Usually is the case, isn't it? Just felt like something light and entertaining, and it delivered for the most part. It seemed a bit dumb to me -- I expected more complexity and intrigue and depth, I mean just in terms of the plot and what have you. I was surprised how little to it there was. Something about this felt kind of like a really well-produced TV show pilot to me. Some enjoyable little set-pieces throughout, but oi could I do without the requisite love-interest-that-teaches-a-hardened-protagonist-to-love thing, even if it's admittedly handled a trifle better than usual. You're just getting into it, and then a sassy, strangely attractive woman about Damon's age pops up with all the subtlety of a shock of wild dyed-red hair -- and it's, "ah Christ, here we go." Gosh, do you think this girl will just happen to be swept into the chaos, unwillingly at first but ultimately finding love where she least expected? When Franka Potente mentioned in the extra features about how she took the role because it gave her a chance to "kick all those Hollywood action movie cliches in the butt," I had to laugh. I'll grant it's a few notches up the ladder from a Michael Bay flick, but let's not get carried away. It's loaded with cliches, and the function of her own highly implausible character is far from the least of them.

But I'm not complaining per se -- it had a nice energy, Matt Damon was less annoying than I'd have expected, and I enjoyed it okay. I'll probably rent the other two. Isn't this one of those rare series' that has purportedly gotten better with each new entry? I wanted a little more action. And some nudity.

K

As for Butterfly & Sword, I love the dude with the ball at the end. That's the thing I always remember from that one. That and how blatantly Zhang Yimou borrowed from it for House of Flying Daggers, with all the shit in the bamboo forest. Oh, and that bow that shoots swords.

If only someone would make a good, gory, sinister wuxia today. None of this Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon nonsense. I want blood, giant-silver-ball-wielding sorcery, and bows that shoot swords, dammit. Big Trouble in Little China was goddamned 1986 man. That's all America's got to answer with? I guess it could do a lot worse. I mean, that's pretty much a royal flush right there.

K

Possible SPOILERS, but no endings given away…

I liked Bourne Identity. I like Doug Liman's directing style. Check out 'Go' for a fun well directed film. Apparently Liman and the producer, Frank Marshall, had issues, which is partly why Liman was dropped from the next two Bourne films. He has a rep as a disorganised director - a producers nightmare. You can kind of see that slightly 'ad liby' aspect to his movies, which works for me - even if it does give his producers cause for stress leave.

The second film (Supremacy), directed by Paul Greengrass (at one time attached to Watchmen) isn't as good. It is almost too clinical in the way it performs its modern thriller functions. But it's serviceable and has a few moments at the end that are quite powerful, all things considered.

Third and final is Ultimatum. That was much better than the 2nd and I can see why Greengrass is a respected director. He doesn't exactly innovate, but he delivers a well-done spy/action film. It's quite impressive that he essentially builds the film around three or maybe four loong action set pieces.

The rest of the series handles the ‘love interest’ thing well. By the third film Bourne is alone again (naturally). Julia Styles’s character takes a more prominent role, and it looks like her and Bourne might even get together. But no, thank God. So you get two Hollywood movies in a row without an obvious (active) love interest for the protagonist.

A work colleague said something interesting about Bourne. He was discussing an article about which action heroes you would most like to be on your side in a crisis (not counting superheroes). We’re talking characters like Indiana Jones & James Bond, and I think MacGyver was voted number one. Anyway, he said Jason Bourne would be his pick (although he gave serious consideration to Lara Croft). He made the good point that Bourne was virtually unstoppable – like a good Terminator. James Bond, for example, always had his failures, where he was (albeit temporarily) overcome by the enemy, and caught and put in a precarious situation. Most heroes have that moment where they have to rely on the sidekick or love interest to help them out of a real bad situation – even Superman! – but not Jason Bourne. He’s never physically bested. Never. Even in the third film when he fails to save someone’s life, it’s clear that he would have if only that person had listened to Bourne!. He’s the most super Supersoldier, the ultimate Ultimate Fighter. I’d hire him.

Oh, and nude scenes with Franka Potente… yeah!

No nudity...at least not that I recall (and I'm always for nudity, but if there was it didn't leave any, er, lasting impressions with me!).

Don't get me wrong, as action flicks they have been quite enjoyable...all three, in fact.

