When I ask that of you don't you usually go off on one about me 'disrespecting your point of view' or something?
Please do not drudge up the past. It was shabbily worded but it really doesn't have any implications whatsoever. I could have just said 'really?' Anyway, I was actually more interested in why you didn't find Greengrass's comment to be offensive.
Yes I believe it, because what the people say whilst marketing a film doesn't affect me at all- I just like watching the film and if I like it, I like it. I don't care what their opinions are on another film- that's hardly going to put me off watching their film.
I'm not some OTT fanatic who can't bear to think that not everyone in the world loves 007 as much as I do- I quite like it, and I'm quite able to take it when somebody else doesn't.
It's not about being an OTT fanatic (I don't think anyone on this site are) but about how some people are not simply content to give their opinion, but want to do it in an incredibly arrogant and offensive manner. I think that Greengrass would have been better off keeping his mouth shut.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I never said that. You're right, I should never have worded it the way I did, and for that I apologise. But please don't dredge up the past, because some of the things that occured were pretty unpleasant, and there were times when I debated about whether to continue speaking to you.
No, but does it matter? Whether or not what Greengrass said was offensive does not get determined by how much money the film makes or whether the film is well received. There was a film released a few years ago which made well over $500, million worldwide, and was well received, yet it was IMO a racist and vile work. Plus, before Greengrass gets too much of a big head, the first film, which he did not direct, was a big hit.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
That article assumes some pretty pathetic (and small-minded) attitudes to take on regarding Bond. I happily admit that Bond and Bourne are different. I don't care for the Bourne films personally, so I don't watch them, and for non-Bond fans the opposite is true. But to imply that Bond is essentially garbage is really akin to 'spitting' on what audiences respond to. Both the film series are escapism...the only difference is that where Bond films attempt to deliver a variety of interesting concepts and ideas in each film, the Bourne films hae failed to entertain me two times. I have no intention of trying a third time.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
edited August 2007
Here, (Formerly) Poor DannyTM weighs in on the Bourne films...and the upcoming Bond #22:
No spitting!---quite gracious, actually. Looks like the old boy is learning :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Bourne is terrible. Just action films that rely on hollywood stars. I hate that. Nothing original about it. I don't get how it's always compared to Bond. Bond is so different. They are both action/spy, and that's all they have in common. They have nothing else in common. Bond all the way!
Bond to me is the Microsoft of action heroes. Everyone thinks they have a better product but its number one in the publics eye
Well said, Milady {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Having been introduced to James Bond when I was 18 back in 1962 when seeing Dr No for the first time I have to say that since Diamonds Are Forever no other Bond film has interested me.Then came The Bourne Identity film and a brilliant performance by Matt Damon who for me anyway is the modern equivilent of what I first saw back in 1962.New,exciting and with a rawness that has been missing from the Bond films in the modern era. So its Bourne not Bond for me now.
I like only first Bourne film, STOP.
But Daniel Craig is a terrific actor, not Matt Damon.
007 James Bond is a far from better character. And a better worldwide boxoffice too.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
I dunno, I was just thinking the other day how the concept of "spy coolness" differed from decade to decade, and that CR, Bourne and even MI6 all define the current standard. As mentioned, they aren't necessarily in head to head competition being that they do have significant differences, unlike Bond vs. Flint, for example, which was blatant on the latter's part.
The only merit (if it's one at all) I see in debating over CR and Bourne and who copied who is prestige. Judging from the past couple of years, attempts to conclude with anything definitive is difficult at best because of the high level of subjectivity involved.
At the end of the day, I, myself, enjoyed Bourne for what it is, just as I enjoyed CR for what it is...and that's what counts.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
No spitting!---quite gracious, actually. Looks like the old boy is learning :007)
Then again, the Sun-Times didn't try to surreptitiously photograph his a** )
Really nice interview. You're right: he does seem to be learning. He sounds relaxed and comfortable with where he is in his career. And just as interested in where the character is going as he was for CR. And he looks terrific in that photo, too.
Having been introduced to James Bond when I was 18 back in 1962 when seeing Dr No for the first time I have to say that since Diamonds Are Forever no other Bond film has interested me.Then came The Bourne Identity film and a brilliant performance by Matt Damon who for me anyway is the modern equivilent of what I first saw back in 1962.New,exciting and with a rawness that has been missing from the Bond films in the modern era. So its Bourne not Bond for me now.
god what am i to do my dad is as old as you and he said casino royale was crap and he likes Bourne like i give a ****
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
god what am i to do my dad is as old as you and he said casino royale was crap and he likes Bourne like i give a ****
Time to forge your own tastes, young padawan B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I saw the The Bourne Ultimatum the other night and thought it was outstanding. I'm grateful for the Bourne films as they have forced Eon to raise their game, which they duly did with CR. Now they will have to do the same with Bond 22. There are some astonishing moments in this movie, including a stunning fight in a small apartment and a sequence at Waterloo station in which Bourne strives to prevent a journalist from being assassinated.
