Martin Campbell - what a transformation
#1
Posted 18 November 2006 - 10:49 AM
CR on the other hand has some amazingly stylish sequences (the rawness of the black & white opening sequence, the trippy poison martini scene), runs at a brisk pace despite being 2.5 hours long, and is full of genuine tension and genuine emotion.
Its as if they were directed by completely different people. Amazing!
#2
Posted 18 November 2006 - 11:28 AM
I suppose they are 2 of the darker, more violent films and meant to be more personal stories for the Bond character but even so Casino Royale goes much further in these areas than GE did and thinks outside the box of what you expect from a Bond film
I really hope Martin Campbell does Bond 22 because I think he's done a superb job on CR
#3
Posted 18 November 2006 - 11:40 AM
#4
Posted 18 November 2006 - 12:37 PM
#5
Posted 18 November 2006 - 02:02 PM
I don't think Bond 22 will be back to the style of a Goldneye or a Living Daylights, but there will definately be more of what we are used to.
#6
Posted 18 November 2006 - 02:24 PM
Y'know, I am quite freaking amazed that CR was directed by the same person who did GE. The two films are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum, I find GE to be dull, poorly-paced, with too much filler material (all the Natalya in the bunker scenes), and at best, competently directed.
CR on the other hand has some amazingly stylish sequences (the rawness of the black & white opening sequence, the trippy poison martini scene), runs at a brisk pace despite being 2.5 hours long, and is full of genuine tension and genuine emotion.
Its as if they were directed by completely different people. Amazing!
I don't think GOLDENEYE lacks style by any means, but, yes, I was surprised to find that CASINO ROYALE wasn't more similar to GOLDENEYE in look and feel. You could easily believe that it was directed by LAYER CAKE's Matthew Vaughn rather than Campbell.
Still, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER bears no particular hallmarks of being the work of the same man who directed GOLDFINGER, and it's nothing short of astounding that John Glen was behind both OCTOPUSSY and LICENCE TO KILL.
I guess Campbell will now go down in history as the director who pulled off not one but two amazing comebacks for the Bond series.
#7
Posted 18 November 2006 - 02:28 PM
#8
Posted 18 November 2006 - 05:05 PM
Goldeneye
Mask of Zorro
Vertical Limit (shudders)
Legened of Zorro
Casino Royale
These are his major films, and it's obvious that CS is by far his best effort so far. cheers!
#9
Posted 18 November 2006 - 07:07 PM
#10
Posted 18 November 2006 - 09:42 PM
The question is, can they get him to come back. Anyone know the reasons why he wouldn't do TND? It's not like his movies since GE have lit the screen on fire.
Edited by SecretAgent007, 18 November 2006 - 09:43 PM.
#11
Posted 18 November 2006 - 10:10 PM
All that said, unless Bond 22 has a script at least as good as CR, I'd rather not have Campbell back. He directs to the level of whatever script he's given, is his constant. I get the feeling, it'll be very tough indeed to fashion a Bond story to equal CR, so a Matthew Vaughn-type director would be a plus.
Of course, there are worse directors out there, having Campbell back even without a CR-quality script wouldn't be the worse thing EON has done...
It's all about the writing, IMO.
#12
Posted 18 November 2006 - 10:14 PM
#13
Posted 18 November 2006 - 10:23 PM
I agree. But still, this was hands-down the most visually impressive Bond film to date. The PTS and dirty martini scenes were amazing. I'd love to see Campbell stretch himself some more and see what other creative things he can come up with. I'd really like to see some quirkiness, a la Soderbergh, not that I'm advocating following in someone else's steps.Campbell did a phenomenal job here, but credit also has to go to Stuart Baird and Phil Meheux, whose work was invaluable. It's really the three of them that made the visual and cinematic aspects what they were.
#14
Posted 18 November 2006 - 10:28 PM
Campbell did a phenomenal job here, but credit also has to go to Stuart Baird and Phil Meheux, whose work was invaluable. It's really the three of them that made the visual and cinematic aspects what they were.
