The case for and against... Martin Campbell

11213141618

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    While I realize that the actual director would probably be involved in the selection of the next actor including the screentesting of various candidates, I think that if they begin the process prior to a director being selected, Campbell would be a great choice for directing screentests .
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 21 Posts: 16,359
    mtm wrote: »
    there is a central big emotional story for Bond in each of them, especially the last two. I think a straight 'Bond goes and defeats the baddie' story isn't really enough now.

    Which is a big component of both of Campbell's films, to be fair. Despite the "greatest hits" criticism of GoldenEye, there is an unorthodox emotional core at its centre, and that was quite fresh. Casino Royale has a more obvious one, admittedly.

    Oh yeah absolutely, no criticism of Campbell intended, I was more just reacting to Delfloria's mention of an emotional story.
    Although the 'It’s what keeps me alive' stuff was a touch unconvincing, there was an actual interesting personal story of betrayal there which moves it on from the old 'kill this chap, 007' stuff and gives it more drive. Trevelyan has crossed our man James, so we hate him more than, say, Stromberg.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,169
    I would argue that what makes GE interesting is its theme of saying goodbye to the past. Bond used to fight Cold War enemies. That Cold War is over. The Soviet Union used to be a considerable opponent. The Soviet Union is now no more. Bond used to mostly just rescue, partner up with, and sleep with women. Now, a woman is in charge of him. And, of course, the past has come back to haunt him in the shape and form of Alec. Not until he has defeated his former friend and a weapon designed by an older regime, will he finally be able to embrace the future. Thematically, GE was the perfect film after such a long hiatus. A new actor cuts almost all ties with the past. It's also (accidentally, perhaps) reflected in the score, the theme song lyrics, MP's attitude, and the heavy emphasis on computer technology.

    Ian Fleming had struggled with saying goodbye to his past as well. Britain no longer ruled the world. World War II was over. I think GE was the first Bond film to address bits of that sentimentality. It also paved the way for TND, a Bond film that would confirm the '90s spirit, yet also bring back a few more classical elements.

    In truth, what I appreciate most about GE is its execution. I happen to love the photography, the editing, and the darker tone of the film. I've always had a fondness for how its action scenes were put together. Man-to-man fights are excitingly choreographed, the stunt driving/jumping/flying is great, and gun fights actually feel more real than usual (louder and more bloody.) The opening titles are among the best and coolest every made, in my opinion. Tons of things, in fact, have always made GE feel more "mature" than most other Bonds, and while that may not be how others feel about the film, nor what others are looking for in a Bond film, it is essential in my undying appreciation for this film.

    Has GE aged well? I guess not, at least not in the sense that the film is so firmly "1995", it looks like a 30-year old film today. But I'm having little trouble with that. I can enjoy Bond films that are pinned down in a particular era; other aspects of them can still make them timeless. It is still one of the very best Bond films to me, and Campbell deserves praise for his work, as do many other folks who were involved in the making of this film.
  • Posts: 2,264
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I would argue that what makes GE interesting is its theme of saying goodbye to the past. Bond used to fight Cold War enemies. That Cold War is over. The Soviet Union used to be a considerable opponent. The Soviet Union is now no more. Bond used to mostly just rescue, partner up with, and sleep with women. Now, a woman is in charge of him. And, of course, the past has come back to haunt him in the shape and form of Alec. Not until he has defeated his former friend and a weapon designed by an older regime, will he finally be able to embrace the future. Thematically, GE was the perfect film after such a long hiatus. A new actor cuts almost all ties with the past. It's also (accidentally, perhaps) reflected in the score, the theme song lyrics, MP's attitude, and the heavy emphasis on computer technology.

    Ian Fleming had struggled with saying goodbye to his past as well. Britain no longer ruled the world. World War II was over. I think GE was the first Bond film to address bits of that sentimentality. It also paved the way for TND, a Bond film that would confirm the '90s spirit, yet also bring back a few more classical elements.

