Jason Bourne - The Return of Shaky-Cam (And Matt Damon)
- Thread starter Marter
- Start date
I really don't get why they bothered, as by all accounts the film has nothing new or relevant to say about anything (perhaps other than 'hey! Wikileaks'n'stuff! and what about that social media, huh?').
These days the news is more impressively horrific (or just downright bizarre/dispiriting, e.g. Trump, Brexit) than anything a gritty, shaky-cam thriller can offer up. On that count, the first two Bourne films are still surely as 'relevant' as Bourne on screen can ever be; they helped define the post-9/11 pop-cultural zeitgeist. The series will nevertrump surpass that.
These days the news is more impressively horrific (or just downright bizarre/dispiriting, e.g. Trump, Brexit) than anything a gritty, shaky-cam thriller can offer up. On that count, the first two Bourne films are still surely as 'relevant' as Bourne on screen can ever be; they helped define the post-9/11 pop-cultural zeitgeist. The series will never
I always thought Ultimatum was the weakest of the three Bourne Movies (Legacy is not a Bourne movie).
The second ends with all the loose ends from the first cleared up, Bourne's name cleared and a broadly optimistic tone as Landig (I think, the blonde lady) tells Bourne his real name and he sets of to discover who he really was and mourn Marie in peace. It's tone slightly different to the first, with Bourne being the aggressor seeking revenge instead of the (hyper competent) rat in a trap of the first film.
The third introduces a whole new layer of bad guys and seems to be little else than an excuse for some new action sequences (Bourne rides a motorbike, Bourne fights a bad guy with a towel, Bourne outsmarts bad guys in a crowd again etc). It was falling into the same movie by routine trap that Bond movies revel in. It was ok as an action movie but added nothing over the first two.
If this is worse than that I see little point going to see it. Which is a pain.
The second ends with all the loose ends from the first cleared up, Bourne's name cleared and a broadly optimistic tone as Landig (I think, the blonde lady) tells Bourne his real name and he sets of to discover who he really was and mourn Marie in peace. It's tone slightly different to the first, with Bourne being the aggressor seeking revenge instead of the (hyper competent) rat in a trap of the first film.
The third introduces a whole new layer of bad guys and seems to be little else than an excuse for some new action sequences (Bourne rides a motorbike, Bourne fights a bad guy with a towel, Bourne outsmarts bad guys in a crowd again etc). It was falling into the same movie by routine trap that Bond movies revel in. It was ok as an action movie but added nothing over the first two.
If this is worse than that I see little point going to see it. Which is a pain.
I'm surprised that there have been 5 Bourne movies. I remember watching the first movie and thinking it was just OK. I liked the novelty of Matt Damon being an action hero. Honestly, I don't remember anything about the movie beyond the premise. I have not seen any other Bourne movie, because it doesn't seem to be different than the first movie. The trailers for every Bourne movie looks the same. I might watch this Bourne movie out of bored curiosity. I know someone who was an extra in the movie.
Ugh, Shaky-Cam is one of the worst things inflicted on cinema in the last 15 years, which I only just barely tolerated in the Bourne movies for their other qualities. If this sequel doesn't at least have a decent plot to compensate for it, I can't see it having much value.
Saw it a few days ago. Quite enjoyed it - second best Bourne film I've seen, 5th best movie I've seen in cinemas this year. Though to be honest, I've never been that enamored with the Bourne films bar Ultimatum.
It's interesting to see how James Bond, Mission: Impossible, and now Bourne have all gone down the road of information control in their most recent outings, and approached the subject from similar angles with their own tastes (M:I being over the top, Bourne being down to earth, Bond being somewhere in the middle). Not that I'm complaining. I don't think it's a film that needed to exist, but since Legacy more or less undid the feel-good ending of Ultimatum, I figure that film 5 might as well pick up its pieces and do a better job.
