65 replies to this topic

[RogueSpy007]

"And I, for one, can't w-wait to s-see what happens next!"

And a gold star to any member who can tell me where that quote comes from.

Dead Again

Bravo, Mike. Gold star. My all-time fave suspense film.

And one that many people have missed. I always enjoy showing it to friends and family who have no idea what it is about.

I think this was the first movie I remember seeing with Kenneth Branagh or Emma Thompson in it. It was awesome. I love the climax of the movie. It was really cool when Derek Jacobi started stuttering again.

[Judo chop]

But he's saying over the life of the franchise Bond is clearly the winner.

21 films to 3 films.

Billions of dollars to perhaps a billion dollars.

Yes, that is correct. Thank you Johnboy007.

Who gives a ? Honestly! Who cares? Why is it so damn important that the Bourne franchise has to be compared unfavorably to the Bond franchise? Isn't anyone capable of appreciating both?

I

[Trident]

Yes, Trident, he was angry! Perhaps because my question had yours lurking behind it: 'How the hell have you not been sued by Ludlum's estate yet, mate?' But I somehow managed to rescue the situation, and he was a charming, articulate and thought-provoking interviewee.

There've been successful lawsuits based on much less than the evident similarities between Bourne and XIII. Plus, at the time of XIII's first part in 1988 Ludlum was at the height of his popularity and success, every single book of his a toplist bestseller and the Bourne-miniseries starring Richard Chamberlain had been just produced. Hard to imagine that any writer at that time dabbling in the genre hadn't at least heard about the plotline.

OTOH a lawsuit now would hardly make sense as the story has developed from its origins quite remarkably. I'd suppose there has been a gentlemen's agreement sometime in the past that settled the case for both sides.

Ludlum was a dreadful prose stylist with non-existent characterisation and laughably implausible and impromptu plots. But a lot of his ideas were brilliant and he was a master at cliff-hangers. He didn't sell over 200 million books for nothing. And while XIII clearly took Bourne as its starting point to spin off into an elaborate commentary on the US via a JFK-style conspiracy, Bourne clearly took the end of Fleming's YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE as its starting point, asking what would happen if a super-spy lost his memory. Bourne's Swiss bank account number - the one that leads him to his identity - starts 'Zero Seven...' And when he discovers his identity, his first words are 'My name's Bourne. Jason Bourne.'

Yes, Bourne's first appearence is most definitely based on YOLT's end situation. But the supposed 'Mega-Fight Of The Killers' that was basically Treadstone's (CIA's) plan to capture Carlos strongly reminded me of TMWTGG's motive of duelling killers.

Since I'm not a Matt Damon fan, I will be sure and miss this one the way I've missed the first two.

You're missing out on something there. There aren't that many good action thrillers around lately but the Bourne flicks definitely belong to that particular genre and really can keep you on the edge of your seat. If you give them a chance that is. You needn't become a fanatic Damon fan to enjoy the Bournes.

Since I'm not a Matt Damon fan, I will be sure and miss this one the way I've missed the first two.

I'm not personally that much of a Matt Damon fan. He's alright I guess, but I do think he's surprised me with the role. So who would you have liked to have seen play Jason Bourne? That goes for everyone else here too. If you were casting the movie, who would you have hired to play Bourne instead of Damon?

That's difficult to answer as Damon's Bourne is an entirely independend character that's a far fetch from Ludlum's. Ludlum didn't do much in the way of describing his hero. He's even blanker and more anonymous than Bond. Middle-age, middle-high, middle-built. Hair describable as anything from dark blonde to light brown. I think green eyes are the most specific sign Ludlum granted his character but even they are easily changed by use of contact lenses. The most we learn about him are his traumatizing war experiences (losing wife and kid) and his disoriented state of mind after losing his memory. For the book I'd have not many suggestions. Perhaps Ray Liotta because he's capable of believably acting a disturbed mind on the edge of utter crazyness?

For Bourne as captured in the present movie series I can at the moment think of nobody who'd be a better choice than Damon is. He's physically capable but doesn't exude that certain air that screams "SPECIAL FORCES!!!" right from the screen. Damon is for me believable in his role because his face is not so high profile that all and sundry would turn around to see what that guy's up to. He can act as anonymous and faceless in his role as an actor can become without vanishing from the screen. Yet in the next scene, when action is called for, he adopts that purposeful decisive stride and all of a sudden we watch an operative in action. He's simply there, appearing from his disguise (that's no disguise at all; he just keeps his head down and doesn't look anybody in the eyes).