    In truth, what I appreciate most about GE is its execution. I happen to love the photography, the editing, and the darker tone of the film. I've always had a fondness for how its action scenes were put together. Man-to-man fights are excitingly choreographed, the stunt driving/jumping/flying is great, and gun fights actually feel more real than usual (louder and more bloody.) The opening titles are among the best and coolest every made, in my opinion. Tons of things, in fact, have always made GE feel more "mature" than most other Bonds, and while that may not be how others feel about the film, nor what others are looking for in a Bond film, it is essential in my undying appreciation for this film.

    Has GE aged well? I guess not, at least not in the sense that the film is so firmly "1995", it looks like a 30-year old film today. But I'm having little trouble with that. I can enjoy Bond films that are pinned down in a particular era; other aspects of them can still make them timeless. It is still one of the very best Bond films to me, and Campbell deserves praise for his work, as do many other folks who were involved in the making of this film.

    Wonderful post @DarthDimi. You’ve hit the nail on the head about everything that makes Goldeneye so great, and what sets it apart from the other films in the series.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited June 22 Posts: 6,287
    mtm wrote: »
    I get a bit alarmed when folks only talk about directors in terms of where they're putting the cameras. Whilst that is part of their job (but also the DP's too) the director is the person who interprets the script- they don't just choose whether to go for a close-up or not but they decide how everyone will play a scene, the pace of it, the tone of it, everything about it. A director can take a scene in a script and make it a comedy and another different director can take the same scene and make it a horror.

    With Bond I think you can see that in the Roger films; it seems like Roger was a director's actor, and you can see his characterisation of Bond has three distinct versions which tally with each of his three directors: they're all Roger of course, but you have that tinged with the slightly vicious and mean version in LALD/MWTGG; the more laid-back and warm version of TSWLM/MR; and then the more romantic and human shades in FYEO-AVTAK.

    So well put.

    Seconded.

    GE is not my favorite Bond film, but it feels deeper than most, somehow, like everyone reflected on what Bond meant in the '90s, as the Cold War was over (ha).

    I think it's better to have someone new to usher in Bond #7. Undoubtedly there will be even more of a video game feel this time around.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    After finally watching Argyll last night, I'm a little more wary of Campbell: wasn't it common knowledge (until recently), that he was in the Cavill camp, and wanted Henry to be Bond?

    Watching Argyll last night, Cavill is incredibly disappointing. He's not offensive, but he really is the definition of a block of wood. His screen presence and delivery just hasn't got better over all these years of being in the business (in fact, I'd argue, it's got worse!!)

    The film was a hot mess, but at least the other performers leaned into the insanity and stupidity.

    Cavill was just lost.

    And knowing Campbell wanted this guy(?!!).... He may've shot two great outings for the series, but I'm not sure I want him getting close to being one of the judges to choose the next 007, 😂
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited June 22 Posts: 2,011
    peter wrote: »
    After finally watching Argyll last night, I'm a little more wary of Campbell: wasn't it common knowledge (until recently), that he was in the Cavill camp, and wanted Henry to be Bond?

    Watching Argyll last night, Cavill is incredibly disappointing. He's not offensive, but he really is the definition of a block of wood. His screen presence and delivery just hasn't got better over all these years of being in the business (in fact, I'd argue, it's got worse!!)

    The film was a hot mess, but at least the other performers leaned into the insanity and stupidity.

    Cavill was just lost.

