Martin Campbell - Appreciation Thread

1567810

Comments

  • edited January 2023 Posts: 784
    It could be the glasses, the gloves, or the buttons.

    Or just the combination of things. It's hard to put a finger on exactly what it is.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited May 2023 Posts: 4,052
    https://clutchpoints.com/daisy-ridley-news-cast-in-film-with-james-bond-director-ahead-of-star-wars-return

    Martin Campbell could have made a decent Star Wars movie. I don’t blame him for the flawed but enjoyable Green Lantern!
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,483
    I'd love Martin Campbell back directing for Bond 26 or even as a creative mind on the film. That man gets Bond and that Seend to be rarity these days
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,890
    Minimally he should be brought in to shoot Screentests
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Can lightning strike thrice? Will he be able to live up to expectations set by films he made so long ago? Imagine the crushing disappointment.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    Posts: 1,006
    I’m willing to give him a shot!
  • Posts: 1,395
    I think Campbell just 'gets' Bond. He would be great to bring back once more.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    https://www.imdb.com/news/ni64076421/?ref_=hm_nw_tp_3

    Martin Campbell is set to direct Daisy Ridley in Cleaner.
    A Die Hard style action film set in London.

    If we're lucky, maybe Martin Campbell can usher in the next Bond and go for the hattrick as far as Bond films go.
  • Posts: 299
    I think Campbell just 'gets' Bond. He would be great to bring back once more.

    GoldenEye and Casino Royale are in my TOP 10 Bond movies but isn't he too old to be director of Bond 26?
    He'll be 81-82 when they start shooting the movie.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Librarian wrote: »
    I think Campbell just 'gets' Bond. He would be great to bring back once more.

    GoldenEye and Casino Royale are in my TOP 10 Bond movies but isn't he too old to be director of Bond 26?
    He'll be 81-82 when they start shooting the movie.

    I'd wager age makes little difference to a director. Ridley Scott is 85, after all.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited June 2023 Posts: 7,890
    Librarian wrote: »
    I think Campbell just 'gets' Bond. He would be great to bring back once more.

    GoldenEye and Casino Royale are in my TOP 10 Bond movies but isn't he too old to be director of Bond 26?
    He'll be 81-82 when they start shooting the movie.

    I'd wager age makes little difference to a director. Ridley Scott is 85, after all.

    I've seen recent interviews with Campbell; he's fit and sharp as a tack. Age is not an issue.

  • Posts: 2,751
    Definitely, I don't think the guy's age is an issue. He could certainly direct Bond 26. It just depends on what the producers want from that particular movie (if it's a tighter, more down to earth/mid-scale thriller, then he's your man. If they wanted something slightly different then maybe they'd want some fresh blood).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    It is odd that his only movie success (i.e. good) outside of Bond seems to be Mask of Zorro. None of his other films manage to be of the standard of GE & CR to my eye.
  • edited June 2023 Posts: 2,751
    In fairness to Campbell I don't think he's the type of director who sets out to make 'masterpieces'. Just entertaining, if not even disposable films (I mean, the guy started his career making sex comedies).

    I do agree though, his movies outside of Bond and Zorro don't do much for me. In fact those 70s films of his are arguably more interesting.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    I'd certainly welcome Mr. Campbell back with open arms. It's hard to say where EON want to go with James Bond in Bond 26.
    CR was an origin story, that used a lot of Ian Fleming's source material. GE was 28 years ago, when he was in his mid to late 50's.
    Would he want to go through such an intense movie process going into his 80's?
    Go for the hattrick? Go out on a high, with 2 Bond classics?
    Who knows how far away Bond 26 is.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    007HallY wrote: »
    In fairness to Campbell I don't think he's the type of director who sets out to make 'masterpieces'. Just entertaining, if not even disposable films (I mean, the guy started his career making sex comedies).

    I do agree though, his movies outside of Bond and Zorro don't do much for me. In fact those 70s films of his are arguably more interesting.

    Yeah it's odd that although he tries to do more in the entertaining Bond vein, they never quite seem to land. Even the second Zorro film wasn't great. Obviously Edge of Darkness (the original) was more in the 'masterpiece' vein, but he doesn't really seem to return to that feel.
    So I guess, have we got lucky with him and a third 007 film from him might be as disappointing as his other films, or is Bond somehow the thing which guarantees great results from him?
  • edited June 2023 Posts: 2,751
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    In fairness to Campbell I don't think he's the type of director who sets out to make 'masterpieces'. Just entertaining, if not even disposable films (I mean, the guy started his career making sex comedies).

    I do agree though, his movies outside of Bond and Zorro don't do much for me. In fact those 70s films of his are arguably more interesting.

    Yeah it's odd that although he tries to do more in the entertaining Bond vein, they never quite seem to land. Even the second Zorro film wasn't great. Obviously Edge of Darkness (the original) was more in the 'masterpiece' vein, but he doesn't really seem to return to that feel.
    So I guess, have we got lucky with him and a third 007 film from him might be as disappointing as his other films, or is Bond somehow the thing which guarantees great results from him?

