Jason Bourne

Now we have come to the finale of “Jason Bourne Month” with the latest installment, “Jason Bourne,” which came out in July.

Nine years ago, Matt Damon came into the action genre with his adaptation of a novel series character named Jason Bourne in “The Bourne Identity.” After “The Bourne Ultimatum,” Matt Damon stated that his days as Bourne were over. Jeremy Renner entered into the franchise (with a different character) in the underrated and wrongfully-panned “The Bourne Legacy” and after a nine year break; Damon came back to the series in the latest installment.

Fans were excited (and rightfully so) that Damon came back but it’s difficult not to say that this sequel tried to be its own entity more than the previous movies.

Instead of being a new story, “Jason Bourne” does the same story – throwing new ideas and setting away for the usual story. Fans of this series, this one is for you. Everyone else, this latest entry will mostly feel repetitive.

Returning with Damon is director Paul Greengrass and Julia Stiles as Nicky Parsons, who is no longer with the CIA and wants to publicly free confidential information about Treadstone (the section that made Bourne and other super agents). She finds Bourne so he can help her and, you should know this by now, the CIA wants to bring them both in.

Working for the CIA is director Robert Dewey (Tommy Lee Jones) and Officer Heather Lee (Alicia Vikander). Vincent Cassel is also in the movie as the Asset, a valiant murderer out to kill Bourne.

As the movie goes on, there is a number of engaging chase scenes showing the Asset tracking Bourne. Even though there are selected memorable portions (one of them being Bourne and Parsons on a motorcycle), none of them are really awesome, mainly when comparing some of the adrenaline-rushing fight scenes in the past movies in the series.

John Hanlon said it best when he said in his review, “Those Bourne films offered some amazingly visceral fight scenes where Bourne had to take on his opponents in intense hand-to-hand combat. Greengrass’ direction was sometimes frantic but those scenes packed a punch. Here, Greengrass and Damon try to recreate those moments but none of them stand out as being as exciting.”

The same feeling is what carries the whole story on its own, which gives a look into Bourne’s life before he was enlisted into Treadstone. Here, there are some new secrets that insert a power to Bourne’s mission but don’t really give the expressive weight that’s needed.

If you are concerned if you could tell what goes on in the film throughout, there are a few parts that do give it away. There’s a small but vital role that Riz Ahmed is in as Aaron Kalioor. He is the CEO of the social media branch that is getting money by Dewey’s CIA, behind closed doors. I agree with Hanlon when he said, “The story-line raises solid and serious questions about government surveillance and the alliances sometimes shared between private sector companies and government officials.”

Another part – where Lee is thinking about Bourne’s devotion – works very well, giving a look at the idea that this series could continue into exceptional terrain. Instead, the story turns the story in a U-Turn into more predictable terrain.

Hanlon concluded by saying, “For those who enjoyed the original trilogy– as I did– Jason Bourne is a satisfying return to the series after The Bourne Legacy set it off track. That being said, one hopes that this series strives to do something different and more unique in the future.”

In the end, as much as I did enjoy the movie, I do believe that they shouldn’t have done the movie like this again. They instead should have continued with the Aaron Cross story, even though it may not have been that engaging. Still, this was a nice summer flick that I definitely think is worth checking out for those who are fans of the series and want to see Jason Bourne back in the movies.

Well, that concludes “Jason Bourne Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed it and I’m happy I finally got around to reviewing this series, as it is one of my favorites. Hopefully I gave some great recommendations. See everyone next month, which will be October. You know what that means? HALLOWEEN MONTH!!!! Just sit tight and wait for tomorrow, which will be the start of reviewing certain franchises that will be looked at throughout the month that I think everyone should just avoid.

The Bourne Legacy

When you watch “The Bourne Legacy,” released in 2012, you’re puzzled and confused in the first third of the movie. Who is Aaron Cross, played by Jeremy Renner, and why is he floating shirtless in the Alaskan sea in this freezing cold weather, going up mountainous regions and fist-fighting wolves? What is wrong with Colonel Eric Byer, played by Edward Norton, who is always in front of a computer, shouting orders and pointing his finger at everyone? Why is Dr. Marta Shearing, played by Rachel Weisz, with her lab coat in this scientific lab so essential? Also, how come there is no Matt Damon?

