| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 08/18/2012 : 17:15:43
There's nothing wrong with this franchise-goes-fourth that a judicious pair of scissors couldn't cure.
Director Tony Gilroy is rock-steady sure of the material - which, of course, he co-wrote [as he did The B. Ultimatum], and his visual expertise honed on Michael Clayton and Duplicity, have paid off big-time.
Sure, it's a rufty-tufty confection. But after three of these things, we know what we're in for, and it delivers. But predictable scenes like yet another, riskier, longer chase scene - this one through Manilla - seem like padding, not plot or people.
And there are just too many characters. We really don't need to be introduced to all of them just to have them fall off the edge of the earth. Sure, we get lots of Jeremy Renner - not exactly another Bourne, but here in the story's driving seat. He's perfectly fine - well, more than that actually, even if the whole concept feels like a James Bond audition. And with Rachel Weisz as the friend-turned-lover - yep, there's plenty of opportunity to show that a highly intelligent scientist needn't flaunt her sexuality to make a big impact on our hero.
It should've been shorter, but you'll get your money's worth.
|
| 5 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| randall |
Posted - 03/18/2013 : 23:07:22
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by randall
P.S. benj, that aspect of "it-could-have-been-me-if-I'd-just-applied-myself" is what made the Batman character so seductive to American kids in the 50s/60s. <OK, face facts, I didn't come from Krypton, but if, if, if I only tried hard enough, *Batman could actually be me*.> I think what Christopher Nolan did best was to remind everybody of Bruce Wayne's vulnerability, which was always the thing that separated Batman from Supes.
Absolutely, although with Batman it was always "If I'd inherited a million zillion dollars and my company owned a weapons subsidiary* then I could be Batman". Same as Iron Man, but minus the facial hair, now I think about it.
*Okay, so this bit wasn't in early Batman, granted.
Agreed, an adolescent fantasy. But Supes is from somewhere else, and if you want to fly and dispense x-rays, then you have to be Kryptonian -- which is absurd. Batman only requires you to be Unca Scrooge or Richie Rich and then *work out for ten years,* but it's still *theoretically* possible.
|
| benj clews |
Posted - 03/18/2013 : 16:49:14
quote:
Originally posted by randall
P.S. benj, that aspect of "it-could-have-been-me-if-I'd-just-applied-myself" is what made the Batman character so seductive to American kids in the 50s/60s. <OK, face facts, I didn't come from Krypton, but if, if, if I only tried hard enough, *Batman could actually be me*.> I think what Christopher Nolan did best was to remind everybody of Bruce Wayne's vulnerability, which was always the thing that separated Batman from Supes.
Absolutely, although with Batman it was always "If I'd inherited a million zillion dollars and my company owned a weapons subsidiary* then I could be Batman". Same as Iron Man, but minus the facial hair, now I think about it.
*Okay, so this bit wasn't in early Batman, granted. |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 03/14/2013 : 18:59:01
I thought it kept the feel but not the magic of the first three Bournes, Renner was good, Ed Norton too nice and Weisz too uneven. Chases becoming more improbable and I missed Jason.
Full review here ==> http://wp.me/p1MbTJ-c7 |
| randall |
Posted - 03/12/2013 : 20:50:16
I'm with benj. This is just pre-Bourne Bond in wolves' clothing [at least in the first reel]. I actually liked the stripped-down aspect of the story: too many cookie-cutter actioners depend on blowing up everything in sight and then the hero's sardonic quip for a button. [A la Bond from fifty years ago.]
Here, we have several very intense setpieces: a bit of violence in a laboratory, a shootout in a house, and then that Manila foot/road chase which Baffy felt went on too long. But before all that, a fascinating cross-cut between some Arctic action and a bunch of brow-furrowing, wired big-shots [including Broadway's Donna Murphy!]. Not letting us in on the details until much later was, I felt, an interesting screenwriting turn.
I will say this: Gilroy and his editor are able to flutter-cut while still giving us some sense of where everybody is, unlike TRANSFORMERS and most other current actioners, which look like the editor just jumbled everything up and chose randomly, making sure no single shot can last longer than two seconds. And I was so happy to see "floor effects" remain front and center, as opposed to the increasingly disappointing digitization of everything.
P.S. benj, that aspect of "it-could-have-been-me-if-I'd-just-applied-myself" is what made the Batman character so seductive to American kids in the 50s/60s. <OK, face facts, I didn't come from Krypton, but if, if, if I only tried hard enough, *Batman could actually be me*.> I think what Christopher Nolan did best was to remind everybody of Bruce Wayne's vulnerability, which was always the thing that separated Batman from Supes. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 08/20/2012 : 11:45:56
I think it's a pretty decent action film but it's not a Bourne action film.
Gone is the grittiness and immediacy of Greengrass's camerawork and instead we get cleanly-shot action sequences (much like Bond was before Bourne shook things up).
And yet it's still clutching on to the legacy of the Bourne series by interspersing sequences from Ultimatum which add nothing to the story but a little context of when this one is occurring relatively-speaking. It's tempting to say they could have easily jettisoned those scenes and the film would have lost nothing, but then we'd've seen it for what it actually is: an stand-alone action film masquerading as a sequel/ parallelquel to a much better series.
Worst of all, this film tries to outdo Bourne by making Cross some kind of super-soldier. Sorry, but the very thing I liked most about Bourne was his adaptiveness to situations and yet still human abilities. I felt that, y'know- if I trained up a bit and studied for years, maybe I could be like Bourne. By saying Cross is a regular grunt who's popping pills to get special skills we've stepped rather close to the realm of unbelievability and a hero I don't actually aspire to be like.
Probably the best thing that can be said about this being part of the Bourne series is that it keeps the brand alive and ready for Damon to return when they get a proper, meaty story to work with. |
|
|
