kill fails to thrill, only killing Dalton's fledgling residency as Bond. Tomorrow Never Dies bores for Britain, sticking Brosnan with a steaming mess of hokum. It seems Quantum of Solace may be another sticky second helping for Craig. [George Lazenby never got a second chance.]
There's a theory among geeks that even-numbered Star Trek films are always better than those with odd numbers. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan certainly trumps its predecessor, Star Trek: The Slow Motion Picture. Trek IV: The Voyage Home thumps III: The Search For Spock - and so on. [The exception is Trek X, which all but killed the franchise.] Perhaps a similar theory should be posited for second efforts for new James Bond actors.
The question is why so sophomore Bonds slump? The arrival of a new 007 gives the production team a chance to redefine the character and the franchise. They can kick against everything that typified the previous Bond - safari suits and smug quips, dull and dour, invisible cars and quiffs, etc. Sometimes there's a longer gap between old and new 007s, allowing more time for script development and rediscovering the essence of Bond for a new era.
But once the first effort works, the pressure comes to pump out another Bond and capitalise on that success. As a consequence, the second film of a new 007 struggles to recapture the lightning in a bottle qualities of its predecessor. It's a common phenomenon in US TV drama, where a new show seems amazingly innovative first time round but less so the second time of asking. They even have a name for this - the sophomore slump.
Just witness the less than stellar offerings found in the second seasons of Desperate Housewives, Heroes, Ugly Bettery - my beloved Friday Night Lights couldn't match the genius of its first season last year. [Happily the current third season is back in the zone.] Mad Men just finished its second season with a stunning finale, but couldn't quite meet the standard of its first year. Even The Wire's second season was not the equal of its dazzling debut.
So it is with second films for new 007 actors. There is one exception is to this newly minted geek theory: Sean Connery. His second appearance as Bond was From Russia With Love, building nicely on the success of Dr No. But his 007 didn't take off until the third film, Goldfinger. So there's hope yet for Daniel Craig. Expect a return to form in Bond 23, due sometime in 2010 or 2011.
Finding a title for the next Bond may be problematic. The producers are running out of original Ian Fleming titles. Only three short story names remain unused - The Property of a Lady [sounds like a Henry James novel], Risico [doesn't sound like anything] and The Hildebrand Rarity [sounds like a Robert Ludlum book - as if Jason Bourne hasn't caused the Bond franchise enough problems].
Perhaps we should take comfort in the knowledge things can get better. The Man With the Golden Gun was succeeded by The Spy Who Loved Me, one of Moore's finest Bond films [IMHO]. The World Is Not Enough was a significant improvement on Tomorrow Never Dies for Brosnan. Fingers crossed Bond 23 gets things back on track for Daniel Craig, after what may be a less than stellar second appearance as 007 in Quantum of Solace. Time will tell, as usual.
13 comments:
It's definitely a four-star film for me, although I'm not a Bond nut so it's possible my expectations are lower. I didn't understand most of the plot, but it blew me away on several occasions: good enough for me!
If a Bond film has a plot you can't understand, that's a bad, bad sign.
Why's that, sir? From my fairly casual viewing of Bond films before, I always thought that the enjoyment of them comes mainly from the character of Bond and the action, rather than the plot.
You missed out the marvellous short story '007 In New York', which is surely crying out for a big screen adaptation. Particularly the memorable sequence where James Bond shares his recipe for scrambled eggs.
Goldeneye and Casino Royale also had the advantage of Martin Campbell as director, a man who really seems to know what he's doing when it comes to Bond films. J
I'm ashamed to say that I've not seen a Bond film since "Licence To Kill"
Tomorrow Never Dies is my favourite of the Brosnan Bonds, and Man with the Golden Gun is one of my favourite of Roger Moore's. This might say more about me than it does your theory.
Never, never understood the critical aversion to TND; Comfortably the most exciting, accessible and re-watchable Brosnan flick. From the never-bettered pre-credits to the Britainnia-Rules-The-Waves coda, a neat, simple, straight up-and-down Bond movie that pushes all the buttons. So, it's a remake of TSWLM; and that's a bad thing how, exactly?
I'm afraid Guez is right about TMWTGG, too. A bit second-division in its general demeanor, perhaps; but Moore and Lee are terrific, Ekland is edible, and Barry is on fire.
You'll probably be relieved to hear I'm not going to make a case for LTK! ;-)
Never afraid to contradict myself, I have to confess Licence to Kill is a definite guilty pleasure for me.
But TMWTGG bores me senseless, ditto TND. I suspect affection for Bond films is partially based on the age you were when you first saw them.
I was the perfect age to see Moonraker and loved every second.
I enjoyed Quantum of Solace if you check out my review on the blog. I agree with Jason that it's a 4 star film.
Moonraker was the only film I ever saw at the cinema; I was 9, I went on my own and it was at Butlins, Barry Island.
I adore Licence to Kill and Tomorrow Never Dies. The former is a nice change for the franchise - made nastier and brutally violent than its predecessors - and the latter has the best motorcycle vs helicopter chase ever put on screen (although the stealth boat is deeply underwhelming).
My first cinema Bond was TSWLM, and you're right, you can't beat that. I was 11 for "Moonraker" and loved it senseless, and though my ardour has cooled it's still great.
Sadly, I was 29 when TND came around, so it falls down a bit there. But yes, as a cinematic Bond experience, it's up there with TSWLM. And as I've said, that pre-credits "White Knight" mini-movie is the best one ever. It just doesn't get any more perfect.
Post a Comment