Movie Reviews: The Bourne Identity

June 20, 2002

The Bourne Identity Ever since the first trailers appeared for this, I thought it looked cool, with a nifty twist on the spy thriller. A bit later on, when Cuvarack told me it was based on a book by Robert Ludlum, I borrowed it and read it (slowly I'll admit), finishing it not long before the movie was out. I heard that they did the movie "in the spirit of the book, so I was a bit worried :) Caution: some plot is discussed, with spoilers hidden, but read with caution!

I have very rarely seen a good book->movie translation, much less it come out a good movie. I'll talk about the differences between the book and movie, as well as the movie itself.

First of all, the movie is not bad if you don't mind a mindless and relatively predictable spy romp. A cheap-night movie I think. The movie is full of cool chases (the fantastic car chase is very exciting, and almost an advertisement for the Austin Mini (recently re-done and on sale... conspiracy anyone?). There are plenty of explosions, fighting (brutal and non-stylized as someone noted, which was cool to see), and nifty spy stuff.

Both Matt Damon as Jason Bourne and Franka Potente (of Run Lola Run) as Marie, were good, and played their parts, mostly well.

See, here's where my bitch comes in. Having read the book, I know the history of the characters, and felt they were completely cardboard and two dimensional compared to how they could have been. That's a bias on my part, however. Some things were just un-realistic. We all know Bourne is a killer or agent of some sort, yet he seems oddly compassionate, and quick to fall hard for a complete stranger. Wouldn't someone in his position be more used to being emotionless, or at least, able to use people when they are needed more easily? What others around me who had not read the book noted was that it was a bit too simple a story, even for the context of a movie. The ending was just a bit to abrupt, and left a sour taste coming out of the movie.

Now I'm going to discuss why I felt things were too simple, easy, and two dimensional, by comparing the book to the movie, citing specific examples. The text will be white on white however, so if you wish to read highlight the big blank areas with your mouse. If you want to be surprised, or really don't care what I have to say, don't :)

In the book, the plot involving just who Jason Bourne was is a far more complicated affair than in the movie, and I felt that even if they had just grabbed a bit of that, they'd have made the movie characters more realistic and given them some much needed depth. In the movie, he was not an assassin, but someone who can sneak in, do a job, and sneak out undetected. Somewhere along the way, he grew a conscience, and couldn't kill a target, and got his ass shot because of it. He doesn't report in, or follow procedure, and his department ("Treadstone") decides (rather quickly) to take him out.

They try, and fail on more than one occasion, and in the end, he basically says "I don't want to do this any more," and walks away (after killing a few other agents coming after him of course).

It's that, disappointingly simple.

In the novel it's a much more delicious affair. Jason Bourne was a member of an elite squad who are trained killers. He is "Delta", the guy in front of him, Charlie goes freelance and turns into "Carlos", a killer for hire. In an attempt to draw out Carlos, Delta (Bourne) becomes "Cain", another killer for hire, rampaging across Europe, taking jobs left right and center, killing people almost indiscriminantly, and seriously infringing on Carlos' turf. Only thing is, he's not really taking the jobs. His department (in the book it is "Treadstone 71") has infiltrated and compromised all sorts of intelligence in Europe and is feeding false information to people, making it look like Cain (Bourne) is taking all these jobs. As the things he has supposed to have done must have the illusion of firsthand knowledge, Bourne has been drilled with this information, and when he loses his memory, this information remains, making it seem like he could have done these things.

His meeting with Marie is also far less boring than "I'll give you $20k to take me to Paris." He takes her hostage to escape from a rather bad situation, and keeps her until he can get what he wants, and that is, to escape to Paris. At one point he is faced with the decision to either leave her to be attacked and raped by a Bad Guy who is part of the group looking for him, or leave her. He chooses to rescue her. This does a couple of things. One it, tells her he's not that bad a guy. Second, it keeps them together a bit longer, and starts what turns into love and romance. Third, it tells her that he is not the brutal killer that he thinks himself to be, when faced with the realization that he must be the assassin Cain.

Even just making it so that in the movie Bourne was not really a killer, but a fake killer planted to draw out a real one would have added some nice depth to the character, and allow for some of his decidedly non-super-spy actions.

One of the other bitches I had with Bourne in the movie was he really didn't seem like a cold hard killer, or super-spy. In the book he was almost always in control, and knew what was best all the time. If he got Marie to go into a bank and do [X], and then call him at an exact time, relay information and then do [Y], there's a damn good reason for it, and there are consequences if it is not done properly. Also, part of his role of super-spy in the book was his ability to, even though his memory was blank, adapt instantaineously to a situation and socially engineer people, or assume a plausible role, attitude, or just know what to say to someone to get what he wanted. Matt Damon's character didn't have this as strongly as I would have liked, probably due to the adapation and writing more than his characterization. He seemed pretty much himself, the Matt Damon persona, and the Matt Damon persona doesn't fit the role of super-spy.