    And knowing Campbell wanted this guy(?!!).... He may've shot two great outings for the series, but I'm not sure I want him getting close to being one of the judges to choose the next 007, 😂

    Lol. @peter I'm not really taking Cavill's side. But Campbell didn't direct Cavill for us to see what he had in mind for him. I love Craig's Bond and I'm grateful it ended up being him. But I've always had a sneaky feeling that Cavill would have done really well under Campbell, because Campbell really understands what makes a Bond film work and would have work closely with Cavill, similar to how Terence Young guided Sean Connery at the start. I can easily envisage Cavill's Bond chasing Mollaka. Campbell would have only worked harder when Bond did the eyes battle at the Poker table with Le Chiffre and when Bond meets Vesper on the train, but Campbell would have undoubtedly worked harder to get the best out of Cavill. Another thing is, I also love Brosnan's Bond, but my favourite of his, is TND. But a lot of people pick GE as his best because of Campbell's direction.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ , but Connery always had the "it" factor. He already had the raw materials to be a superstar, and especially had buckets of something that no one can teach: CHARISMA.

    If Young came back from the dead, he couldn't make Cavill any better.

    With all of Campbell's energy, and tricks of the trade, he could never lift Cavill up to anything nearly above serviceable.

    He's just a thick piece of wood. No better, no worse.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    With great respect, @peter - you're speaking in hypotheticals. I'm neither here nor there on Cavill, but evidently Campbell saw something in his younger days that could have been natured and guided. What that was, I don't know, but it would be fair to say Campbell knows more about actors than either of us. It would be wrong to question his judgement considering what he did do with the actors in the lead roles that he did have in the end. Regardless, as it worked with Craig, it won't ever simply be one person's decision! :)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    With great respect, @peter - you're speaking in hypotheticals. I'm neither here nor there on Cavill, but evidently Campbell saw something in his younger days that could have been natured and guided. What that was, I don't know, but it would be fair to say Campbell knows more about actors than either of us. It would be wrong to question his judgement considering what he did do with the actors in the lead roles that he did have in the end. Regardless, as it worked with Craig, it won't ever simply be one person's decision! :)

    What he saw, and from his own lips, was an actor who looked more like a traditional Bond.

    But, from Campbell's own lips, Craig's talent was head and tails above the competition.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    peter wrote: »
    With great respect, @peter - you're speaking in hypotheticals. I'm neither here nor there on Cavill, but evidently Campbell saw something in his younger days that could have been natured and guided. What that was, I don't know, but it would be fair to say Campbell knows more about actors than either of us. It would be wrong to question his judgement considering what he did do with the actors in the lead roles that he did have in the end. Regardless, as it worked with Craig, it won't ever simply be one person's decision! :)

    What he saw, and from his own lips, was an actor who looked more like a traditional Bond.

    But, from Campbell's own lips, Craig's talent was head and tails above the competition.

    Well there you go, then! :)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    My point being: this guy was willing to forgo talent and choose Cavill because he appeared more close to the image of James Bond.

    Not good.

    Watching Argyll shows an actor who actually may be getting worse, not better.

    Secret Agent Man brought up a hypothetical, and compared the possibility that Campbell may've done what Young did for Connery, and I replied saying Connery had what Cavill can never be taught: charisma.

    Going back to my original point: I wouldn't want Campbell being one of the judges for the new Bond, 😂
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    I agree, as an actor Cavill has never improved; I can always sense him “acting “ and contemplating each line before its delivery.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I can’t believe how terrible he is. It’s astounding. I’m really shocked, I think that’s what I’m trying to get across.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    I'm not really sure I agree with that (Cavill is limited, but not talentless), but further to the point about Campbell, seeing as that's the point of the discussion: claiming he was going to forgo talent is a bit reductive and silly, imo.

    It's very easy to take an actor you aren't particular fond of and use them as a stick to beat a director's judgement with. But I'd worry about anyone who genuinely thinks that a director would look at an actor and say "looks great, can't act though" and then say they want them in the role. Clearly there was something more to the thought process behind it.

    So yes, @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ was certainly giving you a hypothetical on his end, but it wasn't the only one!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I'm not really sure I agree with that (Cavill is limited, but not talentless), but further to the point about Campbell, seeing as that's the point of the discussion: claiming he was going to forgo talent is a bit reductive and silly, imo.