Eon is going to have to work very hard to match TBU. I think this can only be a good thing and it will lead to us seeing something special next year.
a sequence at Waterloo station in which Bourne strives to prevent a journalist from being assassinated.
That for me illustrates best the difference between Bourne and Bond. It was smart and had the whiff of realism. Can't imagine a sequence like that playing out the same way in a (pre-Craig) Bond film.
a sequence at Waterloo station in which Bourne strives to prevent a journalist from being assassinated.
That for me illustrates best the difference between Bourne and Bond. It was smart and had the whiff of realism. Can't imagine a sequence like that playing out the same way in a (pre-Craig) Bond film.
Indeed- I found that the most striking thing about Ultimatum is that its set pieces are all about suspense; there's danger everywhere in Waterloo- we the audience know but the characters don't know the extent of it. The Tangier chase was about Bourne rushing to prevent deaths whilst we are forced to agonisingly watch the characters he's trying to save getting closer to being killed. This is the sort of stuff Bond hasn't done in years- there was never that tension in CR, even (although possibly the card game and Miami chase got closer than Bond has been in 20 years) and some real Hitchcock-style suspense is what Bond could learn from Bourne here, instead of simple chase scenes. I think there's a chance we could get it.
Reading bits of the Lycett Ian Fleming biog last night, it struck me that Greengrass is only being consistent and valid in his critisisms, twas ever thus. Fleming's novels got heaps of flak from critics because of its imperialistic hero, snobbish attitude and so on, the idea that as it's patriotic, any kid of misdeed is approved. Typical in a way of the leftie intellect of the 50s...
And what with Craig's Bond going back to the Fleming basics, there's no reason for that to change at all.
I did enjoy Ultimatum for the most part, but I have some issues with it.
I thought the scenes in the Training Facility were almost anti-climatic, the best part being his dive off the building, and then movement in the water insuring a Bourne 4.
How did he get into Vosen's office with NO ONE in the entire building of cameras seeing him? Not to mention all the people occupying the floor he was on outside a glass office!! Making that call to Landy was too copy cat from the second one, and how was he supposed to know his birthdate was a code if he had no clue when his real birthday was in the first place?
And all the emotion when he killed the assasin with his hands? Where was that coming from? The guy was there to KILL him! He killed people in worse ways before that and it didn't bother him nearly as much. I enjoyed the chase scene before it, very intense and well done, but the emotion afterward was foreign to me.
I thought the scene with the journalist and the train station was almost flawless though! That was "edge of your seat" good.
Dumb little nit picks, I know, but still some things that bugged me about it.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
I've just been watching a late-night news-entertainment show, in which Johnny Rotten (of the infamous Sex Pistols B-) ) was asked about Matt Damon's public utterings, re: Bond. Johnny said (paraphrasing, of course, which is all I can do when this fellow speaks ), "Well, he's jealous, isn't he? Casino Royale was a cracking good film."
Never hurts to get the opinion of a Vintage Punk.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I did enjoy Ultimatum for the most part, but I have some issues with it.
I thought the scenes in the Training Facility were almost anti-climatic, the best part being his dive off the building, and then movement in the water insuring a Bourne 4.
Yeah; it wasn't a huge reveal to find out that he volunteered. As for 4, I hope not- or at least not without a big reshuffle; although not a big problem this time I think that doing the same things again could get a bit stale.
How did he get into Vosen's office with NO ONE in the entire building of cameras seeing him? Not to mention all the people occupying the floor he was on outside a glass office!! Making that call to Landy was too copy cat from the second one, and how was he supposed to know his birthdate was a code if he had no clue when his real birthday was in the first place?
Getting into the office was very silly- I had to ignore that! As for the Landy call being too copycat; I don't understand what you mean- it was the same call as we saw at the end of Supremacy, so it had to seem the same. They couldn't make it different or it wouldn't make sense.
As for the code, she'd already said hello to Bourne by paging him at the airport so he knew she was on his side and would try to communicate. It's a bit of reach, but y'know- they're spies; they're always looking for codes!
And all the emotion when he killed the assasin with his hands? Where was that coming from? The guy was there to KILL him! He killed people in worse ways before that and it didn't bother him nearly as much. I enjoyed the chase scene before it, very intense and well done, but the emotion afterward was foreign to me.
Don't remember that- I'll have to see it again. Great scene, though.
I watched Identity last night, and it's quite fun when Blackbriar gets a little mention at the end!
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
edited August 2007
After rereading this thread, I think more comparisons are needed at the fundamental level. The gist of the various debates had more to do with individual and popular appeal of these two characters and film production values; as I said, the debate on appeal is too subjective to strike anything definitive and of unanimous value.
But as Harry Palmer brought up earlier, what about defining where each of these characters/series fit within the spy genre? They're not exactly comparable. If anything, Ethan Hunt would be a closer approximation to Bond in terms of espionage method, such as investigation, surveillance and (social) infiltration. Assassination though is the odd duty which Bourne (and not Hunt), shares in common w/Bond.
