Review: The Bourne Legacy (dir. Tony Gilroy)

Story: Jeremy Renner is Alex Cross, another agent in the secret Treadstone project of the CIA. His superiors want him dead to cover up the project after Jason Bourne exposed it. Together with a doctor (Rachel Weisz) who is also on the kill list, Cross escapes and sets out to reclaim his life.

I have never been a big fan of the Bourne movies. I liked Robert Ludlum’s novels well enough, but I though that The Bourne Identity was a poor adaptation. The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum, directed by the much lauded Paul Greengrass, took their titles from the novels, but nothing else. Supremacy and Ultimatum are widely considered to have changed the face of action films. But I never much cared for that new face. The shaky camera style that makes it impossible to keep up with what is happening in an action scene is in my opinion but a trick to conceal that the filmmaker does not know how to properly shoot an action scene.

(Proper action scenes, I think, are hardly shot anymore, now that this trick has become widespread. Even the James Bond movie Quantum of Solace was hampered by it. I much prefer old-fashioned action set pieces like those directed by Michael Mann or Philip Noyce)

Where I find Greengrass’ contribution to the Bourne series to be overrated, I must admit that I was a big fan of Matt Damon as Bourne. Over the years, I’ve grown into the idea of Damon as a bona fide character actor, rather than as a Hollywood pretty boy. But for the fourth film in the Bourne series, The Bourne Legacy, both Damon and Greengrass have not returned. Tony Gilroy is now in the director’s chair. He was one of the writers of the previous films and he directed the exciting thriller Micheal Clayton. And the leading man is now Jeremy Renner, the rising star of The Hurt Locker, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and The Avengers.

In The Bourne Legacy, Renner does a decent job with admittedly poor material. This film is shockingly underthought and underwritten. Entire plot strands and developments make no sense at all (including a lengthy opening scene in Alaska). Characters are introduced and dropped at a whim, or not used at all (why Joan Allen’s Pam Landy had to reappear is a mystery to me). Curiously, the action scenes were better than they ever were in the previous films. Especially the Manila motorbike chase is a spectacle the likes of which we have not seen since The Matrix Reloaded.

Verdicht: This film will entertain as long as you do not overthink it. Renner and Weisz are always a pleasure. There is some realy good action. But I can’t escape the thought that this was an idea for just another action movie first, and that the Bourne label got stuck onto it later, for marketing purposes only. And exactly that change has made this film such a mess.

Action Franchises: Resurrected!

Three film franchises have been “officially rebooted” this week. To quite some enthusiasm on my behalf I must say.

Christopher Nolan officially admitted that he will direct his third Batman film (after Batman Begins and The Dark Knight). The fact that he is very pleased with the material and the script (which he penned down with his brother Jonathan) suggests that the screenplay is nearly done. Nolan refuses to go into details, although his commitment to the project makes it likely that Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and possibly Morgan Freeman will return for the third film.

Meanwhile, Warner Brothers have a second super hero franchise to boast about: Superman. Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns (2006) was a tad of a disappointment, so for the reboot they have now hired Zack Snyder as a director. Snyder already made Dawn of the Dead, 300 and Watchmen for Warners. His Legends of Guardians premiered this week and his forthcoming Sucker Punch is highly anticipated. He is regarded a visionary director on the level of the visuals, but his films are sometimes criticized for lacking in content. However, with a story written by David Goyer (Batman Begins) and Christopher Nolan (him again), and with Nolan as a producer overlooking the project, the quality of the project’s content seems safeguarded.

