| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 08/15/2007 : 23:33:43
Got to see a satellite-beamed reportage of the Leicester Square premiere which was distributed live to about 5 Odeons around the country tonight. So-so interviews with some of the stars and Greengrass. Best non-participant interview was with Stephen Fry who rapped exquisitely about Matt Damon's teeth ... hey, you had to be there. Everyone in the audience was in stitches.
Then we got the film.
Yup ... go see it! All the big-bad-boy action you crave -- though a tad too long and too many chases of all description for my taste. Bit of a waste of Julia Stiles who promises much more. But Damon wears the skin of Bourne and lends such intelligence to the character. Joan Allen -- given far too little in the script -- is so good she portrays every moment of the transition from loyal CIA puppy to the big penny drop.
Though the spotlight's definitely on big-time ACTION, all the interesting convolution breathes between the lines.
The intrigue ... possible spoiler coming:
of the finale tantalizes with the possibility of Bourne Goes Fourth. Let's see!
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 21:53:22
quote:
And why does she need to dye her hair when Bourne just wanders around looking the same all the time?!
Well, Bourne has his killer ass-kicking training to fall back on and Julia does not. |
| silly |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 20:20:23
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
And why does she need to dye her hair when Bourne just wanders around looking the same all the time?!
For that matter, Bourne is a regular globe-trotter while every high tech spy agency in the world seems to be after him.
But then, Bond always gives his real name, and it doesn't slow him down much. At least Jason has to use a fake passport once in a while.
(the most believable part was when he arrives in America, since our security is a joke unless you are a harmless grandmother) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 10:39:59
The Bourne Ultimatum
I thought the film was great (with entertaining Polish subtitles!), but I agree with Rovark that it should still have been realistic.
In an urgent context, they refer to the south entrance of Waterloo Station - they don't specify whether they mean the mainline or tube station, and does either even have a south entrance (all the tracks come out southwards)?
Stiles's character dyes her hair and then cuts it short. Who would do it that way round?! As well as wasting time dying the bits she is going to cut off, she then leaves the hair behind so that people can find out what colour her hair is now! And why does she need to dye her hair when Bourne just wanders around looking the same all the time?! |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 22:34:06
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
I know what you were saying Rovark and I suppose everything else about the movie tries to be grounded in gritty reality why couldn't they have gotten around it some other way.
But it doesn't affect the overall enjoyment of the movie.
I'll never look at doing up my shoelaces in a public place the same way again!!
Don't take any risks Beanie, wear slip-ons. 
|
| Rovark |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 21:28:35
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
I know what you were saying Rovark and I suppose everything else about the movie tries to be grounded in gritty reality why couldn't they have gotten around it some other way.
But it doesn't affect the overall enjoyment of the movie.
I'll never look at doing up my shoelaces in a public place the same way again!!
And I'm going to think twice before I walk through Waterloo station on a shortcut from Waterloo East again, especially if I see someone else bending down to tie their shoelaces. |
| Rovark |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 21:24:10
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I think Baffy is trying to make the point that the film is pretty much psychologically consistent - the inconsistencies are largely plot devices.
Is that right, Baffs? 
I guess, if you want to nutshell it. I was trying to draw a distinction between different approaches to action thrillers.
I really think this is a fundamental distinction in many contemporary films so, for those who are interested  - here's my take:
There are those, like Die Hard 4.0 which - though they pretend a wider vision - have no raison d'etre other than to supply mechanisms which jump you from one action scene to another. Any attempt to deal with the complexity of characterization are almost irrelevant. The whole point is the action - and that's perfectly valid. To pretend otherwise is why I'd call that film pretentious.
Bourne, on the other hand - although it delivers in action terms - is founded on an exploration of the human psyche. Its literary origins are structured with the reader as Bourne's shadow, finding out with him who he might be and how that might or might not change him. The films engage because they've understood that, and their scripts have from the start tantalized with the unfolding of character. On some level we're responding to the question: I wonder how I'd feel/act in those circumstances.
Those aren't the questions stimulated by pure action thrillers.
I'm not being judgmental. Each film must stand on its own as measured in its own terms.
I am saying I believe that so long as there's sufficient intellectual and character 'meat' within an action thriller, the examination of every crumb of continuity or unasked/unanswered questions seems superfluous. The answers [for example of precisely how Bourne gained admission to this or that office] don't actually help the story. We've seen sufficient evidence that he's capable of such a thing that we can accept in good faith he's able to do it.
Bourne more successfully dovetails the two, so any plot anomalies or questioned details lose their importance.
See this is why you're a critic, in the professional sense wheras I just view films as a punter. All I saw was a running from, chasing after, shoot-em-up. Yes Bourne confronts the fact that he is, after all - a killer and always was. But as far as deep intellectual insight goes? meh. Any great subtext slipped by me completely.
As for inconsistancies losing their importance, I really can't agree with that. I'm not so bad thay I count the bullets so I can say " well the Walther hold 8 in the clip + 1 up the spout and I distinctly heard 10 shots without a re-load" but on the other hand if a pistol fires off 30 or 40 shots, I start to think "this is getting silly" Bourne is based in the real world, or at least a cinematic version of the real world and I need it to reflect some of the logic of the real world.
That's just my take on it. It doesn't mean I think anyone else's view is wrong, but it's not mine. |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 12:23:32
quote:
Originally posted by Rovark
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Rovark, I promised my self I wouldn't get into this discussion...promises...promises.
