Rating of
3.5/4
Ultimately satisfying...
danand82 - wrote on 09/07/08
I liked both The Bourne Identity (2002) and The Bourne Supremacy (2004) but I didn’t love them. As espionage thrillers they were a welcome antidote to Bond (especially in the wake of 2002’s bloated Die Another Day), were competently made and, at the very least, consistently entertaining. It seems to be something bordering on blasphemy to suggest this, but I must admit I preferred the Doug Liman directed Identity over its sequel, helmed by Paul Greengrass. The latter’s handheld camerawork (even in scenes where a properly composed, static shot would be more effective) constantly distracted me from the onscreen events. This irritating stylistic choice, coupled with an unnecessary-to-the-plot (though undoubtedly thrilling) car chase in the final act makes Supremacy the weaker film, in my opinion. However, regardless of minor foibles, I enjoyed the two Bourne films thus far and, with this in mind, looked forward to checking out the latest instalment – The Bourne Ultimatum.
Again directed by Paul Greengrass, now with the frankly awe-inspiring United 93 (2006) under his belt, Ultimatum follows on immediately from the events of Supremacy. In fact, the initial action follows Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) as he escapes from the aftermath of the car chase which ended the previous film. It is during Bournes’ escape from the police in Moscow that the first possible downfall of the film reared its head – flashbacks. Though the gradual reveal of Bournes shattered memories has been an element in each of the previous films, it is such a tired cinematic device that I feared its use, so early in the film, might be a symptom of sequel fatigue. A spy film with a central character suffering from amnesia had been done to death 50 years ago, and is a plotline revisited by countless neo-noir and science fiction stories. Here it frames a tale of revenge on the people who created Bourne; echoing backwards to his indoctrination into the ranks as a mindless assassin. The use of this device, and the generalities of the plot which it fuels, are rather crude, rudimentary and extremely familiar. But this is where the disappointments with The Bourne Ultimatum end.
The plot, in complete disregard of its failings, rockets along – taking us on a globe-trotting adventure from Moscow to Tangiers and, ultimately, New York. An ensemble of new and returning characters populate Bournes headlong sprint from one danger to the next. The acting is almost uniformly excellent; Damon manages to meld death-dealing assassin with world-weary everyman perfectly, Julia Stiles makes the most of a chance to flesh out her returning character and David Strathairn is uncompromising as a heavy-handed section chief. The only minor casting blip comes in the form of the other operatives sent after Bourne – they are particularly nondescript, forgettable and almost indistinguishable from one another. Though this is, quite possibly, deliberate it occasionally feels as though Bourne is fighting and running from the same Terminator-like enemy throughout. The events are essentially the same as the previous outings – the only real difference being that this time instead of running away Bourne is taking the fight to his former bosses. The action, in keeping with the series, is short, sharp and brutal. The choreography and execution of the action scenes is near perfect in this film, building on the lessons learned in the previous outings. The hand-to-hand fighting is not marred by the jump-cutting, speed ramping mistakes of the first film and the central New York car chase is both breathtakingly captured and is at least partially integral to the plot. The most effective sequence though, in my opinion, involves Bournes interaction with a British reporter (Paddy Considine). The latter is guided through the rush hour madness of Waterloo Station in London while Bourne moves around the periphery; eliminating the agents who are stalking them. The sequence is relatively action free but filled with the kind of sustained tension and a palpable sense of danger which action films in general, and Hollywood films in particular, generally find impossible to create.
As the third part of a previously competent and enjoyable trilogy, The Bourne Ultimatum had the deck stacked against it – particularly coming at the end of a summer movie season with so many disappointing second sequels (Shrek 3, Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End, Spiderman 3…). Against all odds it truly delivers. I would not hesitate to say that it is the best of the trilogy; likely the best action film I’ve seen this year and possibly one of the best films of the year thus far. As a film-lover who is more often disappointed than dazzled I am delighted to be able to recommend this film as a triumph of sincere and sustained talent rather than a vacant money-maker, a symbol of studio greed. The Bourne Ultimatum is uncomplicated without seeming shallow, realistically brutal without feeling constrained by its PG-13 certificate, well-acted, impeccably directed and, above all else – it leaves you with that indefinable feeling of post-cinema satisfaction. It’s neither the greatest film ever committed to celluloid, nor even the greatest action film but it succeeds far more than it fails and deserves to be seen and appreciated.
Enjoy.
P.S. And yes, for the record, the ubiquitous shaky handheld camera-work does make an unwelcome return. Though noticeably toned-down it is still consistently distracting, injecting unneeded energy into dialogue scenes and occasionally obfuscating any sense of geography in the action scenes. However, Greengrass pulls off everything else with such panache that he can be forgiven this one, peculiar habit.