The actor from the last three Bourne films was not casted in the fourth entry in this series. You will miss him in this one. Given the mission to move forward with the franchise’s story without Damon, writer-director Tony Gilroy misses something completely single-minded than the clichéd reboot tool. He tells fans a similar story, going on at the same time as what transpired in “The Bourne Ultimatum,” where the government says they want to eliminate every one of the super agents they created for doing cool missions (a new, more enhanced group is going to replace them).

Rene Rodriguez stated in her review, “But Cross, who is one of the soldiers deemed obsolete, isn’t willing to go quietly. In his previous movies, Gilroy (Duplicity, Michael Clayton) displayed a flair for tangled, playful narratives that rewarded close attention and doled out wonderful third-act bombs of surprise.” One of the letdowns in this movie that there isn’t much to do in a movie underneath a messy, busy façade. Once they start the narrative piece, the movie does the familiar Bourne formula of government authorities trying to hunt their rouge agents. Once in a while, they enlist an experienced person.

Renner can kill it in supporting roles (The Avengers, Mission Impossible: Rouge Nation), but he can’t play a main role: He doesn’t have what is needed to play in a huge movie like the Bourne sequels, and he gets lost in the sauce. On a similar note, Weisz’s Dr. Shearing, who doesn’t understand why her colleagues are now wanting to kill her, is a great character and is not your typical damsel-in-distress than you could have imagined. In one of the highlights of the movie, she does find out the company psychiatrist who goes to her house to see her mental condition that might have another, more evil plan. Rodriguez credits, “Weisz plays the scene so well, you actually believe her character is in mortal peril, even though she hasn’t been in the movie nearly long enough to get bumped off.”

Rodriguez said, “Besides, The Bourne Legacy isn’t the sort of picture that takes risks, other than to see just how loud James Newton Howard’s score can go without causing permanent deafness in the audience. There is one fabulous set piece in the movie, a methodical mass-murder/suicide that is shot and edited with harrowing, horrifying expertise.” As good of a writer that he is, Gilroy is also a skilled filmmaker. The last half-hour of the movie is one giant action scene in Manila – a chase done on foot, car and motorcycle – that had to be extremely challenging to film and even more of a challenge to edit. It looks great, but it’s also hard to watch, because when you reach that part “The Bourne Legacy” proves to you that there are no surprises anywhere, no more innovative stories to be made from this movie. The stunts, admittedly, looks tiring. I guess you might wonder why Damon never appeared in this movie.

Overall, even though I wasn’t as engaged in this movie as I was with the previous three installments, I do give this movie credit for trying. Overall, this was a nice movie that I think it was definitely worth checking out, so watch it and give it a chance. The movie is not entirely bad. I understand that this movie might be an adaptation on a book that doesn’t have Jason Bourne since I think his story was done in the books, but I can’t say for sure since I never read the series. However, if this movie was going to start a new series of stories in the Bourne series, than I give it credit for making a nice starting point, although I think future sequels with Cross’s character was scrapped since I think people wanted Jason Bourne again.

If you want to know how it ended up with fans wanting Jason Bourne back in the movies, find out next week in the finale to “Jason Bourne Month.”

The Bourne Ultimatum

Now we come to my personal favorite in the franchise and another one of my all-time favorite films, “The Bourne Ultimatum,” released in 2007.

The Bourne franchise has done the chase sequences and transcends them passed the storytelling element and turned them into a story. Roger Ebert admitted, “Jason Bourne's search for the secret of his identity doesn't involve me in pulsating empathy for his dilemma, but as a MacGuffin, it's a doozy.” Someone finds Bourne with a fake identity, wants to know who he really is and goes through three movies finding out as fast as Sonic the Hedgehog runs. For those who have seen the ending of “The Bourne Ultimatum” and if that is telling us anything, it’s possible that there will be another sequel to clear everything up.