Absolutely Harmsway! Baird and Meheux are all over this film. That said, it is without a doubt the finest work that Campbell has ever done and a damn sight better than anyone has done in the series since OHMSS for my money!
I for one would really like to see Campbell return for 22 at the very least, along with Baird, Meheux (which would be a given if Campbell returns). I'd also invite Haggis back for another polish if we'd be guaranteed the same high level of intelligent dialogue and witty banter.
#15
Posted 19 November 2006 - 12:19 AM
#16
Posted 19 November 2006 - 01:25 AM
Also he had some great cinematographers and other people putting more care into it than what they could have ever hoped for GE.
#17
Posted 19 November 2006 - 03:49 AM
#18
Posted 19 November 2006 - 05:11 AM
#19
Posted 19 November 2006 - 05:15 AM
Overall I think hes done a fine job as a Bond director!
#20
Posted 11 January 2007 - 05:37 AM
Also, as someone else pointed out, John Glen directed both AVTAK and LTK - 2 very different movies.
Alot is to do with the script, the actors, and the whole feel that the producers want to convey.
#21
Posted 11 January 2007 - 09:32 AM
#22
Posted 08 January 2009 - 04:34 PM
I agree. I’ve spent the last couple viewings of CR trying to find “Campbellisms”. I found very few. They are:
- The freeze frame of Bond in the crouched-but-ready-to-pounce-again position after he jumps from the moving truck over the gate onto embassy grounds. A cheesy B-rate action maneuver. The camera spends too much time on Bond trying to make him look dangerous, and instead makes him look awkward. IMO. But I’m not even sure that’s isn’t more Glen than Campbell.
- The sudden and random close-up shot of the mounted video camera in the embassy struck me as something straight from Goldeneye. (Or was it the video game?) (Or was it both?) (Or is there even a difference between the two?)
- The sinking house set in Venice. Just the indoor shots. I’m not down on the sequence, but it does feel like the better parts of Goldeneye to me, particularly the reflection in the bottle trick.
But, blimey... I can hardly think of anything else! Any other moments in CR that hearken you back to less-than-stellar Campbell work in or out of Bond?
Where did the man GO? Is he in there? Where’s Waldo?
#23
Posted 08 January 2009 - 04:51 PM
Does anyone else feel that the dirty Martini scene was straight out of Peter Hunt/Terence Young territory? The way it was shot and cut reminded me of the steamer sequence from THUNDERBALL more than anything I can think of from recent cinema.
#24
Posted 08 January 2009 - 05:13 PM
"I'm afraid you've lost me completely."Does anyone else feel that the dirty Martini scene was straight out of Peter Hunt/Terence Young territory? The way it was shot and cut reminded me of the steamer sequence from THUNDERBALL more than anything I can think of from recent cinema.
When does Bond order a dirty martini? What are you referring to? (Not to be stubborn, really. When he orders a Vesper? Or when he says "Do I look like..."?)
And how does it compare to the steamer sequence in TB?
#25
Posted 08 January 2009 - 05:26 PM
#26
Posted 08 January 2009 - 05:36 PM
Ah. “Dirty” as in the very literal sense, then.Sorry- I meant the scene where he enters the toilets drugged. I had seen it written above as dirty Martini, confusing it with the first post's trippy poison martini. Men cannot multitask, yunno.
Forgive me, but I’m still a little lost. That psychedelic poisoning sequence reminds you of the steambox scene in TB? How?
Help one to understand…
#27
Posted 08 January 2009 - 05:52 PM
- The sinking house set in Venice. Just the indoor shots. I’m not down on the sequence, but it does feel like the better parts of Goldeneye to me, particularly the reflection in the bottle trick.
That reflection remind me to GF's PTS, but in a more credible way. I mean it's more plausible a reflection on a bottle than in a girl's eyes.
#28
Posted 08 January 2009 - 05:54 PM
#29
Posted 08 January 2009 - 06:22 PM
#30
Posted 08 January 2009 - 06:39 PM
Sorry- confusing it with the traction machine. Dear me, I am terrible today!
Apologies to all.