Because Bond is capable of being a generalist, depending on service needs (the literary version even does mundane office work for more than 3/4ths of the year), he has the luxury of maintaining a life of his own. Bourne on the other hand is totally immersed into his function, to the point of eclipsing his identity (the running theme of the novels and films, btw). In the Bond universe, Bourne has more in common with someone like Red Grant or the SMERSH executioner in CR. The most significant thing in common Bond and Bourne shares, it seems is their military career prior to being recruited into espionage; it can even be argued that the literary Bond got involved in espionage/special operations from the very beginning of his military career, whereas movie Bond's new dossier implies an SAS/SBS/etc. background.
Given those delineations, Bourne is better than Bond with weaponry, unarmed combat, evasive driving, escape, tactical improvisation, etc., because he is 100% invested in those skills. I was about to then say “...however, Bond is better in... " but realized that there’s no need to be conciliatory for the benefit of Bond (and his devoted fans, which includes me btw). In fact, as I correlated earlier, someone of the likes of Bourne is typically the kind of agent that’s sent to stop Bond, who nonetheless manages to triumph by whatever luck or unconventional means (i.e., w/out weapons, gadgetry or special fighting techniques) ultimately due to that special touch of charm and providence on his character that makes him the winner in all things, which even includes sex and material luxury! This, btw, is my theory of the nucleus of Bond’s “it,” the very root for his enduring appeal from print to screen, even taking life in the unwavering support for Bond owning Bourne “on every count” on this very thread.
With that said, I now feel that I can talk about personal appeal. In the end, I can’t find myself trying to compare Bond vs. Bourne, because I never felt sorry for Bond nor did I desperately hope that he’d “make it through” (except maybe during the thwacking of the jewels). Bond’s appeal is practically everything about him, his lifestyle, his looks, his luck, his sexual prowess and of course, his exciting job at being a hero to the world as the babe watches. On the other hand, Bourne’s appeal is his triumph at every turn, in resisting against his “fate” that the world violently tries to force on him time and again. Ironically, Fleming nurtured this theme on a smaller and more subtle level (and yet personally more profound and something I can relate with) and built up momentum as Bond went on in his “journey,” which to me was the 4th dimension to the character that earned my enduring fascination. Conversely, I wouldn't want to be Bourne, but I'll certainly root for him and have a lot of fun along the way.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
...Bourne is typically the kind of agent that’s sent to stop Bond, who nonetheless manages to triumph by whatever luck or unconventional means (i.e., w/out weapons, gadgetry or special fighting techniques) ultimately due to that special touch of charm and providence on his character that makes him the winner in all things, which even includes sex and material luxury! This, btw, is my theory of the nucleus of Bond’s “it,” the very root for his enduring appeal from print to screen, even taking life in the unwavering support for Bond owning Bourne “on every count” on this very thread.
Well said...and this sort of appeal is hardly as "dated" as the Bourne press junkets would have us believe. Quite the opposite, really, as Bond's endless capacity for reinvention and reinterpretation has been a key to his longevity, IMRO.
In the end, I can’t find myself trying to compare Bond vs. Bourne, because I never felt sorry for Bond nor did I desperately hope that he’d “make it through” (except maybe during the thwacking of the jewels). Bond’s appeal is practically everything about him, his lifestyle, his looks, his luck, his sexual prowess and of course, his exciting job at being a hero to the world as the babe watches. On the other hand, Bourne’s appeal is his triumph at every turn, in resisting against his “fate” that the world violently tries to force on him time and again. Ironically, Fleming nurtured this theme on a smaller and more subtle level (and yet personally more profound and something I can relate with) and built up momentum as Bond went on in his “journey,” which to me was the 4th dimension to the character that earned my enduring fascination. Conversely, I wouldn't want to be Bourne, but I'll certainly root for him and have a lot of fun along the way.
Agreed, in all aspects. The two characters are very different men in the same business. Bond is arguably a willing tool of the establishment, owing to his "loyalty to institutions," and his tendency to see the world "in stark terms of chaos and order, tradition and change. Bond has chosen to identify with order and tradition."1 Bourne, on the other hand, has been screwed by the establishment---which wants to snuff him out as a "malfunctioning weapon"---and thus, he wants nothing more than escape from it, and build a life for himself.
1 James Bond's (Craig Era) Dossier, from the Official Casino Royale website.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
With that said, I now feel that I can talk about personal appeal. In the end, I can’t find myself trying to compare Bond vs. Bourne, because I never felt sorry for Bond nor did I desperately hope that he’d “make it through” (except maybe during the thwacking of the jewels). Bond’s appeal is practically everything about him, his lifestyle, his looks, his luck, his sexual prowess and of course, his exciting job at being a hero to the world as the babe watches. On the other hand, Bourne’s appeal is his triumph at every turn, in resisting against his “fate” that the world violently tries to force on him time and again. Ironically, Fleming nurtured this theme on a smaller and more subtle level (and yet personally more profound and something I can relate with) and built up momentum as Bond went on in his “journey,” which to me was the 4th dimension to the character that earned my enduring fascination. Conversely, I wouldn't want to be Bourne, but I'll certainly root for him and have a lot of fun along the way.
