The Bourne Ultimatum: My Choice as the Best Studio Film of the Summer

In 2002, the spy genre was in dire straits. After the Cold War, it seemed as if Hollywood had given up on crafting intelligent stories with smart action and engaging characters. The James Bond films, the films that had set the standard in the 60s and started the whole “spy craze,” had become a sad caricature of itself, with “Die Another Day”, the 2002 spy installment, featuring an invisible car. The summer movie season looked grim as well, as there were relatively few big budget films that appeared to have the requisite level of story crafting and special effects to challenge an audience. Of course, this was the summer of “Spider-Man,” “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones,” “Signs,” “The Sum of All Fears,” “Austin Powers in Goldmember”, and “Men in Black II.” Amid the chaos, however, Universal Pictures quietly released a little film based on a best selling novel first published in the 1980s. The film had had troubles on the set, and there were doubts as to whether Doug Liman, the director, could really handle a big budget action film. Matt Damon, the star, was more known for more personal and intimate films. Could he really pull off an action film?

“The Bourne Identity” changed the rules for spy films and for Hollywood’s habit of treating the movie going audience with such derision. With John Powell’s music setting the scene, we witnessed a body floating on the water in the middle of a thunderstorm at sea. This was our introduction to the cinematic incarnation of Jason Bourne. Over the next 2 hours, we were thrust into the world of Jason Bourne, and as Bourne found clues, so did the audience. Although Bourne was a bit of a superhero in that he survived many incredible scrapes, this superhero was worse for the wear. Beaten, bloodied and bruised, the audiences final shot of Bourne (before his happy Greek reunion with Marie) was limping down the street as the last of the Treadstone assassins dealt with the treacherous Conklin (Chris Cooper) at the behest of Conklin’s superior, Abbott (Brian Cox). By itself, the film was a fine stand alone movie and a worthy addition to the collective works of the spy film genre. This was the thinking-person’s action film, one that begged for repeated viewings. The audiences agreed, and “The Bourne Identity” became one of the surprise hits of the summer.

The success of the first film led to a sequel, directed by Paul Greengrass. Thankfully, screenwriter Tony Gilroy was back to continue the story of Jason Bourne and Marie. In expanding the backstory of Treadstone and the not-so-pure motives of Abbott’s operations with the CIA, Gilroy again created a taut thriller that was a worthy follow-up to its predecessor. Although Paul Greengrass was an able enough director, his choice to use handheld cameras for most scenes was not very well thought out, especially for a film that, to a large extent, depends upon an audience’s appreciation of a sense of place. Where the audience would have loved to see what a high-speed chase through the streets of Moscow looked like, the director instead treated the audience to flashing images of Bourne shifting gears and close ups of his face. Granted, such shots did establish the immediacy of his sense of peril, but they left a lot to be desired with respect to establishing that all important sense of place. I mean, why bother with the expense of mounting a chase scene in Berlin or Moscow when the audience will not be treated to shots of those cities? The overall effect of “The Bourne Supremacy” was that it made the viewer a little motion sick, but because Tony Gilroy’s script was so tight and wonderfully constructed, the shortcomings of Greengrass’s technique were overcome. Damon again delivered a tour-de-force performance as Bourne, and the film was a worthy sequel.

Now it was time for a new film, one that Damon promised would be the last of the series. This film would answer all of the lingering questions from the first 2 films, but it would involve the same team. A lot had changed since the first Bourne film was released. The studios had finally caught on that the summer audiences would go out in droves to see smart thrillers. James Bond received a new lease on life with the release of “Casino Royale.” “Batman Begins” rebooted a moribund franchise and did not even show the Dark Knight until almost half of the film was done. Would Bourne still be able to meet the standards set by the first 2 films?