A third franchise rebooted this week (and let’s just say it is saved from the graveyard) is the Jason Bourne series. After Paul Greengrass quitted the series due to financial disputes with studio Universal, lead actor Matt Damon pulled out to. Now that Universal have signed Tony Gilroy to direct The Bourne Legacy, they hope to persuade Damon to come back. Gilroy did writing work on the previous Bourne films, and directed such thrillers as Michael Clayton and Duplicity. Gilroy allegedly wasn’t happy about the way the former three Bourne films worked out, so this time he’ll have the chance to do things his way (as he also wrote the script for Legacy). I’m not as thrilled by the news as I was about the other two franchises. I remain one of the few people who consider Matt Damon completely unconvincing as an action hero, and I thought the third film (The Bourne Supremacy) was uninspired, with the car chase being a complete copy of the Moscow set chase from the second film. However, if Damon decides not to return, Gilroy and producer Frank Marshall will be forced to find a new original take on the material that may even please me (considering that I really liked Robert Ludlum’s novels).

Together with the recent confirmation that the as of yet untitled ‘Bond 23′, directed by Sam Mendes and starring Daniel Craig, is back online after the financial misadventures of studio MGM, these news flashes confirm that very little will really change in action film land. Thankfully.

Spicy and Ambitious – The Salt review

Tom Cruise did not want to play Ed Salt, a CIA agent accused of being a Russian sleeper spy. He thought the character resembled Mission: Impossible’s Ethan Hunt too much. Cruise was more interested in spoofing the Hunt character in Knight and Day. The other Hot Big Hollywood Action Star, Matt Damon, was too busy making an outdated political argument about Iraq, so the producers turned to… Angelina Jolie.

And why not? Jolie is not only a talented dramatic actress (see Girl, Interrupted, A Mighty Heart and Changeling), she also knows her way around action scenes, as she showed in the Tomb Raider films, in Mr. & Mrs. Smith and in Wanted. The producers only had to change Ed Salt into Evelyn Salt and, ironically, introduce a third-act plot-gimmick that brings the character even closer to Ethan Hunt.

Salt is directed by Philip Noyce. Not a very big name, but an action specialist who previously directed the Tom Clancy adaptations Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger, and who worked with Jolie previously on The Bone Collector (1999). In this film Noyce delivers again. Many directors have great difficulty filming action scenes in such a way that you know what happens to whom at what moment. Remarkably, this is especially true for such action ‘specialists’ as Michael Bay, McG (who? Oh, the one that destroyed the Terminator franchise), Tony Scott and John Woo. It is les true for recently celebrated directors such as Christopher Nolan and Paul Greengrass, but they too throw in some really confusing action scenes now and then. Spielberg is great at action scenes (think T-Rex versus Jeeps in Jurassic Park), and James Cameron too, despite Avatar. Noyce is part of that little group. The action scenes in Salt are crisp and clear, even when Evelyn Salt tries to escape her former colleagues by jumping from one truck onto another, creating a chaos that beats the current nine day traffic jam near Beijing. Whatever inconsistency or confusion there is to Salt has not so much to do with the direction as with the screenplay.

Kurt Wimmer’s script has a quick start, introducing the main characters, and then blowing up their little cozy Central Intelligence world with the screenwriting equivalent of a cluster bomb: The protagonist of the film, played by one of the biggest stars on the planet, is the bad guy. Excuses, bad girl. Even better, she is a Russian bad girl set out to kill the Russian president in New York and thereby kick-start World War 3 (gotta love Russian crooks, no Muslim terrorist or Colombian drug lord can beat them). Or is she not? Irony to all of this is of course that Jolie, who has belched out the weirdest exotic accents in film history (Alexander, Beowulf), speaks perfectly plain American English in this film. Any normal person would of course turn herself in to prove that the deranged old defector making the accusations against her is lying. But not Salt. Before she turns herself in she has to secure the safety of her arachnologist (spider scientist!) husband. Hence the escaping and the truck-bouncing.

If this sounds over the top to you, then please note: this is only the set-up. And you know what? It works. And it works throughout the second act, in which it becomes ever more uncertain whether Salt is indeed who she is accused of being, and which ends on an emotional bang quite unlike any in a major blockbuster since the Joker blew up Maggie Gyllenhaal. It is only in the third act that the script makes a double backwards flip-flop and gets annoyingly unrealistic. Until then it works.