Great point; you enjoy watching Bond succeed as it's purely entertaining and usually rather funny (the Tank Chase springs to mind as a not-uncommon example)- you're never too worried about his survival because we know it's pretty much assured. Bourne on the other hand is a character we get a little more involved with as he has a distinct journey to go on and has no friends in the world, despite his being a less obviously sympathetic character on the exterior (unlike Bond he is practically charisma-free -he's designed to be 'invisible' as Conklin puts it- and practically has no personality at all which makes him less obviously likable than Bond as a person).
That's not to say that the two don't cross over: we do sit back as an audience and marvel at Bourne's skills, and Bond does occasionally win the sympathy of the audience; most notably in Casino Royale as he's arguably the most 'real' he's ever been in that film; and that approach may owe something to Bourne. But overall the appeal of the two works in different ways- Bond's is an audience fantasy; Bourne's is a sympathetic drama. Neither is better than the other and they both crossover occasionally; both are great.
Given those delineations, Bourne is better than Bond with weaponry, unarmed combat, evasive driving, escape, tactical improvisation, etc., because he is 100% invested in those skills. I was about to then say “...however, Bond is better in... " but realized that there’s no need to be conciliatory for the benefit of Bond (and his devoted fans, which includes me btw). In fact, as I correlated earlier, someone of the likes of Bourne is typically the kind of agent that’s sent to stop Bond, who nonetheless manages to triumph by whatever luck or unconventional means (i.e., w/out weapons, gadgetry or special fighting techniques) ultimately due to that special touch of charm and providence on his character that makes him the winner in all things, which even includes sex and material luxury!
It's fun to think that, in a fight, Bourne probably should win as his skills get him out of scrapes alone, but Bond lives a charmed life and tends to survive due to luck more than anything (paticularly in the novels), or , as Damon has noted: his handy gadgets, or even thanks to the fact that he's shagged the right bird who happens to wander past and save him! So, an Englishman's sense of fair play says that Bourne should win, but past form says that that enemy assassin will walk in just as Bourne's about to hand Bond his genitals! Lucky James; no wonder he plays casino games so much!
(Shows I don't have the technological skills to be Bourne in real life...!)
Leave it to a mod. . .just write the word spoiler between two brackets, and then write the secret information. At the end, put spoiler/ between the brackets, and--voila!--a hidden message you have to highlight to read.
And all the emotion when he killed the assasin with his hands? Where was that coming from? The guy was there to KILL him! He killed people in worse ways before that and it didn't bother him nearly as much. I enjoyed the chase scene before it, very intense and well done, but the emotion afterward was foreign to me.
I saw it again last night, and I must say that I don't know what you mean by this: he pants a bit (he's very tired after jumping all of the roofs in Tangier and then fighting a trained assassin!) and at worst shows a bit of shock (this is the only guy he kills in the whole movie except in the flashback), but there's no heavy emotional bits. He's as cold as ever when he tells Nikki to call in their deaths immediately after.
The only odd bit in that scene for me is that Nikki doesn't have a scratch on her after being hit violently about the head by said assassin!
Having seen it at the weekend, I didn't like it as much as the first two films. I disliked Supremacy a bit because of the camera work, however, it's more managable on the small screen ie DVD and enjoyed it a lot in that format. I made sure I saw this new film in the royal circle at Leicester Square, so it would be like watching it on DVD! So the hand-held camera didn't bother me.
Sadly, headlines like 'Fatt Damon' drew my attention to the fact that the star is a good stone and a half heavier than in the last movie. If Supremacy began with a montage of Bourne jogging and doing push ups to keep in shape, presumably Ultimatum should start with him hanging up on Pam Landy and going to wolf down the latest supermeals in a New York fast food chain for the next 2 months.
Worse, there are lots of flashbacks to when Bourne was initiated into the agency and again he looks a good 10 years older. It's a drag, Damon looked his usual slim self in Ocean's 13 and that dreary CIA spy yarn.
But the film's opening messed with my head. It starts with Bourne in Moscow, he even has the same limp so I assumed it follows on from the last film where a later scene has him apologising to his victims' daughter. Only when I was walking up the road to my house 4 hours later did I remember that the closing scene has Bourne on the phone to Landy in New York. So what's he doing back in Moscow? Did he leave his spare set of contact lenses there? Or was he continuing his My Name Is Earl schtick of apologising to all those he'd ever done bad to to sort out his karma, which took him to Moscow?
Now I see on the imdb chat room that in fact, and hold on to your hats, that closing scene on the phone to Landy in Supremacy is really a fast forward to the scene in Ultimatum, where Bourne says "Get some sleep Pam, you look tired..." I thought he was just cheesily using the same line, which I thought was bit hackneyed, but no. It's the same scene shot from a different perspective.
Should I have put that as a spoiler? It's actually more helpful than anything...
So, Ultimatum follows on direct from Supremacy.