So what does that all add up to? A fun romp, but in the end unfulfilling. Best to wait on this one, or better yet, read the book.

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/Title?0258463
Starring: Matt Damon, Franka Potente
Website: http://www.thebourneidentity.com
Posted by Arcterex at June 20, 2002 12:41 AM

Comments

(FYI, I have not read the book.. yet). Just a comment on why he seemed so compassionate in the movie: amnesia. A number of movies have done this trick, where the character gets amnesia somehow, and becomes a totally different person (Long Kiss Goodnight being another case). They start remembering who they were, and decide they don't like it. Not exactly a fault in the movie, as you seem to make it. Other than that point, I'd have to agree that it's a decent action, not spy, flick. But I enjoyed it immensely.

Posted by: darkjedi on July 1, 2002 06:39 PM

I have to agree with the above review stating that the Matt Damon film is a disappointment. Having read the entire trilogy by Robert Ludlum, I was expecting a much better portrayal of the story. In fact, the movie has very little in common with the book, except for a few basic ideas. The background and development of the characters is totally different. The book builds up the characters and plot in an intelligent, realistic and intricate manner. The movie on the other hand, is just a flashy hollywood farce. It even leaves out a crucial character in the book, Carlos.

I could go on and on about the differences between the book and the movie. Anyone out there that has read the book would already know what I'm talking about. There was a tv miniseries starring Richard Chamberlain made in 1988, which is much more accurate to the book than the 2002 Matt Damon version. The Chamberlain film is a decent movie, but it still doesn't compare to Ludlum's novels. The original Bourne trilogy is one of the best works of fiction I have ever read. I guess no movie could ever capture that same spirit, but they could have done a much better job than this recent attempt. The 2002 movie is a horrible disgrace in that respect. Bottom line: If you want to see a shallow hollywood movie with a lot of ridiculous stunts and special effects, go watch the Matt Damon film. But if you want to read an amazing story about a truly fascinating character, do yourself a favor and read the book.

Posted by: Daedalus on August 14, 2002 12:02 AM

I thought it was just me!! Having only just seen the film (not a great movie buff), but having read the trilogy a long time ago, I now wish I hadn't seen the film! WHAT A DISAPOINTMENT. I found it to be so far detached from the literary script that I've started to read the first book again just to prove that I wasn't suffering from memory failure.
Non- relative story line, characters that don't fit the part, a failure to capitalise on what could have been a great basis for an attention grabbing intelligent film for once - WHAT A WASTE!!!!

Posted by: nobby c s on February 3, 2003 12:52 PM

Ok, hate to say it but I disagree. I too have read the book and although it took me awhile to adjust to the fact that the movie was going to be different than the book, there was just no way around it. Lets face it, the book was great but was too complex to turn into a 90 minute movie with out major plot changes. There was just no way to cram all that info into a movie you could sit through without 6 bathroom breaks and your butt going numb.

Posted by: NigelTheFish on March 3, 2003 05:45 AM

Oh and I forgot to mention: the DVD's other ending sucked big time.

Posted by: NigelTheFish on March 3, 2003 06:10 AM

I mostly just need to vent. This trilogy of books are among my favorites and I was nothing but excited to see how they had adapted this for a movie. I was willing to compromise because, as you have all noted the book WAS a little confusing to be a movie. But what came out of that movie was only "Bourne" in name and nothing from the original story or characters seemed to be maintained.

I'm sorry but I think this movie was just drivel so that it could be peddled to a larger audience. Had everybody involved put a little more effort into keeping the original storyline...and at the same time giving audiences SOME credit for intelligence...this could have been a significantly better movie.

Posted by: Brian Sawyer on March 14, 2003 01:18 AM

dudettes! what the fuck was that? i wanted to see some naked people and see some hardcore sex! i give it a 2 thumbs DOWN!!!

Posted by: cristine bax on September 24, 2003 07:58 PM

I being 19 never heard of the book before the movie came out. I saw the movie in theatres and I fell in love with it. I have put off reading the book for sometime but finally began reading it two days ago. I knew there would be differences in the book from the movie and thats ok. Jurasic Park wasnt the same as the book niether was Dracula amoung many others. If you can get past it being different than the book it's a all together fun sexy little movie. I do agree Bournes character is more realistic in the book and alot more gritty. I hope they make a few more Bourne films and finish off the series with Supremecy and Ultimatum.

The movies different from the book but I highly suggest both.

Feel free to email me any other bourne fans out there.

Posted by: John S. on October 5, 2003 03:47 PM

crapy! not it was good but not as good as matt damon

Posted by: bradly on November 13, 2003 12:14 PM