Salt is in its scope and in its depth an ambitious undertaking with strong franchise potential (although Salt’s husband will not turn into Spider Man). It challenges the audience to doubt its protagonist and star, and succeeds to uphold this doubt longer than one is used to. If only for this, and for the clear action scenes, the film comes recommended.

An agenda where the heart should be – the ‘Green Zone’ review

Green Zone feels a bit outdated. It is, partly for that reason, also not very effective as a political commentary. It is more The Bourne Ultimatum than United 93, when compared to director Paul Greengrass’ best known other films. Not a bad film however. As an action film and a conspiracy-thriller, it is very satisfying.

 

Green Zone, lightly based on the non-fiction book Life in the Emerald City by Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran, tells the story of Roy Miller (Matt Damon), an army officer charged with finding weapons of mass destruction in recently liberated/occupied Baghdad. Of course he does not find them, and there the plot of the film starts off, when Miller is brought in by CIA agent Martin Brown (the always admirable Brendan Gleeson) to uncover the plot that lead to the war in Iraq. More needs not be said about the plot. It is sufficiently engaging for the length of the film but also instantly forgettable, inevitably lost track off during frantic night-time chases in labyrinthine Baghdad. The dialogue is a bit over-explaining, but just about exactly-not-too-political to become annoying. Commendable performances, next to Gleeson’s, are given by Amy Ryan as an American journalist (ab)used by government snake (typical Greengrass character) Poundstone (Greg Kinnear) and by the unknown Khalid Abdalla, who plays an Iraqi ex-soldier translating for Miller.

Three things more need to be said of Green Zone. The first concerns Matt Damon. For if this film makes one thing perfectly clear, then it is the fact that Damon does not work as an action or drama protagonist. He is a blank sheet, exemplified by his face, which is as immediately recognizable as that of any Hollywood star, but as incapable of emotion as that of a computer game avatar. In the odd example of the Bourne films this worked – as Bourne is the perfect soldier without a memory – but in any other case it stands in between Damon and any empathy from the audience. Matt Damon is a much more enjoyable actor in glamorous and nonsensical comedies as The Informant! and the Ocean films, or as a supporting actor in for instance Invictus. He is therefore also more of a Steven Soderbergh actor than a Paul Greengrass actor. Despite Greengrass’ and Damon’s plans to make more movies together.

The second thing to be mentioned is the hand-held ‘shaky’ cinematography, by now a signature mark of Paul Greengrass. Together with the gritty, unglamorous look and nature of the Bourne films it has transformed the genre of action films over the last decade. It even seriously endangered the future of the James Bond franchise to such a degree that the last Bond film (Quantum of Solace) was accused by some critics of being a Bourne rip-off. Green Zone is a master-class of everything that can be good about this type of cinematography, at least, the first hour-and-a-half is. During these first two acts the audience is brought in close contact with the reality of post-invasion Iraq and the surrealism of the ‘green zone’, where the Allies set up headquarters. However, the final act, basically one long chase through night-time Baghdad, shows its major flaw: the inability to keep track of characters and actions leads to an inability to be engaged with the story and to care for the protagonist. Green Zone is therefore also a case-study in how far this style of filming can successfully go.

The last thing to be said about Green Zone regards the inevitable comparison with multiple Oscar winner The Hurt Locker. A comparison that does not end favorably for Green Zone. It has a much higher profile and budget, but fails to blow you away, or even cling onto you for more than a day. Its politics are severely outdated: WMDs (or the lack of them) are old news, booby-trap bombs are still an everyday concern in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is even more painful if you consider that relevant politics is what Greengrass aims for. Where The Hurt Locker has a heart, Green Zone has an agenda. That, taken together with Roy Miller’s (or Matt Damon’s) emptiness, is ultimately symbolized in the final shot. Instead of a medium shot of the protagonist off to dismantle another bomb (Jeremy Renner in The Hurt Locker) we get an establishing helicopter shot of working Iraqi oil refineries. Do you get the point? Do you get the point now?