Ebert mentioned, “That said, so what? If I don't care what Jason Bourne's real name is, and believe me, I sincerely do not, then I enjoy the movies simply for what they are: skillful exercises in high-tech effects and stunt work, stringing together one preposterous chase after another, in a collection of world cities with Jason apparently piling up frequent-flier miles between them.”

“The Bourne Ultimatum” continues with Bourne’s determination, driving abilities, his brainpower in out-smarting his superiors and even his good luck. An actual person would be able to have their life with the events showcased in this movie, for the actual reasons that they would have died in the exposition in “The Bourne Identity” and never would have lived to be in “The Bourne Supremacy.” Ebert described, “That Matt Damon can make this character more convincing than the Road Runner is a tribute to his talent and dedication.” It’s very rare you see a character you care about although you have no clear knowing if he could be real.

In this movie, Bourne is on an anxious chase through London, Madrid, Moscow, New York, Paris, Tangier and Turin, while CIA agents in America trail him using a stunning variety of high-tech gadgets and techniques. Ebert said, “I know Google claims it will soon be able to see the wax in your ear, but how does the CIA pinpoint Bourne so precisely and yet fail again and again and again to actually nab him? You'd think he was bin Laden.”

Does anyone know why they want Bourne so badly? He is the reason why the CIA has this dangerous secret extra-legal black-ops division that breaks laws in the USA and overseas, and you would say: “Well, of course!” The CIA operation, previously called Treadstone, has been renamed to Blackbriar. Sounds better, doesn’t it? Ebert described, “It's like if you wanted to conceal a Ford plant, you'd call it Maytag. Seeking a hidden meaning in the names, I looked up Treadstone on Wiktionary.com and found it is a "fictional top-secret program of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Jason Bourne book and movie series." Looking up "Blackbriar," I found nothing. So they are hidden again from the Wik empire.”

In his distressed chase to find those who are hunting him down, Jason forms a comradery in Madrid with CIA’s Nicky Parsons, reprised by Julia Stiles, who is given an entire dialogue to say with some weight before Jason is off to Algiers and crashing through windows and living rooms in the Casbah. Ebert said, “I think I recognized some of the same steep streets from "Pepe Le Moko," which is a movie about just staying in the Casbah and hiding there, a strategy by which Jason could have avoided a lot of property damage.”

Obviously there are adrenaline-rushing car chases, impossible jumps over high places, smart paired antitheses and quick decisions. Sometimes we go back to CIA’s base (although certainly a secret CIA black-op would not be concealed in their own base) and meet agent Pamela Lundy (Joan Allen), who things there is a possibility of some defense on Jason’s behalf, and her boss Noah Vosen (David Stratharin), who could be the one who brought Bourne in this secret CIA division, since he wasn’t in the previous two movies. We finally then see a blurry person in Bourne’s memory pull focus and, in one of the great aspects of the Talking Murderer, explains everything instead of punching his face in. After that we get another thrilling chase.

The director, organizing difficult effects and stunt teams, is Paul Greengrass and he not only makes (or looks like he creates) fascinatingly long takes but executes it without attracting attention to them. Ebert said, “Whether they actually are unbroken stretches of film or are spliced together by invisible wipes, what counts is that they present such mind-blowing action that I forgot to keep track.”

There are two kinds of long takes: the ones you’re supposed to notice and the ones you don’t notice, because the action doesn’t make you notice them. Both have their reasons: directors either want to show how the plot explains the protagonist, and the director wants to show the action without distractions to help the impression everything is actually happening.

Ebert admits, “But why, if I liked the movie so much, am I going on like this? Because the movie is complete as itself. You sit there, and the action assaults you, and using words to re-create it would be futile.” What really happens to Jason Bourne is primarily unimportant. What matters is that a story must be told, so he can escape go towards it. Ebert ended his review by saying, “Which leads us back to the MacGuffin theory.”

My brother had asked on my 18^th birthday what movie I wanted to see. When I mentioned this movie, my siblings and I were set to go since we all loved the Bourne series. After we saw the movie, all of us had our nerves shot and our adrenaline running since this movie was that awesome. My brother himself was getting excited, leaning over to my sister and me saying how engaging the movie was. I promise you that we all enjoyed this movie so much since it goes from fist-fight to car chase and back and forth. If you haven’t seen the movie, stop reading the review and go see it. This is the best of the series so far, I guarantee that.

