Dia on 6/8/2007 at 03:02
Each to their own, m'dear.
:p
:p
DaveW on 6/8/2007 at 04:30
Quote Posted by fett
Aw c'mon. It's not that the Bourne movies are bad, they're just kind of meh. Good fight scenes and all, but the plot's a little bland - like most run of the mill action novels, and I can't remember the name of a single character other than Jason Bourne. The supporting cast is so forgettable that when I saw the second one, I couldn't remember if the love interest was the same woman as in the first film. I have a vague memory of her dying, but I honestly can't remember. For the record, I usually think Matt Damon is great, but in these films it's definitely a case of the actor rising above the material 'cuz the material is pretty generic IMO.
Don't confuse the plot of the novels with the plot of the films. They're
completely different.
(For the record, if you were referring to Enemy of the state for the Will Smith bit, he isn't running from the government - only a small group of corrupt NSA agents)
rachel on 6/8/2007 at 08:56
Count me as fan of the shaky-cam style. I loved Supremacy and I can't wait for Ultimatum.
Vivian on 6/8/2007 at 09:07
I've seen these films. Girls seem to like the first one a lot considering it's just glossy MOR action, the second one I honestly can't remember a single thing about. Theres a kind of blur in my head when I try to remember it, as if I was incredibly drunk when I watched it. I enjoyed the first one in a non-comittal way, but did there really need to be two more films of women in glasses typing really quickly, fat guys looking sad out the window as they casually order something or other amoral to be done in Russia, matt damon demanding answers now and DOING! THINGS! REALLY! QUICKLY!?
Feels like I've seen them all many times already. Lemme guess the fat old guy is really his dad?
Muzman on 6/8/2007 at 14:21
I like these movies a lot. I didn't love them the first time I saw them, but I kept coming back. Rather than, as someone said, a performance rising above the material, these films are material that rises above its formula. There are some elements in them that have been seen before, but it's rarely been done this good. Looking forward to the new one.
(Shakey cam can be a bit hard to take, but that's mainly on the big screen. I have this theory that the directors don't quite know how for they've gone with it because by the time they're screening it cinema size, they already know what they're looking at thanks to spending months with it on much smaller monitors and projection rooms. Films using it extensively are a lot easier to take on DVD, I find anyway.)
fett on 6/8/2007 at 14:29
Quote Posted by Vivian
Theres a kind of blur in my head when I try to remember it, as if I was incredibly drunk when I watched it. I enjoyed the first one in a non-comittal way, but did there really need to be two more films of women in glasses typing really quickly, fat guys looking sad out the window as they casually order something or other amoral to be done in Russia, matt damon demanding answers
now and DOING! THINGS! REALLY! QUICKLY!?
Feels like I've seen them all many times already.
This sums up my memories of them pretty accurately as well. They weren't bad, just forgettable. The main character gets attacked, runs, has a gunfight in a parking garage, long unnecessary car/plane/boat chase, finds out/remembers something he shouldn't/meets girl/continues to run/rinse-repeat. Why three movies?
Quote Posted by DaveW
Don't confuse the plot of the novels with the plot of the films. They're completely different.
I do intend to read the books as I've been told they're quite good, but the movies play like B version of this literary genre. If you've read Vertical Limit, The Pelican Brief, or the like, it's kind of the same ole same ole.
DaveW on 6/8/2007 at 15:43
Well they've cut the entire driving backstory of the novels out in the film, as well as the entire history behind who he is, where he came from, how he came to get the name Jason Bourne etc. (although that's partly to do with the film being set now). Some of those could be addressed in the Bourne Ultimatum (the trailer mentions the name Cain, which has relevance in the novels) - but the films are far more 'basic' than the novels are.
Thirith on 6/8/2007 at 15:57
I enjoy the display of "professionalism" in the Bourne movies. They're a great antidote to the umpteen generic action movies of the '80s and '90s. They aren't much more than an exercise in craft, but the craft is impeccable IMO, and they have unexpected flashes of interest: Franka Potente's character, Clive Owen's "Professor" character, the last scene of The Bourne Supremacy, the non-glossy locations. There's something fairly lonely about the films, an awareness of the central character's hollowness, which is completely lacking in most action movies.
AR Master on 6/8/2007 at 18:16
.
Dad_of_Davina on 6/8/2007 at 18:55
Quote Posted by DaveW
... - but the films are far more 'basic' than the novels are.
As is always the case! I
loved the Jurassic Park book, but they stetched the best bits out over 3 very cheesy movies which were just no where near Michael's vision!
On the whole "Bourne" issue... they were crap, generic, "action" films that not only bored the pants off me but also confused the hell out me with their non-consistent story lines, piss-poor acting, and rubbish writing... oh and the direction is crap as well because the director obviously cut the bits that tell the story... it's like you're going to find out but then..."CUT!"
The Bourne films
stink of hollywood "film by numbers" and anyone who says otherwise has a serious hard-on (or wet-crotch) for Matt Damon... who IMO has done fuck-all good since "Dogma" (and even then he was carried by gay-boy lover Ben Affleck)... gimme a Danny Boyle, Cory Yuen, or early Guy Ritchie film any day!