However, there are some things that I want to bring up that are in spoiler territory, so click ahead if interested:
It's interesting to see how James Bond, Mission: Impossible, and now Bourne have all gone down the road of information control in their most recent outings, and approached the subject from similar angles with their own tastes (M:I being over the top, Bourne being down to earth, Bond being somewhere in the middle). Not that I'm complaining. I don't think it's a film that needed to exist, but since Legacy more or less undid the feel-good ending of Ultimatum, I figure that film 5 might as well pick up its pieces and do a better job.
However, there are some things that I want to bring up that are in spoiler territory, so click ahead if interested:
-I really hate how they killed off Nicki. Not that her character in of itself was that special, but that it's basically a repeat of Marie's death (being shot while on a moving vehicle), and serves as a brief impetus for Bourne to get back in the game, but she's never brought up after he confronts the hacker. He confronts "the asset" far more over the death of his father than Nicki's death. It's basically a case of a woman being 'fridged.' Oh, and Marie isn't even mentioned. Not that the film was under an obligation to do so, but if you're going to set up a parallel, then you might as well point it out.
-I think "the asset" is probably one of the best "equal agent, fight!" enemies in the series. The personal connection with Bourne is a bit contrived, but I can live with it due to his memory still being like swiss-cheese pre-series. It's also noticable how the asset kills innocent people left and right, even American citizens, to complete his objective. It gives weight to Lee's arguments about the Blackbriar and Treadstone programs (and Ironhand, whatever that is) being repugnant. Go to any means to defend US interests? Well, if that means tearing up Las Vegas and killing your own people, not to mention international citizens, then yeah, go for it.
-CIA's presented in a far more grey light, since we know that because of film 3, overseas agents were compromised. Which brings us to Heather Lee, who...well, she's a *****. In a good way, because for all her talk of being a better alternative to Dewey, she still kills her own colleagues, and while she claims that the old programs are of the past, she doesn't show anything to indicate that she's any better. She reminds me of Landry, if Landry was a sociopath who wasn't a decent person at the end of the day. Film doesn't really end on sequel bait, but I'm all for her character coming back. After all, "the asset" may have killed Nicki, but she gave the order to fire. Interesting to see if Bourne found that out.
-I think "the asset" is probably one of the best "equal agent, fight!" enemies in the series. The personal connection with Bourne is a bit contrived, but I can live with it due to his memory still being like swiss-cheese pre-series. It's also noticable how the asset kills innocent people left and right, even American citizens, to complete his objective. It gives weight to Lee's arguments about the Blackbriar and Treadstone programs (and Ironhand, whatever that is) being repugnant. Go to any means to defend US interests? Well, if that means tearing up Las Vegas and killing your own people, not to mention international citizens, then yeah, go for it.
-CIA's presented in a far more grey light, since we know that because of film 3, overseas agents were compromised. Which brings us to Heather Lee, who...well, she's a *****. In a good way, because for all her talk of being a better alternative to Dewey, she still kills her own colleagues, and while she claims that the old programs are of the past, she doesn't show anything to indicate that she's any better. She reminds me of Landry, if Landry was a sociopath who wasn't a decent person at the end of the day. Film doesn't really end on sequel bait, but I'm all for her character coming back. After all, "the asset" may have killed Nicki, but she gave the order to fire. Interesting to see if Bourne found that out.
Very much agreed, and it always surprises me why anyone would rate Ultimatum over the original or the sequel.fix-the-spade said:
The first establishes the world, characters, themes, and tone, mostly. The second delves a little deeper into the character, and gives Bourne an understandable desire to try to stop it once and for all; by the end, his apparent vengeance has more or less morphed into a desire for forgiveness. There's a lot of soul and smarts to Supremacy.
But the third? What does it do but go through the motions? Do we care about his real name, or the [not very impressive or interesting] mystery behind why he was part of the original programme? It's just a decently made box ticking exercise. I remember sitting in the cinema during the action sequences (and all the 'people stand around rooms with computers spouting jargon' scenes) thinking 'haven't we been here twice before already?'.