    It's very easy to take an actor you aren't particular fond of and use them as a stick to beat a director's judgement with. But I'd worry about anyone who genuinely thinks that a director would look at an actor and say "looks great, can't act though" and then say they want them in the role. Clearly there was something more to the thought process behind it.

    So yes, @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ was certainly giving you a hypothetical on his end, but it wasn't the only one!

    I’d definitely argue that the guy has no talent and zero charisma.

    The facts as we know them: Campbell thought Cavill looked more the part, but finally admitted in interviews by the time of NTTD’s release that Craig’s talent was beyond his competitors.

    Yet we know that Campbell wanted to choose, at one point, Cavill over Craig, *knowing* that Craig’s auditions were better.

    So it may be silly and reductive, but that’s seemingly what the director was going for.

    Campbell is a more talented version of John Glenn (who o also like), and; like Glenn, I’m not sure if he’s exactly an actor’s-director. He’s certainly nuts and bolts and knew how to shoot the hell out of action.

    As far as character or judging actors…. I have my doubts.
  • Posts: 1,330
    peter wrote: »
    I'm not really sure I agree with that (Cavill is limited, but not talentless), but further to the point about Campbell, seeing as that's the point of the discussion: claiming he was going to forgo talent is a bit reductive and silly, imo.

    It's very easy to take an actor you aren't particular fond of and use them as a stick to beat a director's judgement with. But I'd worry about anyone who genuinely thinks that a director would look at an actor and say "looks great, can't act though" and then say they want them in the role. Clearly there was something more to the thought process behind it.

    So yes, @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ was certainly giving you a hypothetical on his end, but it wasn't the only one!

    I’d definitely argue that the guy has no talent and zero charisma.

    The facts as we know them: Campbell thought Cavill looked more the part, but finally admitted in interviews by the time of NTTD’s release that Craig’s talent was beyond his competitors.

    Yet we know that Campbell wanted to choose, at one point, Cavill over Craig, *knowing* that Craig’s auditions were better.

    So it may be silly and reductive, but that’s seemingly what the director was going for.

    Campbell is a more talented version of John Glenn (who o also like), and; like Glenn, I’m not sure if he’s exactly an actor’s-director. He’s certainly nuts and bolts and knew how to shoot the hell out of action.

    As far as character or judging actors…. I have my doubts.

    To be fair, Craig not only didn't look like Bond, but he was too old to play a young Bond.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    In defense of Campbell, they were attempting to cast a Bond who was beginning his career; so looking at a somewhat younger actor made sense. At this time Cavill was very young and had shown some potential ; Campbell, may have believed that Cavill would have grown as an actor and could be molded. Hindsight being 20/20, this did not happen .
  • Posts: 4,122
    I don’t know for sure, but there may have been an element that Campbell simply didn’t fully know what a Craig Bond would have looked like and he could imagine Cavill more easily at that point.

    It kinda makes sense. After all they’d played around in early drafts with having a very young Bond who’d never even worn a tuxedo before. Perhaps that creative path was still one they could have potentially gone down in regards to the casting (ie. A younger, more immature Bond who looked more ‘traditional’/could conceivably become the Bond we know by the end). I mean, I imagine Cavill stuck out in the pool of candidates even just due to his age. I can definitely understand the impulse to take a risk with someone who had that look (and yes, he’s not the strongest actor in the world, certainly nowhere near Craig’s level, but he’s likeable and has charisma).