FYI, even though the original novelist, Robert Ludlum, has died, two newer novels have been written by Eric Van Lustbader (who was chosen by the estate of the late author to continue the Jason Bourne novels). These novels are The Bourne Legacy & The Bourne Betrayal.

I imagine these will continue the film franchise as long as the films profits continue.

I did like that about him, though it's hard to say why. There's always this idea floating around out there that your hero has to be vulnerable and take his hits, or else you can't relate to him, or some such. Not necessarily. It boils down to the same essence anyway, it's just a question of how much beating around the bush there is. Like I can relate to Jason Bourne anyway? Like I ever really doubt that James Bond or Indiana Jones are going to find a way to prevail against their foes, regardless of how much of a pickle they get themselves into? My favorite sequence in Identity was probably where he takes out Clive Owens, at the house in the country. I was expecting a Luc Besson-esque "oh shit" moment, like the similarly set-up scene in the first Transporter movie (only written by Besson, but I chalk that scene up to him as it reminded me of a similar scene from The Professional) -- a moment where everything gets really, really bad for the protagonist. But Bourne knows exactly what to do and neutralizes the entire situation in a very methodical way. A good, well-placed moment of crisis can pack its own punch, but there's something satisfying in the alternative as well, in making the protagonist the one to be feared. I also appreciated the fact that at no point does he have to rescue the girl, and at no point is she captured and used to bait him. I enjoyed the way he handles protecting her when he finally gets a hold of the CIA boss, saying the right thing in the right way -- and that it simply works. Because Bourne's just smart like that.

Either route can work for this kind of flick, just depends on which specific buttons you want to hit and how well you hit them.

A character so methodical and adept -- and yet still ever-so-loosely plausible -- has a particular sort of appeal, I think, too. I know I can't have Superman's powers. But you watch a movie like Bourne and you think to yourself, wow, I'd like to be able to walk into a room and "case it" that way, immediately absorbing every detail, every exit, every makeshift weapon, etc. I'd like to speak five languages fluently. Etc. The special features contained an interview with a supposedly real ex-CIA agent, who confirmed that most of Bourne's skills are indeed things they're carefully trained in. A Jason Bourne is possible for all his seeming invicibility, albeit sans his unflappable luck. The movie would be a good recruiting tool for the CIA, even if they are the bad guys to a certain extent in this context.

K

Dumas,

"Sandra Bullock is suprisingly good in that as Harper Lee."

That's what I've heard; this film, more than any other in the last several years, is the one I'm kicking myself for missing in the theatres. Right up my alley, lookin' forward to comparing/contrasting it with Capote, neat cast, Daniel Craig (!)... It played in Seattle for ONE FREAKIN' WEEK. I assumed it would have at least two weeks here, so I put it off and saw something else that weekend.

Matthew

You then went on to say it very well (as usual).

"The movie would be a good recruiting tool for the CIA, even if they are the bad guys to a certain extent in this context."

Yep, probably. I remember a news story about how there was a large increase in people wanting to join the FBI when the X-Files was at its peak. This was despite the FBI (as an organisation) being, in many ways, the bad guys in that series.


Have you read the latest two, Paul? Do they stack up?

'Ultimatum' was pitched as the final of the series of movies. However, given the third film was commercially the most successful of an already successful franchise, I suspect you're right: Bourne 4 is a likelihood.

I recently saw the first 2 Bourne films and enjoyed them as well crafted action films. I didn't like them as much as the last Bond film, CASINO ROYALE, though.

I'm a fan of Greengrass, but I wished it he'd lay off the shakey cam. A film isn't any more realistic just because the camera is jittery. Perception isn't like being on a rollercoaster.

Shakey cam has become a real epidemic in today's film-editing. I didn't notice too much of it in BI, but I did notice a few bits of that fast-forwardy-lookin' action editing, which is just as bad. Tight editing is one thing, actually chopping out frames of film or artificially speeding up time just makes it comical.

K

There's less of the shaky stuff in Liman's work than Greengrass's. Even 'GO', a film just asking for the racy editing & shooting techniques, doesn't over-do the shaky cam. (I wanna watch GO again, now. I might get it out this weekend, along with Southland Tales.)

A little well placed faux-handheld work can be good. Excellent chase scenes in Seven and The Matrix come to mind.