So yeah, ditto'd on Ultimatum being the worst of the series so far (also not counting Legacy).
This movie enraged me. I wanted to waterboard the moron who had done both the filming and the editing. The movie was a freaking visual mess. My buddy counted the cuts in the final fist fight. It didnt last more than a few minutes at most, but when my buddy reached 60 cuts he gave up.
This is a terrible movie. It looks terrible, the music is terrible (the ENTIRE movie is suspense/chase music) and the plot is not engaging at all.
When sitting there I was tempted to give it 3/6, but as I sat watching I realized I just wanted it to be over. Had I sat closer to the isle I probably would have walked out. The only other movie I've wanted to do that in is Transformers 3. Since I didnt even want to finish it it fell to 2/6. There are some decent performances. Julia is the standout to me, the rest not so much.
I dont get the hate that Bourne Legacy received, but to me that is heads and shoulders above this drivel. I wish death and disease on whoever invented shaky cam. God damnit this movie had nothing but that. The only scenes Greengrass didnt manage to fuck up was the ones where he was filming people starting at a screen, and even those were borderline.
Unimpressive angles, WAY TOO FAST cutting (I swear, the most intense "action" featured at least 1/cut/second) and blurry filming made this movie a steaming pile of dung. Like Transformers 3 I just want to forget that it exists.
This is a terrible movie. It looks terrible, the music is terrible (the ENTIRE movie is suspense/chase music) and the plot is not engaging at all.
When sitting there I was tempted to give it 3/6, but as I sat watching I realized I just wanted it to be over. Had I sat closer to the isle I probably would have walked out. The only other movie I've wanted to do that in is Transformers 3. Since I didnt even want to finish it it fell to 2/6. There are some decent performances. Julia is the standout to me, the rest not so much.
I dont get the hate that Bourne Legacy received, but to me that is heads and shoulders above this drivel. I wish death and disease on whoever invented shaky cam. God damnit this movie had nothing but that. The only scenes Greengrass didnt manage to fuck up was the ones where he was filming people starting at a screen, and even those were borderline.
Unimpressive angles, WAY TOO FAST cutting (I swear, the most intense "action" featured at least 1/cut/second) and blurry filming made this movie a steaming pile of dung. Like Transformers 3 I just want to forget that it exists.
Shaky cam during conversations just makes me weep. I weep a lot, so maybe it isn't worth mentioning. Like, I try to imagine what the director is thinking when planning these scenes...what possible drugs have they been snorting to think that these few lines being delivered would have so much more impact if the cameraman gives us a nonstop wiggle as they speak? There is no logic to that decision. Do they think their audience would get bored if there wasn't an implied earthquake continuously?
Why haven't I watched these films yet?? There have been endless opportunities, but somehow keep avoiding them. Is it just US James Bond with amnesia? Oh, wasn't Philip Seymour Hoffman in one of them? That would be a bonus. Though maybe I am confusing movies.
Why haven't I watched these films yet?? There have been endless opportunities, but somehow keep avoiding them. Is it just US James Bond with amnesia? Oh, wasn't Philip Seymour Hoffman in one of them? That would be a bonus. Though maybe I am confusing movies.
More Shaky Cam? Yuck.
You ruined the Supremacy car chase with that, Greengrass. And you even sucked Bond down with you judging by Quantum of Solace copying it.
Thank god Mission Impossible is stronger than ever to see us through these dark times. And Kingsman/The Man From UNCLE could not have injected a bit of humour into the spy genre at a better and more needed moment. Good on them.
You ruined the Supremacy car chase with that, Greengrass. And you even sucked Bond down with you judging by Quantum of Solace copying it.
Thank god Mission Impossible is stronger than ever to see us through these dark times. And Kingsman/The Man From UNCLE could not have injected a bit of humour into the spy genre at a better and more needed moment. Good on them.