MOVIES 2016

Went to see a much anticipated Jason Bourne last night. Was not a pleasant experience.

Spent $20 and I probably stayed for 30 minutes of the movie. I became annoyed and then angered over multiple things, looked over to my wife and said “Do you want to go home?” Asked if I was sure, I said, “I would much rather be home with our dogs then have to sit through the rest of this.” My only regret is that I didn’t get to hear ‘Extreme Ways’ start playing at the end.

Incredibly disappointed. I am a huge fan of the first three Bourne films. Legacy was terrible. I had hoped for this to be a return to what was good. Greengrass and Damon would indicate that it was, but the truth is different. From what I actually saw, Matt Damon was fine. He didn’t write it, so he can’t help that he barely speaks, but his physical presence was pretty vintage Jason Bourne. Greengrass became the problem.

I will enumerate below and try to keep it pretty generalized and spoiler free. Since I saw maybe a quarter of the film and have read about the rest, I really don’t know many spoilers anyway.

Calling this a Shaky Cam film does not do justice to its constant and mind numbing presence. It was the overarching visual style of this movie. Greengrass is known for employing it, but I have never, ever seen it so bad and so omnipresent. Supremacy and Ultimatum had some, but it was mainly during action and, as I recall, even more coherent. In Jason Bourne, the shaking started immediately and did not let up. Even scenes at Langley in a situation room or around a conference table had a constantly moving, POV type shot. I distinctly remember a scene where the audience was viewing something stationary and the camera just shook for no apparent reason. Completely unnecessary. Action scenes were 98% incomprehensible. Combining the shaky cam with very quick editing compounded the effect to the point that you could hardly process images as they blurrily came across the screen. One other review I read aptly called Greengrass’ technique “photographic impressionism”.

Julia Stiles was particularly uninspired. She has, in times past, seemed a little distant as Nikki Parsons, which I chalked up to her character. However, this time her dispassion was painfully evident. The one scene in particular I can reference is when she and Bourne meet in the midst of a riot in Athens. She preaches to Bourne in an expository manner about what he has experienced, what he knows and how he feels; somewhat pleading with him. Amid all the chaos around her and the knowledge that she is probably being hunted, she delivers her lines completely flat and deadpan. Her voice doesn’t even modulate. Like she is reading the dialogue for the first time and half-trying to impart some very reserved emotion. It was so blatant to be distracting, especially given their stressful surroundings.

Tommy Lee Jones filled the role of basically every other (very grizzled) old CIA boss we have seen in the franchise. Nothing new there. My wife said he looked like a corpse and I had to agree.

I was somewhat impressed with Alicia Vikander as a young CIA computer data analyst, or something. She acted her part quite well, even if she also filled the established Pam Landy role of naive and idealistic inside circle operative.

Beyond the characters and shaky cam, the story itself was not very engaging. Obviously I didn’t see it through, but the premise appeared to center around an Edward Snowden - Steve Jobs - Apple -like hacking or leaking of classified documents. In trying to update Bourne for a post 2010 world, the story came off as being extremely derivative. When fictional characters or companies are synthesized analogues of recognizable ones in reality, it rubs me wrong. I kinda reminded me of watching Blackhat (with Chris Hemsworth), which coincidentally dealt with computer hacking and exotic locales. That was a lifeless movie itself, so any comparison to it is not a good sign.

There were a number of not-so-subtle callouts in the film that made me feel like my intelligence was being coddled. Or maybe they were just conveniences to visually explain the plot. Either way they were included to make it more understandable, when it really didn’t need to happen. Focusing the camera on certain on-screen words, unnecessary verbal and written exposition and even just the same archetypal characters gave the impression that the audience needs these cues to understand who the characters are and that it is a Bourne movie.

All in all, very disappointed. In one word, the film was incoherent. If you do go see in theaters, which I cannot in good conscience recommend, the farther away you sit the better; less chance of a migraine.

If Frimmel saw this movie, he may not have made it out of the theater alive. Might have blown his brains out while still in his seat. If we don’t hear from him, then we all know what happened.

Yeah, just warning you. If I was in your position I would probably go see it too. I like to form my own opinion.

I recognize the intent of shaky cam and when used succinctly I think it can be beneficial. This was constant. Literally ever shot minus the wide shots with text telling you what location you were looking at. Overkill is an understatement. It literally made me angry when I sat there watching a shot of some cops stationary with their motorcycle and was just thinking to myself… Don’t do it, please don’t do it. Don’t shake the…  And they did. Cops didn’t move or go anywhere. The camera just shook irrationally.

I really would like to hear what some other people thought about it.

@Young:

I love your reviews Hoff, I could talk movies with you for weeks… well done.

Haha, thank YG. I’d love that. I’d like to see if your opinion is similar to mine, if you see the film.

@CWO:

@Imperious:

Movies that shake the camera are indicative of a new approach to save money on special effects. If it shakes, it means basically it was filmed in a closet and they had no money for anything.

When I first started running into these kinds of messy action sequences a few years ago, my reaction at the time was to wonder: is this a case of a bad film editor wrecking a well-directed sequence or is this a case of a badly-directed sequence that even a good film editor wasn’t able to save?  I’ve gradually come to the conclusion that the answer is actually: it’s intentional, and the director and the editor are both doing it.

Agreed, however in the case of Bourne, I do not believe it was a cheap technique to hide a lack of funds for the project. They had $120 mil to work with on a predominantly, if not exclusively, practical effects movie.

As I said, Paul Greengrass (director) is known for employing this “technique” in his films. I get that it is supposed to be visceral; putting us in the action and confusion, but when you use it constantly something is wrong. It is my opinion that Greengrass wants the film to feel visceral and frenetic, like his other Bourne films, to convey the subject matter. But he completely doubled down on the approach and thought if it worked mostly in the old ones, let’s do it the whole time in this one! That’s why people love the Bourne movies!

No. No it is not.

I feel like this all started with Saving Private Ryan. At least that is where I first remember seeing the POV/shaky cam. Spielberg did a great job putting us in the landing craft and on the beach at Normandy. People were amazed at how real it felt. Use of the shaky cam in that scene was incredibly appropriate and well done; many of those seeing the film were there in 1944 and this instantly transported them back. Since 1998, the POV and shaky cam has been used to good effect and bad. When used properly (I believe most effectively in juxtaposition), it is great and emphasizes the tangibility of a scene. When you are Paul Greengrass and use it through your whole film, it just looks like a jumbled mess of someone attaching a camera to their forehead while being chased by velociraptors: head always on a swivel, eyes twitching and flinching at every sound. And the very swift editing and cutting in between viewpoints only made the shaking that much worse.

@Imperious:

In saving Ryan, it was used for two things: to create the confusion of the actual landings as to what was about to befall the soldiers, and second because they simply didn’t have 25 landing craft and 5,000 actors dressed in uniforms to perform ( like in longest day). So in this case, it worked.

That is true. Even though it wasn’t the same physical scope as Longest Day, the myopic perspective hinted at enough extra stuff going on in the chaos that it worked. Spielberg pulled it off well.

@Private:

Was Broken a good film? “Enjoyed” the book, but never went to see the film.

Broken or UNbroken?

@Private:

Unbroken it must be Hoff, since that is the theme.

Unbroken is the one about Louis Zamperini, POW of the Japanese in WWII.

I read the book also and enjoyed it, so to speak. Haven’t seen the film, but from what I have heard from others who read the book and saw the film: they said the film was okay, but it tended to compress the events of the book and transition abruptly between places and situations. FWIW.