Next, the action scene at Waterloo. Good stuff, but I don't care for mixing the media genre with action. The two just don't go together for me. It's not as cack-handed as TND but I don't like it, plus I find I identify more with the hapless Brit journo than the Yank action man. Maybe that's why Yank girls get a bad press in Bond films, cos they remind the American viewer that he's not like Bond, that Bond is British and he's not. If so, I too got that jarring feeling...
The idea is to show how brilliant Bourne is at outwitting the security services. Not Brit security services mind, if the shooting of the innocent Brazilian Jean-Paul Mernandez is to go by, Bourne could wander through the station concourse dressed as bin Laden, holding five helium balloons spelling B-O-O-M-! issuing Islamic threats via a megaphone, and they'd take out some Eurostar trolly dolly for 'looking a bit foreign'.
As for the rest, well the villains are the usual grey-haired Donald Rumsfeld types, and as Greengrass did United 93 I guess it's fitting that this should be a metaphor for the US being tricked into signing up for Iraq by a bunch of neo-cons. But the villains lacked the depth of Brian Cox, they were just too pantomine.
And Bourne is a superman in this film, like Bruce he's gone from a regular guy to indestructable. The constant carnage he produces and escapes from just wasn't credible for me, it was Bond circa 1973 but that was meant to be silly fun. Flipping his bike up a kerb and so on, vaulting around balconies at high speed in Tangiers, or flipping his car off a roof and not knowing what's on the other side. Plus chases where he gets rearended and carries on driving is pure AVTAK in Paris. I mean, I got shunted once while waiting to turn right, and the van was going maybe 25 miles and hour and that was it, a write off. The chassis bends and your car is knackered, that's all it takes. But Bourne just carries on driving, it's Dukes of Hazzard.
Didn't care for Nikki as a brunette, nor for her and Bourne's romantic past... I liked the sexual tension of them before, epecially when Bourne was about to offload in her face (Oh, grow up, all of you!) but now it's clear that they did have a past. Plus, I didn't really quite like Nikki, she looked a bit nasty in a way, that was part of the ambivalent appeal. I dunno what Bourne saw in her, but then I guess he was nasty back then too.
Bourne is more like Bond in this film, but I'd rather have seen Bourne. It was too much a copy of the second one with diff locations yet the same play out music and soundtrack. At least the Bonds try to do something different.
Sadly, headlines like 'Fatt Damon' drew my attention to the fact that the star is a good stone and a half heavier than in the last movie. If Supremacy began with a montage of Bourne jogging and doing push ups to keep in shape, presumably Ultimatum should start with him hanging up on Pam Landy and going to wolf down the latest supermeals in a New York fast food chain for the next 2 months.
Well I didn't notice him being much fatter, but he did seem older- not helped by the couple of flashback shots to Identity! I read somewhere they filmed that two years before they released it; is that right?
Now I see on the imdb chat room that in fact, and hold on to your hats, that closing scene on the phone to Landy in Supremacy is really a fast forward to the scene in Ultimatum, where Bourne says "Get some sleep Pam, you look tired..." I thought he was just cheesily using the same line, which I thought was bit hackneyed, but no. It's the same scene shot from a different perspective.
I found that pretty clear; she tells him his real name etc. It was a nice little touch, but when you think about it shows that the Bourne story has been stretched a bit; when they have to fit the sequels inside the film that came before it!
Next, the action scene at Waterloo. Good stuff, but I don't care for mixing the media genre with action. The two just don't go together for me. It's not as cack-handed as TND but I don't like it, plus I find I identify more with the hapless Brit journo than the Yank action man.
You're supposed to identify with Ross, aren't you? And journos getting caught up in violence isn't exactly unheard of; didn't seem too silly to me. Interesting to learn that Bourne is a Guardian reader too
The idea is to show how brilliant Bourne is at outwitting the security services. Not Brit security services mind, if the shooting of the innocent Brazilian Jean-Paul Mernandez is to go by, Bourne could wander through the station concourse dressed as bin Laden, holding five helium balloons spelling B-O-O-M-! issuing Islamic threats via a megaphone, and they'd take out some Eurostar trolly dolly for 'looking a bit foreign'.
I did think that the bit where some armed spy fellas boarded that red bus to take out a wrongly-identified man was a bit close to the bone, now you mention it.
And Bourne is a superman in this film, like Bruce he's gone from a regular guy to indestructable. The constant carnage he produces and escapes from just wasn't credible for me, it was Bond circa 1973 but that was meant to be silly fun. Flipping his bike up a kerb and so on, vaulting around balconies at high speed in Tangiers, or flipping his car off a roof and not knowing what's on the other side. Plus chases where he gets rearended and carries on driving is pure AVTAK in Paris. I mean, I got shunted once while waiting to turn right, and the van was going maybe 25 miles and hour and that was it, a write off. The chassis bends and your car is knackered, that's all it takes. But Bourne just carries on driving, it's Dukes of Hazzard.
Your van may have been written off, but could you have kept driving it if your life depended on it? I'd imagine that it could have kept going, even if the insurance man wouldn't be happy about it. It's actually vaguely realistic as Bourne takes care to use the back end of his car as a ram instead of the front, as if you smash up the front there's much less chance of being able to carry on, what with the engine and steering all being in the impact zone.
