Bullets 'n' Babes

THE BOURNE IDENTITY 4/5

Solid, entertaining thriller takes a little time to get going but emerges a grabber. I'm not 100% convinced of Matt Damon as the planet's most lethal assassin, but he gives a good account regardless. Franke Potente adds a great deal as a somewhat feisty, but believeable enough love interest. Good, twisty plot; exciting, if a bit frantic action. I saw the TV movie from the 80s years ago but can't remember it well enough to compare. I suspect this take is faster and slicker.

THE BOURNE SUPREMACY 3/5

Plot-heavy sequel is absorbing most of the time, but the action sequences are are a real disappointment. Shaky, headache-threatening camerawork and rapid-fire editing make it almost impossible to make out what's going on? I might feel differently when I see it on DVD, but from my sole cinema viewing I much preferred the action in Quantum of Solace. Joan Allen is a good addition to the cast, but Franke is sorely missed, as is the emotional content. Hopefully ULTIMATUM which I've yet to see will cap of the series in style...

Franke is missed in Supremacy. I wish they'd kept her. I completely agree how good she was in Identity.

If you disliked Supremacy you'll certainly dislike Ultimatum. It has even less story and more shakey cam. I hated it at first but now love all three of them. Supremacy is probably my favourite, possibly Ultimatum. The London Underground scene is excellent.

bradavon wrote:If you disliked Supremacy

I didn't dislike it... I was just pointing out its flaws from my perspective. I gave it *** which is slightly above average. ***.5 wouldn't be out of the question. Whether I keep it or not may depend on my reaction to Ultimatum.

Ultimatum... has even less story and more shakey cam.

That's not good news. But I've ordered it on DVD and will give it a fair crack of the whip. I'm thinking maybe Doug Liman should've directed all three - know why he didn't?

It certainly would've been a different trilogy if he had and you're not alone in preferring the different style of part 1. I don't know he he didn't direct the sequels.

I wonder if we would've got Ultimatum if he had directed it though. It was Supremacy which made the Bourne films what they are today. Identity was more of a sleeper hit.

Ultimatum was excellent.

I loved The Bourne Identity, and I really like the 2nd movie, but HATED the shakey cam (almost made me walk out of the cinema in dis-gust (why the fuck can't I just type dis-gust properly without getting a smily?) and anger), and still havent seen the 3rd movie cause critics already mentioned the shakey-cam was once again back.

Paul Greengrass should be shot in the face for that shakey-cam bullshit. His editor as well. Dumb-ass old ignorant fucks who think shooting a movie like it's been seen by an epileptic spastic psychotic midget shouldnt be in this movie-business.

From my cinema experience with Quantum of Solace, I'm inclined to agree.

I loved the 1st movie, liked the 2nd one (but didnt like the shaky cam) and loved the third one.

It did work 100% perfectly in Unit 93. The whole film made me feel sick (literally) and this made it worse. That's one example where it has it's place.

I liked it in the Bourne films though.

I liked it in Ultimatum (strangely), it gave the film a grittier feel.

bradavon wrote:I wonder if we would've got Ultimatum if he had directed it though. It was Supremacy which made the Bourne films what they are today. Identity was more of a sleeper hit.

Same thing happened with Austin Powers. MAN OF MYSTERY was a sleeper hit (and a massive hit on VHS) then SPY WHO SHAGGED ME was a B.O phenomenon. But without MAN there would've been no SPY or GOLDMEMBER.

If IDENTITY hadn't done so well then SUPREMACY would never have been made. The second movie was a hit because of the buzz generated by the first film. Nothing to do with who the director was. If it was my name on the credits it still would've opening big. The words MATT DAMON and BOURNE made this trilogy a global success.

True. QoS was absolutely huge - even bigger than CR (AFAIK) because of the great critical reception and buzz CR got.

bradavon wrote:It did work 100% perfectly in Unit 93. The whole film made me feel sick (literally) and this made it worse. That's one example where it has it's place. I liked it in the Bourne films though.

I haven't seen UNITED 93 but due to the nature and intent SHAKYCAM (TM) seems apt. It's putting you in the middle of a REAL LIFE struggle. The camera is almost objective. I understand the reasoning. It has no place in a fictional thriller. Gassyprod is right in regards to SHAKYCAM (TM) being overemployed in QOS. BUT... the action was better and despite sitting in a cinema it didn't give me a headache. I preferred the more sedate style Martin Campbell employed in Casino Royale though...

grim_tales wrote:True. QoS was absolutely huge - even bigger than CR (AFAIK) because of the great critical reception and buzz CR got.

Exactly.

I think QoS is still making money and could be the biggest Bond film ever.

I preferred the more sedate style Martin Campbell employed in Casino Royale though...

Without question.

Markgway wrote:Gassyprod is right in regards to SHAKYCAM (TM) being overemployed in QOS. BUT... the action was better

I would agree with that but it's even better again in Ultimatum.

