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 think it's ponitless. They are old movies. If you haven't made a good movie in 30 years you have a problem.
Bingo, you hit the nail on the head P2D. And now that Amazon is running the show that reliability and familiarity with the fans will mean more than ever. Imagine the next trailer starts with "from the director of Goldeneye and Casino Royale". Now let's get this show on the road! B-)
I genuinely wonder who says this. GE in particular was quite radical in terms of cinematography for Bond films. It comes down to Phil Meheux and his teams fundamentally, but I think it was Campbell who brought him on.
It's one of those things I've read online in the past mate. They say "Campbell is a workman director and not really an artistic director"
Personally I think nothing could be further from the truth, Campbell is a brilliant fit for Bond and his films reflect that. Being a "workman" director is exactly what I want for Bond.
I still remember how vibrant Casino looked when I went to see it opening night, the colours just popped off the screen and yet the action still felt so kinetic and visceral even more than it had in Goldeneye.
The whole 'workman-like' distinction is a bizarre one to me sometimes. As if the likes of Kubrick or Spielberg (or any of the 'great' directors, old and modern) never directed a film for hire or for a third party and simply did whatever they wanted to artistically. Or that they weren't in some way methodical. Not to say Campbell is as consistent as those examples, but he has stylistic/artistic consistencies which are there throughout most of his films, good or bad. In some bizarre way I'd argue he's more on the 'auteur' side if anything (although I don't like using that word and think it can be simplistic).
I can't believe both movies are from the same director.
Yeah I think he's a bit of both (he's certainly done some potboiler stuff which I guess was more for the money than some of his other stuff) but he's done plenty of the more 'arty' stuff, and became well-known for directing a BAFTA-winning TV serial drama: he's no journeyman, he's a proper director.
Well, couldn't find anything else to watch so gave this a go. Daisy Ridley is very good, the fight scenes are surprisingly energetic and brutal, and her co-star is her autistic brother who is played by an actual autistic actor who gives a terrific performance. The effects are pretty solid too. But other than that, oh dear. There's so many beats in it where you're obviously supposed to be reacting in a particular way, but everything feels unearned and hollow, it is hard to believe this is the Casino Royale guy.
It's not the worst film ever made, but it is disappointing. It's short at least.
Hopefully, Campbell met her husband and recommends him for Bond. ;)
Dirty Angels may have a dreadful title, but with Martin Campbell at the helm, it delivers a solid B-movie package with bloody shootouts and over-the-top violence. If you’re in the mood for mindless action (prolonged gunfights, exploding Humvees, and plenty of gore) it delivers. However, the film fails to engage emotionally. It had the potential to make a statement about women fighting oppression, but the characters are generic and underdeveloped, making it hard to invest in them. There’s virtually no team dynamic between the group we are asked to invest in, and any attempt at drama lacks weight. As a result, the film feels hollow amid the explosions and gunfire. The real locations help, but the cinematography has that oversaturated streaming movie look. Eva Green is reliably steely and world-weary, though her accent is woefully inconsistent.
Cleaner has a few things going for it: the eco-terrorist villains are more layered than expected, with a compelling internal divide between those trying to make a statement and those pushing for outright violence. Their plan to expose a corrupt organisation worse than themselves adds a sharp, morally grey edge to the story. Martin Campbell’s direction gives the film a polished, big-screen feel which is glossy and cinematic in a way that most straight-to-streaming thrillers rarely are (I believe Eigil Bryld did an uncredited job as cinematographer, which explains why the film looks better than Dirty Angels). But despite all that, the film leaves Daisy Ridley frustratingly sidelined for most of the runtime. She spends nearly an hour stranded outside the building where the action’s happening, only getting two brief fight scenes (both already shown in the trailer). Her character is styled like an early 2000s goth, and she’s saddled with a brother who contributes little beyond naff Marvel jokes. It’s hard not to wish she had her Die Hard moment - bruised, barefoot, and battling to confront the villain - but Cleaner never quite lets her take over her own movie.
Maybe he's too old even for this. :(
Its low budget ($25m) and I think it accomplishes quite a bit for it, but yes having Daisy outside the skyscraper for a large stretch of the film is sadly a consequence of that.