The case for and against... Martin Campbell

1568101118

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    GE has old school Bond flair in the same way Steven Segal does. I.e. None
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2017 Posts: 15,715
    Getafix wrote: »
    GE has old school Bond flair in the same way Steven Segal does. I.e. None

    Aren't you a huge Timothy Dalton fan? Care to tell me what old school Bond flair LTK has? I really enjoy LTK, don't get me wrong, but if you're going to attack GE for having 'no Bond flair', you should tell me why you give LTK a free pass in that regards.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I don't give LTK a free pass actually. I used to actively dislike it. Overtime though I've come to realise it has more surviving old school Bond DNA than GE or any Brosnan entry. The key elements are actually all still there in LTK, just mixed up a bit. The action is far superior. And Dalton is a better Bond. Better villain. Better Bond girls. Better everything really.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    Better villain. Better Bond girls.
    Davi is excellent but then so is Bean. I'd say they're equal. I'm afraid I must disagree on the girls. 'Loopy' looks good but Soto can't act for s#!^, and Pam is whiny & insecure. I much prefer the resourceful & enterprising Natalya.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't give LTK a free pass actually. I used to actively dislike it. Overtime though I've come to realise it has more surviving old school Bond DNA than GE or any Brosnan entry. The key elements are actually all still there in LTK, just mixed up a bit. The action is far superior. And Dalton is a better Bond. Better villain. Better Bond girls. Better everything really.

    Not quite.The GE main title sequence is superior.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,425
    GE title sequence sucks. The end 'stunt' is a crime against Bond.

    And Brosnan makes his appearance upside down in a toilet. Nuff said

    Sorry I was thinking PTS but you mean the titles during the song. Perhaps I will give you that one but wasn't LTK Binders last?

    Seem to remember that Kleinman directed the LTK Gladys knight video
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2017 Posts: 8,395
    Getafix wrote: »
    GE title sequence sucks. The end 'stunt' is a crime against Bond.

    And Brosnan makes his appearance upside down in a toilet. Nuff said

    Title sequence, not pre-titles!
  • Posts: 11,425
    Yes I corrected myself. I MIGHT concede that point. Meagre consellation for the GE fans
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,288
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Theres certainly a case for QOS having a better lead actor and even a better supporting cast, but I can't agree on the action.

    I find most of the action in QOS fairly tedious and flat.

    QoS terrible action.

    But great drama.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Getafix wrote: »
    GE title sequence sucks. The end 'stunt' is a crime against Bond.

    And Brosnan makes his appearance upside down in a toilet. Nuff said

    Sorry I was thinking PTS but you mean the titles during the song. Perhaps I will give you that one but wasn't LTK Binders last?

    Seem to remember that Kleinman directed the LTK Gladys knight video

    He did, and that is how he got the job. Kleinman comes from the music industry.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,189
    I'll concede that Sanchez is a better villain than Bean and his erratically written character and dodgy "queens English" accent. Performance-wise he only really excels in the statue park scene.

    However, Natalya/Isabella is light years better, both as an actress and as a Bond girl, than both Lowell and Soto combined.

    I really don't think there's any comparison in terms of acting talent. Lowell and Soto are both fairly poor I think.
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I'll concede that Sanchez is a better villain than Bean and his erratically written character and dodgy "queens English" accent. Performance-wise he only really excels in the statue park scene.

    However, Natalya/Isabella is light years better, both as an actress and as a Bond girl, than both Lowell and Soto combined.

    I really don't think there's any comparison in terms of acting talent. Lowell and Soto are both fairly poor I think.

    It was arguably a fairly weak period for Bond girls. I thought Natalya was pretty forgettable but then if you don't like the film in the first place it doesn't help. I guess if I'm feeling generous I'd say she's one of the less issues I have with the film.

    On a recent rewatch totally agree Soto can't act but she still looks amazing. And I actually quite like Lowell. She's grown on me, just as LTK has.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    You're still not answering the question. Why do you say that one of the most popular Bond film is 'objectively' mediocre, while saying at the same time one of the least liked outings in the franchise is one of the best? You're basically saying a large portion of the fanbase don't understand their own franchise, and that practically the entire general audience is also unable to recognize a proper quality Bond film.

    I am saying that it is my opinion, that having read all the books and watched the films many times That I personally deem QoS as a better Bond film than GE for all the reasons I have already stated.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,189
    Quantum has many positive aspects (a strong cast and some good ideas) but it feels every inch "cobbled together". That's the impression I got when I last saw it. The film doesn't flow well at all.

    It's a small issue but I also don't like some of the staged looking establishing shots (at the party, the opera etc).
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,425
    suavejmf wrote: »
    You're still not answering the question. Why do you say that one of the most popular Bond film is 'objectively' mediocre, while saying at the same time one of the least liked outings in the franchise is one of the best? You're basically saying a large portion of the fanbase don't understand their own franchise, and that practically the entire general audience is also unable to recognize a proper quality Bond film.

    I am saying that it is my opinion, that having read all the books and watched the films many times That I personally deem QoS as a better Bond film than GE for all the reasons I have already stated.

    Personally speaking I certainly agree with you. Would rather do my tax return than watch GE. A nasty, squalid, dull little film.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    You're still not answering the question. Why do you say that one of the most popular Bond film is 'objectively' mediocre, while saying at the same time one of the least liked outings in the franchise is one of the best? You're basically saying a large portion of the fanbase don't understand their own franchise, and that practically the entire general audience is also unable to recognize a proper quality Bond film.

