criterionforum.org

Trailer is online.

North American trailer.

New trailer. Whoa.

This may well end up being one of the best-reviewed films of the year. Critics from publications as diverse as The Village Voice and USA Today are raving it in equal measure.

EDIT: Reviews are correct. Greengrass' ADD-cam is much less distracting this time. The action is relentless and very engaging. It's extremely well done.

Jeff wrote:This may well end up being one of the best-reviewed films of the year. Critics from publications as diverse as The Village Voice and USA Today are raving it in equal measure.

EDIT: Reviews are correct. Greengrass' ADD-cam is much less distracting this time. The action is relentless and very engaging. It's extremely well done.

Except of course for the one of the worst critics working for a major paper in the US: Stephen Hunter. Good grief I can't stand that guy and yet he's the Washington Post's top reviewer while Ann Hornaday and Desson Thompson are far better critics. I still can't believe he won a Pulitzer Prize.

Stephen Hunter wrote:The third in the series of films derived from novels by the late Robert Ludlum, it stars Matt Damon and is the second to be directed by Paul Greengrass, the brilliant Brit who like everybody affiliated with the project is much too good for it. Other luminaries whose careers will be tarnished by this express train without destination include Damon himself (grown grave and tragic in his mid-30s), Julia Stiles, Joan Allen, David Strathairn and Scott Glenn, whose face looks like the Grand Canyon from 40,000 feet.

Yes, I'm sure Damon is terrified about what this series is doing to his career.

Roger_Thornhill wrote:

Jeff wrote:This may well end up being one of the best-reviewed films of the year. Critics from publications as diverse as The Village Voice and USA Today are raving it in equal measure.

Except of course for the one of the worst critics working for a major paper in the US: Stephen Hunter. Good grief I can't stand that guy and yet he's the Washington Post's top reviewer while Ann Hornaday and Desson Thompson are far better critics. I still can't believe he won a Pulitzer Prize.

Now I never have to read a Stephen Hunter column again. I just saw The Bourne Ultimatum and thought it was phenomenal. The film never gets dull, and while the action sequences stay pretty realistic, they're exciting as hell to watch. I'm going again this coming weekend, especially since, if the trailers I saw yesterday are any indication, there won't be any good movies coming out anytime soon.

It's also funny that Hunter should have a beef with Bourne--maybe he holds some kind of closet rage for Shooter (which was based on his book) being within the same genre and yet so fucking terrible?

Jeff wrote:

Stephen Hunter wrote:The third in the series of films derived from novels by the late Robert Ludlum, it stars Matt Damon and is the second to be directed by Paul Greengrass, the brilliant Brit who like everybody affiliated with the project is much too good for it. Other luminaries whose careers will be tarnished by this express train without destination include Damon himself (grown grave and tragic in his mid-30s), Julia Stiles, Joan Allen, David Strathairn and Scott Glenn, whose face looks like the Grand Canyon from 40,000 feet.

Yes, I'm sure Damon is terrified about what this series is doing to his career.

What an idiot. Damon was on the Actor's studio talking about how his career was on a downward slope until the opening weekend's BO figures came out for Identity, and by Monday he had twenty scripts on his desk. That was for 26+ million. The third just did 70 million, and Forbes magazine ranks him as the most bankable star... I wonder how many scripts he got sent to him this time... Personally, I'm glad to see Mr. Good Will Hunting continue on up the Hollywood echelon.

Saw this over the weekend and it's utterly fantastic and easily the best film of the series (so far). The comments on Greengrass' handheld camera are correct. It's far more fluid this time around, but really the fight scenes are all fast cuts, and really the editor needs to be applauded.

What I particularly like about the series of Bourne films is that the plots are extremely pared down. There is no needless overexplanations of key revelations, the actors hired know exactly what to do with their lines but moreover what to do when their not talking, and the action sequences are inventive and breathless without being ridiculous.

The only small quibble I have with the film is that I wish Greengrass had ended the film a beat earlier. For those who have seen the film, they should know exactly what I mean.

This movie is overrated at best.

Some fun action stuff (the great Tangiers sequence, in particular) and a winning presence by Matt Damon do not a great film make. As characters, the human figures in Bourne are almost totally anonymous, as if the fact that there were two other movies means that this one gets to skimp on constructing characters as anything other than plot points (Joan Allen-as-Laura Linney-as the CIA Exec With a Heart of Gold stands out particularly in this regard).

But really, there's just no reason for this movie to look as frenetic as it does. It never once calms down - even simple dialogue sequences are given the manic music video treatment. The entire thing is like a Tony Scott film with bleach bypass. The dearth of cinematic meaning is here is on a Gonzalez-Inarritu level.

Seriously, guys, we're all gonna be embarrassed at the ridiculous stylization of this film when it hits the repertory circuit in 30 years (provided that still exists) - the Danger: Diabolik of the 2000s.

portnoy wrote:The dearth of cinematic meaning is here is on a Gonzalez-Inarritu level.