Although I thought that maybe the Bourne series ended here, another one was released, which we will look at next week in the continuation of “Jason Bourne Month.”

Intolerance

This year marks the 100^th Anniversary of D.W. Griffith’s silent film “Intolerance,” which is oddly enough, the oldest movie I have ever seen. I had never heard of this movie, but I would like to talk about how I found out about it.

One of my former college professors is, like me, a huge film addict. I do admit that he knows “way” more than I do, which would make sense since he is a professor and I am not. I’m not sure if he taught any film courses, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he did. One day, he gave everyone some easy extra credit points by saying to stay back on campus one evening since my college’s theater was going to show this movie. Since it’s a silent film, they actually had a band sitting on stage and playing music while the movie was on. I’m not sure what the original movie was like since I have never gone back to see this movie after that one night. I stayed back since it was an easy extra credit option to get. Now that I have stated that, let’s go on to the review.

“Intolerance,” released in 1916, showcases the incredible work of the great D.W. Griffith, since it didn’t really need so much of sincere art to make sure he combines actors, animals, gymnast and dancers in a combination end result of a classic movie.

It tries to tell four different stories simultaneously, which you could say Griffith pulled off with the assistance of flashbacks, fade-outs and fade-ins. The four stories are made to show that intolerance in different ways have always been around since the beginning of time.

Variety said in there review, “Three of the exemplifications are based upon historical fact, the fourth visualized by a modern melodrama that hits a powerful blow at the hypocrisy of certain forms of up-to-date philanthropy.” The medieval time showcases France when it was under the rule of Charles IX (Frank Bennett), with the fright of being attacked by Catherine de Medici (Josephine Crowell), Jerusalem at the start of the Christian time period, with one or two biblical stories of Jesus Christ’s life, and an idea of the Crucifixion.

Variety mentioned that, “The martial visualizations confined principally to the Babylonian period (about 500 B.C.), when Belshazzar’s (Alfred Paget) army was defeated by the Persians under the military direction of Cyrus (George Sigmann). Words cannot do justice to the stupendousness of these battle scenes or feasts.”

Even though I know that this is a silent movie, it’s actually a great piece of work from one of the best directors of all time. I like how all of the stories intertwine with one another to showcase intolerance throughout time. Griffith really showcased how intolerance still exists to this day, and sadly, that is true. However, it doesn’t mean that we cannot change ourselves to make sure that intolerance can diminish. One person could make a difference.

If you are the type of person who would like to see old movies, particularly ones from the silent era, then you should see this one. It’s a classic, and if I ever get the chance to see this again, I probably would. I give this a recommendation.

Thanks for tuning in on my review of the silent movie that has officially turned a century old this month, even though I missed the actual date it was released. Well, better late than never, as they all say. I’m only a few days late, at least I didn’t review this “really late.” Alright, enough of that, check in this Friday for the next installment of “Jason Bourne Month.”

The Bourne Supremacy

Welcome back to “Jason Bourne Month,” where we will be looking at the 2004 superior sequel, “The Bourne Supremacy.”

Jason Bourne was created in “The Bourne Identity,” and the title of the sequel “The Bourne Supremacy” lets everyone know that this isn’t the last one in the series – not with the series running on a high note. He may not die in any other installment, but might be exactly like James Bond, with continuous sequels, telling the same story over and over as his character is played by other great actors.

The Bourne movies may continue forever, but the sad fact is, there will always be villains wanting to murder him. That will be the reason why he’ll always have to watch his back. Roger Ebert mentioned, “The plot of "Supremacy," like "Identity," involves Bourne trying to survive the shadowy forces against him by using his awesome skills in spycraft, the martial arts, and running real fast.” The movie’s great because he is the master at these skills, and because Matt Damon makes this his famous role without the show-off bravery aspect. If he was a show-off, that would kill the series.

