Pages

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Black Ops

Film: The Bourne Ultimatum
Format: DVD from personal collection on kick-ass portable DVD player.

Are spy films a genre? I’m not sure if they are despite the fact that I can think of three prominent spy-themed film franchises—James Bond, Mission: Impossible, and the Bourne films. If you lay them end to end, there’s something to be said for each of them. Bond certainly has the longest legs, having gone through a half dozen or so actors in the main role and nearly two dozen films. The M:I films are good (I guess—I stopped after the first one), and the most recent got a lot of praise. Still, for consistent quality, I’d go with Bourne every time. Leaving off the one that is opening later this year, the three current films in the series are all top-notch.

Strangely, only The Bourne Ultimatum makes The List. However, in preparation for watching it today, I watched the first two over the last couple of days. As it turns out, I’d seen the first two before but not the third; I rewatched the first two specifically to get me prepared for the third one. I’m not sure how well the third film plays on its own—the same thing could be said of, say Return of the Jedi which requires some prior knowledge. Anyway, primed with the first two in the series, I went into the third one hoping it lived up to its older siblings.

It does. Oh, boy does it ever. It’s helped tremendously by the fact that it was directed by Paul Greengrass, who also directed the second film, The Bourne Supremacy. It’s further helped by the fact that some smart decisions were made in the second film to lead into the third one. The mark of good storytelling and good filmmaking is that the films work on their own episodically, but also work in a different way watched end-to-end.

What I mean is this--The Bourne Ultimatum picks up immediately after not the end of the second film, but the climactic moment of the second film, with Bourne still in Moscow. We see his escape from the situation, something that is glossed over at the very end of Supremacy. As it turns out, that fun little coda at the end of the middle film is replayed here. What happens in the first two acts of The Bourne Ultimatum happens in between that climax and the denouement of the second film, and turns that denouement into the thrust of the third and final act of the film.

The Bourne films, all three of them, are most noteworthy for the level of action. All three have tremendously choreographed fight sequences, each one memorable in their own way. As an added bonus, all three films (particularly the second and third) have some of the most intense and beautifully filmed chase sequences in recent years. It occurred to me at one point that Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) has more car accidents in a weekend than most people have in their lives. He tears the crap out of his vehicles and generally manages to limp away at the end.

The central conceit of the films is that Bourne is a CIA operative who has lost his memory after a botched assignment. As the films progress, he learns little pieces of his past and discovers that he was an operative in an ultra-secret black ops branch so clandestine that it doesn’t officially exist. In each film, something happens that brings him back to the attention of the Company and agents are dispatched to neutralize him. Essentially, the films are entirely about his survival and his slow discovery of his disturbing past.

That, more than anything, is what makes the action scenes work. Bourne is always concerned not just with getting away, but with doing anything he has to to ensure his survival. This means that the fist fights are brutal and devastating and the chases involve the sort of driving that seems possible only for someone with incredible skill and absolutely nothing to lose. Because he has everything on the line at all times, he always plays full out in every situation. Every time he encounters someone or something from his past, it’s a literal battle for survival, and thus a fight to the death. The stakes never get lowered.

The films are also ably assisted by a great cast of actors, many of whom don’t make it to or through the final film. In particular, Joan Allen as CIA agent Pam Landy is given the difficult role of being both one of Bourne’s main chasers and with being (ultimately) sympathetic both to Bourne and to the viewer. She manages this beautifully, slowly over time coming to side with Bourne’s struggles and against her superiors. The final film introduces Noah Vosen (David Straithairn) as the main foil, a role he seems almost born to play. Straithairn is capable of a particular level of scorn and sarcasm few others (Kevin Spacey comes to mind) can manage. Julia Stiles as agent Nicky Parsons is worth some mention, too. She hasn’t always made the best film choices in her career, but these films show she’s capable of nailing a role.

In short, I love all of these films. The Bourne Identity serves as a fantastic introduction to the pace and pacing of the films as well as to the characters. The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum make a perfectly matched pair that go perfectly as a double feature.