Are you kidding me with this stuff? It's an action movie. And you want character development? And you're saying it's overstylized?

I think the rest of us are putting this film into proper perspective. I haven't seen anyone arguing that its the greatest artistic statement on film so far of the 21st century.

Matt wrote:

portnoy wrote:The dearth of cinematic meaning is here is on a Gonzalez-Inarritu level.

Are you kidding me with this stuff? It's an action movie. And you want character development? And you're saying it's overstylized?

I think the rest of us are putting this film into proper perspective. I haven't seen anyone arguing that its the greatest artistic statement on film so far of the 21st century.

Yeah, it's ridiculously overstylized. And yeah, I want character development. It's a fucking movie - just because it's a hip genre flick doesn't mean it gets some pass on standards we should hold all movies accountable for. And as for 'greatest artistic statement on film,' let's go to some of the reviews:

The Village Voice:

Bravura doesn't begin to describe Greengrass's skill in mounting these complex sequences...This is, simply put, some of the most accomplished filmmaking being done anywhere for any purpose.

Slate:

Feels fresher, leaner, and faster than any action movie in years.

Zacherek, Salon:

A great action movie, exhilarating and neatly crafted, the kind of picture that will still look good 20 or 30 years from now.

The praise we continually heap onto Paul Greengrass's monuments of thoughtless formalist excess is simply ridiculous. No one's accusing Greengrass, of course, of being some great art filmmaker, but I wouldn't even accuse him of being a great genre hack.

Matt wrote:

portnoy wrote:The dearth of cinematic meaning is here is on a Gonzalez-Inarritu level.

Are you kidding me with this stuff? It's an action movie. And you want character development? And you're saying it's overstylized?

I think the rest of us are putting this film into proper perspective. I haven't seen anyone arguing that its the greatest artistic statement on film so far of the 21st century.

I think Ultimatum will become a victim of what I like to call "Minority Report syndrome," (I'm anticipating some acid-tongue replies to that term) which is essentially a critical backlash based on the fact that everyone starts thinking that a great deal of positive reviews that recommend the film are akin to a critical consensus that the film is some sort of masterpiece. This is usually perpetuated by a reviewer/critic that makes the mistake of definitively stating that the film is a masterpiece (in the case of Minority Report it was Ebert supplying the ridiculous overestimate and in this case it's the Village Voice), which usually draws the ire of hard-core cinema enthusiasts.

Realistically, this is just an enjoyable action movie that just knows exactly what it wants to accomplish. If it does hit the repertory circuit in 30 years (which is a stretch of the imagination), it's going to be screened alongside old-school action stuff, like Bullit, Die Hard, and maybe Ronin.

Personally, I love how Bourne can be wracked with guilt over his past assassinations, yet not blink an eye at, say, careening a car into oncoming traffic in Midtown Manhattan. And as breathtakingly well-staged the action sequences are, Bourne's "Terminator"-level indestructability just gets to be laughable after a while.

portnoy wrote:The praise we continually heap onto Paul Greengrass's monuments of thoughtless formalist excess is simply ridiculous.

Thoughtless? If you don't like the style, fine, but go back and look at how meticulously (and dare I say it, at times subtly) Greengrass plays off of the first two films. Thoughtless is entirely the wrong term. This isn't a random smattering of images from an ADD-riddled child (and I'm sorry, but 'music video editing' is an outdated term, now that the form is gaining the respect it deserves); there's method to his madness.

-Toilet Dcuk

toiletduck! wrote:Thoughtless? If you don't like the style, fine, but go back and look at how meticulously (and dare I say it, at times subtly) Greengrass plays off of the first two films. Thoughtless is entirely the wrong term. This isn't a random smattering of images from an ADD-riddled child (and I'm sorry, but 'music video editing' is an outdated term, now that the form is gaining the respect it deserves); there's method to his madness.

Well sourced evidence, thanks. I'm curious, though - if Greengrass is so conscious and meticulous with his films, why is it that his last four films have been formally indistinguishable?

portnoy wrote:Well sourced evidence, thanks.

You know how it is. I like to give what I get. And the thesis you provided on the 'thoughtlessness' of Greengrass' direction was pretty bulletproof.

-Toilet Dcuk

toiletduck! wrote:

portnoy wrote:Well sourced evidence, thanks.

You know how it is. I like to give what I get. And the thesis you provided on the 'thoughtlessness' of Greengrass' direction was pretty bulletproof.

Greengrass shoots simple dialogue scenes like fight sequences, fight sequences with an ASL of maybe 3-4 frames? So that we can, what, get a handle on the characters' disorientation? Why is it, then, that none of the characters ever seem particularly disoriented or confused? He populates the mise-en-scene with handheld jolts and those obnoxious faux-verite minizooms. Why? So we can understand the impact of surveillance culture on a globalizing world? Give me a fucking break. It's there because it looks cool, and because it's the aesthetic that Greengrass has applied to all of his post-Bloody Sunday films. In lieu of a capitivating narrative or a set of characters to get involved with, it's lazy shorthand for YOU ARE THERE and it's such a cliche that it's meaningless at this point.

