Bourne Again: The Return of the Shaky Cam

Rating: 7/10 (17 August 2007)

Jason Bourne is back in what may prove to be the final film in the Bourne Franchise. If so, what a way to go out. Unlike many of this summer's three-quels, this film delivers the goods. This is a 115 minute roller-coaster ride that barely lets up from start to finish. However, in a world of leaden imitations, this unfortunately isn't quite the 24 carat gold classic that the two previous films were. Don't get me wrong, this is still one of the best films I have seen this year and most films would kill to be this good. Unfortunately both "The Bourne Identity" and "The Bourne Supremacy" (especially the latter) set the barrier so high that unfortunately this film doesn't quite measure up in comparison.
First the good stuff. Matt Damon is great as usual and it is good to see that Julia Stiles is given more to do this time round. Her character especially is an appealing mix of ability and vulnerability. Whilst she doesn't get as good a scene as the one in the previous film where Bourne threatened to kill her, the hints that she may have had a relationship with Bourne that he now doesn't remember is an interesting twist and it is a shame that her character drops out of the film over halfway through. The great Joan Allen gives good support and David Strathairn makes a good replacement for Brian Cox as the man to hate. However most of the kudos should go to Paul Greengrass and his editor Christopher Rouse. Greengrass has become a great director since Universal took a chance on him to direct "The Bourne Supremacy". His so-called "shaky cam" style which has been criticised by many on this site is the reason why this film works so well. The Waterloo station scene in particular should become a masterclass study in editing (in addition, the fight scene between Bourne and the CIA "asset" in a small room in Tangier is a terrific piece of action editing that ought to win Christopher Rouse an Oscar if there is any justice in this world, reminiscent though it is of the fight scene between Bourne and one of his German contemporaries in the previous film - which Rouse helped to edit). Even though there are a few flaws in this film, they are down to the script and not to Paul Greengrass's direction which is arguably better here than in the previous film (he was also criminally robbed of an Oscar for "United 93" earlier this year - as good as "The Departed" was, Scorsese's Oscar was a compensation prize for his earlier work where he really should have won).
So why is this film only 23½ carat gold grade? Mainly because of the script. I yield to no one in my respect and admiration of Tony Gilroy who has written a number of great films over the years aside from the Bourne films but there are a few flaws here that stick out like a sore thumb. Since other hands are involved here as well (Scott Burns and George Nolfi), I am prepared to give Gilroy the benefit of the doubt and trust he wasn't responsible (since Nolfi wrote "Timeline", "Ocean's Twelve" and "The Sentinel", guess who my money is on). So what's the problem? Well for a start, the Simon Ross character is meant to be a security correspondent with The Guardian newspaper and yet makes the mistake of mentioning the word "Blackbriar" on the telephone. Surely a security correspondent at The Guardian whose job consists of studying the Security Services and their methods would be aware of the ability of the National Security Agency to harvest key words from all the telephone conversations that take place around the world. Are Guardian journalists really that stupid? (well, okay, perhaps they are) Of course, the problem for the film is that without the NSA and the CIA latching onto Ross at the start of the film, there would be no way of them finding Bourne. Another problem is the way in which Bourne happens to discover he is the subject of an article by Ross by coincidentally picking up a copy of The Guardian and reading it. Pretty unlikely (especially as Bourne hardly strikes me as the sort of person who would read The Guardian anyway) but without Bourne reading the article, he would have no reason to contact Ross and start the plot rolling. This sort of lazy writing to cut plot corners affects a film where credibility and believability are important (more so than a Bond film where you can readily suspend your disbelief given the usually fantastic nature of the plots). Also the plot timeline is a bit confusing because it follows immediately after Bourne's car chase in Moscow at the end of the last film, seemingly forgetting about the final telephone conversation between Bourne and Pamela Landy which came after that (although this is explained later on in the film, it was a bit confusing at first). My last complaint is the updated version of Extreme Ways over the closing titles. It's awful and if Moby isn't responsible, he should sue. The original version is a classic and this bastardized version is the aural equivalent of painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa (if we don't complain now, who knows what we'll get to hear next? Madonna singing the theme tune to a Bond film?)
Still, small gripes for a film that still manages to beat the opposition hands down (including, dare I say it, "Casino Royale"). Perhaps better to finish the franchise there though rather than risk ruining it with a fourth film.