Last Movie You Watched.

I really need to check out those Bourne films. are most of you fans? I see the rating is quite high on IMDB.

Sarai wrote:

I really need to check out those Bourne films. are most of you fans? I see the rating is quite high on IMDB.

Wouldn't call myself a fan.

The first one was fairly good in a deep n' gritty sort of way. The next two were OK-ish. As mentioned, the hand-to-hand combat and car chases which Cregg-Bond aped were generally done well.

Haven't seen the one with the non-Matt Damon person and the last one with Matt Damon was pretty bad. Spoilers: Like Cregg-Bond, it wasn't good enough for Bourne just to be one man in a bigger world. No, basically he had to be some sort of "chosen one" with every threat affecting the planet being the result of his own paternal backstory.

The series' weakness lies in the protagonist remaining a bit of a bore as the series goes on. Bourne starts out as an amnesiac of few words and zero personality and doesn't change one iota.

The stories also get tiresome after, I guess, the first one. Bourne - who still can't remember shit - is once again being hunted by his old employers, a.k.a. Old White Guy Pounding On Desk Saying "Goddamit, find Jason Borne!" or some such.

But don't let me dissuade you, go see 'em.

Sarai wrote:

I really need to check out those Bourne films. are most of you fans? I see the rating is quite high on IMDB.

I really hated the first one, to the point I was rooting for Clive Owen to kill Bourne so the movie would be over.

To me, it was largely an exercise in massively flawed filmmaking technique, because rarely did you see him do anything completely, it mostly seemed to be cut together to give the impression that he was doing something cool. The wall climbing in the film is the thing I remember most, that each cut seemed to push the feeling that nothing was actually being done in terms of physical spectacle. So it is especially confusing to me that audiences found this more visceral and real than other pics, because pretty much every bit of execution undercut that. Might be an overreaction on my part, since THE MATRIX had set a bar for actual physical action done sans cuts pretty high (though you can tell Weaving didn't have the training time of the others, because his stuff doesn't convince as well and needs more cuts), but my rejection of BOURNE ID was pretty much complete. Plus it just looked dingy. There's a vehicle chase down various steps/walkways that made me think, 'this is what NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN would look like if they waited for crappier weather.'

(full disclosure: I was supposed to do an article for AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER on the movie -- which is why I went to see it in the first place -- but the cinematographer gave a seriously crappy phone interview. He was in his kitchen doing an unending stack of dishes apparently for the 20-odd minutes of stilted replies and 'I don't remember's and 'maybe the 1st AC can tell you that, I never think about the tech stuff.' And then the director refused to be interviewed, apparently upset with how he was treated on the film. I couldn't get any of the other camera folk to consent to be interviewed either, which was a first, so the thing just died, along with pretty much all of my relationship with the mag (I think PIRATES 1 was the only other piece I did for them after that.)

I saw a quiet scene from the second or third one with him and the blonde girl that seemed kind of effective on TV once, but the color treatment was extreme and bothered me enough that I didn't keep watching.

I did see the Renner BOURNE all the way through, but can't tell you a thing about it, because it just didn't register, good or bad.

CJB wrote:

Article is, of course, full of typical Graun takes. There was no widespread "anti-government" sentiment when Bourne came out; on the contrary, 9/11 was very recent and Dubya was still riding high in the polls and went on to win re-election 2 years later.

Yeah, the writer can’t see 2002 like it was 2002. Rather filling in gaps with preconceptions. “The movie came out after The Patriot Act was passed, so it must be a reaction to it” (‘pointed critique of the government’s post-9/11 expansion of powers’).

Enemy of the State came out in 1998 (and made more money then than Bourne did years later) and was way more aggressive and moralizing and terrifying on the surveillance stuff. As if this was all very much worse in 2002.

As have dozens of other films been. How long beforehand did The Conversation come out? And before that...The Thousand Eyes of Dr. Mabuse? And on and on back. (We’ll just keep calling them all “prescient” I suppose...)