    In fairness to Campbell he's a director who knows what he's doing. Even in those lesser films I've seen I've always gotten a sense that he understands how to craft an action scene, build up tension, character etc. Compared with a director like, say, Marc Forster he's able to more consistently deliver a thriller/action film that's at least technically competent from a filmmaking perspective. Like the majority of directors however I get the sense he's only as good as the film he's making. I don't think he's ever going to turn a mediocre action flick into something more interesting. He's just going to competently deliver what's needed. Sometimes that's all that's needed with Bond, especially with films like GE and CR which had had time to be crafted/written in good time.
    Benny wrote: »
    I'd certainly welcome Mr. Campbell back with open arms. It's hard to say where EON want to go with James Bond in Bond 26.
    CR was an origin story, that used a lot of Ian Fleming's source material. GE was 28 years ago, when he was in his mid to late 50's.
    Would he want to go through such an intense movie process going into his 80's?
    Go for the hattrick? Go out on a high, with 2 Bond classics?
    Who knows how far away Bond 26 is.

    I'm sure he'd be able to do the job. My gut instinct is they'll go with a director who's a bit more involved in the pre-production side rather than someone like Campbell who's a bit more workman-like.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited June 2023 Posts: 2,895
    True. I've seen two or three of Campbell's recent films and they were ok middling thrillers, but no more than that, tbf. I've heard people who know more about Campbell than I do say that he'd raise his game for Bond, though, so it might be unfair to judge him on his last few movies. I'm ambivalent about this one.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    In fairness to Campbell I don't think he's the type of director who sets out to make 'masterpieces'. Just entertaining, if not even disposable films (I mean, the guy started his career making sex comedies).

    I do agree though, his movies outside of Bond and Zorro don't do much for me. In fact those 70s films of his are arguably more interesting.

    Yeah it's odd that although he tries to do more in the entertaining Bond vein, they never quite seem to land. Even the second Zorro film wasn't great. Obviously Edge of Darkness (the original) was more in the 'masterpiece' vein, but he doesn't really seem to return to that feel.
    So I guess, have we got lucky with him and a third 007 film from him might be as disappointing as his other films, or is Bond somehow the thing which guarantees great results from him?

    In fairness to Campbell he's a director who knows what he's doing. Even in those lesser films I've seen I've always gotten a sense that he understands how to craft an action scene, build up tension, character etc. Compared with a director like, say, Marc Forster he's able to more consistently deliver a thriller/action film that's at least technically competent from a filmmaking perspective. Like the majority of directors however I get the sense he's only as good as the film he's making. I don't think he's ever going to turn a mediocre action flick into something more interesting. He's just going to competently deliver what's needed. Sometimes that's all that's needed with Bond, especially with films like GE and CR which had had time to be crafted/written in good time.

    Yeah that's a fair point. I'm not sure he put much input into the scripts for his Bond movies, not as much as someone like Mendes who steered the whole course of his ones.
  • edited June 2023 Posts: 2,751
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    In fairness to Campbell I don't think he's the type of director who sets out to make 'masterpieces'. Just entertaining, if not even disposable films (I mean, the guy started his career making sex comedies).

    I do agree though, his movies outside of Bond and Zorro don't do much for me. In fact those 70s films of his are arguably more interesting.

    Yeah it's odd that although he tries to do more in the entertaining Bond vein, they never quite seem to land. Even the second Zorro film wasn't great. Obviously Edge of Darkness (the original) was more in the 'masterpiece' vein, but he doesn't really seem to return to that feel.
    So I guess, have we got lucky with him and a third 007 film from him might be as disappointing as his other films, or is Bond somehow the thing which guarantees great results from him?

    In fairness to Campbell he's a director who knows what he's doing. Even in those lesser films I've seen I've always gotten a sense that he understands how to craft an action scene, build up tension, character etc. Compared with a director like, say, Marc Forster he's able to more consistently deliver a thriller/action film that's at least technically competent from a filmmaking perspective. Like the majority of directors however I get the sense he's only as good as the film he's making. I don't think he's ever going to turn a mediocre action flick into something more interesting. He's just going to competently deliver what's needed. Sometimes that's all that's needed with Bond, especially with films like GE and CR which had had time to be crafted/written in good time.

    Yeah that's a fair point. I'm not sure he put much input into the scripts for his Bond movies, not as much as someone like Mendes who steered the whole course of his ones.

    I actually don't know how much Mendes had to do with the script of SP, but yes he did bring Logan on board for SF and seemed to contribute to the general story ideas. Fukunaga as well had a hand in writing NTTD. Even Forster from what I can tell had much more of a role in the pre-production of QOS than Campbell did on his films (which explains the 'short and fast as a bullet' concept that spreads to things like the editing and cinematography of that film).