    At the end of the day every choice like that is a risk with casting. There’s many different directions you can go with it, and these choices impacts the film as a whole. I can understand why Campbell may have thought Cavill was the best option at the time.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I’m not disagreeing with any of the above, although it’s somewhat reinforcing my opinion that Campbell may be a nuts and bolts action director, but he may lack in the visualization of character/actor (he knew that Craig was more talented, but, at the time, Cavill, on the surface, was the path to least resistance; to me that’s a failure of vision— especially since the role came down to two: Cavill and Craig, and Campbell was ready to bypass talent for a weaker actor because he “looked the part; hence why I wouldn’t want Campbell anywhere close to judging auditions and being a part of who gets the role (which is a moot point as I very much doubt he’ll play any role in the upcoming process (or he will and I’ll hafta eat my assumptions))).
  • edited June 22 Posts: 2,264
    This perhaps stems from being a fan of his take on Superman, but I don’t see how Henry Cavill is as bad as some of you make him out to be. He’s continuing to receive work in Hollywood, and by all accounts sounds like a genuine guy, so complaints that he “lacks charisma” or “lacks talent” don’t really ring true to me. Is he the strongest actor? No, but he isn’t some talentless hack either. I find him much better than some of the other actors/actresses working today.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    This perhaps stems from being a fan of his take on Superman, but I don’t see how Henry Cavill is as bad as some of you make him out to be. He’s continuing to receive work in Hollywood, and by all accounts sounds like a genuine guy, so complaints that he “lacks charisma” or “lacks talent” don’t really ring true to me. Is he the strongest actor? No, but he isn’t some talentless hack either. I find him much better than some of the other actors/actresses working today.

    @007ClassicBondFan … all I can say is: he didn’t bother me as Superman, although I saw great flaws with his acting. I know that he’s a genuine guy as one of my very good friends has acted with him in both The Tudors and Immortals, and he loves the guy to bits. They’re still friends to this day. I imagine that in Hollywood when stars may be difficult, I can assume Cavill is one helluva dream to work with.

    Saying all of that: he’s got worse as an actor in my eyes. He was shockingly bad in Argyle - a film where he shouldn’t have stood out as one of the worst things, in a hot mess of a film. No one came out of this looking good, although the other two leads leaned into the hot mess, whereas Cavill just looked plain lost.

    I don’t mean to be cruel in my assessment of Cavill as I know he’s a pretty stand up guy, but man, he is wholly unremarkable, and somewhat getting worse.
  • edited June 22 Posts: 2,264
    peter wrote: »
    This perhaps stems from being a fan of his take on Superman, but I don’t see how Henry Cavill is as bad as some of you make him out to be. He’s continuing to receive work in Hollywood, and by all accounts sounds like a genuine guy, so complaints that he “lacks charisma” or “lacks talent” don’t really ring true to me. Is he the strongest actor? No, but he isn’t some talentless hack either. I find him much better than some of the other actors/actresses working today.

    @007ClassicBondFan … all I can say is: he didn’t bother me as Superman, although I saw great flaws with his acting. I know that he’s a genuine guy as one of my very good friends has acted with him in both The Tudors and Immortals, and he loves the guy to bits. They’re still friends to this day. I imagine that in Hollywood when stars may be difficult, I can assume Cavill is one helluva dream to work with.

    Saying all of that: he’s got worse as an actor in my eyes. He was shockingly bad in Argyle - a film where he shouldn’t have stood out as one of the worst things, in a hot mess of a film. No one came out of this looking good, although the other two leads leaned into the hot mess, whereas Cavill just looked plain lost.

    I don’t mean to be cruel in my assessment of Cavill as I know he’s a pretty stand up guy, but man, he is wholly unremarkable, and somewhat getting worse.

    I skipped Argylle so I can’t really attest to the quality of his performance in that film. I remember seeing that first image of him and thinking to myself “yikes this doesn’t look good” and I’ve avoided the film like the plague ever since. It appears I’m justified in doing so if critical reactions are anything to go by.

    Look I get where you’re coming from @peter, at times he’s a “hit and miss” kind of actor with me. There have been moments where I would watch Cavill and think to myself; “Is this the best take they could get from him? Is that the best possible way he could deliver that line?” but then there are other times (mainly in his work as Superman and in Mission Impossible) where he’s genuinely impressed me. And honestly there are moments with the Bond actors where I find myself asking those some exact questions. So I’ll at least concede and say that Cavill’s work as an actor can be a bit “inconsistent.” I think what the guy needs is one great script that can showcase a range of his talents as an actor and a director who can get a great performance out of him. He hasn’t really had one or the other I’m afraid. Perhaps CR and Campbell would’ve been just that? It’s hard to say because no one knows what that end result would’ve looked like.

