27 replies to this topic

[medrecess]

I think most people here do not like Campbell and dont have much respect for his directing capabilities.But i feel as a fan of GYE which i can see countless times ,that this guy is quite talented.The way he shot that film was incredible.It was so unlike any Bond movie.It was fast paced,high octane stuff.That movie is one of the best in the series.

I strongly feel that CR would be as successful because of a strong script and THE CAMPBELL FACTOR.Though i must admit out of his other movies only Mask of Zorro stands out.

[Gabriel]

I hope you're right. But Campbell doesn't seem to have gone anywhere interesting since The Mask of Zorro. Choosing Campbell out of all the film directors on the planet to launch a new Bond when he is so heavily associated with the previous style strikes me as bizarre, not to mention a bit conservative.

[luciusgore]

Now if only he would dress up like a woman and solicit tricks on the streets of L.A. ... Just kidding. I think with an excellent script Campbell can deliver. Of the four Brosnan directors, my top fave was Campbell, followed by perhaps the dress-wearing Tamahori.

[Kingdom Come]

Looks like we were right - Tamahori is heterosexual after all. Now to Campbell, its not that the man isn't talented and his work on GE, though unremarkable was exciting and amazing that he made a film look so expensive looking when infact it wasn't. But for me I'd like to see a 'powerful' director, a 'landmark' director someone who is dynamic like Michael Mann. Campbell will give us a good film of that I have no doubt but not a 'remarkable' one. That's what I think anyway!!!

[luciusgore]

Goldeneye was groundbreaking at the time. It predates Mission Impossible and the Bourne films. One could argue that it resurrected the spy movie, which was moribund in 1995.

[doublenoughtspy]

I get a little tired of these sweeping statements about what CBn thinks or doesn't think or likes vs doesn't like.

With 5000 registered users, there is a wide range of opinion.

Of all the directors to be brought back, Campbell is the one I would have gone with.

[DLibrasnow]

I get a little tired of these sweeping statements about what CBn thinks or doesn't think or likes vs doesn't like.

With 5000 registered users, there is a wide range of opinion.

Of all the directors to be brought back, Campbell is the one I would have gone with.

I agree....I think GoldenEye was Pierce's best 007 movie.

[Harmsway]

Of all the directors to be brought back, Campbell is the one I would have gone with.

I concur - I'm not sure any of the other Brosnan directors were up to handling CASINO ROYALE besides Campbell. Campbell may be more of a "safe" choice and less of an exciting one, but in that I find some comfort. The guy did Bond and did Bond well once before, and so I find a little security in that for CASINO ROYALE.

[Loomis]

Goldeneye was groundbreaking at the time. It predates Mission Impossible and the Bourne films. One could argue that it resurrected the spy movie, which was moribund in 1995.

I wonder how much of an influence TRUE LIES was on GOLDENEYE. Not saying it was one, necessarily (I've no idea whether it was or not), but I wonder whether it was.

Anyway, there's a lot wrong with GOLDENEYE, but a lot right with it, too, and Campbell did a good job. Campbell + an excellent script + Craig = magic.

Probably.

[Genrewriter]

Of all the directors to be brought back, Campbell is the one I would have gone with.

Ditto. Of tyhe four Brosnan directors, he definitely did the best job. TND was good for reasons other than Spottiswoode's direction, Apted was just the wrong man for the job and DAD worked in spite of Tamahori's direction.

[Moore Not Less]

For me, GoldenEye is easily Pierce Brosnan's best Bond film and Martin Campbell deserves his fair share of the credit. For a film as pivotal as Casino Royale, I would rather have a director who's been there and done that, and done that well. If the script is anything like as good as it is rumoured to be then Campbell will deliver.

[Captain Grimes]

I don't understand the high regard for GE; I would rank it second of the Brosnans, after TWINE. That's an unpopular opinion, of course, but I think Brozza gave his most mature performance in TWINE, and Apted turned in a solid, adult picture that (mostly) didn't fall victim to the usual excesses.

That said, Campbell isn't any less a director than John Glen, for example, so with a better script I think he should be just fine. (Much better, in my view, than someone like Michael Mann. If the series is to retain its distinctiveness it must keep the "auteurs" at arms length.)

[Gabriel]

No. GoldenEye didn't bowl me over either. Then again, a lot of that was on account of the screenplay and special effects that looked like outtakes from an old episode of Thunderbirds!

Actually, given all the discussion about EON's handling of the press and fans, it's just as well Tamahori isn't directing Casino Royale - the Tamahori cross-dressing incident would probably have been the most memorable thing about the film!

[Judo chop]

I expect Campbell will be a completely neutral addition to the final product. From his work on GE, I can see that the man is not an incompetent bungler. But I don't see that he will be bringing any special sauce to the party either. I think CR has a great script, a great Bond, great locations, and all will be allowed to shine through unaffected by Campbell.

I'm sure he'd take that as an insult, but I take it as more of a relief.

[deth]

(Much better, in my view, than someone like Michael Mann. If the series is to retain its distinctiveness it must keep the "auteurs" at arms length.)

imo, you can't really compare Mann and Campbell... two very different styles...

have you seen Collateral? Don't tell me that was badly directed....


that said, I agree... I wouldn't want a drastic change in directing style for the Bond films... so I'd never want someone like Mann to do it

Edited by deth, 09 February 2006 - 01:08 AM.