The only bit that seemed too OTT for me was the car-off-roof thing; but I still laughed!
It's all really exciting, though; and the second time just made me more amazed at how well-directed it is; there's a real economy- you're shown and told no more than you need and it works wonderfully well.
Well my car got hit in the back, and no, it was knackered. Once the chassis is buckled, even a bit, the wheels won't turn.
Sure I know that journos can get mixed up in the action, or kidnapped even, but it's the mixing of genres I objected to. Journos make a film into The China Syndrome, and need to have a realistic context (mind you, there's always Lois Lane...) And I'm prepared to sympathise with the journo, but would rather relate to the action hero!
Also, that screeching music at the end is a triumphant moment at the end of Supremacy with Pam Landy, but with Nikki's gurnish grin in this one actually seems a sinister scene, like Psycho!
btw thanks Hardy for showing me how to do spoilers!
Comments
It's not about being an OTT fanatic (I don't think anyone on this site are) but about how some people are not simply content to give their opinion, but want to do it in an incredibly arrogant and offensive manner. I think that Greengrass would have been better off keeping his mouth shut.
Oh I see- 'do as I say not as I do'...
Hasn't exactly hurt his box office or reviews...
No, but does it matter? Whether or not what Greengrass said was offensive does not get determined by how much money the film makes or whether the film is well received. There was a film released a few years ago which made well over $500, million worldwide, and was well received, yet it was IMO a racist and vile work. Plus, before Greengrass gets too much of a big head, the first film, which he did not direct, was a big hit.
http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_22_craig_talks1.php3?t=&s=
No spitting!---quite gracious, actually. Looks like the old boy is learning :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
The Bond organisation has always been a class act in terms of competition. I cant remember them ever trashing another franchise - they don't need to.
Bond to me is the Microsoft of action heroes. Everyone thinks they have a better product but its number one in the publics eye
Well said, Milady {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I like only first Bourne film, STOP.
But Daniel Craig is a terrific actor, not Matt Damon.
007 James Bond is a far from better character. And a better worldwide boxoffice too.
The only merit (if it's one at all) I see in debating over CR and Bourne and who copied who is prestige. Judging from the past couple of years, attempts to conclude with anything definitive is difficult at best because of the high level of subjectivity involved.
At the end of the day, I, myself, enjoyed Bourne for what it is, just as I enjoyed CR for what it is...and that's what counts.
Then again, the Sun-Times didn't try to surreptitiously photograph his a**
Really nice interview. You're right: he does seem to be learning. He sounds relaxed and comfortable with where he is in his career. And just as interested in where the character is going as he was for CR. And he looks terrific in that photo, too.
god what am i to do my dad is as old as you and he said casino royale was crap and he likes Bourne like i give a ****
Time to forge your own tastes, young padawan B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Eon is going to have to work very hard to match TBU. I think this can only be a good thing and it will lead to us seeing something special next year.
That for me illustrates best the difference between Bourne and Bond. It was smart and had the whiff of realism. Can't imagine a sequence like that playing out the same way in a (pre-Craig) Bond film.
Indeed- I found that the most striking thing about Ultimatum is that its set pieces are all about suspense; there's danger everywhere in Waterloo- we the audience know but the characters don't know the extent of it. The Tangier chase was about Bourne rushing to prevent deaths whilst we are forced to agonisingly watch the characters he's trying to save getting closer to being killed. This is the sort of stuff Bond hasn't done in years- there was never that tension in CR, even (although possibly the card game and Miami chase got closer than Bond has been in 20 years) and some real Hitchcock-style suspense is what Bond could learn from Bourne here, instead of simple chase scenes. I think there's a chance we could get it.
And what with Craig's Bond going back to the Fleming basics, there's no reason for that to change at all.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
How did he get into Vosen's office with NO ONE in the entire building of cameras seeing him? Not to mention all the people occupying the floor he was on outside a glass office!! Making that call to Landy was too copy cat from the second one, and how was he supposed to know his birthdate was a code if he had no clue when his real birthday was in the first place?
And all the emotion when he killed the assasin with his hands? Where was that coming from? The guy was there to KILL him! He killed people in worse ways before that and it didn't bother him nearly as much. I enjoyed the chase scene before it, very intense and well done, but the emotion afterward was foreign to me.
I thought the scene with the journalist and the train station was almost flawless though! That was "edge of your seat" good.
Dumb little nit picks, I know, but still some things that bugged me about it.
Never hurts to get the opinion of a Vintage Punk.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
As for the code, she'd already said hello to Bourne by paging him at the airport so he knew she was on his side and would try to communicate. It's a bit of reach, but y'know- they're spies; they're always looking for codes!
I watched Identity last night, and it's quite fun when Blackbriar gets a little mention at the end!