    But personally speaking, I prefer Cavill to a lot of other actors working today who seem to be little more than “personalities” (e.g. like Dwayne Johnson, or Ryan Reynolds.)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    peter wrote: »
    This perhaps stems from being a fan of his take on Superman, but I don’t see how Henry Cavill is as bad as some of you make him out to be. He’s continuing to receive work in Hollywood, and by all accounts sounds like a genuine guy, so complaints that he “lacks charisma” or “lacks talent” don’t really ring true to me. Is he the strongest actor? No, but he isn’t some talentless hack either. I find him much better than some of the other actors/actresses working today.

    @007ClassicBondFan … all I can say is: he didn’t bother me as Superman, although I saw great flaws with his acting. I know that he’s a genuine guy as one of my very good friends has acted with him in both The Tudors and Immortals, and he loves the guy to bits. They’re still friends to this day. I imagine that in Hollywood when stars may be difficult, I can assume Cavill is one helluva dream to work with.

    Saying all of that: he’s got worse as an actor in my eyes. He was shockingly bad in Argyle - a film where he shouldn’t have stood out as one of the worst things, in a hot mess of a film. No one came out of this looking good, although the other two leads leaned into the hot mess, whereas Cavill just looked plain lost.

    I don’t mean to be cruel in my assessment of Cavill as I know he’s a pretty stand up guy, but man, he is wholly unremarkable, and somewhat getting worse.

    I skipped Argylle so I can’t really attest to the quality of his performance in that film. I remember seeing that first image of him and thinking to myself “yikes this doesn’t look good” and I’ve avoided the film like the plague ever since. It appears I’m justified in doing so if critical reactions are anything to go by.

    Look I get where you’re coming from @peter, at times he’s a “hit and miss” kind of actor with me. There have been moments where I would watch Cavill and think to myself; “Is this the best take they could get from him? Is that the best possible way he could deliver that line?” but then there are other times (mainly in his work as Superman and in Mission Impossible) where he’s genuinely impressed me. And honestly there are moments with the Bond actors where I find myself asking those some exact questions. So I’ll at least concede and say that Cavill’s work as an actor can be a bit “inconsistent.” I think what the guy needs is one great script that can showcase a range of his talents as an actor and a director who can get a great performance out of him. He hasn’t really had one or the other I’m afraid. Perhaps CR and Campbell would’ve been just that? It’s hard to say because no one knows what that end result would’ve looked like.

    But personally speaking, I prefer Cavill to a lot of other actors working today who seem to be little more than “personalities” (I.e. the Dwayne Johnson’s and Ryan Reynold’s of the industry.)

    @007ClassicBondFan , I will happily admit that if casting was between “The Rock” or Cavill, in any role, — it’s Cavill every day of the week as I can stand The Rock; I also can’t stand my fellow Canuck, Ryan Reynolds and I’d pick Cavill over him too (I want to keep sane).
  • Posts: 2,264
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    This perhaps stems from being a fan of his take on Superman, but I don’t see how Henry Cavill is as bad as some of you make him out to be. He’s continuing to receive work in Hollywood, and by all accounts sounds like a genuine guy, so complaints that he “lacks charisma” or “lacks talent” don’t really ring true to me. Is he the strongest actor? No, but he isn’t some talentless hack either. I find him much better than some of the other actors/actresses working today.

    @007ClassicBondFan … all I can say is: he didn’t bother me as Superman, although I saw great flaws with his acting. I know that he’s a genuine guy as one of my very good friends has acted with him in both The Tudors and Immortals, and he loves the guy to bits. They’re still friends to this day. I imagine that in Hollywood when stars may be difficult, I can assume Cavill is one helluva dream to work with.