Granted, considerable amount of this is owned to director Greengrass. Still, it's hard for me to picture anybody else playing Bourne in the same manner. But of course that doesn't mean nobody else could do it. In fact I suspect we'll see a few others in the role over the years.

Edited by Trident, 23 April 2007 - 05:36 PM.

[dinovelvet]

Since I'm not a Matt Damon fan, I will be sure and miss this one the way I've missed the first two.

I'm not personally that much of a Matt Damon fan. He's alright I guess, but I do think he's surprised me with the role. So who would you have liked to have seen play Jason Bourne? That goes for everyone else here too. If you were casting the movie, who would you have hired to play Bourne instead of Damon?

Clive Owen. WHAT? Yes that's right. I watched the first one, found it to be rather dull, but Owen was an interesting presence in his small role as an assassin, much more so than Mr. Gleaming Teeth. (I guess this Treadstone place has a good dental plan, eh?)
And now, general Bourne bashing will commence in 3...2...1 :

My own, possibly insane, theory of why this whole Bourne business is so well regarded is because it filled audience's need for a good Bond style movie when the actual Bond movies out at the time were rather poor. I didn't like the Bourne identity at all, but at the same time I can't really argue with a straight face that TWINE or DAD outclass it. I presume the second one was also "good" in the same way that the first one was.
However in 2007 the shoe is on the other foot. And said foot is kicking arshe. CASINO ROYALE has shown everyone that Bond is still in charge of this particular genre, and a rather weak Bourne preview looks as if its trying to cash in on highlights from its past movies rather than doing anything new. I just read in the Entertainment weekly summer preview that the new one features a motorbike chase, a foot chase (which sounds suspiciously Casino Royale-esque), and then a car chase. Cough. Seems to me like TOMORROW NEVER DIES rather than an ultra-gritty "serious" spy film. Franchise burnout after three movies? Ah well, good try anyway

[Stephenson]

In some regards I have a greater appreciation for the Bourne films than the recent Bonds (before CR). If I was going to compare the Brosnan Bonds to any recent franchise, I would say the Ocean movies. Not sure why exactly, it's more of gut thing.

But I feel the two Bourne movies did a very good job of distancing themselves from the Bond film legacy, both in terms of content and style. At no time while watching either Identity or Supremacy did I feel like they were ripping off Bond.

IMHO, this is helped by the fact that Bond and Bourne are such radically different characters. I no time did I ever want to be Bourne (whereas with Bond ... ), but I still felt for the guy emotionally; the character pulled me in. And that was thanks to Damon; personally I thought he has done an amazing job with the role.

The big question I have about the continuation of the franchise is: where can they go from here? The amnesia aspect is so important to plot and the character that once they solve that issue, what's left? They've already killed his true love, so the option of borrowing from Ludlum's plots is pretty much gone. Even Ludlum had trouble sustaining the character after two books (really, how many times can Maria get kidnapped so they can "pull ... Bourne ... back ... in!"). I hope they do the classy thing and end the series after this one.

[Brock Samson]

My own, possibly insane, theory of why this whole Bourne business is so well regarded is because it filled audience's need for a good Bond style movie when the actual Bond movies out at the time were rather poor. I didn't like the Bourne identity at all, but at the same time I can't really argue with a straight face that TWINE or DAD outclass it. I presume the second one was also "good" in the same way that the first one was.

Maybe it's possible to have two film series in the same genre without one being a rip-off or replacement of the other?
Supremacy was better than Identity, IMO and at no time in either film did I think of Bond. Bourne's only mission is to piece together his missing past, the fact that he's a 'spy' helps to explain the where and why but it's not the main point of it all, unlike Bond.
I'm confused as to why people think there's some big rivalry and have to do down Bourne in order to big up Bond. There's enough room in the genre - even in the same fictional universe - for both characters to exist and I really don't see that many similarities.

Some people felt that the grittiness and even the spy elements of Bourne was what had been missing from Bond for awhile, I don't think it's enough cause to attack the franchise as some kind of inferior rip-off. IMO, they're not close enough in plot, theme or feel to really justify that.

[Edit] I'm not all that surprised or bothered that the new Bourne looks to have a free-running segment. That's ever the way with Hollywood, bullet-time, for example. Are the people slating Bourne for using it going to slate Casino Royale for copying District B-13?

Edited by Brock Samson, 30 April 2007 - 01:25 PM.