Sign In
Register
Help
David Poland has an early review... without the slightest hint of a spoiler.
My deal with Peter means I'll be at the Catwoman screening when this press screening happens, so I'll miss out on an early look. But oh well... at least I got to enjoy I, Robot last night instead of A Cinderella Story. So I'll be looking forward to hearing from any of you who get into a screening of this. The Bourne franchise looks like the big screen's intelligent version of the Alias franchise.
The Bourne Supremacy
MultiQuote
#6
Posted 15 July 2004 - 02:18 AM
I saw The Bourne Identity for the first time at the weekend and really liked it. Nothing too amazing, but certainly an above average thriller. My makjor criticism was that I found it a bit too hard to swallow a few bits of it like the convenience of having his bank account number in a chip in his body could well back fire if his enemies had ever caught him. On the plus side the way the details of the team are only very slowly revealed, and even then only partially is a good draw.
So I'll be interested to see how you guys rate this sequel. Is it also based on a novel? I seem to remember that sequel films based on one novel that only covered the first film don't do too well.
Matt
So I'll be interested to see how you guys rate this sequel. Is it also based on a novel? I seem to remember that sequel films based on one novel that only covered the first film don't do too well.
Matt
#7
Posted 15 July 2004 - 05:19 PM
Yes, I believe Robert Ludlum wrote THREE novels in this series. But if the first Matt Damon movie departed from the book in any significant way -- I wouldn't know, as I have never read them -- then the new film might not only tweak the book it's based on, but it may be starting from a different place entirely, who knows. (I'm thinking here of the way the ending of Troy renders certain events in Homer's Odyssey impossible, should they ever make the sequel.)
#8
Posted 15 July 2004 - 06:22 PM
| QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Jul 15 2004, 05:18 PM) |
| Yes, I believe Robert Ludlum wrote THREE novels in this series. But if the first Matt Damon movie departed from the book in any significant way -- I wouldn't know, as I have never read them -- then the new film might not only tweak the book it's based on, but it may be starting from a different place entirely, who knows. |
I haven't read the books (well, I read the first few chapters of The Bourne Supremacy a while ago) but the miniseries of TBI was supposed to be pretty close to its novel. IIRC, in the miniseries, Jason Bourne
oops
Jason Bourne was not ACTUALLY an assasin. Rather, he was a good man who started working for Treadstone, training to be an assasin so he would have all the skills, then go under deep cover (as Jason Bourne) and start claiming kills done by a real assasin, Carlos the Jackal. This was designed to tick Carlos off so he would come after Bourne, the only way the CIA (Treadstone) could track and capture Carlos. Carlos almost succeeds in whacking Bourne, who is dropped overboard into the ocean, with a bullet wound to his head that resulted in amnesia.
The genius of this plot, as opposed to the Damon version, is that it explains the agony that Bourne feels on discovering he's an assasin - since he's not really an assasin, that information would be abhorrent to him. (Does that make any sense?)
Anyway. Treadstone is somewhat corrupt in the miniseries, but nowhere near as bad as they are in the Damon version (again, IIRC).
My recollection from the first chapter or so of TBS is
that this is correct from the novels as well. Supremacy picks up with David whateverhisnameis in hiding, getting therapy to cope with the residual guilt he has for being such a well-trained killer. Around the world, kills start happening in Bourne's style, but obviously committed by a number of different people. David has to reclaim the Bourne Identity in order to track down these imposters and gain the Bourne Supremacy. Again, IIRC from the first chapter and the book jacket.
#9
Posted 22 July 2004 - 02:50 AM
Saw it tonight. Liked it a lot. Right now I'm thinking a solid three stars out of four -- it doesn't have that extra dose of Meaning or Depth that would nudge it into three-and-a-half-star territory, but it's a suitably intelligent flick.
