Iconic Films

2 for 1 tickets to Singin' In The Rain, this coming Monday. Book now

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Sunday Times

August 19, 2007

The Bourne Ultimatum - The Sunday Times review

The latest Jason Bourne film leaves you truly shaken and stirred – but why is he reading The Guardian?

Cosmo Landesman

When we first met Jason Bourne (Matt Damon), he was unconscious and afloat in the Mediterranean, with bullets in his body and bits of memory lodged like shrapnel in his mind. Since then, Bourne, the amnesiac ex-CIA man, has been all at sea, searching for his lost self. The latest film promises to answer the question: who is Jason Bourne? Is he a killer who will always kill or a good man capable of redemption?

Watching it, I realised Bourne has undergone one of the most bizarre transformations we’ve seen in any character; from CIA assassin, a perfect killing machine, he has ended up a Guardian-reading liberal. Then again, the last two Bourne films have been directed by Paul Greengrass, the left-leaning director of Bloody Sunday and other works for television, such as The Murder of Stephen Lawrence. His Bourne has been severed from his cold-war origins and ended up as the John Rambo of the liberal intelligentsia. Rambo, you will recall, was another brilliant killing machine who was betrayed by his masters (the US army) and went after them when they came after him.

This is a great and liberating day for liberal-kind. For them, spy heroes have always been suspect: Bond was too much of a sexist, Schwarzenegger (True Lies) too right-wing and Vin Diesel (xXx) too dumb. But Bourne allows liberals to enjoy all the forbidden pleasures of the espionage block-buster: they can see him kick ass, break necks, smash faces and shoot fellow human beings, and not complain about civil liberties because the victims work for the CIA. Bourne is the perfect liberal hero – he doesn’t have a fantastic secret-agent body, a tuxedo or a taste for martinis and one-night stands. He is fluent in five languages, drives brilliantly in any city and, as we see here, even reads The Guardian. More important, he blames the system for his sins and is consumed with liberal guilt for what he has done. Perfect.

It’s a story in The Guardian, by an investigative reporter, Simon Ross (Paddy Considine), that sets the action in motion. Bourne reads Ross’s exposé of the CIA and the secret black ops they ran, and finds a mention of himself. He wants to find Ross so he can interrogate his source, in the hope of finding out about his past; the CIA want to find Ross so they can kill him before he discovers anything more about what they’ve been up to. (Might that look a little suspicious?) They want to kill Bourne, too, because they suspect he is the one giving Ross the information.

Post9/11, things have become rather paranoid at the agency. There is a new man in charge of dirty deeds, Noah Vosen (David Strathairn). He runs a secret programme called Blackbriar, which involves rendition, assassination, the usual illegal stuff. As far as Vosen is concerned, anyone who poses a threat should be terminated. Pamela Landy (Joan Allen), who has been sent to help Vosen find Bourne, tries to convince him that Bourne is no threat. But fear is what fuels Vosen’s power.

So, the new Bourne film follows the structure of the old ones: they set out to get Bourne, Bourne sets out to get them. The action spreads across Moscow, London, Spain and Tangier. As usual, there is no foreign exoticness on display. Ordinary streets and homes provide the setting for car chases and hand-to-hand combat. Greengrass keeps it real and raw.

This time, he has outdone even himself. At times, the film seems to have been shot by a hyperactive child having an epileptic fit – the handheld camera zooms in and out of shots, swirls, spins, shakes; things go out of focus, coherence collapses in a frenzy of furious editing. Meanwhile, John Powell’s brilliant musical soundtrack provides the backbeat to hold it all together. You are left feeling disorientated, car-sick and excited.

Although, at its best, this is a powerful and visceral piece of cinema, the vital quiet scenes aren’t up to scratch. Particularly disappointing are the verbal battles between Landy and Vosen. Here are two excellent actors, but their encounters don’t have the fire we saw in the second film’s scenes between Allen and Brian Cox. And for all the fast and furious cinematography, Greengrass can’t hide the fact that the screenplay falls into a familiar pattern. We even get the same kind of scene: Bourne arrives in a new city; Vosen shouts at his staff commands such as, “Okay, people, I want his calls, his contacts traced and his every move followed”; keyboards click furiously as another assassin is ordered to kill Bourne.

I’m not sure the film really answers the question of who Bourne is with any conviction or finality. Nor am I convinced Bourne fans will rush off to see it because they’re desperate to find out who he was in his former life. This is an espionage action block-buster, not a meditation on the mysteries of the modern self; its primary function is to deliver the visceral thrills of car chases, shoot-outs and fight scenes. This it does with an energy and inventive-ness that’s been missing from the spy genre for ages. Even those of us who usually hate this sort of thing have to admit that it’s pretty remarkable entertainment.

12A, 120 mins

Forget all the pseudo intellectual hype. All three Bourne films are superb. How many sequels better their original and in the case of this trilogy they get better and better. No fourth please, it will only lead to disappointment, you cant better superbest!

