Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
The case for and against... Martin Campbell
1. Martin Campbell
I often hear it claimed that Campbell is a genius and one of the great Bond directors. I find myself split on how to see him. For me GE is amongst the worst in the series and yet CR (which feels like it's by a different director) was undeniably just what was needed after DAD.
I suppose it hinges on whether or not you rate GE and CR.
Case against Campbell regarding GE:
He introduces the new Bond by having him hang upside down in a toilet.
He thinks Bond should wear a cravat.
He thinks Bond should use machine guns - a lot.
And isn't it also claimed that Campbell wanted Henry Cavill rather than Daniel Craig for Casino Royale? That's pretty damning IMO.
I often hear it claimed that Campbell is a genius and one of the great Bond directors. I find myself split on how to see him. For me GE is amongst the worst in the series and yet CR (which feels like it's by a different director) was undeniably just what was needed after DAD.
I suppose it hinges on whether or not you rate GE and CR.
Case against Campbell regarding GE:
He introduces the new Bond by having him hang upside down in a toilet.
He thinks Bond should wear a cravat.
He thinks Bond should use machine guns - a lot.
And isn't it also claimed that Campbell wanted Henry Cavill rather than Daniel Craig for Casino Royale? That's pretty damning IMO.
^ 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 LOVE the shot at 1.06)
He always seems to make the most out of the action. Whether that's more down to the second unit than Campbell himself I'm not sure, but one of the reasons I love GE is because of it's exciting, well-staged action sequences.
We'll never really know the full brief that directors have to work from, but I'm quite certain that in both the case of GE & CR, Campbell realized that he was responsible for partly resuscitating a franchise that was on its last legs and giving it a new lease of life. In both instances, he succeeded
He had to operate with a very different budget for GE ($60m) in comparision to CR ($150m) which could account for differences in the perceived quality of the films. Of course, inflation adjustments must be taken into account. Both films had far superior ROI (return on investment) than any other Bond film made in the last 20 yrs.
GE, on that relatively low budget, did the following very well:
1. got one of the better performances out of Pierce Brosnan as Bond (at least he didn't screw it up here)
2. cast brilliant actors and relative unknowns (to English speaking audiences at least) in lead roles and got superb performances out of all of them, a trick he would repeat in CR as well.
3. showcased the Bond glamour suitably well (Casino scene is a highlight, as is the helicopter theft in Monaco). Loved the throwback Aston/Ferrari chase scene which evokes Hitchcock as well as GF. It seemed refreshing after years of Glen (who I like but who was somewhat pedestrian imho).
4. gave us probably the best Bond ending of the past 20 years with the most Adam'esque set work since........well, Ken Adam himself and MR
5. kept Bond relatively alpha male and Bond'esque, which for a PB Bond film is saying something. "Kill her.....she means nothing to me" is a perfect example of what I expect from Bond. Not "Knew where to hurt me...."
6. Gave us the best Bond fight since FRWL, imho
7. Gave us great action sequences which were exciting and well filmed (tank sequence excepted)
8. Made Bond aspirational for me again. I admit I wanted to be Brosnan as Bond.....toilet entry and all
CR, again on a reasonable budget, did the following:
1. got the best performance out of Daniel Craig (yes, I think this is by far his best turn as James Bond)
2. again, cast brilliantly
3. showcased Bond glamour again (throwbacks to TB & DN in the Bahamas)
4. kept Bond alpha male (not difficult to do with DC, admittedly)
5. just turned everything on its head and gave us a refreshing start to a franchise that was out of gas, evoking the spirit of its heyday in the 60's
6. Gave us the best fight since,.....well GE
7. Gave us the incredible Parkour sequence which has yet to be bested in a Craig Bond film imho
Very importantly for me, Campbell has a phenomenal eye for the ladies. Janssen, Scorupco, Green & Murino are among my favourites. He may have messed up with Dench & Samantha Bond (imho), but I'll forgive those few missteps, since it was more the way the characters were introduced (coldly) that turned me off of both of them.
So he's the best director for Bond outside of Terence Young and Lewis Gilbert, from my perspective. I like Guy Hamilton too, but some of his films are a little quirky. The jury is still out on Mendes as far as I'm concerned, but I think he will join the upper pantheon soon.
I just don't like Campbell really, his action is very good mind, unlike really all the other directors who relied on the second unit guy.
Main con is that he sets things up badly for the next guy. GE deals with the end of the Cold War... but then what? They have to start again, find new enemies. Ditto CR, I mean there's no sense of who Bond is up against, so QoS drops the ball. When I say he's not an easy act to follow, that's not a compliment.
