Not all that great, actually

Rating: 6/10 (11 August 2007)

The Bourne Ultimatum, like the other 2 movies in the so-called trilogy, promises to be three things, and fulfilling any of the three promises would make it a satisfactory moviefulfilling all three could make it great. It promises to be a political thriller, a psychological drama, and a pure action movie. Unfortunately, the Bourne films, especially this one, fail to deliver on all three promises. The first two are obviousthe politics of the movie are way too vague to support a plot (ooooh, there are shadowy conspiracies running amok in the higher echelons of the security establishmentso original), and the Bourne character is so underdeveloped (and the amnesia plot so hackneyed) that I don't see how anyone could care about these movies as psychological dramas. That leaves action.
The Bourne Ultimatum comes closest to delivering when it comes to its promise to be a good action flick. There are fight scenes, chases, explosions, near-death experiences, and tense confrontations. But I have a problem with the way the action sequences in the Ultimatum are filmed (this has been true of all three Bourne movies): the fight sequences are so fast and chaotic, that you really can't tell what's happeningyou take it on faith that Jason Bourne is kicking the bad guy's ass, and when the bad guy's on the ground when things settle down, you figure you must have been right. I guess it's kind of like the Psycho shower scene on crystal meth. And maybe that's the point. Hitchcock would have liked to have shown more actual violence, gore, bloodshed, and nudity, but he knew he could never get that kind of scene past the censors, so he got creative, and since Hitchcock was a genius, his creativity produced a murder sequence that is probably better than anything more gory and explicitly violent could have been. I have a feeling that the action sequences in Bourne have been shot and edited in this hyper-fast, frenetic style, in part, to secure the valuable PG-13 rating. After all, what's Bourne supposed to be good at? Inflicting unthinkable injuries on people in a very short time. If we really got to see this clearly, it would be gross. It would not be PG-13 fare. Plus, Matt Damon would have to know how to fight really well, or the filmmakers would have to get even more clever with stunt doubles. Instead, we get fight scenes in a blender and chase scenes shot so close that we don't know whose car we're seeing, what direction we're going in, or who's crashing into whom.
OK, so, what's the problem? After all, I love Hitchcock, and I think the impressionistic shower scene was brilliant. So why do I dislike the action sequences in Bourne movies? Well, when I see an action film, I guess I've grown accustomed to seeing the action. My complaint about Batman Begins was the same: this guy trained to be a bad-ass fighter, and now whenever I see a fight scene it's too sliced up and dark for me to get a good look at him using those hard-won skills. Give me Jet Li or Michelle Yeoh...or even Bruce Willis...anydayI'm paying $10.50 for my action, so I'd like to see it please.
There will be more Bourne movies. But I think I've paid to see my last one.