And the tunnel chase scene in this movie KICKS I, ROBOT'S ASS. *
For one thing, The Bourne Supremacy uses real vehicles. For another, the chase sequence is crazy and frenetic, both in terms of cinematography and in terms of editing. For another, the tunnel isn't conveniently empty and free of innocent bystanders or witnesses when the CGI robots attack. For another, there are no CGI robots. For another, the whole thing left me gasping when it was over.
I find myself thinking that the Bourne movies are, in a way, more European than James Bond flicks -- perhaps it's because Bond tends to go for the product placements and the tourist spots whereas Bourne tends to hide among the regular pedestrians who have to make do catching trams and trains and whatnot. Plus, as my girlfriend pointed out, despite all the vehicular damage on display, the film does NOT engage in any over-the-top cheesy gasoline-fuelled explosions -- if it had, then it would definitely feel more "Hollywood" than it does.
It's been two years since I saw the original film and I regret to say I can barely remember many of the details -- I had hoped to rent the new "explosive edition" DVD with the extra footage and check it out beforehand, but wouldn't you know, all the copies have been consistently rented out. This film FEELS very similar to the first one, for me, though with a few major exceptions (a lot, lot less of Franka Potente and Julia Stiles, for example) -- and I imagine The Lord of the Rings' Karl Urban (who's sort of the main bad guy, or at least he's Bourne's opposite number in terms of rank and skills) doesn't have as many fans as Clive Owen (who is nowhere to be seen in this film). But it's still a lot of fun, I think.
(* Some language cops might object to this term for the posterior, but if the folks at Flickerings can trumpet films with this word in their titles, then I think it's lost its taboo status.)
And the tunnel chase scene in this movie KICKS I, ROBOT'S ASS. *
For one thing, The Bourne Supremacy uses real vehicles. For another, the chase sequence is crazy and frenetic, both in terms of cinematography and in terms of editing. For another, the tunnel isn't conveniently empty and free of innocent bystanders or witnesses when the CGI robots attack. For another, there are no CGI robots. For another, the whole thing left me gasping when it was over.
I find myself thinking that the Bourne movies are, in a way, more European than James Bond flicks -- perhaps it's because Bond tends to go for the product placements and the tourist spots whereas Bourne tends to hide among the regular pedestrians who have to make do catching trams and trains and whatnot. Plus, as my girlfriend pointed out, despite all the vehicular damage on display, the film does NOT engage in any over-the-top cheesy gasoline-fuelled explosions -- if it had, then it would definitely feel more "Hollywood" than it does.
It's been two years since I saw the original film and I regret to say I can barely remember many of the details -- I had hoped to rent the new "explosive edition" DVD with the extra footage and check it out beforehand, but wouldn't you know, all the copies have been consistently rented out. This film FEELS very similar to the first one, for me, though with a few major exceptions (a lot, lot less of Franka Potente and Julia Stiles, for example) -- and I imagine The Lord of the Rings' Karl Urban (who's sort of the main bad guy, or at least he's Bourne's opposite number in terms of rank and skills) doesn't have as many fans as Clive Owen (who is nowhere to be seen in this film). But it's still a lot of fun, I think.
(* Some language cops might object to this term for the posterior, but if the folks at Flickerings can trumpet films with this word in their titles, then I think it's lost its taboo status.)
This post has been edited by Peter T Chattaway: 22 July 2004 - 02:54 AM
#10
Posted 22 July 2004 - 08:27 AM
Totally agree with you, Peter. The Bourne Supremacy is a fully worthy follow-up to The Bourne Identity, with Jason Bourne now fully in command of his abilities, if not his memory, and a story that matters more than what they did the first time around. And the car chase sequence, both in the tunnel and before, is one of the most harrowing I've ever seen. (Can you think of a more harrowing?)
Since you make the comparison, Peter, what I like about Jason Bourne as opposed to James Bond (note the similiarity of their names -- JAmeS BONd and JASon BOurNe!) is that while Bond merely does things you would never be able to do, Jason Bourne does things you would never be able to think of. Bond is merely better than you are, but Bourne is smarter than you are, at least about what he does.
