ads

Slider[Style1]

Style2






(Review originally written at 29 January 2008)

One thing that the Bourne movies also really learned us is that magazines, books and towels can be more lethal weapons than guns or knives. I mean with this that the Bourne movies mostly redefined the action genre by having the guts to be different and original.

Still I am glad it's the last out the Bourne series, also because this one is definitely the least out of the Bourne series. They with this movie obviously ran out of ideas and this movie is also mostly a rehash of the previous two Bourne movies. It's really more of the same and actually made me realize how much alike all of the Bourne movies actual really are to each other. The story is actually quite similar to the second movie, also because halve of this movie is set at the same time the second movie was set in (getting confusing?). There again is also an assassin on Jason's tail and his superiors once more want to see him dead to cover up illegal secret mission and.

Just because you have lots of shaking camera-work and fast editing doesn't mean you have a good action movie as well. It makes the movie fast paced but in my opinion they could had gone a bit more easy on its style. Paul Greengrass already sort of overused this with the previous movie "The Bourne Supremacy". The shaky cam and all works great for its action sequences and more realistic moments, such as in the other Paul Greengrass movie "Bloody Sunday" but making an entire action movie, with an obvious fictitious over-the-top action story is a whole other thing. The same goes for the overall same gritty visual style. This visually has as a result that Madrid looks absolutely the same as New York, New York looks like Moscow and Moscow looks like Tangiers. A reason why I think they could had gone a bit more easy on its consistent visual style.

As a matter of fact once you really start thinking about it, this movie isn't even really THAT action filled, in terms of having lots of fights, chases and explosions.

The main reason why this movie is in my opinion the least out of the Bourne series is simply because of its story. This movie has such an incredible simple storyline that it really seems that they simply pushed it entirely to the background and let the action instead tell the entire story on its own. Nothing wrong with it, since this definitely worked out for the movie but it of course is a very cheap way of film-making, that makes you get away with practically everything. And does this movie really reach a satisfying enough conclusion for the trilogy? In my opinion not really, since I don't really have the reason that lots have changed for Bourne. Somehow I don't think he picks up a normal quiet life after all he has been trough.

Matt Damon is perhaps the biggest winner after his three Bourne movies. Before these movies he sort of had a dull and very boyish, nerd like image. His career was already getting sort of slow, before he signed up for the first Bourne movie. He by now has officially been taking serious by lots of critics and movie goers all over the world and he has proved that he can actually handle action really well and is even a convincing action star. Joan Allen also luckily returns in this movie and so does Julia Stiles, though I have the feeling they should had dropped her two movies ago. David Strathairn, Scott Glenn and Albert Finney are some of the new welcome additions to the cast this time.

It's a real fancy and fast, slick looking action flick, that all in all forms a satisfying enough conclusion of the Bourne trilogy.

7/10

Watch trailer

About Frank Veenstra

Watches movies...writes about them...and that's it for now.
«
Next
Newer Post
»
Previous
Older Post

No comments:

Post a Comment


Top