Bourne series

  • Jason Bourne (2016)

    Jason Bourne (2016)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Video on Demand, December 2016) This was a nearly useless movie in more than one way. After running the shakycam trilogy to its natural conclusion, The Bourne Legacy came and went without making much of an impact, its frantic chase sequences unable to paper over a lack of ideas. Much of the same will also be said about Jason Bourne and Matt Damon’s return to the franchise. Despite intriguing concepts reflecting the modern world in a thriller (in which riots in Greece, drone surveillance and cell phone hacking are considered to be normal), the film doesn’t do much but repeat ideas previously explored in earlier entries, and does so with the nigh-unbearable quick-cutting spastic camera style that is Paul Greengrass’ biggest problem. (There was, a few weeks before the film’s release, a making-of clip showing a camera and stunt cars smoothly weaving through traffic on the Las Vegas Strip. Cruelly, this sequence has been chopped to mush in the finished film.) For a movie as smart as it thinks it is, Jason Bourne can occasionally be tone-deaf: There’s a sequence early in the film where a businessman gets a round of applause from journalists for stating “our products will never spy on you”, whereas in the real world the reaction would be raised eyebrows followed by frantic attempts to disprove him. I’m also nonplussed by the dumb decision to kill off a long-running supporting character for what is apparently no good reason. And so it is with Jason Bourne: things happen for no good reason, except printing money from a series that most people remember. At this time, it looks as if the film was a modest financial success, virtually ensuring that we’ll get another equally useless new instalment in two or three years.

  • The Bourne Legacy (2012)

    The Bourne Legacy (2012)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On-demand Video, December 2012) You’d think that the ending of The Bourne Ultimatum wouldn’t necessarily lead to a sequel, but there we have one: The program that created Bourne was only the tip of the iceberg, and other operatives are forced to react when their own programs (and selves) are terminated with prejudice.  Add a few considerations about artificial cognitive enhancements and you have a plot: a threadbare, familiar plot, but a plot nonetheless.  Fortunately, writer/director Tony Gilroy’s treatment of the premise is better than its foundation: The Bourne Legacy proudly continues its predecessor’s hyper-modern treatment of espionage thriller conventions with an acknowledgement to real-world moral dilemmas, high-technology used lethally and an exploitation of the possibilities of a network world under constant unaccountable surveillance.  The blend is potent, and the headlining presence of both Jeremy Renner as a capable protagonist and Edward Norton as his pursuer anchors the film into a credible reality.  (Amusingly, the film is able to use in a straightforward fashion a few speculative elements that would have been considered pure science-fiction a few years ago.)  For its first hour, as mysteries are still presented, The Bourne Legacy is solid action filmmaking: the action scenes are well-handled, the atmosphere is grounded and the plot mechanics are decently handled as the film takes place concurrently to The Bourne Ultimatum.  Things slow down to a far more ordinary result in the second half, as the plot stops advancing almost entirely and leaves all the screen time to an increasingly redundant chase sequence.  The final result may not be as compelling as what was promised earlier, but it’s still a surprisingly energetic follow-up to a series most thought was finished.  Don’t worry –from the unresolved threads left by the conclusion of The Bourne Legacy, it looks as if we’ll get at least another trilogy our of the Bourne name.

  • The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

    The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theaters, August 2007) This third instalment in the relatively more realistic action/espionage Bourne series is, all things considered, both more exciting and more interesting that either of the previous instalments. Sure, it’s repetitive and shameless in how it allows Bourne to be an invulnerable superhero. Sure, Paul Greengrass’s constantly moving-and-cutting technique often leeches coherency out of his action sequences. Sure, the plot has more holes than it can comfortably sustain. But there’s a real relevance to the issues discussed here for the third time: We’re asked to face the extent at which we must pursue victory, and the means necessary to do so. What happens when an indifferent system allows bad apples to gain power? For all of its cynicism and “realism”, this trilogy concludes on an odd note of optimism, as it shows that individual people can take a stand and make a difference. But that’s really icing on the cake, because the most distinctive appeal of The Bourne Ultimatum is in its three big action sequences in London, Tangier and New York. The plot is really an excuse to get from one to the other, and all three of them are very different. The London sequence is a nightmare of surveillance technology used indiscriminately; Tangier takes us to the confusing chaos of the third world; while New York is Bourne smash-em-up in America’s front yard. Even the frustration of the constantly moving camera can’t shake the competent thrills of these three sequences. Even Matt Damon is not too bad. It may have taken a while, but I’ve finally seen a Bourne movie I could enjoy.

  • The Bourne Supremacy (2004)

    The Bourne Supremacy (2004)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theaters, July 2004) I wasn’t a fan of the first film (dull, unremarkable and not quite as sophisticated as it thought it was), but this sequel is a bit better. Stepping off the event of the first film with nary a regard for the plot of Robert Ludlum’s eponymous novel, The Bourne Supremacy reprises the elements that made the success of the first film (a competent but remorseful assassin, a gritty car chase and European locations) and reheats them once more. While the story is generally more enjoyable the second time around (with some impressively close ties to the content of the first film), the direction has taken a major step backward: I don’t think that there’s a perfectly still shot in the entire film, what with director Paul Greengrass’s constant use of unsteadied hand-held cameras. The result is highly annoying, and quickly becomes a confusing mess as soon as the action starts. Otherwise, well, there are a few unexplained plot shortcuts (how did he obtain those cell phone numbers?) and a few lengths here and there. A solid but generally tepid thriller.

  • The Bourne Identity (2002)

    The Bourne Identity (2002)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theaters, June 2002) Don’t worry if you don’t remember much from the original Robert Ludlum novel: There’s scant resemblance to the original story beyond the premise of an elite secret agent who’s lost his memory. This remake is a solid thriller; perhaps too much so: There’s a definite sense of deja-vu here, as the film laboriously puts together what may be one of the blandest, least imaginative thrillers in recent memory. All of it is familiar by-the-numbers spy stuff. I could hand you the film’ premise and you’d develop a story roughly similar to this incarnation of The Bourne Identity. Matt Damon is decent as the hero, but not particularly noteworthy. The same can be said of director Doug Liman, who does the job with a very occasional flourishes but seldom any sustained panache. I drifted off midway through, bored by a second or third repetition of the same plot structure (Agent is sent to kill Bourne. Bourne kills agents, learning tantalizing clue. Agent dies before telling more) and I’m not sure I missed out on anything. Well-done but bland. There’s a nice little care chase, though.