Jason Bourne (2016)
★★ / ★★★★
“Jason Bourne,” written by Paul Greengrass and Christopher Rouse, is like a mediocre greatest hits collection in that it plucks a few of the best elements from the excellent first three films and repackages them in a less inspiring way. While a smile was drawn on my face upon seeing Matt Damon playing the enigmatic title character after ten years, the writing does not offer enough good reasons to get viewers to invest once again in the bone-crunching journey of the amnesiac assassin.
The plot is propelled by an ally, Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles), hacking into U.S. government files and discovering that Bourne’s father was involved in establishing Operation Treadstone, CIA’s black ops program where recruits are trained to become highly effective assassins. Although Bourne has learned that he signed up for the program voluntarily, there is new evidence that perhaps Bourne, previously named David Webb, was in fact manipulated to join. Meanwhile, the CIA director, Robert Dewey (Tommy Lee Jones), is preparing to launch a similar hitman program named Iron Hand and requires the help of a young entrepreneur (Riz Ahmed) in order to spy on the users who use his technology.
There is only one standout action sequence and it is shown early in the picture. It takes place during a night riot in Athens, Greece where Parsons and Bourne decide to meet so the former can inform the latter what she has found. Great tension is eventually established because director Greengrass’ handheld technique is married with the increasingly violent protest while Bourne and company weave themselves in and out of tricky situations. We get the impression we are participants in, not merely viewers of, the action. The sequence reaches its peak when Parsons and Bourne, on a motorcycle, are chased by an assassin (Vincent Cassel) in a car. Extremely sharp turns, teeth-chattering stairs, and pedestrians appear to be everywhere.
I enjoyed that the hitman this time around is relevant from the beginning till the end of the picture. In previous films, they are disposed of during the second or right before the third act—and so we expect the same to happen here. Cassel has always had a knack for playing cold, lethal men—and he is rock solid here—but an argument can be made that the asset could have been a more effective and memorable villain given his role in the new information Parson has come upon. The duel between Bourne and the asset is appropriately brutal but expected.
The final action sequence in Las Vegas becomes more disappointing the longer one thinks about it because such lack of realism has no place in the Bourne movies where less is often more. The vehicular chase down the Strip is similar to that of the later “Fast and the Furious” films in terms of its excessiveness to the point of disbelief. While such an approach works for that franchise, it does not work here. Compare the Vegas chase to the Moscow chase in Greengrass’ “The Bourne Supremacy.” It is clear that latter is much better in framing the action and translating the balance between suspense and thrills.
While still classier than many action-thrillers to come out of Hollywood, being passably entertaining is not good enough for this franchise because the bar is set so high. The acting and technical elements like camerawork, use of score, and editing are in a good place, but the writing is a big disappointment, failing to inspire itself and despite itself.
Between Us (2012)
★ / ★★★★
“Between Us,” based on a play by Joe Hortua,” is likely to be compared to Mike Nichols’ “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” because it involves two couples, one pair being alcoholic, and the fights that transpire over a period of time. However, the film is more appropriate to be compared to Norman Jewison’s “Dinner with Friends,” also based on a play, because the audience observe the couples during two time points: one when Grace (Julia Stiles) and Carlo (Taye Diggs) are happy but Sharyl (Melissa George) and Joel (David Harbour) are miserable and the other when the tables are turned.
For the most part, it is an exhausting experience to sit through director Dan Mirvish’ ineffective but well-meaning picture. Although the right performers are hired for the job, the script simply lacks cinematic appeal. This is not an uncommon misstep when it comes play-turned-movie pieces of work but when it is made, the result is more uncomfortable than listening to nails being scraped on a chalkboard. We never forget that we are watching actors rather than being invested in deeply flawed people with serious personality or psychological issues.
The structure holds back the material’s power severely. Instead of focusing on one time point and then moving onto another, it opts to move back and forth. Although understandable because it hopes to draw certain parallels between the couples, it is the less subtle approach. The decision to move forward and back in time eliminates the tension that builds during a drawn-out scene. It does not help that characters are allowed to go outside and create distance from one another. There is a reason why the best movies of its type force characters to stay in one house. It allows the claustrophobia to build until the inevitable implosion.
There are moments when I felt the performers themselves are aware that the script is not quite right. They hide this by overacting using their body language or exaggerating certain lines when being still and not blinking or talking in a soft but commanding tone can communicate much more. Woody Allen’s near masterpiece “Interiors” is an excellent example of actors seemingly not doing much—often staring into space or through another person—but just about every emotion is hit with precision.
I had a difficult time believing that Carlo, Sharyl, and Joel went to elite private schools. Despite having the right type of clothes and unfulfilled ambitions, I did not pick up a whiff of sophistication from them. For instance, when they get into arguments, there is no tactic designed to ensnare the other to support one’s claims in a roundabout fashion. It is almost always about trying to make someone feel bad or guilty. It would have been more fun if the conversations played out like an intense chess match.
What makes these two couples special? Surely it is not just because all four of them are friends. We have seen that kind of story too many times before. Even if it were, the material should have strived to separate itself from the pack. More importantly, what do the filmmakers want us to extract from this story? That even the best of friends can turn against each other given enough time for jealousy to take root? That marriage, especially when a lack of money is involved, is a lot of hard work? If so, these are lessons we already know. How is the picture worthy of our time?