Any of us could write a James Bond adventure, but we couldn't all write a Jason Bourne adventure, because we wouldn't know how. Watching Bond is at best vicarious thrill-seeking, but watching Bourne feels almost like an education in spycraft, or at least a behind-the-scenes sort of thing. The contrast was so marked and striking for me that halfway through the screening I whispered to my companion, "James Bond is dead."
Very interesting how a crucial, tragic plot point quite early on doesn't wind up having the dehumanizing effect I was afraid it would -- the opposite in fact. At one point I was afraid that Bourne would devolve into a mere kililng machine, but as with Spider-Man 2, perhaps, the hero's humanity is more evident in the sequent than in the original?
I'm hovering between a 3 and 3 1/2 star rating, and either way I believe I'll go with a B-plus. To me it doesn't have to have added depth in order to be a 3 1/2 star film, it just has to do what it does in a superior, not merely well done, way. The Bourne Supremacy arguably does this.
Watching Matt Damon in the role made me regret once again that the wrong Damon-Affleck buddy got tapped for the title role in Daredevil. Damon has the charisma and driven focus that Affleck could never have, and he looks the part. Damon's been compared to a young Robert Redford, and Redford was Matt Miller's model for drawing Matt Murdock. And of course Damon is more than up to the physical demands of the role.
Of course Daredevil was horribly miscast from front to back, with the arguable exceptions of Colin Ferrell and maybe Jon Faveau. What a great Kingpin Daniel Benzali in a fat suit might have been.
Since you make the comparison, Peter, what I like about Jason Bourne as opposed to James Bond (note the similiarity of their names -- JAmeS BONd and JASon BOurNe!) is that while Bond merely does things you would never be able to do, Jason Bourne does things you would never be able to think of. Bond is merely better than you are, but Bourne is smarter than you are, at least about what he does.
Any of us could write a James Bond adventure, but we couldn't all write a Jason Bourne adventure, because we wouldn't know how. Watching Bond is at best vicarious thrill-seeking, but watching Bourne feels almost like an education in spycraft, or at least a behind-the-scenes sort of thing. The contrast was so marked and striking for me that halfway through the screening I whispered to my companion, "James Bond is dead."
Very interesting how a crucial, tragic plot point quite early on doesn't wind up having the dehumanizing effect I was afraid it would -- the opposite in fact. At one point I was afraid that Bourne would devolve into a mere kililng machine, but as with Spider-Man 2, perhaps, the hero's humanity is more evident in the sequent than in the original?
I'm hovering between a 3 and 3 1/2 star rating, and either way I believe I'll go with a B-plus. To me it doesn't have to have added depth in order to be a 3 1/2 star film, it just has to do what it does in a superior, not merely well done, way. The Bourne Supremacy arguably does this.
Watching Matt Damon in the role made me regret once again that the wrong Damon-Affleck buddy got tapped for the title role in Daredevil. Damon has the charisma and driven focus that Affleck could never have, and he looks the part. Damon's been compared to a young Robert Redford, and Redford was Matt Miller's model for drawing Matt Murdock. And of course Damon is more than up to the physical demands of the role.
Of course Daredevil was horribly miscast from front to back, with the arguable exceptions of Colin Ferrell and maybe Jon Faveau. What a great Kingpin Daniel Benzali in a fat suit might have been.
#11
Posted 22 July 2004 - 03:10 PM
Ack! I sent in my review and just realized that I never got around to making one or two nit-picky points that occurred to me last night. So I'll try here, instead.
Does the CIA really put its directors up in regular hotels when they are in foreign towns, tracking down rogue former operatives? And would a really smart CIA director like Joan Allen's character really not REACT somehow when she gets a mysteriously silent phone call, given the circumstances under which she is in that hotel in the first place?
But this is just nit-picking. I'm sure a certain degree of narrative expedience is permitted here. You've actually convinced me, SDG, to bump my rating up to three-and-a-half.
