superficial spy flick

Rating: Null/10 (30 June 2002)

What exactly is it that determines the moral code by which a person lives? And can the very same person be a cold-blooded murderer in one incarnation, then become a virtual humanitarian when all memory of that previous life somehow gets wiped away? These provocative questions are raised, though never adequately explored, in `The Bourne Identity,' a fairly standard man-on-the-run spy thriller based on the best selling novel by Robert Ludlum. Written by Tony Gilroy and directed by Doug Liman, `The Bourne Identity' tells the story of Jason Bourne, a CIA hit man who has been suffering from amnesia ever since his bullet-riddled body was plucked floating out of the Mediterranean Sea. Initially unaware of his secret agent status, Jason - together with Marie, a young woman he picks up in Switzerland and hires to drive him to Paris - tries to piece together the clues to his identity and purpose. Essentially we are back in old Hitchcock territory, where the story's hero is being chased by all sorts of nefarious figures even though he himself has not a clue as to who these people are or why it is they are so anxious to put an end to him.
`The Bourne Identity' might have been a more interesting film had it attempted to explore some of the more subtle implications of its morality play situation. Instead, the filmmakers concentrate almost exclusively on the superficial aspects of its spy thriller premise. There are brief flashes where Jason ponders the deeper issues of a troubled conscience, but they are quickly thrown over for the usual cat-and-mouse accoutrements of this odd-man-out scenario. And, frankly, despite the novelty of the Paris setting and some impressive stunt and action scenes scattered along the way, nothing in the film really much engages the audience's sympathy or interest. Matt Damon does a solid job conveying the underlying sweetness of Bourne's character, but nothing in his demeanor or behavior can convince us that he is a government-generated killing machine. What's missing from this story is any attempt to show how this character, whom we have come to view as comassionate and loving, could ever have done the things he is said to have done. That analysis would have lent the film that extra bit of depth it so sorely lacks in its current form.
The film is at its most interesting when it shows how Bourne, because he is himself a product of CIA training, can use the very tools his mentors gave him to stay one step ahead of his pursuers and even outwit the professionals at their own game.
The film features a relatively impressive car chase through the streets of Paris (though it pales in comparison to the ones in `Ronin'). But I can't believe that filmmakers are STILL using that old standby  the one where some workers just happen to be transporting a piece of glass across the street just so the careening cars can come crashing through it. I thought that one had been put to rest, finally and irrevocably, 30 years ago in `What's Up, Doc?'