Adrian Bunting, Cahagnes, France

The music in the end reminds me a lot of things, an ending or a new start? Wow, I am looking forward to seeing the fourth one.

zhaohui, Qingdao, China

did we really find out why he chose to go into the programme in the first place? maybe i blinked and missed it in all that mayhem, or perhaps its the Bourne betrayal. i agree with the other writer who said the fllm had become a bit ridiculous, but it was cracking nonetheless.

kathy, manchester, cheshire

Bourne isn't a liberal hero at all. It's not like he's trying to outdo the CIA only to raise taxes, feed the homeless, get people to stop smoking, save the forests, and make the world safe for homosexuality. If anything he's a libertarian who wants his life back and will do whatever it takes to get it from the people who are trying to control him. And all government, even that needed to bring about the laundry list of liberal wet dreams, is about control. You know what they say, a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take away everything you have. What's the difference between a brainwashing spook with lots of sexy but invasive techno-gadgets and a schoolteacher shooting you full of Ritalin and plumping for FDR and his ilk? None. Except the former makes a better movie.

Robert P. Churchill, Laurel, MD

I've read the Bourne books and the first one is probably the best action book I've ever read. So when I saw the first movie I was hugely disappointed at the way the story had been "updated". I found the third movie quite enjoyable but reckon all three movies would have been better had they been set in the 80s like the books. I also initially thought that the casting was wrong for the first movie as Bourne is an older character, more Kiefer Sutherland than Matt Damon, but hey they changed the whole plot afterall. I can't recommend the books enough to anyone remotely interested in the movies. As for this movie I did enjoy it and loved the camera work and what they added to the fight scenes.

S, London,

The first two Bourne films concentrated on the intriguing character of Jason Bourne. In those the tension was wonderful because even though the feats were difficult, they were in the realm of possibility if a guy were in perfect condition and highly trained. No way in the third film could anyone have done those things nor survived if he tried. In the Ultimatum, disappointingly, the concentration is on the unrealistic action. A car drives off a roof! No one could have survived that wild ride and crash and the unlikely leaping through glass windows from afar, etc. It became ridiculous. What a shame. Just as I thought we had an interesting character developing (one and two), it turns into a silly and rather boring action flick (three). Poohy. Maybe Matt Damon will refuse the next one unless it returns to his former interesting character. One can hope.

R. Roy, Portland, Oregon, USA

The first two Bourne films concentrated on the character of Jason Bourne. In those the tension was wonderful because even though the feats were difficult, they were in the realm of possibility if a guy were in perfect condition and highly trained. No way in the third film could anyone have done those things nor survived if he tried. In the Ultimatum, disappointingly, the concentration is on the unrealistic action. A car drives off a roof! No one could have survived that crash and the unlikely leaping through glass windows from afar, etc. It became ridiculous. What a shame. Just as I thought we had an interesting character developing (one and two), it (three) turns into a silly and rather boring action flick. Poohy. Maybe Matt Damon will refuse the next one unless it returns him to his former interesting character. One can hope.

R. Roy, Portland, Oregon, USA

Fast action, superb cinematography, breathtaking chase scenes and a satisfying 'conclusion' to the trilogy - what more could a viewer want?
I'm an avid fan of Jason Bourne as a character. He convinced me that things I've only ever heard about regarding espionage and the use of trained assasins, are actually real.
His story stirred my emotions: I loathed what he represented; feared for his survival and breathed a sigh of relief at the bubbles at the end of Ultimatum. The trilogy has ended but I didn't want him to die.
If a film can draw me into its action so much that I'm fully entertained for 2 hours (without looking at my watch) then I consider it a success.

Sally Moore, Birmingham, England

Brilliant, whatever the criticism. Bond films have a lot to learn from this one, eventhough in Casino Royale they diverted slightly from the rigid lines dictating the 007 saga. The initial element of memory loss is, in my opinion, a key factor that makes the story very gripping.

f rivas, luton, uk

There will always be some parts from the books that I would have loved to see on screen. For example, Bourne harrassing the employees of the Paris fashion house to find a lead to Carlos. I know the films have brought the story up to date, but they have also missed some memorable scenes.

Helen , Bournemouth, England

Do me a favour with all that Liberal guff at the start of this review.
Is his motivation in this one not only a desire to find out who he is, but a need to avenge his girfriend?
And to suggest Shwarzenegger in True Lies and Vin Diesel in xXx were spy heroes is doing a grave disservice to the genre.
This is a lazy attempt to apply liberal politics into what is simply a fantastic trio of action/spy movies. Leave it at that.

Dave, East Kilbride,

Great plot, good acting, but totally unwatchable, I'm afraid:

"At times, the film seems to have been shot by a hyperactive child having an epileptic fit â€“ the handheld camera zooms in and out of shots, swirls, spins, shakes; .... You are left feeling disorientated, car-sick and excited..."

Precisely (except for the 'excited' bit). My wife and I both left the cinema feeling seasick. I threw up on the way home. The fashionably 'low-tech' hand held close-up filming is nauseous and disorientating to watch, and over-rides all other sensation when trying to watch the film. A good film spoilt by massive over-use of pretentiously intrusive, nausea generating camera work.

Still Vomiting, Oxford,

Saw the movie and (mostly) agree with the review!