I saw “The Bourne Ultimatum” today, and with the opening strains of John Powell’s music playing over the Universal symbol at the beginning of the film, I was immediately thrust back into the world of Jason Bourne. Gilroy’s script did a wonderful job establishing a sense of time, as 3 years have elapsed since Bourne fell victim to amnesia and Wambosi’s bullets in his back. We see Bourne running in Moscow in the aftermath of the tunnel chase from the previous film and then see a reporter who has been piecing together the story of Bourne. From their, Bourne meets the reporter, and Bourne begins to piece together the missing fragments of his memory. Gilroy continues to amaze with his latest script. Having already written 2 screenplays where much of the action is set in dark computer rooms with official-looking people yelling orders at one another, Gilroy kept the premise fresh by injecting dissension in the ranks as Landy starts to question whether the Agency deserves her loyalty. In a wonderful bit of ret-conning, the final coda from the last film was rewritten as happening in real time with the current film. The attention to detail is what is remarkable. I must also note that, just prior to watching "The "Bourne Ultimatum", I revisited "The Bourne Identity" on HD-DVD. At the end of the first film, where Abbott is in front of the finance committee, he dismisses Treadstone as a game program that failed. However, his next project (and the one that the audience hears him explain as the scene dissolves into the coast of Greece for the finale) was a project called Blackbriar. Gilroy really brought everything full circle, as we learned in this film that Blackbriar was the replacement program for Treadstone. What could have been a throwaway scene from the first film was of some import to the running backstory of the films and rewards viewers who have an an attention to detail!

With regard to "The Bourne Supremacy's" major weakness, Greengrass fixed the shortcomings of the camera work in that film; now, even though some of the fight scenes are still a bit disorienting, there is definitely a sense of place during the numerous chase scenes in the film, including a particularly thrilling nailbiter involving Nicky (Julia Stiles), an assassin, and Bourne through the rooftops and streets of Tangier. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I was most impressed with how Gilroy revealed Bourne’s history.

When “The Bourne Identity” came out, I remember thinking that it was the best film of that summer. Granted, this summer, I have not had the chance to see some of the smaller independent films in theaters, but I have watched all of the big blockbusters (“Spider-Man 3,” “Shrek the Third,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End,” “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer,” “Ocean’s 13,” “Live Free or Die Hard,” “Ratatouille,” “Transformers,” “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” and “The Simpsons Movie”). There were quite a few enjoyable films in that bunch, but once again, Bourne must come out on top. This was the best film of the summer (in my opinion). I can’t wait to see it again.

The Simpsons Movie...was it any good?

“The Simpsons” are an American icon, but much has been made about the perceived decrease in the show’s quality over the last 18(!) years. I suppose this is normal. Most people have a perception of “the good old days” in some way, shape or form. I myself always bemoan the lack of quality music when compared to the variety that made up the musical tapestry that was the 1980s. “The Simpsons,” in spanning 3 decades of poking fun at anyone and everyone, has at times struggled to stay relevant, but in my opinion, the hits far outnumber the misses. My friend Aaron and I agree that, where an episode focuses on Bart, Homer, or Burns, the episodes usually succeed. The weakest episodes are usually Lisa-centric, and I think that the preachy Lisa episodes are the ones that most easily come to mind when one identifies weak Simpson episodes. I, however, have always been a fan. “The Simpsons” debuted during my first year in college. Every Sunday evening, my fellow dorm denizens and I would hunker down in front of the lone TV on the premises (hard to believe that most dorm rooms did not come with TVs back then) to watch “The Simpsons.” At the time, Homer’s character was not even close to being fully realized, and Bart was the real star of the show. Thankfully, the show grew beyond Bart and found its niche poking fun at all of pop culture with a rich cast of characters. Back then, Moe, Barney, Bumblebeeman, Duffman, Burns, Smithers, Carl, Lenny, Krusty, and Grandpa were simply background characters who were there for the sole purpose of being sounding boards for the various Simpson family members. This, however, served the show well because we knew so little about the family itself. Over time, the characters became more fully fleshed out, and the writers looked beyond the family for story inspiration. As the stories focused more on external characters, the supporting cast started to look a lot more interesting than the stars of the show. Of course, Homer could always be looked to for comic relief, and Bart still had his moments, but for the most part, the denizens of Springfield were often more interesting.

I think that “The Simpsons Movie” admirably rectifies that situation and reminds the audience why it is that Marge stays married to Homer. The writers brought it back to basics by having a simple story of Homer royally screwing something up and the family being forced to flee Springfield. During their flight, they uncover a nastier plot (with clues from Tom Hanks, of all people) that threatens all of Springfield, and it is up to the Simpsons to save the day. That, in a nutshell, is the plot. What is missing is the multitude of jokes and clever humor that had the auditorium where I saw the movie in stitches. One watches “The Simpsons” for the clever jokes and comments and the visual gags. The “sketchiness” of the stories works to the writers’ advantage in that it allows them to cram in as many jokes and references as they possibly can. I laughed loudly and I laughed often while watching this film. It was well worth the 18 year wait, and I hope that the writers have another one in them.