    In that sense perhaps a criticism of Campbell isn't that he too old but that he's too out dated a director for Bond. I'm not someone who personally thinks there's an outright distinction between 'workman-like' directors such as Glen or Campbell, and more 'creative/auetuer' ones such as Fukunaga. In reality films, especially Bond films, are always a collaborative process, a director's job is to steer the various departments towards a coherent creative direction, and even the most distinctive auteurs have workman-like processes. Perhaps even if a director doesn't physically sit down and write parts of the script what's needed is one who will take more of a creative lead. This seems to be where the Bond films (as well as a lot of other franchise films in general, however superficially) are going with their directors compared to the past. It might lead to something more interesting than what Campbell could give us.
  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    Posts: 2,036
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    In fairness to Campbell I don't think he's the type of director who sets out to make 'masterpieces'. Just entertaining, if not even disposable films (I mean, the guy started his career making sex comedies).

    I do agree though, his movies outside of Bond and Zorro don't do much for me. In fact those 70s films of his are arguably more interesting.

    Yeah it's odd that although he tries to do more in the entertaining Bond vein, they never quite seem to land. Even the second Zorro film wasn't great. Obviously Edge of Darkness (the original) was more in the 'masterpiece' vein, but he doesn't really seem to return to that feel.
    So I guess, have we got lucky with him and a third 007 film from him might be as disappointing as his other films, or is Bond somehow the thing which guarantees great results from him?

    In fairness to Campbell he's a director who knows what he's doing. Even in those lesser films I've seen I've always gotten a sense that he understands how to craft an action scene, build up tension, character etc. Compared with a director like, say, Marc Forster he's able to more consistently deliver a thriller/action film that's at least technically competent from a filmmaking perspective. Like the majority of directors however I get the sense he's only as good as the film he's making. I don't think he's ever going to turn a mediocre action flick into something more interesting. He's just going to competently deliver what's needed. Sometimes that's all that's needed with Bond, especially with films like GE and CR which had had time to be crafted/written in good time.

    Yeah that's a fair point. I'm not sure he put much input into the scripts for his Bond movies, not as much as someone like Mendes who steered the whole course of his ones.

    Campbell brought Paul Haggis onto the project, according to Some Kind of Hero:

    “Campbell felt the Purvis and Wade script needed a rewrite. I suggested Paul Haggis should write it, to make it much more gritty, more realistic and make Bond basically a more interesting character. Wade was sanguine “I think Martin just suspected me and Neal because we kind of represented Barbara and Michael’s camp, he was always going to make sure we got fired”.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited June 2023 Posts: 648
    I never understood the mixed reaction to Edge of Darkness. I always thought it was a great movie. Crackling dialogue and strong characterization by William Monahan, a palpable sense of paranoia, villains that are creepy and totally believable, and what is probably Mel's best performance since Braveheart. The only thing that fell flat for me was the action finale, it was a bit too Lethal Weapon. I can't compare it to the miniseries, but judging it on its own I think it's Campbell's second best movie after Casino Royale.
  • Posts: 6,682
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I never understood the mixed reaction to Edge of Darkness. I always thought it was a great movie. Crackling dialogue and strong characterization by William Monahan, a palpable sense of paranoia, villains that are creepy and totally believable, and what is probably Mel's best performance since Braveheart. The only thing that fell flat for me was the action finale, it was a bit too Lethal Weapon. I can't compare it to the miniseries, but judging it on its own I think it's Campbell's second best movie after Casino Royale.

    Which Campbell films have you seen? I've seen No Escape, GE, The Mask of Zorro, CR and The Foreigner.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 648
    mattjoes wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I never understood the mixed reaction to Edge of Darkness. I always thought it was a great movie. Crackling dialogue and strong characterization by William Monahan, a palpable sense of paranoia, villains that are creepy and totally believable, and what is probably Mel's best performance since Braveheart. The only thing that fell flat for me was the action finale, it was a bit too Lethal Weapon. I can't compare it to the miniseries, but judging it on its own I think it's Campbell's second best movie after Casino Royale.

    Which Campbell films have you seen? I've seen No Escape, GE, The Mask of Zorro, CR and The Foreigner.

    GE, CR, Mask of Zorro, Vertical Limit, Edge of Darkness, The Foreigner. I seem to remember seeing No Escape when I was young but I don't remember much from it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Outside of Bond I only liked THE MASK OF ZORRO. I saw THE PROTEGE recommended by Bond fans, and that convinced me never to listen to them again when it comes to non-Bond works by Campbell. He might have made two solid Bond films, but that doesn’t mean he’s as good outside of that. The first ZORRO aside.
  • Posts: 12,243
    Dwayne wrote: »

    Very sad and disappointing if true. But it’s the kind of thing why I never “look up to” famous figures that create things I enjoy.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,895
    Well, that sucks.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,890
    Innocent until proven guilty…
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    It still sucks to have an accusation at all, guilty or not.
Sign In or Register to comment.