The case for and against... Martin Campbell

11214161718

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited June 16 Posts: 8,399
    The one director no bond fan would complain about on Bond 26:

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited June 16 Posts: 8,216
    3, 2, 1… let the complaints begin.

    I would actually welcome his return; Campbell “ gets” Bond and that is incredibly important.
    Before someone mentions his age, he is fit, healthy and obviously still has a passion for filmmaking. As far as his other films not measuring up to his Bond films, I could not care less; he does Bond well and that’s all that matters.

    Give Campbell a strong script and the right actor as Bond and let’s roll.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Campbell understands what makes a great Bond film and he's more versatile than he's given credit for
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Campbell understands what makes a great Bond film and he's more versatile than he's given credit for

    I agree...
  • Posts: 4,162
    I'm kind of in the 'it depends' camp for Campbell and Bond 26. I think he understands the fundamentals of how to make a good Bond movie. But it depends on what they want from Bond 26...

    If he was picked I suspect there'd be a good reason.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,044
    This man knows Bond's anatomy inside out. Plus, if he directs Bond 26, a casino scene is certain...not as lengthy as CR, but Bond always visits the casino in Campbell's Bond films.
  • edited June 17 Posts: 1,368
    Campbell is only as good as the script. That's why he has more bad movies than good ones.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited June 17 Posts: 2,044
    Campbell is only as good as the script. That's why he has more bad movies than good ones.

    It seems to me he respects Bond more and pays closer attention to Bond scripts than other films' scripts.
  • edited June 17 Posts: 1,368
    Campbell is only as good as the script. That's why he has more bad movies than good ones.

    It seems to me he respects Bond more and pays closer attention to Bond scripts than other films' scripts.

    well, you like GE more than I do.

    I can't believe Casino Royale was directed by the director of GE.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I'd love Martin Campbell to be officially involved behind the scenes at EON, perhaps his presence would cast too much of a shadow over any potential director? As well I doubt Martin would want to move upstairs as it were
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited June 17 Posts: 2,044
    Campbell is only as good as the script. That's why he has more bad movies than good ones.

    It seems to me he respects Bond more and pays closer attention to Bond scripts than other films' scripts.

    well, you like GE more than I do.

    I can't believe Casino Royale was directed by the director of GE.

    Why? The two movies are almost identical in style. Oh, yeah, I love GoldenEye.
  • edited June 17 Posts: 1,368
    Campbell is only as good as the script. That's why he has more bad movies than good ones.

    It seems to me he respects Bond more and pays closer attention to Bond scripts than other films' scripts.

    well, you like GE more than I do.

    I can't believe Casino Royale was directed by the director of GE.

    Why? The two movies are almost identical in style. Oh, yeah, I love GoldenEye.

    The script and... well GE looks like a TV movie with those close-ups.

    Campbell was a TV director and you can see that in GE.

  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited June 17 Posts: 2,044
    Campbell is only as good as the script. That's why he has more bad movies than good ones.

    It seems to me he respects Bond more and pays closer attention to Bond scripts than other films' scripts.

    well, you like GE more than I do.

    I can't believe Casino Royale was directed by the director of GE.

    Why? The two movies are almost identical in style. Oh, yeah, I love GoldenEye.

    The script and... well GE looks like a TV movie with those close-ups.

    Campbell was a TV director and you can see that in GE.

    Oh, that didn't bother me at all. It was still the mid-90s. The 80s was still a bit in their bloodstream.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    GE simply using close-up shots doesn't make it look like a TV movie. If that's the case then De Palma would be a TV director and Silence Of The Lambs is the best TV movie ever made.
  • Posts: 4,162
    Close ups aren’t inherently ‘television movie’. As was said, it’s actually very cinematic.

    Anyway, I’d say GE is actually a pretty well made film. A lot of the cinematography/camera movements and editing choices are actually quite complex and well crafted. Not to say it’s a stylistically bombastic film, just very well done.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    I must admit I wouldn't be automatically cheered if he were announced to direct the next one. Chances are we'd get a solid one, but as mentioned above he's made his fair share of turkeys and we may just have got lucky so far. He's maybe not the most exciting choice.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    Yes, I think it's fair to say I'd be happy enough but not bowled over either. Campbell's "nuts and bolts" approach means we'd get something very solid if nothing else. Simple, but effective most likely. He'd be the directorial choice equivalent of putting on an old pair of slippers.
  • Posts: 4,162
    The one thing I will say that makes CR stand out from GE are some of the more ‘out there’ cinematic choices (ie. The black and white opening, the blurry image/camerawork after Bond is poisoned). Not sure who exactly even pushed for that (may well have been Campbell/we could get more visual flourishes if he became director again).