BLAM! – The blockbuster season kick-off preview

The Oscars being handed out yesterday, it is now time to forget about ‘good’ movies and focus on what is really exciting and important in cinema: the blockbuster season! The annual killer showdown between the most expensive and heavily marketed films of the year. Usually a summer full of sequels, prequels and comic book adaptations with scarcely dressed beautiful people and overdoses of explosions in them.

Some films that feel like they belong in the blockbuster season actually stay away from it. Avatar for instance came out just before Christmas, in order to draw the families to the cinema during the holidays and stay on the awards radar. Sherlock Holmes is a typical summer blockbuster at first sight, but was a bit too quirky and off-beat to be able to survive the annual onslaught in May and June. Thus it was a smart move to release it in the winter. The same was probably true for Roland Emmerichs apocalypse film 2012, although that could’ve done fine in the summer.

However, the majority of BLAM’s (Big Loud Action Movies) is released between April and August. These months have gradually developed into blockbuster season, since Jaws was the American summer surprise hit of 1974, and Star Wars: A New Hope drew fan boys in for consecutive viewings in 1977.

So what’s to look forward to this year?

Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon will bring Jason Bourne (well, not exactly) to Baghdad, in spy thriller/war movie The Green Zone. It is released just before the summer season really starts, which is probably good, because it might be too political and difficult to be a BLAM in the proper sense. Although it is big and loud and definitely a movie.

The really big films this year will have to be Iron Man 2 and Clash of the Titans. Iron Man was a pleasant surprise in 2008, mainly due to the charisma of its star, Robert Downey Junior. The trailers for the sequel look marvelous, but there is a grave danger lurking: the film is overcast. Next to RDJ its credits feature Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansen, Samuel L. Jackson, Sam Rockwell AND Mickey Rourke. It has at least three major villains, and is also supposed to connect to the Hulk franchise and the Avengers project. It almost sounds like a commercial for other Marvel releases and franchises than as a movie in its own right.

Clash of the Titans will be a remake of Desmond Davis’ 1981 original, this time directed by Louis Leterrier (The Incredible Hulk). Sam Worthington stars as Greek demi-god Perseus, who had to battle all kinds of mythical beasties to save a princess. He is joined by Ralph Fiennes, Liam Neeson and Gemma Arterton, while supporting roles are properly filled with decent actors. It seems more balanced than Iron Man 2.

The more serious film fans will look forward to Robin Hood, which rejoins the Gladiator success pair of Ridley Scott and Russel Crowe, who plays the titular hero in what appears to be a gritty, ‘dark’ version of the legend. It has a great supporting cast with amongst others Max von Sydow, Mark Strong, Cate Blanchett and William Hurt. The risk is of course that it will not be ‘as good’ as Gladiator, and thereby disappoint the big audience.

Whereas Scott and Crowe move on to the Middle Ages, two less known films take place in Britain in the time of the Roman Empire. Centurion, properly taglined ‘Fight or Die’, seems most interesting. A splinter group of Roman soldiers has to fight its way back to safety after their legion has been ambushed and annihilated. It has a strong cast, headed by the amazing Michael Fassbender. Supporting roles are filled by Olga Kurylenko (the Bond girl from Quantum of Solace), Dominic West and David Morrissey. Centurion will have stern competition from The Eagle of the Ninth, which is about that same ill-fated legion. A slightly lower profile, but still a strong cast with Mark Strong (again) and Donald Sutherland supporting the young leads: Jamie Bell and Channing Tatum.

