There have been only two Bond films in the past twenty years that have been hands-down, unarguable masterpieces, and both were directed by Martin Campbell.
Not that no one has liked any of the other movies, or that they haven’t been successful, but when you talk about a real consensus of fans, that’s the fact. (Maybe I’m fudging a little bit, because many fans adore The World Is Not Enough and consider it one of the best of the series. Me? Not so much.)
There was no Bond movie in 1988, and I adore The Living Daylights from 1987; although it has some flaws, it’s overall excellent, and ranks high among fans. So let’s review 1989–2008:
- Licence to Kill: Financially troubled, it suffers from a low budget, a second-rate supporting cast, and John Glen’s ham-handed direction.
- GoldenEye: Genius. In my personal top five and widely acclaimed by fans. Directed by Martin Campbell.
- Tomorrow Never Dies: A mid-range Bond. I love Jonathan Pryce but most fans don’t. An out-of-control last half-hour.
- The World Is Not Enough: Dark, muddy, and unbeautiful. M’s kidnapping is controversial: Some fans love it, some fans hate it. The cinematography, however, is nobody’s friend.
- Die Another Day: Half a great movie, half a comic book. For many fans, the nadir of the series. Certainly the CGI stunts are anathema.
- Casino Royale: Genius. In my personal top five and widely acclaimed by fans. Directed by Martin Campbell.
- Quantum of Solace: A mess. Lots of good scenes intermixed with the mess. Worth seeing, but seriously?
See what I’m getting at here?
Quantum of Solace is half the movie that Casino Royale is. They have the same star, and the same outstanding supporting cast. The same production team and the same writers. They both have two relative unknowns as Bond girls. The difference here, the only obvious difference, is the director. Marc Forster should be ashamed of himself.
12 users commented in " Bring back Martin Campbell! "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI liked QoS. The story was no more messy then most of the bond movies. It was just really fast paced.
I think the biggest problem for the movie is it is the one after Casino Royale. Casino was a really, really good movie. This is just a good one. I still liked it and I am looking forward to the next one.
Neil makes a good point by saying that QoS suffers somewhat from being the one after CR, which was (as Deborah said) genius.
I tend not to see it as badly as many seem, with my only real issue being the choppiness of the action scenes.
But that choppiness has everything to do with editing, and that’s the director’s responsibility. The action scenes with Campbell’s work have been top-notch, and he carries the story as well as anyone has in a Bond movie. Forster carried the story equally well, I think, but the aforementioned action issues take away from the finished product. So… if you’re looking to get a great complete product, Campbell is the man.
Campbell has a more classic narrative style, and I think Campbell also knows how to use exposition where needed. There were spots in this film where a little “let me explain” was in order.
I believe directors get far too much credit for the success or demise of a film. They are a very important element, but so are writers, editors and producers. You want to blame someone for this and other Bond messes blame the producers. They have the final say and could have demanded changes, but sadly they decided to go for a Bourne-esq Bond and this one doesn’t work. To fix Bond we have to go closer to the classic Bond and they were so close with Casino Royal. While Marc Forster should take a large chunk of the blame so should the producers and even the fans who have almost assured that we will get more of this type of Bond in the future by already dropping loads of money onto it. I have almost resigned myself to completely discard all the Bond outings after 1971.
Moonraker made scads of money, yet the producers still re-trenched after that one; ditto for Die Another Day. Whatever else you may say about them, Broccoli & Wilson respond not just to box office, but critical and fan reaction. Given the way the critical pendulum has swung on reviews of QoS, I suspect that their creative pendulum won’t be far behind.
Brian, I basically agree with you.
Let’s hope!
You are correct, Deb, in many respects. The narrative style makes the movie a lot easier to follow. However, I would rank the film overall more strongly. It’s one of the best but you have to “see it” through the direction. Pun intended.
The cinematography, sets and effects were strong, too.
Quantum of Solace was simply not a Bond movie…..The majority of Bond fans go to see a few basic concepts….
1. Gadgets worthy of the best agent on the planet
2. A Bond who is is worldly smart and clever beyond belief
3. A Bond that has a humorous side
4. A Bond that scores with many beautiful woman
5. An opening that is spectacular
QoS failed regarding all of the above. QoS is simply like so many shows you can see every week on TV. The sales numbers will fall off sharply every week. I personally know of 14 people that wanted to attend but after hearing what people said about movie decided not to go….I am only one person…take this across the country and this Bond film will not do anywhere near what it could have financially.
To me it is so simple….just do not understand why the directors and producers just do not get it.
Bondjt
When watching CR or GE, I’ve never said, “Wow, Campbell is a great director”. However, when you put it in that context Deborah, he probably deserves more credit.
I, personally, look at Martin Campbell as a bit of a “blunt intstrument”. He has his competencies and you know what you are getting with him. He is the new “old-reliable” for the franchise. GE and CR, however, are blessed with superior scripts than most Bond films, and some of the best actors since FRWL. This probably makes Mr. Campbell look a little better than he really is.
While TWINE has its supporters and nay-sayers, I have to say that its flaws have little to do with Michael Apted’s direction. I think this is the best directed Bond film in the last 20 years.
Interesting comments. I think the cinematography in TWINE is dreadful, and for that, I think the director is responsible; he sees the rushes. Also, CR and QOS had the same script team, which is why I put more burden on Forster than the script.
Mmmm. I think the locations in TWINE are poor. I thought the cinematography was good. Its a beautiful film IMO. CR and QOS had the same script team, yes, but CR was based on a Fleming novel. GE’s script is the best script since FYEO as well. Should Forster have done better, yes..absolutey. I don’t think we should give the keys to the franchise to Campbell though. I think he is somewhat Bond by numbers. A reliable choice no doubt, but I prefer taking chances on guys like Forster any day. At the end of the day, its Broccoli and Wilson who call the shots (and they know the Franchise best) — so I hold them responsible. But then again I thought QOS was quite good.
Leave A Reply