I think those are harsh criticisms. That's definitely not where I see his weaknesses.
Best Bond film of the Brosnan era, Best Bond film (so far, at least) of the Craig era.
Bonus points for having the difficult task of introducing a new actor in the role in each of his films.
Double bonus points for not only introducing a new actor in the role but having to completely relaunch the series in each of his films and doing so very effectively.
Cambpell had more pressure on him for both his films than any director since Terence Young for DN.
A very good all-rounder (and I don't mean that as a backhanded compliment) in that he balances drama, humour, narrative, action and effects very well. (Gilbert overdid humour, Glen was excellent at action but poor at drama and not great at humour, Apted really misfired on action and Tamahori fell very flat on narrative and effects.)
The entire sequence, the camera is constantly moving. Look at something as insignificant as the alarm blaring in the embassy. The camera races up to that horn.
The action in CR leaves you breathless and it's done without editing that makes it impossible to focus on or enjoy what we're looking at.
If Mendes opts out, Eon definitely should let Campbell close out the Craig era with Bond 25.
60 mil was a very healthy budget for that year. We're not talking Cameron-level dollars here, but that's over 20 mil more than LTK got. and the TREK movie from 94 was under 40 mil and TREK from 96 was under 50. Plus the GE BMW promotion supposedly was worth 8 figures too.
I think Campbell wasn't squeezed on either film; consider, for comparison's sake, the HBO film he made in 1991, CAST A DEADLY SPELL. That was six or 6.5 mil (Cameron's ex-wife produced it), and on that it really shows. I've read the script and talked to a lot of people who worked on it, and the reason that movie just peters out at the end is that the biggest aspect to the finale was dropped on the last day of shooting when they ran out of money. That suggests he wasn't too smart about conserving his resources, because, as anyone who has seen TREK 5 knows, you don't scrimp on the big FX ending.
I love the graveyard of statues in GE and a few other scenes there, and give the first ZORRO a rewatch every five or 7 years, but CR doesn't work for me at all. I think if Campbell had been able to hold out for Cavill it may have worked better for me, as the character's maturity level in CR suggests 'top gun' Bond, somebody youthful and relatively inexperienced, which Craig does not come close to resembling.
He introduced not one but two Bond actors to the public with two of the most loved films of the franchise. And both with great success.
That really says it all.
Edit to add: I just ordered the Green Lantern Blu Ray- thanks for the impetus!
Of course I also HATE, that "the name's" part -- Connery sure didn't need that, it is "my name is ... "
I thought Campbell wanted Cavill but Babs wanted Craig
That's what I heard.
The silliness in some scenes in GE were a direct response to the poor box office reception of the harder edged (and much more serious) LTK and the time that had elapsed between Bond films. EON were unsure what would work with Bond since their brave experiment had failed to catch on 6 years earlier, and so took the safe route.
CR, conversely, was a direct response to the excesses of DAD.
So they both were made to some extent to respond to their predecessor. Campbell did a great job imho with two quite different Bond actors and two quite different tones.
BB was the only one who wanted Craig, Campbell and MGW didn't.
That was all around the media back then.
It might be only rumours but it would fit BB's pattern of behaviour in such things, to put through her ideas at all cost.
What is interesting to me about Campbell is that his other films aren't as sharp. The first Zorro film was decent as I remember, but Zorro 2 was no good and Vertical Limit and Green Lantern are awful, awful movies.
And yet, Casino Royale might just be my favorite film of all time.
I'm confused now - I have to sit down.
Consider this:
Daniel Craig's acting in the lengthy scene in the train when he first meets Vesper is less than impressive. Eva Green is simply stealing the hole sequence and Craig does nothing against it.
It's not the only scene with Craig where I feel he doesn't act really better than Brosnan did in GE.
Is it Eva Green's fault or Campbell's?
I personally think that was meant to be and intentional. She is supposed to impress the hell out of him and get the better of him, which she convincingly does...
His approving and surprised glance back at her as she leaves sort of confirms it.
I too had a new found appreciation for accountants after that scene.
Maybe, maybe not, but then one could very well say the same about the scene with Brosnan and Bean, that it was intentional to have Brosnan not much react to Bean.
I did feel the imbalance in screen charisma between Brosnan and Bean in GE. It was palpable, and a little discomforting to me, because it was the first time in a Bond film where I felt the supporting cast (all of them) were blowing the doors off the place in terms of screen charisma. I don't know if that was intentional or not, but it certainly was my impression.
I thought Brosnan may have intentionally toned down his acting in GE, and I actually preferred his Bond there personally, but he amped up for the next film.