›

The case for and against... Martin Campbell

1…34689…13

Comments

  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited May 2017 Posts: 5,767
    Getafix wrote: »
    Big claims being made for Campbell. Campbell more important than Hamilton and Young?
    Or Glen, for that matter, whose era I cherish a lot more than those started by Campbell.

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Big claims being made for Campbell. Campbell more important than Hamilton and Young?
    Or Glen, for that matter, whose era I cherish a lot more than those started by Campbell.

    I agree personally.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited May 2017 Posts: 11,425
    patb wrote: »
    To deal with an actor new to the role and, arguably, bring our their best work deserves real credit. To do this twice deserves double the credit. In addition, to "press the reset button" and produce a Bond for a new era is also tricky. He is clearly a clever chap and I would make comparisons with Peter Hunt for the same factors.

    Except GE is garbage
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited May 2017 Posts: 11,189
    With such dramatic, attention seeking statements such as the one above I'm going to make one:

    people who don't like GE are dead to me. These cretins don't deserve to live.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited May 2017 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    Big claims being made for Campbell. Campbell more important than Hamilton and Young?

    More important than Young? No.

    More important than Hamilton? Possibly (Hamilton apparently "regretted" doing 2/3 of his Bond films).
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    To deal with an actor new to the role and, arguably, bring our their best work deserves real credit. To do this twice deserves double the credit. In addition, to "press the reset button" and produce a Bond for a new era is also tricky. He is clearly a clever chap and I would make comparisons with Peter Hunt for the same factors.

    Except GE is garbage

    Hyperbole. The general consensus among the movie going public is that he made two very good Bond movies - you could stretch that to one very good and one excellent. And of course there are those (a minority, I'm sure) who would argue he made two classics. Arguing that GE is garbage is like me arguing AVTAK is a masterpiece. You're fully entitled to think it's the worst thing committed to celluloid, but in a wider conversation about directorial legacy it's an eclectic viewpoint that would find little traction in a genuine discussion about Campbell's impact.
  • Escalus5Escalus5
    edited May 2017 Posts: 614
    I'm not a fan of GOLDENEYE, but I think Campbell did fine work with the subpar material he was handed. The movie is slick-looking, has exciting action scenes and strong supporting performances. It's just too bad that the script is deadly dull and appears to have been written by a committee of people who never watched a Bond film.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    Yawn.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited May 2017 Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Big claims being made for Campbell. Campbell more important than Hamilton and Young?

    More important than Young? No.

    More important than Hamilton? Possibly (Hamilton apparently "regretted" doing 2/3 of his Bond films).

    I thought Hamilton made 4?

    I stand by my comments on GE. Objectively a poor film by pretty much every critera.

    CR has its faults as well but is redeemed primarily by much better source material and of course a much better lead actor. What I'd say in Campbell's favour is that he tells a story simply and traditionally, which is a hallmark of the Bond films.

    The idea that Campbell is a great action director is debatable for me. Nothing stands out in GE as far as I'm concerned. At least not in a good way.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    0Xzujl6.gif
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,450
    "GE is objectively a poor film by pretty much every criteria."

    Says who? You loathe the film and the Brosnan era, so that's understandable, but objectively, I'd say it's a Top 10 Bond title by most standards.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,955
    Getafix wrote: »
    Big claims being made for Campbell. Campbell more important than Hamilton and Young?

    I said after Young.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm not sure if Campbell is more important to the franchise than Hamilton. I'd put them on the same level, given Hamilton essentially created Bondmania with GF, then successfully introduced a new Bond with Moore, and also set the tone for the early 70's with DAF. Those early 70's films were made on smaller budgets too, which is commendable. I'd probably put them on par, but Young is definitely way ahead.

    Glen was workmanlike, but I don't rate his efforts as highly as I do Campbell's.
  • Crazysoul95Crazysoul95
    Posts: 3,336
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    "GE is objectively a poor film by pretty much every criteria."

