Monday, October 1, 2007

Bourne Free

Finally got around to seeing The Bourne Ultimatum Friday night, with passes donated by a co-worker of the wife. We'd seen the previous two, and liked them on that sliding scale you use for summer blockbusters.

The biggest problem I have with the series is that none of the action is particularly memorable. It took me quite a while to remember some fairly important details, such as how the last movie ended and what happened to the woman from the first film. Thankfully, this was anticipated and enough exposition was given to get me back to speed. Still, it's disconcerting that I remembered so little from the previous movies.

The camera work was also way too jumpy, which I know is the style (or was the style and only still is in movies like this), but I felt like I was missing detail due to the blurriness. The action on its own would have been more than enough to give the movie an energetic feel.

So all in all, it's a solid B- and a good capper to a trilogy I'll probably never concern myself with again except when I flip past it when it's being shown on USA or something.

There were four previews:

American Gangster - Denzel Washington plays a New York City drug lord, Russell Crowe plays the cop looking to take him down. Ridley Scott directs. This looks like the best film of the four previewed, but it may say more about the other movies. Still, I'd like to see this.

Beowulf - we saw a poster for this on the way into the theater, and the wife was concered with Angelina Jolie's presence. From the trailer this looks to be the least of its problems. It looks like the folks behind this (writers Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary and director Robert Zemeckis) are trying to give this a Lord of the Rigns/Chronicles of Narnia sort of vibe. All I know is the trailer opened with Jolie as a watery tart involved in some sort of farcical aquatic ceremony. I can only hope Anthony Hopkins can find a shrubbery.

Rendition - Reese Witherspoon plays a woman whose Middle Eastern-ish husband is grabbed by the CIA and taken to an interrogation facility outside of the US. Jake Gyllenhall is assigned to his case, and begins to doubt his mission based on the techniques used to try to extract information. Meryl Streep and Alan Arkin play CIA types. I don't buy any of them in their roles, though Reese's shrieking did make her seem particularly aggrieved.

Lions for Lambs - I'm assuming this is Robert Redford's statement on the current war, as he plays a professor who has two students leave school to join the Army. The wind up in Afghanistan and in some peril. Meanwhile, in DC, a senator played by Tom Cruise has a plan to change the war, and wants to use a journalist played by Meryl Streep to get his message out. I have no idea how these connect, and the trailer gives no indication. I can't help but think a movie with a preachy Redford and any Cruise is one that I don't want to see.


Blogger Kirsti said...

Why does S. object to Angelina Jolie? Because of her acting, her choice of roles, her homewrecking, or something else?

I remember laughing to myself when I saw that trailer, because the message seemed to be, Hey, we made a movie with ANGELINA JOLIE in it!!!!!! Oh, and monsters and famous actors and talking and stuff.

October 6, 2007 at 9:19 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home