Ebert is right when he says, “The movie skillfully delivers a series of fights, stalkings, plottings and chases, punctuated by a little brooding. The best word for Bourne is "dogged."” After a small look at him happy, he sinks his head and runs persistently ahead into the hands of his antagonists, not even putting on a disguise, because he knows what he is doing. He always wears the same black uniform; in parts where he goes from India to Italy to Germany to Russia (we have no complaints).

As we saw in the first movie, Bourne recovers from amnesia with having skills he had no idea he had, and with different countries passports and other helps to survive, a collection left to him by the villain from the first movie. As this movie starts, he is in seclusion, living with Marie, reprised by Franka Potente, the woman he met in the last movie. They have a house on the beach in Goa, which is in southern India, living a relaxing life until Bourne encounters someone who is wearing the wrong clothes, driving the wrong car and ending up in the wrong areas.

Someone still is out to get Bourne. What does Bourne have that the villains want to put in millions in order to murder him? Sometimes he feels that he is so close to remembering. Ebert made a good point when he said, “He suffers from Manchurian Candidate's Syndrome, a malady that fills your nightmares with disconnected flashes of something dreadful that may or may not have happened to you. I saw "The Bourne Supremacy" on the very same day I saw the remake of "The Manchurian Candidate." I was able to compare the symptoms, which involve quick cuts of fragmentary images.”

The movie has all the basic thriller aspects, and goes from one action part to another in India and Europe, which then goes to similar fights in Washington and New York. What separates Bourne from everyone is his creativity. There’s a part where it takes him so small of a time to beat up an armed agent and steal the phone list on his cell, and you know that Bourne knows what he is doing. Remember how he made a new way he found with the toaster? It’s great seeing him look at the problem and immediately think up a plan, a lot of times using sideways thinking.

What Bourne doesn’t know about his enemies, we find out as the movie switches gears with a plan that a CIA agent named Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) and her boss, Ward Abbot (Brian Cox) have. The hot Julia Stiles plays a young agent working under Landy. They’ve found Bourne’s fingerprints at the part of a murder in Berlin that a CIA agent and his deadly criminal encounter. We know though that Bourne was in Goa at the time, so what’s this all about?

I agree with Ebert when he says, “We have a pretty good idea, long before anyone else does, because the movie observes the Law of Economy of Character Development, which teaches us that when an important actor is used in an apparently subordinate role, he's the villain. But the movie doesn't depend on its big revelations for its impact; the mystery is not why Bourne is targeted, but whether he will die.” He survives one death trap or surprise attack, jumping off bridges, getting in car accidents, killing attackers, and finally getting a tad crippled after a chase where he could have died.

Ebert mentioned, “I have the weakness of bringing logic to movies where it is not required. There's a chase scene where he commandeers a taxicab and leads a posse of squad cars through an urban version of Demo Derby. Although the film does not linger over the victims, we assume dozens of cars were destroyed and dozens of people killed or maimed in this crash, and we have to ask ourselves: Is this cost in innocent victims justified in the cause of saving Jason Bourne's life?” At the end of the movie, Bourne gives an honest apology to a Russian woman, played by Oksana Akinshina. If he ever returns to Berlin, he’ll have to apologize to probably the whole country, if a gang of murderers doesn’t get him first.

Ebert did say that, “But I digress. Thrillers don't exist in a plausible universe. They consist of preposterous situations survived by skill, courage, craft and luck.” Matt Damon always has something he brings that is emotional about Bourne that makes the movie engaging, because we really love this character. Paul Greengrass, the director, gives this novel adaptation weight and uses amazing actors in well-written supporting roles that help the movie ascend to the top of the genre, but never out of it.

I’m going to be honest. I didn’t get to see this movie in the theaters since I didn’t see the first one. I saw the first movie for free On Demand, and then I saw this for free On Demand. This movie, I actually thought was better since the political side of this was actually quite engaging. If you loved the first movie, then definitely give this a watch because it is a superior sequel and another one of my all time favorites.

Hold on to your seats, because next week is a thrill ride that I can’t wait to go on, when we continue “Jason Bourne Month.”