The complaints I have are minor. It’s worth saying that anyone interested in this film should watch all three. That’s not a hardship, though—all three are worth watching. Second, I’ve read the book the first film is based on, and it’s dishwater dull. Don’t waste your time. Third, since these three films form a complete story, a new film with a new person playing Jason Bourne feels like an unnecessary cash grab. It might well be great, but I have my doubts that I’ll believe anyone other than Matt Damon in the role.

Why to watch The Bourne Ultimatum: It’s the modern standard for action films.
Why not to watch: You’ll need a day, because you should watch the whole trilogy.

12 comments:

  1. As a fight choreography junkie, I love the Bourne films.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm with you. All three are the modern gold standard for action in general and fights in the specific.

      Delete
  2. I love the audacity of staging most of the third film between the last two acts of the second. Its one of those moments that rewards people who've seen the other films. I can't say I'm overly looking forward to Legacy as, as you say, it definitely feels like a cash-in. Still, Jeremy Renner is usually reliable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm hopeful. I'm not banking on it, but I'm hopeful.

      This was my first go-round with Ultimatum, so when that moment happened and I realized this film overlapped the second, I admit to being impressed. As you say, it's a rewarding moment.

      Delete
  3. Steve, I'm with you completely on this one. Seeing the Bourne Ultimatum in the theaters was one of the great experiences from that year for me. I think Greengrass did an even better job here shooting the extended sequences than he did in Supremacy. This film takes out almost any unnecessary plot and moves so quickly. I agree about Strathairn, who's one of my favorite character actors. He's perfect for that part.

    I also wonder about the fourth movie, which seems odd given a different character being the lead. I'll hold out judgment until it comes out, but I don't have the same anticipation this time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like I said, I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Damon was so good for this role, it'll be hard to match him, let alone beat him. Tony Gilroy has almost no track record as a director (it's his third film), but he did write all of the Bourne films. That certainly works in its favor, as he knows the characters and the expectations.

      My worry is that it will feel tacked on. The third film ties up the story very neatly, and any loose ends didn't need tying off. If this becomes something prequel-y, it won't have the same impact.

      Delete
  4. "Are spy films a genre?"

    I wrote a comparative review of "Mission: Impossible-- Ghost Protocol" and "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" in which I assume that spy films do comprise a genre. (I'd be interested in seeing whether someone could define the genre!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was my problem. Other than "Uh...there's spies in 'em," I was sort of at a loss.

      Delete
  5. "all three films (particularly the second and third) have some of the most intense and beautifully filmed chase sequences in recent years."

    Wow. Sorry, but I could not possibly disagree more with this on the second and third films. It's the extreme shakycam filming of these scenes that renders them unwatchable and anything but beautiful. I defy anyone to watch one of those scenes at regular speed and then describe what happened in them other than "there was a car chase and there were crashes".

    Either the second or third film had a featurette on the DVD where they showed them filming a chase scene. They literally strapped a poor guy into the back of a pickup truck, standing up, and holding onto a camera that was only connected to a harness to save it if it flew out of his hands during the filming. They then had the truck driving in front of the car, dodging the same obstacles, and all the while this guy was trying to keep the camera pointed somewhere, anywhere, in the direction of the car. I was laughing out loud at this and I remember realizing it was no wonder that the scene in the movie was so poorly shot.

    I now despise Greengrass' shakycam style because it ruined the enjoyment of both the second and third films for me. I gave him one more chance, but I shut Green Zone off 10 minutes into it. If anything, he was shaking the camera even more. In fact, the biggest plus for me with the next Bourne film that is coming is that Greengrass is not the director.

    I actually had been mulling a post on shakycam as my next discussion starter. I think I will actually do that now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shakycam does bother me sometimes, but I didn't mind it as much here. This is, like it or not, the modern style of filming action, and while I could hope for some return to wider angles (see Pickup on South Street), it is what it is.

      For whatever reason, it bothered me less here than in other places.

      Delete
  6. I will take this series over the MI series any day. As far as the Bond films go it really depends on which one. Certainly worth re-watching all three of these films or checking them out for the first time if you have not seen them and like action and chases.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Bond series is interesting because it has such great highs (Goldfinger) and such deep lows (Moonraker) that one is never sure about any unknown film in the series.

      The Bourne films, though, are solid all the way through.

      Delete