I'll let you know my opinion on that soon... 8)

Markgway wrote:

bradavon wrote:It did work 100% perfectly in Unit 93. The whole film made me feel sick (literally) and this made it worse. That's one example where it has it's place. I liked it in the Bourne films though.

I haven't seen UNITED 93 but due to the nature and intent SHAKYCAM (TM) seems apt. It's putting you in the middle of a REAL LIFE struggle. The camera is almost objective. I understand the reasoning. It has no place in a fictional thriller. Gassyprod is right in regards to SHAKYCAM (TM) being overemployed in QOS. BUT... the action was better and despite sitting in a cinema it didn't give me a headache. I preferred the more sedate style Martin Campbell employed in Casino Royale though...

From a guy that has already been in a fair few of real-life strugles, I can tell you that shaky-cam is the complete oppositie to what you experience in such a situation. In my case, everything slows down, goes into some kind of zen-like slow-mo and on automatic pilot, and most of the time everything is crystal-clear.

Anyway, that's not the reason shaky-cam is pissing me off.

The reason it pisses me off, is that behind all that shaky-cam crap, you can occasionally get the idea that there is some interesting stuff going on, and you're frustrated cause you arent allowed the time and opportunity to just watch that interesting stunt, or fight-choreography, or whatever, cause some dumbass felt the need to make it into some kind of epileptic MTV-style 'montage', and the camera was most likely controlled by a rabid baboon who was getting a blowjob by Jaws while at the same being electrocuted.

In the last 40-50 years there have been countless movies who have proven to be able to show intense action in a way that doesnt make you sick, confused, and lose interest.

Shakycam just seems like an 'easy' and cheap way to 'fake' action, instead of bothering to put some actual thought and effort into it.

What I REALLY cant understand, is why the producers of these movies didnt send the directors/editors back to the cutting-table. If I'm a producer and I love movies, I wouldnt accept this.

The shaky cam/quick cutting annoyed me a bit in QoS (like in the lift fight), it was hard to see what the bloody hell was going on.

Undisputed 2 3/5

Prison-fight movie. Michael Jai White stars as a fallen-from-grace boxer who's doing commercials in Russia. He get's framed because some gangster who makes his money betting on prisonfights wants to see him fight against the best fighter from prison.

I cant possibly see why that wouldnt deserve an oscar-nomination, but I guess life can just be a bit unfair like that at times.

Anyway, MJW turns in a pretty impressive performance, not just by his extremely ripped physique which made me question my own sexuality, but he also commands the screen with an actual presence and seems to have charisma and talent for acting. Something you wouldnt really expext from a B-actor ina B-movie.

Scott Adkins plays the russian bad guy, complete with ugly hairdo, evil sneer, and Hello Kitty tattoos (ok I lied.. ).
He does what he needs to do in the role, which is making a believable very 'evil' and 'impressive' bad guy, a 'villain', someone you WANT to see getting his ass kicked. Every good fight-flick needs a villain like that (Kickboxer had Tong Po, Bloodsport had Bolo), and he does just that.

What we get here is pretty much what we expect going in. A B-movie.

However, the performances range from decent to pretty good, the simple story might be predictable but does it in an entertaining and convincing way, and the fight-scenes are better than we usually expect from these kind of western-made movies, and a bit brutal as well. We see some great looking moves and combinations, camera-angles and choreography is surprisingly good, and it just has a bunch of quick brief fights that keep the whole thing moving along nicely.

There are a few problems, ofcourse, like the cliches, the mediocre acting/roles by some (also because of the writing obviously), and most importantly, an endfight that isnt as long or interesting or epic as you might wish or expect in this kind of movie... but who cares!?

You sit down to watch a B-movie, and that's what you get, and it's entertaining and well-made as far as it's allowed to be, and afterwards you go :'that was cool' and 'that guy was pretty bad-ass', and that's it.

3/5

Blade Runner - Final Cut (London Imax showing last night) 4.9999999999999999999999998/5

Visually lush and a thing of beauty at times, Scott's second best (to 1979's Alien) film touches on brilliance at times but can't escape it's a big budgeted Harry Ford mega colossus of a picture. A little more depth and personality and Blade Runner would be up there with the greats.

Second viewing of the Final Cut (and first time at the imax) and I noticed all of those odd changes, especially digital manipulation of some shots, that were frankly a bit nasty when seen on a massive screen. I don't personally think any of the cuts of this films are particularly better or worse, but I do respect Scott's need to finish it off once and for all and give us his definitive version.

Excellent experience all round

but can't escape it's a big budgeted Harry Ford mega colossus of a picture.

What the bloody hell does this mean? .

I don't personally think any of the cuts of this films are particularly better or worse, but I do respect Scott's need to finish it off once and for all and give us his definitive version.

Agreed except for the voice over. I was surprised how similar the Theatrical and Director's Cuts are.

Don't forget the ending.

No, Brad prefers the happy picnic in the countryside ending.

HungFist wrote:Don't forget the ending.

Oh yeah, good point.