Nishant, London, UK

Read the books, it's worth it.

Jason, Gosford, Australia

"he doesnâ€™t have a fantastic secret-agent body," ... seriously? Maybe my standards are too low then.

Katharina, Geneva,

Why is the story in the film totally different from the Ludlum book?

Alan Hewett, Ashwell, Herts.

Saw this last night
Superb end to a superb trilogy
They MUST not make another one
(a la Die Hard 4, Lethal Weapon 4...) for the sake of cash
Other films by Greengrass well worth searching out
especially Bloody Sunday and United 93
Raw and emotional
Don't feel like you're watching a film but you are there.
Excellent

Neil, Leicester,

I don't agree but I liked reading your heavy duty analysis on Bourne fans, very entertaining and thought provoking though :) Nice article.

I watched this film last night and enjoyed it, although the camera-shaking has reached new heights of shakiness and nothing new was added to the [successful]formula to evolve it, sadly. A great sequel must evolve. Nevertheless its essential viewin. But this is a very good sequel and that is a rarity in the movie industry.

I want a Bourne 4, please Mr Greengrass...

IAN, MANCHESTER, UK

hi
I have really enjoyed the Bourne Trilogy and its one of the few examples where the standards are manitained thoughout and every stands on its own right .
I reckon one reason the films are so popular is that most people would admire Bourne , not to say would like to be him .
His quick thinking , calm under pressure , deadly unarmed combat skills , not to mention his linguistic ability , physical strength , inventiveness , resourcefulness , coupled witha very modest demeanour , and a mongamic devotion to his German Girlfriend
What life to compare to ;-)
would recommend the films to anybody , 8 out of 10 , strap your seat belt , action film .

papko, Standrews, Fife

The whole discussion of the film's "liberal politics" is quite silly. I bet that the use of _that_ newspaper has more to do with product placement than anything else (unless it's in the novel, which I doubt). It looked as though it could've been any major media brand; The Guardian was merely the highest bidder.

Speaking of which, it made me laugh to see that the CIA were relying on clumsy Google Maps to track their targets! And why didn't the car airbags seem to go off at all, during the extensive crash scenes? Being geekish, it's often difficult to suspend my disbelief when I'm watching films like this, because they are guaranteed to get terms such as "firewall" and "IP address" quite wrong indeed. Mass market entertainment strikes again... But still better than Bond.

But it's still an enjoyable film, I think. Whilst it could've done with a bit of a reduction in "edgy" camerawork and editing frenzies, it didn't make me nauseous.

Marc, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

The whole discussion of the film's "liberal politics" is quite silly. I bet that the inclusion of The Guardian has more to do with product placement than anything else (unless it's in the original book, which I doubt -- might get them out at the library/charity shop in future). It looked as though it could've been any major media brand; The Guardian was merely the highest bidder.

Speaking of which, it made me laugh to see that the CIA were relying on clumsy Google Maps to track their targets! Being a computer geek, it's often difficult to "suspend my disbelief" when I'm watching films like this, because -- as happened with Die Hard 4 -- they are guaranteed to get terms such as "firewall" and "IP address" quite wrong indeed. Mass market, lowest common denominator entertainment strikes again... But still better than Bond.

It's an enjoyable film, if a bit too repetitive and fu

Marc, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

Loved the film but came out feeling sick. Why, oh why, do directors think that a cameraman wobbling a camera at the actor as he speaks is a good thing? Actually, all it does is make the watcher feel as sick as a parrot and, rather than concentrate on the plot, sit and focus on not throwing up! Fab movie, great storyline, shame about the DTs!

CDV, Swindon, UK

Bourne - no story, just continual noise, smashing cars and badly acted unbelievable violence. Not worth seeing - read the book instead!!

James Nisbet, Edinburgh,

Vin Diesel dumb? Sooo not. Get your face out of your ego and lookwho actually has the looks brains AND talent....It isn't Damon.
Damon is no different than Paul Walker. Couldn't hold the screen if you tattoed it on his butt.
I do however agree with you on Arnold. and... even Bond would not have watched Bourne.
You know..genius is not just held within the actor...it must also be held within the script. Damon probably hasn't had the right script yet. With the exception of Bagger vance which was NOT an action film.
Bourne is definately NOT one of great writing or acting.
The story line is to used and the dialog...God... even Lulu from Pacifier had better lines.
I loved that one by the way... sooo charming.
Go Vin!

Jolissa, L.A. & N.Y.,

Excellent

johnkerr, reading, united kingdom

I noticed the Guardian but the whole thing was made for me when a Guardian investigative journalist was killed.
Firstly I didn,just made it up.
The fact is that any CIA assassin would read the Guardian to see what exciting new government jobs were on offer. Multicultural diversity genocide manager etc.
I saw the Bourne Identity again last night and remembered how good this Doug Liman film was. More full characters and some semblance of script. Clive Owens dying with an existentialist murmur from his lips.
I've enjoyed the other two from a quick action, well shot, well cut point of view but Identity will always be my favourite.

Minnie Ovens, LA,, CA,USA