    Saying all of that: he’s got worse as an actor in my eyes. He was shockingly bad in Argyle - a film where he shouldn’t have stood out as one of the worst things, in a hot mess of a film. No one came out of this looking good, although the other two leads leaned into the hot mess, whereas Cavill just looked plain lost.

    I don’t mean to be cruel in my assessment of Cavill as I know he’s a pretty stand up guy, but man, he is wholly unremarkable, and somewhat getting worse.

    I skipped Argylle so I can’t really attest to the quality of his performance in that film. I remember seeing that first image of him and thinking to myself “yikes this doesn’t look good” and I’ve avoided the film like the plague ever since. It appears I’m justified in doing so if critical reactions are anything to go by.

    Look I get where you’re coming from @peter, at times he’s a “hit and miss” kind of actor with me. There have been moments where I would watch Cavill and think to myself; “Is this the best take they could get from him? Is that the best possible way he could deliver that line?” but then there are other times (mainly in his work as Superman and in Mission Impossible) where he’s genuinely impressed me. And honestly there are moments with the Bond actors where I find myself asking those some exact questions. So I’ll at least concede and say that Cavill’s work as an actor can be a bit “inconsistent.” I think what the guy needs is one great script that can showcase a range of his talents as an actor and a director who can get a great performance out of him. He hasn’t really had one or the other I’m afraid. Perhaps CR and Campbell would’ve been just that? It’s hard to say because no one knows what that end result would’ve looked like.

    But personally speaking, I prefer Cavill to a lot of other actors working today who seem to be little more than “personalities” (I.e. the Dwayne Johnson’s and Ryan Reynold’s of the industry.)

    @007ClassicBondFan , I will happily admit that if casting was between “The Rock” or Cavill, in any role, — it’s Cavill every day of the week as I can stand The Rock; I also can’t stand my fellow Canuck, Ryan Reynolds and I’d pick Cavill over him too (I want to keep sane).

    At least we agree on that @peter 😂. I was going to add John Cena to the list but I really enjoyed him in the latest Suicide Squad and Peacemaker show that I couldn’t do it. Although I’m not sure if you’ve seen those photos from the new A24 movie about where Johnson is playing Mike Kerr, but he’s completely unrecognizable. We could possibly entering Johnson’s ascension phase to serious work; but I swear if it’s just another “Dwayne Johnson” performance I’m never giving him the benefit of the doubt again.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    This perhaps stems from being a fan of his take on Superman, but I don’t see how Henry Cavill is as bad as some of you make him out to be. He’s continuing to receive work in Hollywood, and by all accounts sounds like a genuine guy, so complaints that he “lacks charisma” or “lacks talent” don’t really ring true to me. Is he the strongest actor? No, but he isn’t some talentless hack either. I find him much better than some of the other actors/actresses working today.

    @007ClassicBondFan … all I can say is: he didn’t bother me as Superman, although I saw great flaws with his acting. I know that he’s a genuine guy as one of my very good friends has acted with him in both The Tudors and Immortals, and he loves the guy to bits. They’re still friends to this day. I imagine that in Hollywood when stars may be difficult, I can assume Cavill is one helluva dream to work with.

    Saying all of that: he’s got worse as an actor in my eyes. He was shockingly bad in Argyle - a film where he shouldn’t have stood out as one of the worst things, in a hot mess of a film. No one came out of this looking good, although the other two leads leaned into the hot mess, whereas Cavill just looked plain lost.

    I don’t mean to be cruel in my assessment of Cavill as I know he’s a pretty stand up guy, but man, he is wholly unremarkable, and somewhat getting worse.

    I skipped Argylle so I can’t really attest to the quality of his performance in that film. I remember seeing that first image of him and thinking to myself “yikes this doesn’t look good” and I’ve avoided the film like the plague ever since. It appears I’m justified in doing so if critical reactions are anything to go by.