    Says who? You loathe the film and the Brosnan era, so that's understandable, but objectively, I'd say it's a Top 10 Bond title by most standards.

    Agree with you there, it is by no means an objectively bad film. It brought the series back to life after a 6 year drought. Goldeneye is such a fun ride.
  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    GE does some things better than CR & vice versa. I prefer GE, its probably the most modern, radically different but yet stays true to Bondian roots.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited May 2017 Posts: 11,189
    The action in GE is far better edited together and hence more exciting than much of the action in the rest of Brosnan's films.

    The Madagascar and Miami airport scenes in CR are probably two of my favourite action sequences in Bond.

    Campbell has had the benefit of strong editors in his two films.
  • MilovyMilovy
    Posts: 676
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    The action in GE is far better edited together and hence more exciting than much of the action in the rest of Brosnan's films.

    The Madagascar and Miami airport scenes in CR are probably two of my favourite action sequences in Bond.

    Campbell has had the benefit of strong editors in his two films.
    Also far better choreographed and shot than the other Brosnan films.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    The action in GE is far better edited together and hence more exciting than much of the action in the rest of Brosnan's films.

    The Madagascar and Miami airport scenes in CR are probably two of my favourite action sequences in Bond.

    Campbell has had the benefit of strong editors in his two films.

    The action in CR is a big improvement on GE. Madagascar is a great scene, even if I have issues with aspects of how it was done. Miami is just a bit too Die Hard for me, and overlong. Not very Bondian. It's a decent enough action scene but does it fit a Bond film?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    The action in GE is far better edited together and hence more exciting than much of the action in the rest of Brosnan's films.

    The Madagascar and Miami airport scenes in CR are probably two of my favourite action sequences in Bond.

    Campbell has had the benefit of strong editors in his two films.

    The action in CR is a big improvement on GE. Madagascar is a great scene, even if I have issues with aspects of how it was done. Miami is just a bit too Die Hard for me, and overlong. Not very Bondian. It's a decent enough action scene but does it fit a Bond film?
    Miami is better than anything in SP. At least Bond shows smarts in that sequence, and then there is the money shot when he smirks as Carlos gets the final shock of his life. 'Pure Bond', that.

    I didn't like it at first because it's weak in comparison to Madagascar, but over time it's grown on me. The way Bond figures out where Carlos is in the crowd by calling the phone, the special effects work etc. are all great.

    The only action sequence I truly despise in CR is the Venice bit at the end.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    When I first got the CR DVD in 2006 I used to pop it in just so I could rewatch that Miami sequence.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    The action in GE is far better edited together and hence more exciting than much of the action in the rest of Brosnan's films.

    The Madagascar and Miami airport scenes in CR are probably two of my favourite action sequences in Bond.

    Campbell has had the benefit of strong editors in his two films.

    The action in CR is a big improvement on GE. Madagascar is a great scene, even if I have issues with aspects of how it was done. Miami is just a bit too Die Hard for me, and overlong. Not very Bondian. It's a decent enough action scene but does it fit a Bond film?
    Miami is better than anything in SP. At least Bond shows smarts in that sequence, and then there is the money shot when he smirks as Carlos gets the final shock of his life. 'Pure Bond', that.

    I didn't like it at first because it's weak in comparison to Madagascar, but over time it's grown on me. The way Bond figures out where Carlos is in the crowd by calling the phone, the special effects work etc. are all great.

    The only action sequence I truly despise in CR is the Venice bit at the end.

    Probably agree that it tops anything in SP. Not hard.

    Funny, again I have issues with the Venice scene but in essence I've always liked that sequence. The idea of a palazzo sinking into the grand canal seems to fit the underlying story about betrayal and loss. For once the fact it's set in Venice actually really seems to fit the story as well.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    The action in GE is far better edited together and hence more exciting than much of the action in the rest of Brosnan's films.

    The Madagascar and Miami airport scenes in CR are probably two of my favourite action sequences in Bond.