Gosh, I wish this film had come out earlier so I could have talked about it in my seminars on 'memory at the movies' at Cornerstone.
BTW, I think there are only two real fight sequences of any import here -- that is, if we expansively define "fight sequence" to include that car chase -- and it occurs to me that the opponent in both scenes is a Lord of the Rings alumnus. The hand-to-hand fight scene features Galadriel's husband, I think, whatever his name is, whereas the car chase features Eomer. Thought that was cute.
Even neater is the fact that this film marks a reunion of sorts for Joan Allen and Brian Cox. I don't think they shared any scenes together in Manhunter (the 1986 Michael Mann film that was recently re-made as Red Dragon, with Emily Watson and Anthony Hopkins in the Allen and Cox roles), but hey, it's another connection.
And wow, THIS was directed by the same guy who made Bloody Sunday!? I can definitely see it, in terms of the realistic documentary-like cinematography, though I guess that was part of the original film, too, wasn't it?
Does the CIA really put its directors up in regular hotels when they are in foreign towns, tracking down rogue former operatives? And would a really smart CIA director like Joan Allen's character really not REACT somehow when she gets a mysteriously silent phone call, given the circumstances under which she is in that hotel in the first place?
But this is just nit-picking. I'm sure a certain degree of narrative expedience is permitted here. You've actually convinced me, SDG, to bump my rating up to three-and-a-half.
Gosh, I wish this film had come out earlier so I could have talked about it in my seminars on 'memory at the movies' at Cornerstone.
BTW, I think there are only two real fight sequences of any import here -- that is, if we expansively define "fight sequence" to include that car chase -- and it occurs to me that the opponent in both scenes is a Lord of the Rings alumnus. The hand-to-hand fight scene features Galadriel's husband, I think, whatever his name is, whereas the car chase features Eomer. Thought that was cute.
Even neater is the fact that this film marks a reunion of sorts for Joan Allen and Brian Cox. I don't think they shared any scenes together in Manhunter (the 1986 Michael Mann film that was recently re-made as Red Dragon, with Emily Watson and Anthony Hopkins in the Allen and Cox roles), but hey, it's another connection.
And wow, THIS was directed by the same guy who made Bloody Sunday!? I can definitely see it, in terms of the realistic documentary-like cinematography, though I guess that was part of the original film, too, wasn't it?
#14
Posted 25 July 2004 - 06:20 PM
SDG said James Bond is dead, at least compared to Jason Bourne ... turns out the box office might agree, since The Bourne Supremacy opened with $53.5 million this weekend, easily besting Matt Damon's previous personal best ($38.1 million for Ocean's Eleven) and also coming in ahead of James Bond's best-to-date ($47.1 million for Die Another Day). What makes this even sweeter for the studio is that Bourne cost about $75 million to make, whereas other spy films easily cost north of $100 million. (For comparison, the previous film, The Bourne Identity, opened with $27 million and grossed $122 million total, before becoming the #1 home video rental of 2003.)
#15
Posted 25 July 2004 - 06:28 PM
BTW, SDG, you said Supremacy's story "matters more than what they did the first time around." One Canadian critic complained that the first film gave Bourne an "arc", but the new film gives him only an "objective". What's your take on that?
#16
Posted 25 July 2004 - 07:32 PM
That's a terrific review, Peter, and I'm glad that you bumped your rating up by half a star. I just got back from seeing this a second time... as the first viewing left me pretty breathless, and as a result I missed some of the smaller details that add a lot of depth to the film.
One of the major points that did not hit home on first viewing was Bourne's reasons for going to Moscow. I was left with the nagging feeling that there was no way Bourne could piece together who in Russia was trying to set him up, or who he would ultimately go after. It wasn't until the second viewing that I realized Bourne's sole purpose for going to Moscow was to inform Irena Neski about the truth behind her parents death, and not to seek out those persons who had set him up. And it was this realization that, for me, elevates this movie above your standard action film.