    I am saying that it is my opinion, that having read all the books and watched the films many times That I personally deem QoS as a better Bond film than GE for all the reasons I have already stated.

    Personally speaking I certainly agree with you. Would rather do my tax return than watch GE. A nasty, squalid, dull little film.

    I'd rather watch GE for the upteenth time than listen to your repeatitive, spiteful anti-GE posts but hey-ho.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Luckily, there's not a Bond film I don't like.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    Personally speaking I certainly agree with you. Would rather do my tax return than watch GE.
    There is nothing that would make me rather do my tax return, and I'm a CA (non practising)..
  • Posts: 11,189
    Putting on the soundtrack to GE while I do my tax return would help make that task far more enjoyable.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Luckily, there's not a Bond film I don't like.

    I like all Bond's too. Just some a lot more than others.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    suavejmf wrote: »
    You're still not answering the question. Why do you say that one of the most popular Bond film is 'objectively' mediocre, while saying at the same time one of the least liked outings in the franchise is one of the best? You're basically saying a large portion of the fanbase don't understand their own franchise, and that practically the entire general audience is also unable to recognize a proper quality Bond film.

    I am saying that it is my opinion, that having read all the books and watched the films many times That I personally deem QoS as a better Bond film than GE for all the reasons I have already stated.

    You said that based on 'objective' reasons, which is closer to saying QOS is factually better than GE than simply stating your opinion about it.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 676
    I quite like Martin Campbell. If you listen to his commentaries for GE and CR, he really seems to get why people like Bond. In my opinion, his films are the best at balancing danger, glamour, wit, and a sense of sexuality/romance outside of the Young/Hunt films.

    Certainly he was blessed with two of the better screenplays produced this side of the '60s. Two cracking casts, as well. So some of what works in GE and CR isn't entirely down to him. But I do note they both get certain things right. For example, Natalya and Vesper are exactly what a modern Bond girl should be: regular people caught up in Bond's world, capable in their own right but not trying to beat Bond at his own game, with the girl needing Bond at points and Bond needing her at points (for plot reasons, emotionally, sexually, etc).

    I also find that (with the exception of the tank chase) the action in Campbell's films comes from story and moves the story. Which you can't really say for most Bond films (to their detriment). The test for this is asking, can you cut this action and the story is unaffected? See the action in films like TWINE or QoS. And Campbell's action is also marvelously staged and shot (again, I would say with one exception, the sinking house).
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Next to GE, QoS is dour and lethargic. GE is superior on every level.
  • Posts: 1,162
    RC7 wrote: »
    Next to GE, QoS is dour and lethargic. GE is superior on every level.

    Big words. Not true, but certainly big.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm not sure how much involvement he had in the film, but GE feels like the last Cubby Broccoli Bond film to me. It has his stamp. It's just modernized for the 90's, just like LTK tried to modernize (very belatedly) for the 80's.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Next to GE, QoS is dour and lethargic. GE is superior on every level.

    Big words. Not true, but certainly big.

    Obviously others will disagree, I've heard the many defences of QoS, and I find many moments to love in it, but on a personal level I find GE is a far more interesting, exciting, fully rounded piece of cinema. It's very fresh.
  • Posts: 1,162
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Next to GE, QoS is dour and lethargic. GE is superior on every level.

    Big words. Not true, but certainly big.

    Obviously others will disagree, I've heard the many defences of QoS, and I find many moments to love in it, but on a personal level I find GE is a far more interesting, exciting, fully rounded piece of cinema. It's very fresh.

    Did it never bother you that they re-introduced James Bond with a - then already quite worn - plot like a threatening satellite in space? To me it felt quite the opposite of fresh way back then. Hasn't changed ever since.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    What I found refreshing about that element was that it was a foreign government (in this case the Soviet Union) that had developed it, rather than some predictable megalomaniac lunatic (like Gustav Graves). It made it seem more plausible.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Next to GE, QoS is dour and lethargic. GE is superior on every level.

    Big words. Not true, but certainly big.

    Obviously others will disagree, I've heard the many defences of QoS, and I find many moments to love in it, but on a personal level I find GE is a far more interesting, exciting, fully rounded piece of cinema. It's very fresh.

    Did it never bother you that they re-introduced James Bond with a - then already quite worn - plot like a threatening satellite in space? To me it felt quite the opposite of fresh way back then. Hasn't changed ever since.

    No. The Goldeneye was a Macguffin. The Bond/Alec dynamic is what drives it. It was and still is excellent and the final fight is class.
  • Posts: 1,162
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Next to GE, QoS is dour and lethargic. GE is superior on every level.

    Big words. Not true, but certainly big.

    Obviously others will disagree, I've heard the many defences of QoS, and I find many moments to love in it, but on a personal level I find GE is a far more interesting, exciting, fully rounded piece of cinema. It's very fresh.

    Did it never bother you that they re-introduced James Bond with a - then already quite worn - plot like a threatening satellite in space? To me it felt quite the opposite of fresh way back then. Hasn't changed ever since.

    No. The Goldeneye was a Macguffin. The Bond/Alec dynamic is what drives it. It was and still is excellent and the final fight is class.

    I'm always amazed how easy people do brush off arguments that are not to their liking. GE needs no original McGuffin because it's about the 006/007 dynamic, SF needs no intelligent writing because it's all about the character arc. If you approach storylines that way there's actually no need for anything original/clever/intelligent at all. That's not my idea of writing.
Sign In or Register to comment.