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
I doubt it. Every single debut of the bond actor's have been stellar.
It baffles me to no end that Campbell directed this film. Isn't he the guy known for doing 'real' action movies? This whole thing is such noisy CGI battling other noisy CGI. Also, the CGI itself is truly exceptionally bad. Christ knows how this film cost $200m, it has the same rendering you'd expect from a cut-scene from a PS2 game.
Surprisingly it is the character stuff that works best....Hal's transition, from reckless (near suicidal) pilot to hero, mostly works. There is the customary 'Daddy issues' stuff you expect from comic-book movies. The Peter Sarsgaard character is weirdly out of place. Do we need another nerdy villain who hates the hero for having high cheekbones and getting the girl?! However, his motivations are quite sympathetic.
The film is so hokey and really cheesy. It has his whole 1950's 'Golden Era' patina that's really dated. Especially for 2011, where you either made a breezy 'Iron Man' type film, or go down the gritty 'Batman Begins' route. However, Ryan Reynolds makes the film worth watching. It's charismatic, sexy and magnetic. He really commits. There are even parts of the film where it exceeds expectations and can be very engrossing. Even to the point where it matches or even surpasses the more mediocre MCU films.
Though, I'd recommend watching this movie solely for Blake Lively. Not because her performance is especially good, but mainly due to the outfits she's photographed in. I mean....Wow.......
+1. With the exception of GE. Brosnan’s best, but average in the canon.
Top five for me. One the best.
Not for me. Not even top 10.
Agreed.
I was already a massive Bond fan when GE came out and it was the first Bond I watched at the cinema. At the time I thought it was ok, but not an improvement on the Flemingesque LTK. It’s decidedly average. Solid, but average.
CR on the other hand was the best Bond since the 60’s. A masterpiece that rejuvenated the franchise after the low point of DAD.
Yes there is a yawning chasm between GE and CR in terms of quality.
I can't see a situation where EON are bringing back Campbell for a 3rd
I swear I think fandom killed that term years ago, overusing it as if it's sort of an automatic "seal of quality".
Your exactly right, it is indeed an automatic seal of quality.
https://www.vulture.com/2020/05/mask-of-zorro-director-on-what-makes-a-great-action-romance.html
Cool new interview with Martin Campbell that mostly focuses on his Zorro film. However, there are some tasty morsels about Bond.
He's very candid and speaks in an upfront manner. Also, if you wondered whether Campbell was binging Netflix action film with Chris Hemsworth, this interview may help. Campbell is quick to talk about the films he thinks are abysmal, but makes no mention of his equally terrible Green Lantern movie. Hmmmmmm..............
I've extracted the parts to do with Bond below....
I feel like that really comes through in something like Casino Royale where the signature set piece in the film is a poker game.
That was my biggest worry in the movie! I simply thought, My God, we got three big sections in the poker game. How is an audience going to put up with this, playing poker? So, I watched all the films, probably everything from 5 Card Stud to the McQueen film The Cincinnati Kid, Maverick, all these card games, and what I realized is it’s not about the game, it’s about the guys playing the game, and if you will, the eye-fucking between them and what’s at stake, not just in terms of money but also personally. Between each of those sections of card games in Casino, there’s some action that goes on. When I cut it altogether, I didn’t have to worry, I just felt that there was enough going between Le Chiffre and Bond and even the other players to sustain the scenes.
That’s very true to the spirit of Ian Fleming, since he was actually all about these long passages, like the golf game in Goldfinger.
None of the books have any humor at all. That was brought on by [director] Terence Young right at the beginning when Dr. No happened. When you read the books, they’re dead serious, and you have Bond who smokes too much — as Fleming did, and it killed him in the end — and he drinks too much, and his liver’s a bit dodgy.
You’re the guy who rebooted Bond twice and very successfully both times. Was there any trepidation on Casino Royale? Was there a sense that you had done this already?
There was when I did GoldenEye. They hadn’t made a Bond film in six or seven years, and that’s because [Giancarlo] Parretti, who ran MGM, was a crook and he was legally tied up. So, Bond legally wasn’t allowed to be made. It was only after Parretti went. And the big thing about GoldenEye was: Is it now relevant after all this time? The Tim Dalton ones had been successful but certainly on the lower ends of all the Bonds. The revenue was declining. I remember having that discussion about why would Bond be relevant in the ’90s? Is he an anachronism? So, first of all, we put a female M in. Secondly, we put in that scene where she answers the audience’s questions, when she calls him a sexist, misogynist dinosaur, and that got us over the hump. GoldenEye is more like the Bonds we’ve seen before — not the Roger Moore ones but the Sean Connery ones.
