MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

The Bourne Ultimatum (*** 1/2)

PAUL GREENGRASS HAS AGAIN TAKEN THE ESSENTIAL CIRCUS OF THE GLOBE-GIRDLING ACTION EPIC and distilled it to action/reaction/action. Arguably, The Bourne Ultimatum is as much a sequel to his United 93 as to the second Bourne entry. The dispensation with backstory in his 9/11 thriller was about the now: if we were there in that fated missile toward death, how would we D12_9410.jpg_rgb.jpgreact to what went on around us? We know the ending. What Greengrass excels at in his recent movies is sustaining moment and momentum. Knowing the then and then of the first pair of Bournes, we witness the character’s propulsion, blank-faced, cold-eyed, vein-templed, toward the idea of who he was or the fact of who he is in 2007, this killer who was tortured into shape by his own government, molded into one who reacts rather than acts, steeled by the language of contemporary spycraft and black arts. Bourne hardly speaks; the secret agency handlers like David Straitharn supply almost the entirety of the verbiage in verbal scowls comprised of the lingo of torture and “rendition” toward death in distant lands that are friendly to foul play. (Bourne’s recurrent memory of his training is comprised of two images: someone bound with their head covered by a black hood, and himself being tortured by an equivalent of waterboarding.) Greengrass exacts a narrative comprised of chases, with London’s coursing Waterloo Station the setting for one that seems unstoppable, at least until an acrobatic, athletic, mechanized chase through a Moroccan city’s streets and hillsides and rooftops that climaxes in confined space where there are two men, mano-a-mano, fighting to the death, jumpcut and accompanied only by the sounds of their lethal exertions. Finally it comes down to a book, a volume, an ordinary object, not Bible, not Koran, that becomes the deadliest threat. The winding path through the city toward this moment reduces the dilemma to its simplest part: kill or be killed. It hurts. In his movies since “Bloody Sunday,” Greengrass is less one-trick pony than one-man cavalry. This is stunning craft with quiet integrity despite the fury of its pace, and the final shot wittily suggests both a musical number and the opening graphics of a James Bond title sequence. With Joan Allen, Julia Stiles, Albert Finney. [Ray Pride.]

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Movie City Indie

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon