The Bourne Catchy-Title

I read somewhere close to 300 film reviews in any given year. Sometimes I’ll read a review because I’m interested in the film. Other times, I respect the particular critic’s viewpoint or enjoy his or her writing. In all the reviews I’ve read, a subject which comes up very rarely and then only in passing, is the actual movie going experience itself.

Oh don’t get me wrong, critics love to talk about the theater as cathedral to the religion of film. They talk about the extra emotional weight a capacity crowd adds to the images on screen. And they talk about viewer reaction to particularly funny/tense/scary/emotional moments in the movie. But they never talk about waiting in line. Then paying $10 for a ticket. Then waiting in line. Then paying $15 dollars for soda and popcorn. Then waiting in line. Then filing cattle-car style into the theater only to find that all the best seats have been taken and you have to sit between Comic Book Store Guy from The Simpsons and a woman trying to nurse her crying baby. (Oh and the chair is sticky from the 5 year old who managed to spill his entire soda onto the seat in the previous showing.)

They don’t talk about any of that, because they don’t have to do any of that. No, film critics get to go to press screenings. I know because I’ve seen them. I’m on the list. No, not “THE LIST”, or even “The List.” I’m on “the list.” Every once in a great while, when the stars align (in this case the stars being a press screening for a film produced by Universal Studios, that’s in Seattle, and isn’t already full) I get an email with information on how to get two passes into the screening.

This is a very rare occurrence. In fact, it has only happened three times in six years. The first time was for a movie called The Bourne Identity. Having read and loved the Robert Ludlum novel on which the film was based, I was very excited to see it. I walked into the theater, flashed by pass at the skinny guy in the box office and was pointed toward a theater. No lines, no cash, no hassles, just walk right in and pick any seat I want. (Oh and instead of sticky dried up soda and candy wrappers on the seat, there’s a gift bag waiting for me.) Then comes the hand delivered (free) popcorn and soda. Then came the movie. And it was awesome! How can critics ever dislike a movie when it’s this much fun to go!

Last night I went to the late showing of the newest Matt Damon action-spy-thriller, The Bourne Ultimatum. The follow up to 2002’s The Bourne Identity and 2004’ The Bourne Supremacy, Ultimatum stars Damon as an amnesiac government assassin hell-bent on exacting revenge (justice?) for his lover’s murder by his former employers. (As if you didn’t know that already.) The first two films were some of the best action movies of the past decade. So good in fact that many, myself included, believe they served as the model for the re-imagining of that most ubiquitous of action heroes James Bond. This third Bourne is better. (And not just because a prediction of mine about Julia Styles’ character Nicky was proved correct.)

In the first two films Jason Bourne must fight three of his fellow assassins who have been sent to kill him. All are members of a group called Treadstone. In Ultimatum, the agents sent after Bourne belong to Treadstone’s successor Blackbriar. Presumably they are products of training methods perfected beyond what was used on Bourne who is, we find, the very first agent. In many ways they are better assassins than Bourne because of it. At one point I turned to my friend in the theater and said of one of the Blackbriar assassins, “Did that guy just outsmart Jason Bourne?!” In fact he had. Bourne then proceeds to kick the crap out of him. The enemy Bourne faces in this film is all powerful. They can tap into any security camera, listen in on any cell phone call, assassinate anyone, anywhere. But it doesn’t really matter. When they come up against Jason Bourne, they’re powerless. Is it because they represent the filmmaker’s ideas of an intelligence community with too much freedom and not enough oversight? Or because Bourne’s cause is just? Or simply because it makes for a really cracking action movie?

I prefere the third explanation. Yes, if you are so inclined you can infuse this film with some politically relevant theme. But for me that makes the film a waste of money. I paid to see a movie and have a good time, not sit through a political science lecture. And as for Bourne’s cause being just, it’s Bourne who commits the most heinous, despicable act in the whole movie. We identify with Jason Bourne because he has changed. He is no longer an assassin, but the fact remains that he killed quite a few people in cold blood and with no explanation necessary. Jason Bourne’s quest has very little to do with him being righteous. Instead, he understands that it is not enough to simply no longer be Jason Bourne. He must ensure that they’re will never be another Bourne… born. (Sorry.) And in that, the character finds at least a small bit of redemption and allows us as an audience to root for him.

But mostly there’s a lot of punching, crashing and shooting. And it’s awesome! Even if I did have to wait in line this time.