    Overall though, I actually like Campbell’s approach. As much as Fukunaga’s directing had a lot of flair I’m not a fan of the way he moves the camera during action sequences (ie compare the staircase fight in NTTD to the one in CR. There’s this sense that the camera seems to move independently of the characters with the long take, and it takes away a bit of the believability for me. The editing and camera movements in CR feel much more purposeful/connected to the actors’ movements and personally immerse me in the scene a bit more).
  • Posts: 1,368
    GE simply using close-up shots doesn't make it look like a TV movie. If that's the case then De Palma would be a TV director and Silence Of The Lambs is the best TV movie ever made.


    Funny enough, MI looked better too.


    Casino Royale looks like... well, a movie with a healthy budget and it's not TSWLM either. It's mostly a poker game!

    Anyway, it's my opinion.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,044
    GE simply using close-up shots doesn't make it look like a TV movie. If that's the case then De Palma would be a TV director and Silence Of The Lambs is the best TV movie ever made.


    Funny enough, MI looked better too.


    Casino Royale looks like... well, a movie with a healthy budget and it's not TSWLM either. It's mostly a poker game!

    Anyway, it's my opinion.

    Do you mean that because of De Palma's dutch angles?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    GE and CR are both superb Bond films in my book, the best of their respective actor's tenure. What appeals to me is that they bring the proper balance between charming and cold, if that makes sense. I get an action thriller and a dramatic film at the same time, never trying to oversell either (unlike, say, TND or TWINE). On top of that, the "cool-Bond factor" is always there, with 007 very generous in terms of "memorable Bond moments". Fewer "jokes" but still not too grim, that sort of thing; the balance is always right. And that is something I partially credit to Campbell.

    That said, I'm astonished by his output outside the Bond series. A couple of his films are okay, good even, but he's mostly made forgettable stuff beyond that. Then again, John Glen, whose Bond films I find really good for about 80%, didn’t really direct anything of notable quality after LTK either. Perhaps some guys deliver their best work with Bond, and that's fine.

    Still, Campbell was given the interesting challenge of introducing a new actor in the role. While never a guaranteed success, there is, I believe, something of an advantage tied to that. Unburdoned with what had come before, you can start experimenting a bit, create a new vision, help to establish a fresh tone. Both times, Campbell succeeded. GE took Bond next-level, whereas CR took him to base-level so to speak, and audiences appreciated the move on both occasions. Some even say that Campbell "saved the series twice" with a successful reset after more uncertain or confusing times.

    But Campbell never returned for follow-up films. We don't know how well he would handle the difficult task of giving the new actor, after his exciting introduction, even more exciting adventures without slipping into either dull repetition or gross exxageration -- and there's always a DAD lurking in the shadows. Also, two films, both dear to me, may not paint a complete picture of a director. Perhaps we simply got lucky, twice, and Campbell was dealt easy cards, though I'm still willing to give him more credit.

    A return of Campbell for number 3 seems a bit far-fetched, though. Some here will resent me for saying this, but at 80, he may find himself a bit exhausted for the demanding job of directing a Bond film. Also, while I think the world of his two Bond films, I don't treat him -- or anyone else -- as the lord our savior of the Bond films. I think it's utterly ridiculous to pin our hopes on merely one guy, whether he's Campbell, Nolan, Villeneuve,...
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 143
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    GE and CR are both superb Bond films in my book, the best of their respective actor's tenure. What appeals to me is that they bring the proper balance between charming and cold, if that makes sense. I get an action thriller and a dramatic film at the same time, never trying to oversell either (unlike, say, TND or TWINE). On top of that, the "cool-Bond factor" is always there, with 007 very generous in terms of "memorable Bond moments". Fewer "jokes" but still not too grim, that sort of thing; the balance is always right. And that is something I partially credit to Campbell.

    That said, I'm astonished by his output outside the Bond series. A couple of his films are okay, good even, but he's mostly made forgettable stuff beyond that. Then again, John Glen, whose Bond films I find really good for about 80%, didn’t really direct anything of notable quality after LTK either. Perhaps some guys deliver their best work with Bond, and that's fine.

    Still, Campbell was given the interesting challenge of introducing a new actor in the role. While never a guaranteed success, there is, I believe, something of an advantage tied to that. Unburdoned with what had come before, you can start experimenting a bit, create a new vision, help to establish a fresh tone. Both times, Campbell succeeded. GE took Bond next-level, whereas CR took him to base-level so to speak, and audiences appreciated the move on both occasions. Some even say that Campbell "saved the series twice" with a successful reset after more uncertain or confusing times.

    But Campbell never returned for follow-up films. We don't know how well he would handle the difficult task of giving the new actor, after his exciting introduction, even more exciting adventures without slipping into either dull repetition or gross exxageration -- and there's always a DAD lurking in the shadows. Also, two films, both dear to me, may not paint a complete picture of a director. Perhaps we simply got lucky, twice, and Campbell was dealt easy cards, though I'm still willing to give him more credit.