I haven’t seen Bourne Identity in a while but I don’t even remember it being that concerned with the post-9/11 power stuff in a thematic or philosophizing way. It was more using surveillance as a concept to twist a chase film into something “new.” What if the chaser was omniscient? How would you escape that? Actually, just like Enemy of the State — except instead of the innocent Hitchcockian Everyman getting swept up in events, it’s a trained assassin.

I agree that the big bad of the entire trilogy turns out to be the US gov (hat tip to notorious anti-USA Paul Greengrass) but I fail to see how even that is unique as subject matter. Both pro and anti USA films had been making bank for decades.

In terms of Bond, no doubt QOS took the most influence from Bourne...but that aside? The big influence was probably the “man on the ground” vs. “tech” stuff we got beat over the head with in the back half of Craig’s tenure.

As far as Bourne influencing Mission Impossible by having “a stoic intelligence agent who has a complicated relationship with his own government.” Ethan Hunt was being chase by the US in the original film...in 1995.

I also actually laughed at the conclusion where Bourne is supposed to have inspired change at the voting booth. Literally everyone around me has zero concern with the amount of intrusion into private life the government or any corporation has, monitoring of their activities, etc. It’s a big shrug, and it’s just gotten more normalized in the last twenty years. No idea what he’s on about.

Sarai wrote:

I really need to check out those Bourne films. are most of you fans? I see the rating is quite high on IMDB.

I think the first two are good. Second one brings in Greengrass and he does enough differently that it’s interesting still.

By then it makes sense to just finish the trilogy out even though the whole premise and concept is quickly stale and repetitive after just two films.

And the other two aren’t really worth it, for me. Though I liked the opening sequence in the fifth one.

I got really high, watched the trilogy and can't remember much of what happened. I know that's a pretty bad movie review.

I did like them all in the sense it was a good time but I'm not sure there is much substance there. I am style over substance so that wasn't a problem but it did lack the amount of action I was expecting. I only remember a few hand to hand combat scenes  

Overall it felt like three movies that added up to one good pilot episode. OK, cool idea, I am liking the character but really nowhere to go with it. I found myself making up plots in my mind. It left me wanting more but not sure if it was for the right reasons or intended. But I did really enjoy them for more superficial reasons. I much prefer the directing style and camera work in part 2 and 3. It's quite disorienting especially when you are smoking so it was fun and parts did look really nice.  that style made it feel more like a carnival ride than a movie but being different made it fun
without that I think I would have been quite bored

Identity had Doug Liman and an indie sort of energy which is why I loved it. It at least had some of the feeling of the book. The others I'm ok with never seeing again.
Supremacy is a threadbare story, throws away the spirit of the first film and is all style over substance. Ultimatum increases this.
Legacy is a low end spinoff that isn't worth it which also describes Jason Bourne the fourth film.

None of them approach the books. The Bourne of the books would take apart the film version with a fingernail. Bourne in the films is quiet-Bourne in the books is downright scary. All the stuff about using only what is on hand is on steroids in the books which take place right in the Cold War and before digital technology. No cell phones, no surveillance everywhere and even more suspense. Identity the novel is a labyrinthine nail biting masterwork that remains one of the great novels. Supremacy the book is fantastically dark and over the top in all kinds of good ways. NOTHING like the film. Ultimatum is a bit of a letdown for the trilogy but still has good moments and gives closure to the main story.
I hated how the films ruined the side characters. Most of all the Jason and Marie story. The 1988 tv miniseries version of Identity actually does a darn good job of adapting the novel for 80's TV.

All this talk of Bourne, and now comparing them to the source material, makes me wonder if there has ever been a thread here about spy-minded literary properties that deserve film/tv adaptation but haven't gotten them.

Feel free to swap this post to its own thread or to an existing one if that seems appropriate.