When it came to Casino, we absolutely decided — because of the previous film where there were ice palaces and disappearing cars, snowboarding off ice floes and stuff like that — that it had gone too far. We didn’t have the rights to Casino Royale. Columbia had them because of the terrible [1967] comedy … dreadful piece of work. The Broccolis [producers Barbara Broccoli and her brother Michael G. Wilson] got the rights back and the decision was made to bring it back to earth, completely remake it more realistic, witty, tough — which means you go back to the Fleming conception of Bond.
It sounds like Bond is getting ready for a reboot again, with Daniel Craig now probably having done his last one. Do you have any advice for whoever tries to do Bond next?
Fleming always said Hoagy Carmichael was his perfect Bond — the face, all of that. And in fact, he objected very much when Connery was first cast, or was first being talked about.
If you look at Connery — who in my mind has always been the best simply because I was brought up on Connery — he was terrific and he looked great. Then you cut to Roger Moore … well, they were two entirely different Bonds, basically. Connery could kill without any hesitation and there was rough sexuality to the guy, something dangerous about him. Roger Moore was never dangerous. He had the charm, and some of the worst — which were some of the best — lines in Bond came out of the Roger Moore films. The sense of humor and the twinkle in Roger’s eyes, he made it his own. Ultimately, Pierce [Brosnan] made it his own, but it wasn’t that far removed from the Connery ones.
I think there’s a tradition that Daniel Craig has set with his Bond that will shoehorn smoothly to the next. It depends on who you cast. They can adapt essentially to contemporary events; I think that’s what’s going to happen. When I read about a female Bond or a black Bond — a black Bond might happen, but not a female one.
Martin Campbell did the best outings of two Bond actors - which doesn't seem like too hard to accomplish, given most of Brosnan's and Craig's other films, but it's still impressive the way they hold up. Campbell understands Bond's character as well as the classic formula; his movies are straight and direct and, most important for James Bond, he is an ACTION director, which would be so desperately needed after Sam Mendes (spit!) and presumably Cary Fukunanga (True Detectives gives me a chilling hint at what to expect...). GoldenEye and especially Casino Royale have some of the best action in the whole series.
So I'm all for starting starting Bond 26 with Martin Campbell and a new actor, which has always been his condition for returning. Had No Time to Die been released in 2019, as it was originally planned, we might already be thinking about pre-production and who to helm the movie and so forth... it's a shame, since it probably would have made a return of Campbell even more realistic, but we'll see. I will write to EON (not that they would listen to their audience) and I will argue for Martin Campbell.
https://www.indiewire.com/2019/06/django-zorro-movie-quentin-tarantino-unchained-sequel-1202147124/
https://www.slashfilm.com/django-zorro-movie/
Apparently, Quentin Tarantino and Jamie Foxx want Antonio Banderas to come back as Zorro. If he does, maybe Martin Campbell can come back to direct as well. I can't think of anyone between QT and MC to direct for them.
If this happened...I would be beyond enthusiastic. I really think the Django character should have got a sequel. Even if Quentin didn't actually direct. He's too iconic to leave to rust.
But don't sleep on Campbell. He's due a pretty exciting comeback in the (kinda) big leagues with The Asset. Which not only stars Samuel L. Jackson, but also the (old and new Batman) Michael Keaton! It's produced by Lionsgate, who have done a terrific job recently with the John Wick films in doing classy action which don't require blockbuster budgets.
I really have faith in The Asset. Though those expectations are severely tempered because Martin Campbell and the writer of The Expendables aren't exactly known for quality........Nonetheless, something to keep on your radar. It could be a fun polished action film. I found these stills online:
I remember watching these below interviews with Campbell in 2006 and being so dang excited for CR......
I didn’t know that he was banned from the editing room. Stuart Baird had a easier time editing Superman with Richard Donner. Too bad history didn’t repeat itself.
His next movie, coming this August, with many superhero alumni!
https://www.polygon.com/movies/22542989/the-protege-poster-maggie-q-martin-campbell-preview
https://www.darkhorizons.com/green-lantern-director-talks-films-failure/
"Yes, I would. I love the franchise, and it would be with a new Bond, which is always interesting, especially given my two Bond movies had different Bonds."
He probably could have improved TWINE. Maybe DAD, too.