.png){kind=logo}
Craig began contributing to Screen Rant in 2016 and has been ranting ever since, mostly to himself in a darkened room. After previously writing for various outlets, Craig's focus turned to TV and film, where a steady upbringing of science fiction and comic books finally became useful. Craig has previously been published by sites such as Den of Geek.
Craig is an approved critic on Rotten Tomatoes.
Over the past 64 years of its existence, the James Bond movie franchise has developed streaks and trends galore. There has, for example, never been a bad James Bond actor. Most actors who play 007 also come out of the gate strong with an impressive first outing - Dr. No, Live and Let Die, Goldeneye, Casino Royale.
Conversely, Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and Pierce Brosnan all ended their MI6 careers with weak efforts that hinted it was time for the role to be recast. There is, however, one trend in James Bond history that applies to every era of the franchise... with the exception of Pierce Brosnan's.
The "Third Bond Movie" Trend Explained
Sean Connery didn't exactly struggle to find his feet as James Bond. Dr. No remains one of the franchise's best efforts all these years later, and From Russia with Love could be considered even better. Nevertheless, the brand was still in its formative years, and it's Goldfinger that truly represents the pieces of James Bond coming together in one giant symphony of action and espionage.
You get the introductory action sequence for the first time. Bond's relationship with Q is more firmly established after Desmond Llewelyn's I-can't-believe-it's-not-Q cameo in From Russia with Love, and 007 finally drives an Aston Martin. Even if it isn't your personal favorite, it's impossible to deny that Goldfinger is both absolutely brilliant and the quintessential Connery-era Bond movie.
George Lazenby never got to experience making a second James Bond film, let alone a third, but Roger Moore did, and he broadly followed the template set out by Connery. Live and Let Die proved a solid beginning, even if The Man with the Golden Gun was no From Russia with Love, but then The Spy who Loved Me rode to the rescue as Moore's greatest moment.
The trend lives on in the modern era. Casino Royale gave Daniel Craig a stunning debut - stripped back, rough around the edges, no holds barred. Quantum of Solace would drag 007 to one of his lowest points, but the bounce-back with Skyfall was something to behold. Similar to the From Russia with Love/Goldfinger debate, it's difficult to say whether Casino Royale or Skyfall is Craig's crowning achievement, but like Goldfinger does for Connery, it's Skyfall that truly defines EON's final James Bond era.
Pierce Brosnan's Third James Bond Movie Was Quite Poor
Of all the James Bonds who starred in three or more movies, Pierce Brosnan is the only actor who could never claim with a straight face that their third was their strongest. 1999's The World Is Not Enough proved financially successful, boasted some great additions to the supporting cast, and utilized truly unique settings. Certainly, Brosnan's threequel helped to elevate his Bond as a cultural icon of the '90s.
But The World Is Not Enough suffered badly from a weak narrative, especially when compared to Goldeneye years prior, and marked the point where Brosnan's Bond began indulging more heavily in the cheesy tropes fans would see plenty more of in Die Another Day. The only argument would be whether The World Is Not Enough should be considered an outright bad movie, or just average and unspectacular.
Why Brosnan's The World Is Not Enough Couldn't Maintain James Bond's Hot Streak
Looking at the first three James Bond movies from Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and Daniel Craig, each of those eras was building something new. For Connery, it was the blueprint of what James Bond looked like on the big screen. For Moore, it was moving beyond Connery's considerable shadow. In Craig's case, it was modernizing the franchise without losing the core strands of 007's DNA.
For each Bond, it took until the third movie to perfect the formula.
When Pierce Brosnan stepped into Bond's bespoke shoes, the situation was quite different. Timothy Dalton's double-header had proven divisive upon release, and the 6-year gap between License to Kill and Goldeneye was unprecedented at that point. As such, EON would have headed into Goldeneye with a strong vision of what it wanted to do, both in response to the Dalton controversy, and after an extended hiatus.
As Brosnan's era developed, a new millennium beckoned. Then, in 1997, the randy specter of Austin Powers reared his head and Bond faced an existential dilemma. 007 was becoming a caricature of himself, and badly needed to update his shtick. Whereas most Bonds struggle at the beginning and/or end of their tenure, peaking somewhere in the middle, Pierce Brosnan experienced that identity crisis increasingly with each mission he undertook. By his third James Bond movie, that problem had firmly taken hold.
Upcoming Films James Bond 26
First TV Show Fleming: The Man Who Would be Bond
English (US) ·