Right off, I remember loving a couple of Leonard Sanders books from the early 80s, THE HAMLET WARNING and THE HAMLET ULTIMATUM, which, along with the early NOVEMBER MAN novels (especially SCHISM), were my prime go-tos in the genre at that time, for me far outclassing the Gardner Bonds (though I remember enjoying a Gardner non-BOND called GOLGOTHA/THE LAST TRUMP (no relation.)

I have only rarely ever seen the HAMLET books post-release (had my original 'strip' copies for more than 20 years, then lost them when moving, so it has been awhile -- even working at a Goodwill where it seems every rare book save FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH gets donated, I have never seen either book come through the back door.)

Hamlet was a group of scummy folk who as I recall were probably overaged Yuppies, or at least more dollar-minded than most baddies of the period, perhaps presaging DIE HARD. I remember one of them strangling a secretary during sex just to see if it would prove exotic. The baddies aren't the draw here. The two main guys appear in my mind as something between David Janssen and Craig T. Nelson (Janssen is also who I saw when reading NOVEMBER -- he was in so many TV movies in the 70s that I imprinted on him in a major way), and they are tough and one of them usually has some kind of wisecrack. In the second book, which I found superior and also read first, they put together a sort of renegade team of folks drawn from the field and in one case an active from inside the Agency, who is not a field guy but feels compelled to help because it is the right thing to do. (man this is really making me want to read these again, will have to start looking on thriftbooks and ebay and amazon after this post.)

Anyway, I always expected to see film adaptations of these, was disappointed it didn't happen (same is true for other non-spy novels of the period, including Ben Bova's US/Soviet escalation in space novel MILLENNIUM and Charles Durden's NO BUGLES NO DRUMS, which is for me easily the best VietNam novel.)

There were also a pair of spy novels from a journalist named Niesewand who died in his 30s right after the second book came out. The first one crackles along until you get to the gimmick -- a brain or consciousness transfer putting a scientist's mind into an agent. I've read the book a few times, but it is really hard to buy into the gimmick, even though the rest of the book reads very well. It is exactly the sort of thing a major star would go for, since he'd get to play like that era's Harrison Ford, then have to play like an older somebody in Harrison Ford's body. Those novels are called FALLBACK and SCIMITAR.

And no list of this kind would be complete without mentioning the Israel Bond oy-oy-seven books by Sol Weinstein. I have read LOXFINGER and MATZOHBALL at least a dozen times apiece -- came across them serialized in mid-60s issues of PLAYBOY, where they sported some amazing illustrations, especially of the 'swegroes' in their pre-L&LD pimpmobile) and loved nearly every minute (especially when discovering Bond drove a Rambler while stateside, since that is the vehicle 'my' Bond was exiting in a short spoof film made in my teens), and only recently picked up an omnibus edition with the later works -- which for whatever reason, I have a lot of trouble with.

Anyway, I really thought that this would have been a great vehicle for Jerry Seinfeld to transition into films at the turn of the century, especially given all the big spy stuff with Bond and Austin Powers. You'd have had to toss out a lot of what amounts to MRS. MAISEL-level references to NW USA Jewish power centers and other period references, and there was so much politically incorrect stuff that I think any outrage would have been mitigated by numbness, since you'd be objecting to everything -- and still probably trying very hard not to laugh. Weinstein absolutely nails Fleming's style, so the mocking of how Fleming wrote, often jumping ahead with a new chapter, only to backtrack, is even worth a few laughs (at one point, after a pages-long recitation, Bond muses 'that flashback must have killed ten minutes.')
Bond will also improvise in JBond kind of way, at one point putting on a wine red suit so his bleeding wounds will match the material.

I made the mistake of watching Sicario before I watched the first Bourne.
I thought it just looked like it would be an average action drama but the direction was superb.

