The third in the trilogy of movies reputed to be the reason the Bond series improved.
This was as truly excellent film. Matt Damon is utterly convincing as the amnesiac spy trying to get on with is life and to find out who did what to him and when. Sound a little confusing? So it is with Bourne's life. The double-dealing and paranoia rife within the agencies involved in creating and hunting him see to that. Who's on his side? Who's against him? For what is, essentially, a straightforward tale there are enough plot-twists and double-blinds to ensure that you're always engaged with the characters. Unlike the aforementioned Bond where the characters are only there to hang the action sequences on, this has characters you can actually care about and believe in. Heck, there isn't even a traditional villain. The 'bad' guys are all on the same side. The moral ambiguities of American foreign policy drive their actions and they are firmly in the 'end justifies the means' camp. Unlike in Bond where villains are bad because they're evil, these guys are evil because they want to do the right thing, but have lost sight of right & wrong. Very relevant in our tumultuous world.
But I'm making this sound like a heavy political polemic and that it most certainly is not. It is a high-octane, turbo-charged thriller. Although the characters have depth and feelings they do not block the flow of the film or slow the pace of its action. Director, Paul Greengrass, uses only the merest sketches of those more emotional scenes to show us what we need without succumbing to the temptation to become maudlin or self-indulgent. For a great example of this look for the scene where Bourne has his 'successor' at his mercy.
Allowing only the briefest pauses for breath the action is the best I have seen this year. Brutal, realistic and yet still cinematic enough to be thrilling. As a fight director myself I only wish I could work on sequences like these. Better yet, many of them take place in crowded, open, everyday locations. All of which serve to bring home the fact that spooks like these are operating amongst us, only without the fantastic skills.
The performances are uniformly excellent with no one letting the side down. All too often there will be one person who sticks out like a sore thumb due to being badly mis-cast or blatantly untalented. Happily, Greengrass & the Hubbards have assembled an excellent company down to the smallest roles.
Are there problems with the film? Yes; nothing is perfect.
The hand-held style - complete with whip-pans, shots too close to see what's happening and irritating zooms - is the chosen mode of shooting here. Yes, I find it as annoying as ever. I know it helps to pull the viewer into the action and to give a sense of immediacy, but it still drives me up the wall. It's not as bad as, say, Transformers but I really don't think it's needed. Personal tastes, here, so likely not a problem for many.
It has been a while since the last one, so the names,organisations and just who's who bandied around are a little confusing at times. Again, they fall into place as you go on and I daresay the fans will either know them by heart or have a look at the DVDs before going.
I have heard that, as with so many adaptations for screen, the script bears little resemblance to the novels. I don't know, but Robert Ludlum will not doubt be happy to hear that I intend to buy his books to find out.
This was as truly excellent film. Matt Damon is utterly convincing as the amnesiac spy trying to get on with is life and to find out who did what to him and when. Sound a little confusing? So it is with Bourne's life. The double-dealing and paranoia rife within the agencies involved in creating and hunting him see to that. Who's on his side? Who's against him? For what is, essentially, a straightforward tale there are enough plot-twists and double-blinds to ensure that you're always engaged with the characters. Unlike the aforementioned Bond where the characters are only there to hang the action sequences on, this has characters you can actually care about and believe in. Heck, there isn't even a traditional villain. The 'bad' guys are all on the same side. The moral ambiguities of American foreign policy drive their actions and they are firmly in the 'end justifies the means' camp. Unlike in Bond where villains are bad because they're evil, these guys are evil because they want to do the right thing, but have lost sight of right & wrong. Very relevant in our tumultuous world.
But I'm making this sound like a heavy political polemic and that it most certainly is not. It is a high-octane, turbo-charged thriller. Although the characters have depth and feelings they do not block the flow of the film or slow the pace of its action. Director, Paul Greengrass, uses only the merest sketches of those more emotional scenes to show us what we need without succumbing to the temptation to become maudlin or self-indulgent. For a great example of this look for the scene where Bourne has his 'successor' at his mercy.
Allowing only the briefest pauses for breath the action is the best I have seen this year. Brutal, realistic and yet still cinematic enough to be thrilling. As a fight director myself I only wish I could work on sequences like these. Better yet, many of them take place in crowded, open, everyday locations. All of which serve to bring home the fact that spooks like these are operating amongst us, only without the fantastic skills.
The performances are uniformly excellent with no one letting the side down. All too often there will be one person who sticks out like a sore thumb due to being badly mis-cast or blatantly untalented. Happily, Greengrass & the Hubbards have assembled an excellent company down to the smallest roles.
Are there problems with the film? Yes; nothing is perfect.
The hand-held style - complete with whip-pans, shots too close to see what's happening and irritating zooms - is the chosen mode of shooting here. Yes, I find it as annoying as ever. I know it helps to pull the viewer into the action and to give a sense of immediacy, but it still drives me up the wall. It's not as bad as, say, Transformers but I really don't think it's needed. Personal tastes, here, so likely not a problem for many.
It has been a while since the last one, so the names,organisations and just who's who bandied around are a little confusing at times. Again, they fall into place as you go on and I daresay the fans will either know them by heart or have a look at the DVDs before going.
I have heard that, as with so many adaptations for screen, the script bears little resemblance to the novels. I don't know, but Robert Ludlum will not doubt be happy to hear that I intend to buy his books to find out.
No comments:
Post a Comment