There is a parrallel here to Spiderman... "With great power also comes great responsibility." Well, Bourne has been given great power (albeit not superhuman)... but that power had been tainted by those who trained Bourne, and in effect corrupted him. Now we see his journey to take responsiblilty for his past actions. We feel the torment that he goes through with his realization that he has caused great harm (this is not the Jason Bourne from the novels... this is a darker character). This is a character whose wish to know who he is, is also ultimately his greatest curse. And it's fascinating watching the moral tug-of-war that he wages on himself.
As to your nitpicking... Would a CIA director be put up in a regular hotel? Who's to say it's a regular hotel? The book "By Way of Deception" covers topics such as this... the fact that many agencies own legitimate fronts, such as hotels, that cater to the public but at the same time have quarters just for official use. My main problem with that particular scene was the fact that Bourne could just drop the name Pamela Landy and be told, "Yes, she's here....", and not arouse any suspicion. Or the fact that Landy's character would leave her actual name at the front desk.
It might have been more credible if the storyline had included one more call to the Naples CIA operative, telling him to get his a$$ to Berlin with all the info they had on Bourne. That way, Bourne would have had only to listen in on that conversation to know the whereabouts of the CIA.
Anyways, I hope to see more of this character in the future. To quote David Poland, " I care about Jason Bourne's future." I would be interested in seeing a storyline that delved into the actual methods Treadstone used to create a person like Bourne. Perhaps something along the lines of the methods used by the corporation in The Parallax View (another terrific movie on mind control, in case you haven't seen it).
P.S. I just noticed a fourth Bourne book has been published. Has anyone read it? I'd be curious to know if it follows the Bourne character of the novels, or the Bourne character of the movies. Much as Arthur C. Clarke's 2010 was more an official sequel to the movie, and not necessarily his original novel.
One of the major points that did not hit home on first viewing was Bourne's reasons for going to Moscow. I was left with the nagging feeling that there was no way Bourne could piece together who in Russia was trying to set him up, or who he would ultimately go after. It wasn't until the second viewing that I realized Bourne's sole purpose for going to Moscow was to inform Irena Neski about the truth behind her parents death, and not to seek out those persons who had set him up. And it was this realization that, for me, elevates this movie above your standard action film.
There is a parrallel here to Spiderman... "With great power also comes great responsibility." Well, Bourne has been given great power (albeit not superhuman)... but that power had been tainted by those who trained Bourne, and in effect corrupted him. Now we see his journey to take responsiblilty for his past actions. We feel the torment that he goes through with his realization that he has caused great harm (this is not the Jason Bourne from the novels... this is a darker character). This is a character whose wish to know who he is, is also ultimately his greatest curse. And it's fascinating watching the moral tug-of-war that he wages on himself.
As to your nitpicking... Would a CIA director be put up in a regular hotel? Who's to say it's a regular hotel? The book "By Way of Deception" covers topics such as this... the fact that many agencies own legitimate fronts, such as hotels, that cater to the public but at the same time have quarters just for official use. My main problem with that particular scene was the fact that Bourne could just drop the name Pamela Landy and be told, "Yes, she's here....", and not arouse any suspicion. Or the fact that Landy's character would leave her actual name at the front desk.
It might have been more credible if the storyline had included one more call to the Naples CIA operative, telling him to get his a$$ to Berlin with all the info they had on Bourne. That way, Bourne would have had only to listen in on that conversation to know the whereabouts of the CIA.
Anyways, I hope to see more of this character in the future. To quote David Poland, " I care about Jason Bourne's future." I would be interested in seeing a storyline that delved into the actual methods Treadstone used to create a person like Bourne. Perhaps something along the lines of the methods used by the corporation in The Parallax View (another terrific movie on mind control, in case you haven't seen it).
P.S. I just noticed a fourth Bourne book has been published. Has anyone read it? I'd be curious to know if it follows the Bourne character of the novels, or the Bourne character of the movies. Much as Arthur C. Clarke's 2010 was more an official sequel to the movie, and not necessarily his original novel.