Somerset wrote:

I also actually laughed at the conclusion where Bourne is supposed to have inspired change at the voting booth. Literally everyone around me has zero concern with the amount of intrusion into private life the government or any corporation has, monitoring of their activities, etc. It’s a big shrug, and it’s just gotten more normalized in the last twenty years. No idea what he’s on about.

Correct, as the last two years have shown in particular.

Here in Oz, state governments which were more draconian and illogical in their Covid restrictions enjoyed more - not less - popularity. Nothing I've observed leads me to believe there's any great public concern about personal liberties.

The average 'laptop class' member cheered on the heavy-handed response to protests against said restrictions and dismissed opponents as 'science deniers' or (ironically) fascist/far-right/etc. These are, of course, the same sort of liberal moralisers who chide the average Russian for not overthrowing their government.

Sarai wrote:

I got really high, watched the trilogy and can't remember much of what happened. I know that's a pretty bad movie review.

Siskel and Ebert really made it more complicated than they needed to...

Psycho (Director's Cut) - cinema screening for this most iconic of Hitchcock thrillers. Anthony Perkins is, of course, extraordinary as the tortured and murderous Norman Bates.

This cut consists of 13 extra seconds here and there throughout the film.

CJB wrote:

Here in Oz, state governments which were more draconian and illogical in their Covid restrictions enjoyed more - not less - popularity. Nothing I've observed leads me to believe there's any great public concern about personal liberties.

Covid is a good example. Even in relation to the article I assume the conclusion about the voting booth is meant to reference voting in Obama, as though skepticism of W.’s government led to that. But then I assume this journalist has their beliefs all clustered together such that they’d be in favor of lockdowns, vaccine mandates, etc. — in other words the precise things that skepticism in government NOW would produce. Like the suspicion was warranted only because of W. but not in the case of other sitting officials of “opposite” (LOL) philosophy.

THE BABYSITTER (1995)


Any of you seen this? Direct-to-vid movie starring Alicia Silverstone as, of course, a babysitter. She watches a couple’s kids while they go out for a party. Current and former boyfriend try to outmaneuver each other for her. Couple’s young son fantasizes about her. The dad fantasizes about her. The wife fantasizes about the husband of her friend.

Most review thought it crap. Not a great movie but I liked it. I tend to like movies about the relationship between the sexes, though. Main issue people seem to have is finding subject matter uncomfortable (sexual fantasies, where the line blurs) but also cheap budget, acting, the usual culprits.

Couple positive reviews I found, but mostly because they are taking it as an indictment of the evil male libido and/or commentary on objectification of women.

I saw it more as a showcase of the power that female sexuality has over men. Reminded me of a Carol Baker movie I saw one time called Station Six-Sahara (if anyone’s seen that) about this goddess who gets stranded at an isolated desert oil station occupied entirely by men.

I was unsure about Silverstone in the lead (she’s no Carol Baker) but then I realized that maybe that actually helps the film. This is a teenage girl who hasn’t fully woken up to the sort of power a woman can have over men, so they probably didn’t need a sex bomb. Rather someone who came off as beautiful but slightly unaware, and she fits that.

Whole film turns on how a person wakes up to sexuality and then deals with it as life goes on. I’d recommend it.

This was most embarrassing when they essentially stole the end of Supremacy for QoS.

CJB wrote:

Somerset wrote:

I also actually laughed at the conclusion where Bourne is supposed to have inspired change at the voting booth. Literally everyone around me has zero concern with the amount of intrusion into private life the government or any corporation has, monitoring of their activities, etc. It’s a big shrug, and it’s just gotten more normalized in the last twenty years. No idea what he’s on about.

Correct, as the last two years have shown in particular.

Here in Oz, state governments which were more draconian and illogical in their Covid restrictions enjoyed more - not less - popularity. Nothing I've observed leads me to believe there's any great public concern about personal liberties.

The average 'laptop class' member cheered on the heavy-handed response to protests against said restrictions and dismissed opponents as 'science deniers' or (ironically) fascist/far-right/etc. These are, of course, the same sort of liberal moralisers who chide the average Russian for not overthrowing their government.

