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
EON started to cast accomplished actors and actresses even for minor roles when the Bosnan era began.
Just look at the cast of GE and the movies since.
That may have something to do with it as well. Brosnan and Craig get to act with people which are clearly better than them.
Judi Dench being the obvious example. But there are a great many others in the last 7 movies.
Against.GE
No other director s work has improved so drastically.
uhhh...he did a Brosnan movie....he must be bad....
uhhh...he did Craig's first movie the fabulous perfect greatest ever Casino Royale...he must be good....
....oh I just say, GE was crap, CR was gold. That's the solution and very believable...
Fair enough. They had some quality names in the past too though (Davi is excellent, as is Del Torro, Krabbe, Rhy-Davies, Zerbe, Walken, Macnee, Jourdan, Glover etc. etc.).
The torture scene in CR.
I completely agree with this. The 1986 PTS was an in-joke.
When they did GE (not sure how much Cubby was involved at this time), they took a page out of the TSWLM handbook--make it bigger, more glamorous, and more fun.
There is no problem that needs a "solution". Campbell is hardly the only director with both crap and gold under his belt, within or outside the Bonds.
Some directors have almost complete control over their work from start to finish. The auteurs, if you will.
Others are more workmanlike and get the job done that is asked of them, with the material they are provided. The output will thence vary more in quality. Nothing mysterious about it.
That's always irked me too. Now a lot of younger fans think it's "THE name's Bond...James Bond" when for the first 20 or so years it was "MY name is..." which I recall can be found in the original novels too.
Depending on how SP is recieved I wouldnt put Mendes above Campbell. Several of the above posts echo my thoughts but that fight scene between 006 & 007 has yet to be topped IMO.
Agree completely, but it's the other way around: "...Casino Royale is just as good as Goldeneye..." that would be the correct way to express it :D
No Bond movie is perfect but Campbell's efforts strive to be as close to perfect as can possibly be. He also has had the task of introducing Bond actors #5 and 6 and did a remarkable job with both. There's no need for themes to be constructed and implemented in an obvious and conscious way; Campbell just gets on with the show while captaining the production with genuine craftsmanship. He understands the world of Bond. He knows who the characters are and as such, brings to life performances not just from the actors but from the locations, environments and vehicles.
Campbell really knows how to keep audiences engaged and is able to marry plot and action very well. Some people have issues with some of his set pieces such as the Tank in St. Perersburg or the Miami airport and the Venice sinking house but I've never been bothered by those other than the airport scene needing to be trimmed by 3 mins.
On the whole Campbell has proven himself to be reliable in creating Bond movies that deliver and further cement the importance and legend that is James Bond. GE is a classic that reaffirmed to the world that Bond truly is timeless and isn't suspended by the hooks of the cold war. CR is also a classic and I dare say an instant one at that that gave Campbell a mostly blank canvas to flex his upgraded artistic muscles which resulted in a movie that restored credibility to the series, showed that Bond is still THE number one spy series and ultimately redefined and repopularised what it truly means to be James Bond and who this man is but without the crutch of mellow drama to facilitate good acting.
As it is, in my book Terence Young is the best director of the Bond series, followed by Campbell. I think it's both wise and unfortunate he's only made 2 Bond movies because both movies are fantastic and I can appreciate if he didn't want to ruin his run but on the flip side the series could really stand to gain a lot from the energy he brings when making these Bond movies and if Mendes really isn't coming back after SP then whenever Craig's last movie is; Bond 25 or 26 I'd be delighted for Campbell to return and helm Craig's swan song.
Craig is a less forceful presence than Connery and does it seems to me sometimes allow his leading ladies to dominate. Look at TGWTDT. I dont think that it's bad acting but sometimes it would be nice if he amped it up a bit more.
That's true, but I really don't know anyone who can be as forceful a presence as Connery to be honest.
I think though in both the examples you cite, he was intentionally toning it down (for CR because Vesper was supposed to get the better of him, and for TGWTDT because Lisbeth is meant to be a force of nature).
Burt Lancaster? Robert Mitchum? Kirk Douglas?
Whether any of them match Connery in the looks department is debatable perhaps.
I don't think any of these guys had the dark sauveness of Connery combined with the perceived toughness. They're just tough. I have never seen a combination like he brought in his younger days (and even later, in films like the Rock). He was just so natural at projecting refined, yet definite manliness. He didn't have to even say anything......he also looked it and he walked it
Out of those, only Connery can still leave an indelible mark on any teenager in 2015 watching one of his Bond films for the first time.
Yes but the question was about a forceful presence.