[Pussfeller]

Apted and Spottiswoode were competent, but I didn't find either TND or TWINE to be remarkable in any way. The first was a brainless action flick, and the second was a boring action flick.

Tamahori started out very strongly, but his scenes quickly became disjointed and jarring. He created a few good scenes, but completely lost the story halfway through.

I find GoldenEye to be the most watchable of Brosnan's films, though it wasn't perfect by any stretch. Campbell was probably the best of Brosnan's directors, in that he coaxed good performances out of the actors (for the most part) and didn't let the action derail the narrative.

[Kingdom Come]

I think there is a tendancy to credit Campbell for the success of GE. Remember they had quite a few years to work on the script etc which gave Campbell a HUGE head start that almost all of the previous (and since) directors never had.

Personally I think Tamahori the best director since Gilbert.

[Streetworker]

I don't understand the high regard for GE; I would rank it second of the Brosnans, after TWINE. That's an unpopular opinion, of course, but I think Brozza gave his most mature performance in TWINE, and Apted turned in a solid, adult picture that (mostly) didn't fall victim to the usual excesses.

Youy aren't alone. I simply fail to understand the antipathy towards TWINE on CBn. And I think Michael Apted is an intelligent director who did a good job.

Campbell did a good job on GoldenEye; but I find him a competent, rather than inspired, director and so agree with the earlier poster who believes him to be a conservative choice for Casino Royale.

[Skudor]

I don't understand the high regard for GE; I would rank it second of the Brosnans, after TWINE. That's an unpopular opinion, of course, but I think Brozza gave his most mature performance in TWINE, and Apted turned in a solid, adult picture that (mostly) didn't fall victim to the usual excesses.

Youy aren't alone. I simply fail to understand the antipathy towards TWINE on CBn. And I think Michael Apted is an intelligent director who did a good job.

Campbell did a good job on GoldenEye; but I find him a competent, rather than inspired, director and so agree with the earlier poster who believes him to be a conservative choice for Casino Royale.

Competent, but hardly inspired or brilliant. I think that sums it up.

[Santa]

I don't understand the high regard for GE; I would rank it second of the Brosnans, after TWINE. That's an unpopular opinion, of course, but I think Brozza gave his most mature performance in TWINE, and Apted turned in a solid, adult picture that (mostly) didn't fall victim to the usual excesses.

Youy aren't alone. I simply fail to understand the antipathy towards TWINE on CBn. And I think Michael Apted is an intelligent director who did a good job.

Campbell did a good job on GoldenEye; but I find him a competent, rather than inspired, director and so agree with the earlier poster who believes him to be a conservative choice for Casino Royale.

Perfectly summed up.

[morganhavoc]

The choice of Campbell may be an indication that Casino Royale isn't going to be breaking the mold that many people think it will be. Most big name director will not take on a Bond picture due to the extreme control the producers hold on the films.
If EON truely wanted to start fresh and reboot the series, they would have gone with a different director, with a clearly different style and vision.
Campbell isn't a bad director and is miles above John Glen and will deliver a solid film. I'm not a huge Campbell fan, but he does produce an entertaining product and is truely a nice person when you work with him. In the direction aspect of the film, I think we shouldn't worry too much.

[Gabriel]

I'm glad Phil Meheux is back on Casino. His work on GoldenEye was excellent.

[Captain Grimes]

(Much better, in my view, than someone like Michael Mann. If the series is to retain its distinctiveness it must keep the "auteurs" at arms length.)

imo, you can't really compare Mann and Campbell... two very different styles...

have you seen Collateral? Don't tell me that was badly directed....


that said, I agree... I wouldn't want a drastic change in directing style for the Bond films... so I'd never want someone like Mann to do it

I should have been clearer. I think Campbell is a better director for a Bond film, but Mann is clearly the more talented of the two. Mann would probably bring his own idiosyncratic "vision" to a Bond movie, and the result, as you said, would be drastically different from the other films in the series.

[Bondesque]

Michael Mann directing a Bond film would be a dream! I would love to see an Alist director with his gravitas allowed free reign to make the mother of all Bond films. Unfortunately I don't see EON ever allowing that to happen. Once out ofthe box Eon would never have the iron clad control that they have now.

[Gabriel]

Well Babs and Mikey have to retire at some point . . . don't they?

[Judo chop]

Well Babs and Mikey have to retire at some point . . . don't they?

Yes, I would think so. And what an interesting day on the boards that will be...

[Pussfeller]

Wilson is bound to retire first, and then Babs will be in control. It seems like they ought to be grooming a successor by this point.

[tdalton]

I should have been clearer. I think Campbell is a better director for a Bond film, but Mann is clearly the more talented of the two.

I think that Campbell is a better director for the type of Bond film that we've seen for the past decade or two, but just once I'd like to see a Bond film that breaks away from that mold and goes on to do something different. Since the discussion's been centered around Michael Mann, I'll use him as an example. I wouldn't mind seeing a Bond movie done in the style of Collateral someday. I think that that would be great. And, I can really see that working with Daniel Craig as Bond, as the coolness of Collateral's style would mix very well with the coolness that Daniel Craig seems poised to bring back to the Bond character.

Eventually, if all of the Bond films are of a similar style, I think that creative staleness will set in and that will mark a decline in the quality of the films and ultimately a decline in the interest of the fans. But, if they keep making them differently, and even giving Alist directors like Michael Mann a chance to take the helm of a Bond film, that might shake things up enough to keep the series fresh.