Important things to know about The Bourne Ultimatum:
- If the second movie made you motion-sick, this one will too. Though less so, for me.
- There is an elderly white man with a full face and glasses in this movie. Though he strongly resembles Brian Cox, who was in the first two movies, they are not the same person.
- The characters of Pamela Landy and Noah Vosen (new to this movie) both have henchmen with pale skin and very short dark hair. Though the henchmen strongly resemble each other, they are not the same person.
(Seriously, both Chad and I thought they were and it was going to be a plot point. Did no-one involved in the movie notice this? Movie-makers, if you wanted to make a point by having all of the office-types in the CIA white (and maybe you did), at least give them different hair colors or something.)
(Speaking of which, I'm aware that many comments have come in on the defaults post while I was running errands, working on other things, and having dinner and a movie. No-one wants me to answer them while I'm motion-sick, however, I assure you.)
- The movie picks up immediately after the close of the main action of Supremacy and incorporates the coda within its body.
- Yes, there are lots of exciting action scenes, and Bourne is still just that cool.
The rest is spoilery and behind the cut.
I was a bit confused about the timeline, at first, because of the coda to Supremacy. (And didn't that show Bourne on a rooftop, not inside a building?)
I think that contributed to my feeling up to the big reveal, that the movie wasn't getting very far: we already knew that he
had been born under originally had another name, and that Bad Things had been done to him.
And then the big reveal was lame. Bourne had to be tortured into becoming an assassin? So . . . none of it was really his fault, oh, how nice.
How much more interesting would it have been if he'd agreed, known what he was getting into and consented (I mean, how could he have thought otherwise? the world couldn't have been so much less cynical those few years ago), and then gradually came to change his mind? Wouldn't that have been much more realistic, gripping, engaging?
At the point where he regains his memories, I just shut off. Yes, Vosen should have shot Landry anyway; yes, the agency should have been able to hush it up; yes, it's not really going to root out the problems. It's all part of the little fantasy-land that the movie has slid into, and I don't mean that in a good way, either.
I've said that the first two movies were about the consequences of violence. This one ducks the consequences by removing responsibility. The hints of present-day political commentary don't change that (and might even be made less effective thereby; I'm not sure).
I do at least appreciate that the movie did not throw Bourne and Nicky Parsons together, unsubtle hair-dying-parallel and all. Am I supposed to understand why Nicky was helping Bourne, besides generalized good vibes towards someone who looks like Matt Damon and didn't kill her when he could have?
Anyway. Exciting movie, lame ending, and now my motion-sick self is off to bed.