The slaves come to love their shackles, and the servants come to adore the knout.

Somerset wrote:

THE BABYSITTER (1995)


Any of you seen this? Direct-to-vid movie starring Alicia Silverstone as, of course, a babysitter. She watches a couple’s kids while they go out for a party. Current and former boyfriend try to outmaneuver each other for her. Couple’s young son fantasizes about her. The dad fantasizes about her. The wife fantasizes about the husband of her friend.

Most review thought it crap. Not a great movie but I liked it. I tend to like movies about the relationship between the sexes, though. Main issue people seem to have is finding subject matter uncomfortable (sexual fantasies, where the line blurs) but also cheap budget, acting, the usual culprits.

Couple positive reviews I found, but mostly because they are taking it as an indictment of the evil male libido and/or commentary on objectification of women.

I saw it more as a showcase of the power that female sexuality has over men. Reminded me of a Carol Baker movie I saw one time called Station Six-Sahara (if anyone’s seen that) about this goddess who gets stranded at an isolated desert oil station occupied entirely by men.

I was unsure about Silverstone in the lead (she’s no Carol Baker) but then I realized that maybe that actually helps the film. This is a teenage girl who hasn’t fully woken up to the sort of power a woman can have over men, so they probably didn’t need a sex bomb. Rather someone who came off as beautiful but slightly unaware, and she fits that.

Whole film turns on how a person wakes up to sexuality and then deals with it as life goes on. I’d recommend it.

Saw in theater, then once again a couple years ago. Solid pic, I liked it both times.

21 Bridges - cop thriller with the gone-too-soon Chadwick Boseman, Sienna Miller and JK Simmons in which the titular Manhattan river crossings are locked down in order to prevent the escape of cop killers. A reasonably entertaining 90 minutes or so.

Caught the last half hour of Vertical Limit over the weekend.

Which made me think of Scorupco's career. It's weird how limited her success was post GE.
She famously passed on two high profile roles. The Mask of Zorro (the role that made Catherine Zeta-Jones a star) and L.A. Confidential (the role that won Kim Basinger an Oscar).
But you would still expect her to have been in more Hollywood films than she actually was.
Even here she probably primarily owes the part to Martin Campbell and their pre-existing relationship.

I accidentally messed up Dancer in the Dark for my friends when I burst out laughing. I didn't mean to, I wasn't being a jerk it just caught me off guard and I'm still not convinced it's not a black comedy. If meant to be serious tragedy then serious ham fisted approach again by Lars.

A Serious Man

Very odd, fascinating and rather grim piece by the Coens. Supposedly a black comedy, but there's not much to elicit chuckles, let alone guffaws. Classic Coen, though, and it will repay repeated viewings. Watched it both Friday and Saturday night, trying to get a grip on it.

The Wizard of Oz

Journey Back to Oz 1972

animated with Liza Minnelli providing the voice of Dorothy

I found it very average in general despite a fair amount of talent but still nice to be back.

I knew the most famous Wizard of Oz was not the first film adaptation of that Baum book but the only other movie story I was aware existed was that Oz movie with Franco from a few years back when they were trying to kickstart it as an IP “universe.”

I also am aware of the HBO series but I will not make the same mistake George Michael did in that Arrested ep.

In the 1970s--before cable TV took over--one of the major networks showed The Wizard of Oz (1939) and Tom Sawyer annually. Every little kid I knew made certain never to miss an airing of these two films.

Sarai wrote:

Journey Back to Oz   1972

animated with Liza Minnelli providing the voice of Dorothy

I found it very average in general despite a fair amount of talent but still nice to be back.

News to me that this existed - I knew of Return To Oz from the mid-Eighties and the more recent Oz The Great And Powerful, but not this.

I watched Return to Oz last night

not bad at all, a bit disturbing even and the opposite in tone but would watch again