But as Harry Palmer brought up earlier, what about defining where each of these characters/series fit within the spy genre? They're not exactly comparable. If anything, Ethan Hunt would be a closer approximation to Bond in terms of espionage method, such as investigation, surveillance and (social) infiltration. Assassination though is the odd duty which Bourne (and not Hunt), shares in common w/Bond.
Because Bond is capable of being a generalist, depending on service needs (the literary version even does mundane office work for more than 3/4ths of the year), he has the luxury of maintaining a life of his own. Bourne on the other hand is totally immersed into his function, to the point of eclipsing his identity (the running theme of the novels and films, btw). In the Bond universe, Bourne has more in common with someone like Red Grant or the SMERSH executioner in CR. The most significant thing in common Bond and Bourne shares, it seems is their military career prior to being recruited into espionage; it can even be argued that the literary Bond got involved in espionage/special operations from the very beginning of his military career, whereas movie Bond's new dossier implies an SAS/SBS/etc. background.
Given those delineations, Bourne is better than Bond with weaponry, unarmed combat, evasive driving, escape, tactical improvisation, etc., because he is 100% invested in those skills. I was about to then say “...however, Bond is better in... " but realized that there’s no need to be conciliatory for the benefit of Bond (and his devoted fans, which includes me btw). In fact, as I correlated earlier, someone of the likes of Bourne is typically the kind of agent that’s sent to stop Bond, who nonetheless manages to triumph by whatever luck or unconventional means (i.e., w/out weapons, gadgetry or special fighting techniques) ultimately due to that special touch of charm and providence on his character that makes him the winner in all things, which even includes sex and material luxury! This, btw, is my theory of the nucleus of Bond’s “it,” the very root for his enduring appeal from print to screen, even taking life in the unwavering support for Bond owning Bourne “on every count” on this very thread.
With that said, I now feel that I can talk about personal appeal. In the end, I can’t find myself trying to compare Bond vs. Bourne, because I never felt sorry for Bond nor did I desperately hope that he’d “make it through” (except maybe during the thwacking of the jewels). Bond’s appeal is practically everything about him, his lifestyle, his looks, his luck, his sexual prowess and of course, his exciting job at being a hero to the world as the babe watches. On the other hand, Bourne’s appeal is his triumph at every turn, in resisting against his “fate” that the world violently tries to force on him time and again. Ironically, Fleming nurtured this theme on a smaller and more subtle level (and yet personally more profound and something I can relate with) and built up momentum as Bond went on in his “journey,” which to me was the 4th dimension to the character that earned my enduring fascination. Conversely, I wouldn't want to be Bourne, but I'll certainly root for him and have a lot of fun along the way.
Well said...and this sort of appeal is hardly as "dated" as the Bourne press junkets would have us believe. Quite the opposite, really, as Bond's endless capacity for reinvention and reinterpretation has been a key to his longevity, IMRO.
Agreed, in all aspects. The two characters are very different men in the same business. Bond is arguably a willing tool of the establishment, owing to his "loyalty to institutions," and his tendency to see the world "in stark terms of chaos and order, tradition and change. Bond has chosen to identify with order and tradition."1 Bourne, on the other hand, has been screwed by the establishment---which wants to snuff him out as a "malfunctioning weapon"---and thus, he wants nothing more than escape from it, and build a life for himself.
1 James Bond's (Craig Era) Dossier, from the Official Casino Royale website.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Great point; you enjoy watching Bond succeed as it's purely entertaining and usually rather funny (the Tank Chase springs to mind as a not-uncommon example)- you're never too worried about his survival because we know it's pretty much assured. Bourne on the other hand is a character we get a little more involved with as he has a distinct journey to go on and has no friends in the world, despite his being a less obviously sympathetic character on the exterior (unlike Bond he is practically charisma-free -he's designed to be 'invisible' as Conklin puts it- and practically has no personality at all which makes him less obviously likable than Bond as a person).
That's not to say that the two don't cross over: we do sit back as an audience and marvel at Bourne's skills, and Bond does occasionally win the sympathy of the audience; most notably in Casino Royale as he's arguably the most 'real' he's ever been in that film; and that approach may owe something to Bourne. But overall the appeal of the two works in different ways- Bond's is an audience fantasy; Bourne's is a sympathetic drama. Neither is better than the other and they both crossover occasionally; both are great.
It's fun to think that, in a fight, Bourne probably should win as his skills get him out of scrapes alone, but Bond lives a charmed life and tends to survive due to luck more than anything (paticularly in the novels), or , as Damon has noted: his handy gadgets, or even thanks to the fact that he's shagged the right bird who happens to wander past and save him! So, an Englishman's sense of fair play says that Bourne should win, but past form says that that enemy assassin will walk in just as Bourne's about to hand Bond his genitals! Lucky James; no wonder he plays casino games so much!
But how do I post while hiding spoilers? ?:)
(Shows I don't have the technological skills to be Bourne in real life...!)
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Leave it to a mod. . .just write the word spoiler between two brackets, and then write the secret information. At the end, put spoiler/ between the brackets, and--voila!--a hidden message you have to highlight to read.
The only odd bit in that scene for me is that Nikki doesn't have a scratch on her after being hit violently about the head by said assassin!