The Bourne Identity

First off, I really want to apologize for not posting this yesterday. I had completely forgotten, and hopefully that will never happen again. With that out of the way, I feel so bad, but I don’t want to leave my online readers wondering where my review is this week. That’s why I am going to post it today and announce what this month will be.

For the month of September, I will be looking at one of my all-time favorite action series, the Jason Bourne series, a novel adaptation that I have never read but heard of the series through the movies. Today, let’s take a look at the 2002 first entry in the series, “The Bourne Identity,” another one of my all time favorites.

This movie is a clever action movie about a story that exists only to help a clever action movie. The entire story sets up the kung-fu and chases. Because they are well executed, because the movie is well done and acted, we enjoy it. The one drawback is that it’s not about something.

Actually, it might be. It might be about the unethical climate in spy agencies like the CIA. There are no protagonists – definitely not the main character, played by Matt Damon, who is a trained killer – and not even antagonists. Even the ones who want to kill Damon are only doing their jobs. Roger Ebert mentioned in his review, “Just as the guardians of the Navajo "Windtalkers" in another new movie are told to kill their charges rather than let them fall into enemy hands, so is Bourne, or whatever his name is, targeted for death after he fails to assassinate an African leader. (There's a good possibility he would also be targeted if he had succeeded.)” As the movie starts, a fisherman on a boat out of Marseilles, played by Roberto Bestazzoni, sees a body floating in what is, as Ebert puts it, “obviously a studio back-lot tank.” Brought on the ship, the man turns out to be living, has two bullet wounds and has a capsule sealed under his skin, which has the code to a Swiss bank account The friendly fisherman gives the man he saved (who doesn’t remember his name) money to take the train to Switzerland, and he is welcomed in the country and withdraws so much cash from a bank even though he doesn’t know his name or having any sort of identification.

Certainly, he finds out who he may be by going through a red bag from the bank, where he finds a handful of passports, one say his name is Jason Bourne. With his mind set on finding out his real name, and why he was in the Mediterranean Sea, Bourne pays $10,000 to a gypsy named Marie, played by Franka Potente, to drive him to Paris. Meanwhile, the movie goes to CIA headquarters in Virginia, where we meet Bourne’s supervisor Conklin, (Chris Cooper) and his boss Abbot (Brian Cox). Bourne was through to be dead. Now that he is alive, he must be murdered, and the assignment goes to a team of CIA murderers, especially the Professor, played by Clive Owen, who is as highly trained as Bourne.

Ebert notes, “I forgot to say that Bourne is trained. Is he ever.” He speaks a handful of languages, is a master martial artist, has strong training powers in observation and memory, knows every spy tricks and is a difficult driver. We see that during a edge-of-your-seat chase sequence through the streets of Paris, much of it through tight alleys, down flights of steps, and against traffic.

There comes a part where we realize there will be no higher level to the screenplay, no greater purpose than to use this motive energy. The movie’s violently sarcastic happy ending reveals that it doesn’t take itself seriously. We do get this (sooner than Marie) that the love interest stays in the movie only because – there has to be a love interest, to give false suspense and give the lonely hero someone to talk to.

Ebert admitted, “I kind of enjoyed "The Bourne Identity." I had to put my mind on hold, but I was able to. I am less disturbed by action movies like this, which are frankly about nothing, than by action movies like "Windtalkers," which pretend to be about something and then cop out. Doug Liman, the director of "Bourne," directs the traffic well, gets a nice wintry look from his locations, absorbs us with the movie's spycraft and uses Damon's ability to be focused and sincere. The movie is unnecessary, but not unskilled.”

I highly recommend everyone to watch this movie, you will enjoy it. There’s no question that people will get into this, it’s one of those adrenaline-rushing, nerve-shooting movies. One of my complaints is the overuse of shaky camera during the action scenes because you can’t really see what’s going on. That’s my only gripe with the movie, but other than that, it doesn’t take away too much from the movie since I still enjoyed it, and I believe everyone else will.

How did the sequels turn out? Find out next Friday (and it will be posted than. I won’t forget this time) on the next installment of “Jason Bourne Month.”