    Campbell has had the benefit of strong editors in his two films.

    The action in CR is a big improvement on GE. Madagascar is a great scene, even if I have issues with aspects of how it was done. Miami is just a bit too Die Hard for me, and overlong. Not very Bondian. It's a decent enough action scene but does it fit a Bond film?
    Miami is better than anything in SP. At least Bond shows smarts in that sequence, and then there is the money shot when he smirks as Carlos gets the final shock of his life. 'Pure Bond', that.

    I didn't like it at first because it's weak in comparison to Madagascar, but over time it's grown on me. The way Bond figures out where Carlos is in the crowd by calling the phone, the special effects work etc. are all great.

    The only action sequence I truly despise in CR is the Venice bit at the end.

    Probably agree that it tops anything in SP. Not hard.

    Funny, again I have issues with the Venice scene but in essence I've always liked that sequence. The idea of a palazzo sinking into the grand canal seems to fit the underlying story about betrayal and loss. For once the fact it's set in Venice actually really seems to fit the story as well.
    Yes, it's very scenic and nicely filmed. I just find it a bit overwrought (understandably perhaps, given what happens eventually) and Brosnan'esque, given Bond goes through several thugs in that sequence (the only thing missing is the machine gun). Arnold's score here is also a bit overwhelming. I suppose the fact that Bond fails ultimately is what grates too.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited May 2017 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    The action in GE is far better edited together and hence more exciting than much of the action in the rest of Brosnan's films.

    The Madagascar and Miami airport scenes in CR are probably two of my favourite action sequences in Bond.

    Campbell has had the benefit of strong editors in his two films.

    The action in CR is a big improvement on GE. Madagascar is a great scene, even if I have issues with aspects of how it was done. Miami is just a bit too Die Hard for me, and overlong. Not very Bondian. It's a decent enough action scene but does it fit a Bond film?
    Miami is better than anything in SP. At least Bond shows smarts in that sequence, and then there is the money shot when he smirks as Carlos gets the final shock of his life. 'Pure Bond', that.

    I didn't like it at first because it's weak in comparison to Madagascar, but over time it's grown on me. The way Bond figures out where Carlos is in the crowd by calling the phone, the special effects work etc. are all great.

    The only action sequence I truly despise in CR is the Venice bit at the end.

    Probably agree that it tops anything in SP. Not hard.

    Funny, again I have issues with the Venice scene but in essence I've always liked that sequence. The idea of a palazzo sinking into the grand canal seems to fit the underlying story about betrayal and loss. For once the fact it's set in Venice actually really seems to fit the story as well.
    Yes, it's very scenic and nicely filmed. I just find it a bit overwrought (understandably perhaps, given what happens eventually) and Brosnan'esque, given Bond goes through several thugs in that sequence (the only thing missing is the machine gun). Arnold's score here is also a bit overwhelming. I suppose the fact that Bond fails ultimately is what grates too.

    Well, Vesper has to die, doesn't she? Haven't read the novel and understand her suicide happens stage off in the book. However, for the purposes of the film I think it works well. I don't have an issue with the idea of Bond failing necessarily. He 'fails' as well in SF.

    As you say, nicely filmed and designed. I've always loved the 'Don't Look Now' reference as well. An ominous and well judged little homage.

    I still sometimes genuinely struggle to believe that GE and CR were directed by the same person.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    The action in GE is far better edited together and hence more exciting than much of the action in the rest of Brosnan's films.

    The Madagascar and Miami airport scenes in CR are probably two of my favourite action sequences in Bond.

    Campbell has had the benefit of strong editors in his two films.

    The action in CR is a big improvement on GE. Madagascar is a great scene, even if I have issues with aspects of how it was done. Miami is just a bit too Die Hard for me, and overlong. Not very Bondian. It's a decent enough action scene but does it fit a Bond film?
    Miami is better than anything in SP. At least Bond shows smarts in that sequence, and then there is the money shot when he smirks as Carlos gets the final shock of his life. 'Pure Bond', that.