Sadly, headlines like 'Fatt Damon' drew my attention to the fact that the star is a good stone and a half heavier than in the last movie. If Supremacy began with a montage of Bourne jogging and doing push ups to keep in shape, presumably Ultimatum should start with him hanging up on Pam Landy and going to wolf down the latest supermeals in a New York fast food chain for the next 2 months.
Worse, there are lots of flashbacks to when Bourne was initiated into the agency and again he looks a good 10 years older. It's a drag, Damon looked his usual slim self in Ocean's 13 and that dreary CIA spy yarn.
But the film's opening messed with my head. It starts with Bourne in Moscow, he even has the same limp so I assumed it follows on from the last film where a later scene has him apologising to his victims' daughter. Only when I was walking up the road to my house 4 hours later did I remember that the closing scene has Bourne on the phone to Landy in New York. So what's he doing back in Moscow? Did he leave his spare set of contact lenses there? Or was he continuing his My Name Is Earl schtick of apologising to all those he'd ever done bad to to sort out his karma, which took him to Moscow?
Now I see on the imdb chat room that in fact, and hold on to your hats, that closing scene on the phone to Landy in Supremacy is really a fast forward to the scene in Ultimatum, where Bourne says "Get some sleep Pam, you look tired..." I thought he was just cheesily using the same line, which I thought was bit hackneyed, but no. It's the same scene shot from a different perspective.
Should I have put that as a spoiler? It's actually more helpful than anything...
So, Ultimatum follows on direct from Supremacy.
Next, the action scene at Waterloo. Good stuff, but I don't care for mixing the media genre with action. The two just don't go together for me. It's not as cack-handed as TND but I don't like it, plus I find I identify more with the hapless Brit journo than the Yank action man. Maybe that's why Yank girls get a bad press in Bond films, cos they remind the American viewer that he's not like Bond, that Bond is British and he's not. If so, I too got that jarring feeling...
The idea is to show how brilliant Bourne is at outwitting the security services. Not Brit security services mind, if the shooting of the innocent Brazilian Jean-Paul Mernandez is to go by, Bourne could wander through the station concourse dressed as bin Laden, holding five helium balloons spelling B-O-O-M-! issuing Islamic threats via a megaphone, and they'd take out some Eurostar trolly dolly for 'looking a bit foreign'.
As for the rest, well the villains are the usual grey-haired Donald Rumsfeld types, and as Greengrass did United 93 I guess it's fitting that this should be a metaphor for the US being tricked into signing up for Iraq by a bunch of neo-cons. But the villains lacked the depth of Brian Cox, they were just too pantomine.
And Bourne is a superman in this film, like Bruce he's gone from a regular guy to indestructable. The constant carnage he produces and escapes from just wasn't credible for me, it was Bond circa 1973 but that was meant to be silly fun. Flipping his bike up a kerb and so on, vaulting around balconies at high speed in Tangiers, or flipping his car off a roof and not knowing what's on the other side. Plus chases where he gets rearended and carries on driving is pure AVTAK in Paris. I mean, I got shunted once while waiting to turn right, and the van was going maybe 25 miles and hour and that was it, a write off. The chassis bends and your car is knackered, that's all it takes. But Bourne just carries on driving, it's Dukes of Hazzard.
Bourne is more like Bond in this film, but I'd rather have seen Bourne. It was too much a copy of the second one with diff locations yet the same play out music and soundtrack. At least the Bonds try to do something different.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Well I didn't notice him being much fatter, but he did seem older- not helped by the couple of flashback shots to Identity! I read somewhere they filmed that two years before they released it; is that right?
I found that pretty clear; she tells him his real name etc. It was a nice little touch, but when you think about it shows that the Bourne story has been stretched a bit; when they have to fit the sequels inside the film that came before it!
You're supposed to identify with Ross, aren't you? And journos getting caught up in violence isn't exactly unheard of; didn't seem too silly to me. Interesting to learn that Bourne is a Guardian reader too
I did think that the bit where some armed spy fellas boarded that red bus to take out a wrongly-identified man was a bit close to the bone, now you mention it.
Your van may have been written off, but could you have kept driving it if your life depended on it? I'd imagine that it could have kept going, even if the insurance man wouldn't be happy about it. It's actually vaguely realistic as Bourne takes care to use the back end of his car as a ram instead of the front, as if you smash up the front there's much less chance of being able to carry on, what with the engine and steering all being in the impact zone.
The only bit that seemed too OTT for me was the car-off-roof thing; but I still laughed!
It's all really exciting, though; and the second time just made me more amazed at how well-directed it is; there's a real economy- you're shown and told no more than you need and it works wonderfully well.
Sure I know that journos can get mixed up in the action, or kidnapped even, but it's the mixing of genres I objected to. Journos make a film into The China Syndrome, and need to have a realistic context (mind you, there's always Lois Lane...) And I'm prepared to sympathise with the journo, but would rather relate to the action hero!
btw thanks Hardy for showing me how to do spoilers!
Roger Moore 1927-2017