The Bourne Supremacy
First up, if you haven’t seen the first one I’d better explain that the ‘Bourne‘ of the title is Jason Bourne, an amnesiac American spy who’s on the run after a botched mission set up by his crooked superior. While the first one deals with him discovering who he is/was before he lost his memory, this one is more concerned with what he may or may not have done in the past. Cue inevitable reveal of another dirty agent after a nifty little attempt at framing and assassinating Bourne. So, Bourne has to prove his innocence, find the bad guy, get to the bottom of the flashbacks that are plaguing him, and mourn a significant loss- all without being found by the American (or any other) authorities.
This is a solid enough Friday night film- more plot than your average action movie, more gadgets and set-pieces than your average thriller. Bourne is an interesting lead character, and Matt Damon fits the role nicely. Good support comes from a youthful-looking Joan Allen (The Contender), a suitably moody Karl Urban (Eomer, LOTR) and a brief return for Franka Potente (Run Lola Run.) There are plenty of car chases and shootouts to keep you entertained, and some neat direction, but what I liked about this movie was the way Bourne’s character development is what drives the movie, ‘tortured’ doesn’t automatically mean crazy, whiney or irrational here, and the backstory itself is quite compelling.
Most reviews seem to mention a certain British Superspy, but I can’t really see the point in making any comparisons, the only thing I will say is that there’s a lot more emphasis on story here, and a down-right positive view of women that is lacking in even the most recent Bonds.
I probably wouldn’t go out of my way to watch this again, but I’d never switch it off I stumbled across it on TV either. Obviously this film contains some blood and violence, and I ought to just mention that there’s one fist-fight in particular that is pretty full-on, but over all it’s quite tame for a movie of the genre.
I thoroughly enjoyed this and The Bourne Identity. Personally, I think its perfectly valid to compare it to James Bond and as such, both Bourne films are a good deal better than any of the Brosnan offerings. As for Bond having a “negative” view of women, I think its a mistake to take them that seriously. Besides, I think there are actually several very likeable Bond girl characters (beyond their looks I mean).
Comment by Simon — 12 December, 2005 @ 10:17 am
Well, I have to confess that I couldn’t really remember the plot of the first Bourne, having, I think, fallen asleep during it. That doesn’t mean it was bad - it happens much more often than I’d like these days. I totally agree with Heidi on this film, but I feel the need to take issue with Simon on the Bond girl matter (bizarrely, because I love Bond and the girls are an unmissable part of the whole package). To be honest, I think there are plenty of men in the world who have grown up idolising Bond and thereby accepting the picture of women we are given in the films. Yes, there are some who are strong and even a match for James (Barbara Bach in The Spy Who Loved Me, Grace Jones in A View to a Kill, Michelle Yeoh in Tomorrow Never Dies), but they all succumb to him in the end, and there are many who are simply there as flesh to be ogled (Britt Ekland, most of the cast of OHMSS). This presentation is only one step away from magazines like Nuts or FHM, which are less than a step away from porn, frankly. I hate to sound like this, because, as I say, I love watching Bond films, but there are some good reasons to take them seriously.
Comment by Sparky — 13 December, 2005 @ 7:54 pm
I’m sure there are a handful of idiots who take the view of women in Bond seriously, but frankly I’ve never met any. His endless seductions are meant to be absurd and funny. Admittedly, as a Christian I shouldn’t find it funny, but how can you not giggle childishly at moments like at the end of Moonraker where Q quips “I think he’s attempting re-entry”?
So yes, Bond is politically (and spiritually) incorrect, but then he wouldn’t be Bond if he wasn’t.
Comment by Simon — 14 December, 2005 @ 9:59 am
Personally, I think it’s about more than just Bond. I blame Pepe Le Pew for a lot of violence against women. Teaching kids that “no” means “yes” - disgraceful stuff. That poor cat clearly said NO! He’s a rapist!
Comment by Mre — 14 December, 2005 @ 10:35 am
Pepe le Pew! That’s a bit off topic. But now you come to mention it - I’ll not watch those cartoons in the same way again.
Comment by Luke — 15 December, 2005 @ 3:09 pm