This post has been edited by Baal_T'shuvah: 25 July 2004 - 08:06 PM
#17
Posted 25 July 2004 - 08:07 PM
I just came back from it and was quite satified. Oh, this post will contain
I could sense the doom of Marie as soon as Bourne says he's going to abandon the car, and I almost gave up on the movie when it happened because I just *knew* that the film was going to be another revenge flick, with Bourne bent on killing those responsible. This was especially disappointing to me, as I just read your article on revenge in current cinema in Books and Culture Peter. I'm so glad to have been disappointed.
Continuing the Bourne-Bond comparison, I've pretty much given up on Bond. I haven't even seen that last one, and I have no fond feelings for any of the other ones made post Goldeneye. I think that part of that is that lately the Bond movies have been a bit more about personal threats to Bond, and the filmmaker's have tried to make him into a sympathetic character, instead of the charasmatic creep that he's always been. The Bourne movies, on the other hand, are all about him, and unlike Bond, he's an easy guy to root for.
If they do a third movie, I just hope it lives up to the first two.
Yet another sequel that lives up to the original.
I could sense the doom of Marie as soon as Bourne says he's going to abandon the car, and I almost gave up on the movie when it happened because I just *knew* that the film was going to be another revenge flick, with Bourne bent on killing those responsible. This was especially disappointing to me, as I just read your article on revenge in current cinema in Books and Culture Peter. I'm so glad to have been disappointed.
Continuing the Bourne-Bond comparison, I've pretty much given up on Bond. I haven't even seen that last one, and I have no fond feelings for any of the other ones made post Goldeneye. I think that part of that is that lately the Bond movies have been a bit more about personal threats to Bond, and the filmmaker's have tried to make him into a sympathetic character, instead of the charasmatic creep that he's always been. The Bourne movies, on the other hand, are all about him, and unlike Bond, he's an easy guy to root for.
If they do a third movie, I just hope it lives up to the first two.
Yet another sequel that lives up to the original.
#18
Posted 25 July 2004 - 08:43 PM
| QUOTE (Baal_T'shuvah @ Jul 25 2004, 08:31 PM) |
| P.S. I just noticed a fourth Bourne book has been published. Has anyone read it? I'd be curious to know if it follows the Bourne character of the novels, or the Bourne character of the movies. Much as Arthur C. Clarke's 2010 was more an official sequel to the movie, and not necessarily his original novel. |
From what I understand, the new book is based on the novels, not the movies.
In the book for Supremacy, Marie is still alive, and I think she's in this new novel. It is not written by Ludlum, however.As for the movie - another good enjoyable romp this summer. It's nice to see sequels that are just as good or surpass the original movies. In this case, there were some nice surprises that made it slightly better than Identity.
In another Spider-Man 2 comparison, both movies have brought back actors in which their characters were killed in the previous movie (Uncle Ben and Osbourne Sr. in Spider-Man; Conklin in Supremacy). I rather enjoyed seeing Chris Cooper back, even for a few brief seconds.I will say that I wasn't too big of a fan of the handheld cameras after a while. Soderbergh manages to do handhelds without that much manipuliation of the camera. I guess it's style, and I haven't seen Greengrass' Bloody Sunday yet, but it felt distracting after a while.
BTW Peter, your hunch about the LOTR actor was correct. It was Marton Csokas in that first fight scene. Funny, I didn't realize that was the same actor. (Which reminds me, I rented a film called The Hard Word and one of the actors - who could pass for Bryan Cranson from Malcolm in the Middle - played one of the agents in the first Matrix film. And then I realized that another actor in Tjhe Hard Word played Lars Owen in Attack of the Clones. Strange how small players can trigger something in your brain after seeing them in two seperate productions, eh?)