Smaller releases include Sylvester Stallone’s (yes, him) The Expendables, an original story about a group of mercenaries, featuring Sly himself, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren and Mickey Rourke. Comparable to that, but slightly younger and more fashionable, will be The Losers. The titular group are CIA renegades, led by Jeffrey Dean Morgan, but having as its greatest asset The Wire’s Idris Elba. Zoe Saldana will play the romantic interest. Finally, in this same vein, there is of course the big screen adaptation of The A-Team, which you just have to look forward to because it is The A-Team. Plus it has Liam Neeson as Hannibal and District 9’s Sharlto Copley as Murdoch.

Take your pick, I will see most of it and report.

PS I do not mention Prince of Persia and the Sands of Time, because it is a videogame adaptation and these are by definition rubbish. However, if it proves me wrong I will humbly admit that…

Give it Oscars! – The ‘The Hurt Locker’ Review

William James is a dedicated employee. He lives for his job. He is creative, audacious and extremely succesful. Which means that he is still alive. Because his job is not an ordinary one: he diffuses bombs in Baghdad, for the US Military. His subordinates, who have to protect him while he does his work, are not so happy with his unpredictable behavior, but his commanding officer almost admires William. The Hurt Locker follows James (Jeremy Renner) and his colleagues during the last thirty-five days of their tour in a series of ever more suspenseful encounters with bombs, snipers and possibly innocent civilians.

Kathryn Bigelow’s film is nominated for nine Oscars, just as Avatar, made by her former husband James Cameron. But it is exactly 17.3 times as good as Avatar. Unlike its competitor it is exciting, thrilling, adrenaline arousing actually. It feels incredibly realistic, not in the least because of the shaky cinematography, which was popularized for action films in the Paul Greengrass ‘Jason Bourne’ films. It therefore also makes one curious about Greengrass’ new film, The Green Zone, which also deals with the American occupation of Iraq.

The Hurt Locker is just over two hours long, but feels much shorter. This in contrast to Avatar, which was about forty-five minutes longer but felt like a week. Also, it does not have 3-D graphics, but three dimensional characters. Jeremy Renner stands out as William James, but Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty are very impressive as his ambitious but insecure subordinates.

The Hurt Locker is a film about men, but it’s not a film just for men. And there we stumble upon an interesting paradox regarding both Bigelow and James Cameron: the latter is often characterised as a filmmaker with a knack for strong female performances and characters. Aliens’ Ripley for instance, Sarah Connor from the Terminator films. Or even Kate Winslet’s character from Titanic. Also, in Avatar, the best performances (or at least those that managed to stand out despite everything else in the film) were those of Zoe Saldana and Sigourney Weaver. Kathryn Bigelow on the other hand has proven herself very able when it comes to squeezing great performances out of male actors. Renner is still a relative unknown, but others are Liam Neeson and Harrison Ford in K-19, Ralph Fiennes in Strange Days and Patrick Swayze and Keanu Reeves in Point Break.

As remarkable of the current showdown between Cameron and Bigelow, or Avatar and The Hurt Locker, at this year’s Oscar ceremony may therefore be, it is nonetheless a rather predictable one. Experts agree that Avatar will pick up Best Picture and Bigelow will take the Best Director statue home. The somewhat plagued movie industry needs the biggest grossing film ever to win this prize, and Bigelow would be the first female director to win. Fortunately, the Academy has surprised us before, both in negative (Crash’s win over Brokeback Mountain anyone?) and positively (getting Scorsese his due for the frankly not so great The Departed).

I say fortunately, because, as I argued: The Hurt Locker is exactly 17.3 times as good as Avatar. It is gripping, exciting, suspenseful, emotional and politically relevant without taking sides or scoring for open goal. All things that Avatar is not. It is quite surprising actually that conservative American critics dubbed the film anti-American, for the soldiers themselves appear to be humane and dedicated, and they show a heart for the suffering of the Iraqi people. The dramatic and emotional core of the film is actually William James’ relation to both his own son and a Baghdad street kid with whom he plays soccer.

Please, dear Academy members. Give The Hurt Locker all the Awards it so much deserves over that other film that was nominated so often. What’s its name again? I forgot, because I just saw one of the best films of the year.