Then you can accuse Scorsese of the same aesthetic "failings". The Departed had an ASL of 2.7 seconds. In fact, Scorsese's ASL has consistently gone down since the '70s. Does that make him a lesser filmmaker as well? Is he succumbing to "lazy" narrative frameworks? Or, as I have suggested with Greengrass, is he putting the use of his longtime and skilled editor, Thelma Schoonmaker to use?

As toiletduck! astutely points out, the whole "music video editing" criticism is bullshit at this point. Trashing a film because of short ASL, is as meaningless as lavishing praise on a film because of long tracking shots. The bottom line is if it's effective in servicing the story. And most of the critical consensus is that Greengrass' direction and editing, more than delivers for Bourne Ultimatum. It would be somewhat odd if Jason Bourne were subject to long sweeping tracking shots.

In essence, Bourne Ultimatum is a revenge flick. And Greengrass effectively conveys that rage and unblinking determination. And yeah, it does look fucking cool. God forbid, something look exciting and service the story in a genre flick.

Antoine Doinel wrote:In fact, Scorsese's ASL has consistently gone down since the '70s. Does that make him a lesser filmmaker as well?

I'm sure there are many forum members who would say "yes."

Antoine Doinel wrote:Then you can accuse Scorsese of the same aesthetic "failings". The Departed had an ASL of 2.7 seconds. In fact, Scorsese's ASL has consistently gone down since the '70s. Does that make him a lesser filmmaker as well? Is he succumbing to "lazy" narrative frameworks? Or, as I have suggested with Greengrass, is he putting the use of his longtime and skilled editor, Thelma Schoonmaker to use?

As toiletduck! astutely points out, the whole "music video editing" criticism is bullshit at this point. Trashing a film because of short ASL, is as meaningless as lavishing praise on a film because of long tracking shots. The bottom line is if it's effective in servicing the story. And most of the critical consensus is that Greengrass' direction and editing, more than delivers for Bourne Ultimatum. It would be somewhat odd if Jason Bourne were subject to long sweeping tracking shots.

In essence, Bourne Ultimatum is a revenge flick. And Greengrass effectively conveys that rage and unblinking determination. And yeah, it does look fucking cool. God forbid, something look exciting and service the story in a genre flick.

Yeah, man, if America's Critics have decided, that's more than enough evidence that a film is good. How clueless of me! What kind of inane bullshit appeal-to-authority is that?

Look, I'm not looking for long takes - you recognize there's a very reasonable middle ground between Greengrass and Hou, right? And I'm not attacking the film *simply* because it has a short ASL - I'm attacking it because the short ASL is not in service of the film itself. It's there because it's Greengrass' style, but it's not put in service of the story as much as it in service of his 'aesthetic.'

Again, I don't mind a film that looks cool. I mind a film that chooses to look cool over choosing to meaningfully convey the film's narrative and themes in cinematic terms.

And as for the Departed, yeah, I basically like that movie. But would I trade it for any 70s/early 80s Scorsese? Certainly never. Just because short ASLs are in vogue doesn't mean they're necessarily the right way to go.

How would you have shot Bourne Ultimatum differently? And I'm not being coy, but seriously, what would you have done to better service the narrative and cinematic themes in the film?

portnoy wrote:Greengrass shoots simple dialogue scenes like fight sequences, fight sequences with an ASL of maybe 3-4 frames? So that we can, what, get a handle on the characters' disorientation? Why is it, then, that none of the characters ever seem particularly disoriented or confused?

Practically all the characters are severely disorientated and confused, except for maybe Finney's character, who appears resigned to the fact that Bourne will eventually arrive at his doorstep. I would add Kramer (Scott Glenn) to the list, but he's barely in the film and considering he's at the top of the tower that Bourne is attempting to topple, a case could be made that Bourne is causing him enough grief that his position is unstable. Even if the characters are engaged in scenes involving simple dialogue, the discussions that they are engaged in are creating volatility within their world, whether it's merely their jobs that are on the line or their lives.

portnoy wrote:He populates the mise-en-scene with handheld jolts and those obnoxious faux-verite minizooms. Why? So we can understand the impact of surveillance culture on a globalizing world? Give me a fucking break.

Couldn't someone use the "give me a fucking break" line of reasoning to dismiss the intended goal of any method of filmmaking? As in "oh, that guy is using ridiculously extended-takes to comment on the nature of time. Give me a fucking break." It doesn't really disqualify the filmmakers intensions.

Faux Hulot wrote:...Bourne's "Terminator"-level indestructability just gets to be laughable after a while.

Maybe, but he isn't really indestructible, or at least not any more-or-less than an other lead-character within the action genre. There are various times he walks away from an encounter having injured himself and sporting a variety of scars.