This post has been edited by Clint M: 25 July 2004 - 08:47 PM
#19
Posted 26 July 2004 - 01:29 AM
First, I will admit that i did fall in and out of sleep at The Bourne Supremacy, so some of what i have to say can only be taken "light." However, just for the record, the first time i saw The Bourne Identity was two days before the first time i saw The Bourne Supremacy -- and the first film is miles better than the second, for two reasons: 1. The first film has a very real, very solid story to it, one that even throws us for a loop every once in a while, and one that we can respond to. The second film is a giant chase scene without anything new to offer. 2. The camera work was like Lars Von Trier on acid in a speeding vehicle on crack steroids. It was so annoying to not be able to see who was punching whom -- and most that happened thruought the film was hardly watchable. It was almost as if they were trying to cover up for the scenes themselves by shaking the camera as hard as they could. I hated it, and that's not something i say about camera work very often, but the more i think about this and the recent Man of Fire, it makes me think that people really do respect and admire Von Trier more than they will admit and now go about trying to copy him all wrong. Lars uses that effect for emotional intensity between relationships, for the most part. Hollywood catching onto it lately feels kinda like Hollywood catching on to it. They're using it when they don't need to, and i was annoyed. So annoyed that i lost interest, and began with the whole Stef-gets-whiplash-in-the-theater thing. (Partially also due to the fact that i stayed up all night writing a speech on Martin Luther for my Speech class, and i'm happy to report that i got a 96.) 
OH - but i was awake for that tunnel scene. And -- wowee... Killer. It's been as far back as Ronin since we got this good of a car chase in Europe.
I like the series. And i find this character much more interesting than any Bond of the last 30 years or so. But i hope they either go back to the original director for the next one, or get someone else.
And -- AND --
they had the audacity to kill off Run Lola. I think i was mad from the very beginning of this film.
-s.
OH - but i was awake for that tunnel scene. And -- wowee... Killer. It's been as far back as Ronin since we got this good of a car chase in Europe.
I like the series. And i find this character much more interesting than any Bond of the last 30 years or so. But i hope they either go back to the original director for the next one, or get someone else.
And -- AND --
they had the audacity to kill off Run Lola. I think i was mad from the very beginning of this film.
-s.
This post has been edited by stef: 26 July 2004 - 04:07 PM
#20
Posted 26 July 2004 - 08:54 AM
| QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Jul 25 2004, 07:27 PM) |
| BTW, SDG, you said Supremacy's story "matters more than what they did the first time around." One Canadian critic complained that the first film gave Bourne an "arc", but the new film gives him only an "objective". What's your take on that? |
My take is, poppycock.
In The Bourne Identity, Bourne was largely on autopilot, reacting on instinct to events as they were thrown at him. In The Bourne Supremacy Bourne is not only an active participant in his own life, he's also beginning to take steps toward recovering a sense of moral responsibility, not only for his present actions but also for his past.
In TBI, Bourne's relationship with Marie was largely a matter of need, convenience, and bonding under desperate circumstances (cf. Sandra Bullock's line in Speed). In TBS, even though Marie herself is out of the picture, we see that she has left a lasting mark on Bourne; that she has helped him to recover something of his humanity and that he is charting a course in life based in part on that.
TBI is a Fugitive-style chase story in which the journey is the point and the destination an afterthought. Just as I don't really care about and don't even remember what exactly was the deal with the drug research cover-up thing in The Fugitive, likewise I don't really care about and don't even remember the specifics of Jason Bourne's botched hit in the back story of TBI. (Okay, actually I do remember, because reversing Stef's MO I re-watched TBI on cable last Thursday after seeing TBS but before writing my review. Stef is wrong, TBS is the better movie.) But I do care about the Russian hit that went bad in the back story of TBS, in part because of how Bourne himself responds to those events.
The critic complains that TBS is about Bourne's "objective" rather than his character arc. But look at what the objective IS. In the first film his objective was simply to stay alive try to figure out who he was; this time, it's to figure out who he wants to be, which is to my mind the more interesting objective.
Oo, I like that. I'm going to go back and put that in my review.