    Look I get where you’re coming from @peter, at times he’s a “hit and miss” kind of actor with me. There have been moments where I would watch Cavill and think to myself; “Is this the best take they could get from him? Is that the best possible way he could deliver that line?” but then there are other times (mainly in his work as Superman and in Mission Impossible) where he’s genuinely impressed me. And honestly there are moments with the Bond actors where I find myself asking those some exact questions. So I’ll at least concede and say that Cavill’s work as an actor can be a bit “inconsistent.” I think what the guy needs is one great script that can showcase a range of his talents as an actor and a director who can get a great performance out of him. He hasn’t really had one or the other I’m afraid. Perhaps CR and Campbell would’ve been just that? It’s hard to say because no one knows what that end result would’ve looked like.

    But personally speaking, I prefer Cavill to a lot of other actors working today who seem to be little more than “personalities” (I.e. the Dwayne Johnson’s and Ryan Reynold’s of the industry.)

    @007ClassicBondFan , I will happily admit that if casting was between “The Rock” or Cavill, in any role, — it’s Cavill every day of the week as I can stand The Rock; I also can’t stand my fellow Canuck, Ryan Reynolds and I’d pick Cavill over him too (I want to keep sane).

    At least we agree on that @peter 😂. I was going to add John Cena to the list but I really enjoyed him in the latest Suicide Squad and Peacemaker show that I couldn’t do it. Although I’m not sure if you’ve seen those photos from the new A24 movie about where Johnson is playing Mike Kerr, but he’s completely unrecognizable. We could possibly entering Johnson’s ascension phase to serious work; but I swear if it’s just another “Dwayne Johnson” performance I’m never giving him the benefit of the doubt again.

    I’m again with you, @007ClassicBondFan – Cena cracked me up in that Suicide Squad flick and the spin-off show. He's leaning into that likeable lug, none too bright, but he’s got a good heart; the man-child.

    I did see The Rock in his prosthetics. I’m never a fan of that type of acting (most of the time), even when it’s Gary Oldman (a little, not noticeably evident, prosthetics, is one thing; then there’s overkill to me. If his performance matches the make up artists who transformed him, I will be impressed)…
  • Posts: 4,122
    peter wrote: »
    I’m not disagreeing with any of the above, although it’s somewhat reinforcing my opinion that Campbell may be a nuts and bolts action director, but he may lack in the visualization of character/actor (he knew that Craig was more talented, but, at the time, Cavill, on the surface, was the path to least resistance; to me that’s a failure of vision— especially since the role came down to two: Cavill and Craig, and Campbell was ready to bypass talent for a weaker actor because he “looked the part; hence why I wouldn’t want Campbell anywhere close to judging auditions and being a part of who gets the role (which is a moot point as I very much doubt he’ll play any role in the upcoming process (or he will and I’ll hafta eat my assumptions))).

    I can kind of sympathise with that kind of preference. Sometimes getting the most talented actor in the world isn’t what’s needed and it’s about who’s best for the role (even if the actor isn’t quite at a certain level).

    Not that it matters as Craig was both the most talented and the right pick. It just goes to show how tricky casting can be/the instincts needed.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    It just goes to show how tricky casting can be/the instincts needed.

    💯 💯 💯
  • Posts: 2,264
    Now here we are - nearly 20 years later; in the midst of yet another hunt for a new Bond. I wonder if Barbara Broccoli has her intentions set on anyone yet.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    In a way Henry Cavill reminds me of Adrian Paul; obviously Cavill has had a much more successful career, but they are both actors who have a great look and physicality, but beyond a single role they are limited.

    I was a huge fan of Highlander: the series and still enjoy watching my favorite episodes; Paul was very good as Duncan MacLeod and at the time thought he could make a good Bond. But it soon became apparent that outside of playing Duncan, his acting was fairly unimpressive. Cavill was a very effective Superman; beyond that he has been less than impressive, yes, even in Mission Impossible.
Sign In or Register to comment.