    A return of Campbell for number 3 seems a bit far-fetched, though. Some here will resent me for saying this, but at 80, he may find himself a bit exhausted for the demanding job of directing a Bond film. Also, while I think the world of his two Bond films, I don't treat him -- or anyone else -- as the lord our savior of the Bond films. I think it's utterly ridiculous to pin our hopes on merely one guy, whether he's Campbell, Nolan, Villeneuve,...
    Great post. CR and GE are my two favourite Bonds and whilst Campbell could not be perceived to be singularly responsible for their execution, in a dream scenario, part of me would love for him to be announced as director for Bond 26. He’s more than likely too old and perhaps doesn’t have the CV outside of Bond to get the gig now (considering the way the series has gone), but I would be a lot more excited to see Campbell directing Bond 26 than Villeneuve.
    If he did a third and it sucked, then we could reflect and say that maybe he got lucky with CR and GE but two out of two ain’t bad.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    2021's 'The Protege' was awesome. He's still a fantastic director.
  • edited June 19 Posts: 1,368
    GE simply using close-up shots doesn't make it look like a TV movie. If that's the case then De Palma would be a TV director and Silence Of The Lambs is the best TV movie ever made.


    Funny enough, MI looked better too.


    Casino Royale looks like... well, a movie with a healthy budget and it's not TSWLM either. It's mostly a poker game!

    Anyway, it's my opinion.

    Do you mean that because of De Palma's dutch angles?

    Well, everything. Comparing Campbell to De Palma is like comparing John Guillermin to Spielberg.
    chrisisall wrote: »
    2021's 'The Protege' was awesome. He's still a fantastic director.

    It was ok but it was also too old school.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    GE simply using close-up shots doesn't make it look like a TV movie. If that's the case then De Palma would be a TV director and Silence Of The Lambs is the best TV movie ever made.


    Funny enough, MI looked better too.


    Casino Royale looks like... well, a movie with a healthy budget and it's not TSWLM either. It's mostly a poker game!

    Anyway, it's my opinion.

    Do you mean that because of De Palma's dutch angles?

    Well, everything. Comparing Campbell to De Palma is like comparing John Guillermin to Spielberg.

    Generally, yes - however we weren't speaking generally. You were specific in that GE looks like a TV movie because of Campbell's use of close-ups. Evidently, that is reductive analysis.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    GE simply using close-up shots doesn't make it look like a TV movie. If that's the case then De Palma would be a TV director and Silence Of The Lambs is the best TV movie ever made.


    Funny enough, MI looked better too.


    Casino Royale looks like... well, a movie with a healthy budget and it's not TSWLM either. It's mostly a poker game!

    Anyway, it's my opinion.

    Do you mean that because of De Palma's dutch angles?

    Well, everything. Comparing Campbell to De Palma is like comparing John Guillermin to Spielberg.

    Generally, yes - however we weren't speaking generally. You were specific in that GE looks like a TV movie because of Campbell's use of close-ups. Evidently, that is reductive analysis.

    And also ridiculous. Nothing about GE looks like a TV movie from that era. Very reductive, indeed.
  • edited June 19 Posts: 1,368
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    GE simply using close-up shots doesn't make it look like a TV movie. If that's the case then De Palma would be a TV director and Silence Of The Lambs is the best TV movie ever made.


    Funny enough, MI looked better too.


    Casino Royale looks like... well, a movie with a healthy budget and it's not TSWLM either. It's mostly a poker game!

    Anyway, it's my opinion.

    Do you mean that because of De Palma's dutch angles?

    Well, everything. Comparing Campbell to De Palma is like comparing John Guillermin to Spielberg.

    Generally, yes - however we weren't speaking generally. You were specific in that GE looks like a TV movie because of Campbell's use of close-ups. Evidently, that is reductive analysis.

    And also ridiculous. Nothing about GE looks like a TV movie from that era. Very reductive, indeed.

    $60 million budget helped a little

    That's not the point. ;)

    Unpopular opinion, John Glen is not the best director in the world but he knew where to put the camera.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    Unpopular opinion, John Glen is not the best director in the world but he knew where to put the camera.

    He was also extremely old school, which is a bad thing now too.
  • Posts: 1,368
    Unpopular opinion, John Glen is not the best director in the world but he knew where to put the camera.

    He was also extremely old school, which is a bad thing now too.

    And too old.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    Unpopular opinion, John Glen is not the best director in the world but he knew where to put the camera.

    He was also extremely old school, which is a bad thing now too.

    And too old.

    Yes. Old people shouldn't direct. You're absolutely right.
Sign In or Register to comment.