It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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! :)
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, 😂
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.
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.
@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.)
@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)…
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.
💯 💯 💯
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.