    I didn't like it at first because it's weak in comparison to Madagascar, but over time it's grown on me. The way Bond figures out where Carlos is in the crowd by calling the phone, the special effects work etc. are all great.

    The only action sequence I truly despise in CR is the Venice bit at the end.

    Probably agree that it tops anything in SP. Not hard.

    Funny, again I have issues with the Venice scene but in essence I've always liked that sequence. The idea of a palazzo sinking into the grand canal seems to fit the underlying story about betrayal and loss. For once the fact it's set in Venice actually really seems to fit the story as well.
    Yes, it's very scenic and nicely filmed. I just find it a bit overwrought (understandably perhaps, given what happens eventually) and Brosnan'esque, given Bond goes through several thugs in that sequence (the only thing missing is the machine gun). Arnold's score here is also a bit overwhelming. I suppose the fact that Bond fails ultimately is what grates too.

    Well, Vesper has to die, doesn't she? Haven't read the novel and understand her suicide happens stage off in the book. However, for the purposes of the film I think it works well. I don't have an issue with the idea of Bond failing necessarily. He 'fails' as well in SF.
    True, he does fail in SF also. It's all relative, but there is a level of overbearing melodrama to the entire Venice act that's a bit much for me. I can appreciate that I'm in the minority on this one, but I don't look forward to watching the final act of CR whenever I put the film in the player. For me, the film ends with LeChiffre's death.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Pro-Campbell - He made the brilliant CR. The best Bond film since the 60's.

    Con- Campbell - He made the distinctly average GE. Yawn.
  • MilovyMilovy
    edited May 2017 Posts: 676
    Vesper's death is a foregone conclusion, which makes the whole romance/sinking house feel a bit tedious.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    Getafix wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    The action in GE is far better edited together and hence more exciting than much of the action in the rest of Brosnan's films.

    The Madagascar and Miami airport scenes in CR are probably two of my favourite action sequences in Bond.

    Campbell has had the benefit of strong editors in his two films.

    The action in CR is a big improvement on GE. Madagascar is a great scene, even if I have issues with aspects of how it was done. Miami is just a bit too Die Hard for me, and overlong. Not very Bondian. It's a decent enough action scene but does it fit a Bond film?

    That's exactly how I see it.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    echo wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Big claims being made for Campbell. Campbell more important than Hamilton and Young?

    I said after Young.

    Sorry I meant to say Hamilton and Gilbert
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited May 2017 Posts: 5,955
    Getafix wrote: »
    Well, Vesper has to die, doesn't she? Haven't read the novel and understand her suicide happens stage off in the book. However, for the purposes of the film I think it works well. I don't have an issue with the idea of Bond failing necessarily. He 'fails' as well in SF.

    Wot?
    bondjames wrote: »
    True, he does fail in SF also. It's all relative, but there is a level of overbearing melodrama to the entire Venice act that's a bit much for me. I can appreciate that I'm in the minority on this one, but I don't look forward to watching the final act of CR whenever I put the film in the player. For me, the film ends with LeChiffre's death.

    The beauty of the film, and of Green's performance, is that you desperately don't want Vesper to die, and yet it is inevitable. I have a similar reaction to OHMSS.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,687
    Getafix wrote: »

    Au contrair, the moment I saw Bond appear head first over that toilet I knew immediately where the series was heading.

    Totally agree it's the worst first appearance by any Bond. Don't know what the hell Campbell was thinking.

    I'm one of that small group who thought GE was abysmal and was not remotely surorised by the direction his era took. DAD was the logical conclusion tbh. But TWINE is actually the worst.

    Campbell did redeem himself impressively with CR though.

    Oh my god, you're my twin. TWINE is worst. GE was a bad start, and one can see where it's gonna go. TND might be the most successful of the lot, to be honest.
Sign In or Register to comment.