But if he has managed to track his trackers and evade people in so many obsscure ways why aren't we just allowed to presume he is able to commit your spoiler with ease?
I know, but it's just that having been to various Crown courts and New Scotland Yard a couple of times, the security is phenominal and NSY is just a cop shop. This one in particular grated with me, but I'm sure there's a whole bunch of others I could cite.
As I said, it's not like I even fretted about this example. This is the kind of film you just sit back and enjoy the ride. Most of the inconsistancies don't even occur to you until it's all over, the sheer pace of the action just sweeps you along.
I know what you were saying Rovark and I suppose everything else about the movie tries to be grounded in gritty reality why couldn't they have gotten around it some other way.
But it doesn't affect the overall enjoyment of the movie.
I'll never look at doing up my shoelaces in a public place the same way again!!
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 12:13:03
Yeah, that's what I said.  |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 09:37:23
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I think Baffy is trying to make the point that the film is pretty much psychologically consistent - the inconsistencies are largely plot devices.
Is that right, Baffs?
I guess, if you want to nutshell it. I was trying to draw a distinction between different approaches to action thrillers.
I really think this is a fundamental distinction in many contemporary films so, for those who are interested - here's my take:
There are those, like Die Hard 4.0 which - though they pretend a wider vision - have no raison d'etre other than to supply mechanisms which jump you from one action scene to another. Any attempt to deal with the complexity of characterization are almost irrelevant. The whole point is the action - and that's perfectly valid. To pretend otherwise is why I'd call that film pretentious.
Bourne, on the other hand - although it delivers in action terms - is founded on an exploration of the human psyche. Its literary origins are structured with the reader as Bourne's shadow, finding out with him who he might be and how that might or might not change him. The films engage because they've understood that, and their scripts have from the start tantalized with the unfolding of character. On some level we're responding to the question: I wonder how I'd feel/act in those circumstances.
Those aren't the questions stimulated by pure action thrillers.
I'm not being judgmental. Each film must stand on its own as measured in its own terms.
I am saying I believe that so long as there's sufficient intellectual and character 'meat' within an action thriller, the examination of every crumb of continuity or unasked/unanswered questions seems superfluous. The answers [for example of precisely how Bourne gained admission to this or that office] don't actually help the story. We've seen sufficient evidence that he's capable of such a thing that we can accept in good faith he's able to do it.
Compare this with a film I saw last night called Death Sentence. It raises really interesting questions about the effects of a vigilante mindset. But, because it really doesn't explore the complexity of human behaviour, it takes unacceptable shortcuts, so that you're left feeling who cares, and you start examining logical inconsistencies such as how come an ordinary family man who works as an insurance actuary can with no training instantly become a highly proficient fighter and shooter, fueled only by rage. Despite the expected excellent acting from Kevin Bacon and John Goodman and much of the support cast - this script has invented potentially interesting story elements to serve the action.
Bourne more successfully dovetails the two, so any plot anomalies or questioned details lose their importance.
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 18:40:34
I think Baffy is trying to make the point that the film is pretty much psychologically consistent - the inconsistencies are largely plot devices.
Is that right, Baffs?
|
| Rovark |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 17:40:56
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Rovark, I promised my self I wouldn't get into this discussion...promises...promises.
But if he has managed to track his trackers and evade people in so many obsscure ways why aren't we just allowed to presume he is able to commit your spoiler with ease?
I know, but it's just that having been to various Crown courts and New Scotland Yard a couple of times, the security is phenominal and NSY is just a cop shop. This one in particular grated with me, but I'm sure there's a whole bunch of others I could cite.
As I said, it's not like I even fretted about this example. This is the kind of film you just sit back and enjoy the ride. Most of the inconsistancies don't even occur to you until it's all over, the sheer pace of the action just sweeps you along. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 09:36:28
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Rovark, I promised my self I wouldn't get into this discussion...promises...promises.
But if he has managed to track his trackers and evade people in so many obsscure ways why aren't we just allowed to presume he is able to commit your spoiler with ease?
My two cents:
Yeah. It's not a primer in the hows of top-level spying. Apart from supplying the requisite action goodies Greengrass & Co. concentrate here on the effects of the actual job on human reason and emotion. That's why Joan Allen's character is so important - and why it should have been extended. It's what Julia Stiles' character has been grappling with and what Bourne himself struggles with from moment-to-moment.
In a way, it's a coming of age film - except the age isn't of the teen variety. These are the elements that people mean when they describe the Bourne thing as intelligent. It may not always have the [or any] answers, but it is asking the questions.
As are we all, whether we know it or not.
|
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 09:18:35
Rovark, I promised my self I wouldn't get into this discussion...promises...promises.
But if he has managed to track his trackers and evade people in so many obsscure ways why aren't we just allowed to presume he is able to commit your spoiler with ease? |
| silly |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 21:56:23
Speaking of action.
And I won't defend the CIA, but that building wasn't nearly as secure as the one with the giant laser-guarded air vents in Mission Improbable.
|
| Rovark |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 20:37:36
The plot's wafer thin and the inconsistancies enormous.
Spoiler example
The CIA's most wanted walks into their HQ to do a bit of safe cracking. Without even a disguise or vague explanation of how.
That said, you don't have time to worry about these things, the action just doesn't stop for breath, kinda like Damon. I'd definately recommend this as a good old actioner, just park your brain in neutral and enjoy the ride. |
|
|
