Jason Bourne

Major Spoilers.

You know his name... but they still felt the need to make it the title.

Bourne's story was pretty well wrapped up last we saw him, so this movie has to make up new information to draw him back into the fight again. It comes from Nicky (Julia Stiles) who was just minding her own business hacking the CIA when she came across an interesting (new!) fact: Bourne's father Richard Webb was involved in Treadstone. This is important to Jason because of... reasons, so he starts chasing down leads and baddies again. Meanwhile, upstarty and serious CIA agent Heather Lee (Alicia Vikander) and the CIA Director (Tommy Lee Jones) catch wind of Bourne and can't resist giving chase -- in spite of the long track record of disaster for all others who have tried.

You know what this movie's problem is? Bourne Legacy. That is literally its problem. This whole movie seems to exist as some kind of incarnate indignation over Legacy's existence. It's been nine years since Ultimatum; a satisfying ending to an excellent trilogy. Now, back for no reason, Matt Damon's Bourne is older and significantly less interesting than he used to be. The movie's plot is basic and a thinly veiled excuse to bring the character back, and nothing brought to the movie brings anything worthwhile, or even new or interesting, to the table.

In some instances, quite the opposite.

In fact, they spent most of their time taking away things the franchise has given us so far. Maybe I was alone with this (I doubt it) but I personally liked the open ending of Ultimatum; an implication the there was more adventure to be had, with a happy ending somewhere nearby. I liked to imagine that once thing quieted down Jason and Nicky got together and managed to live a little. But no, this movie says. Nicky gets killed so that we can have more, bigger car chases and blurry fist fights. And no, we can't rest leaving the plot as a smart spy conspiracy; we have to throw in from left field some weird stuff about Jason's dad... to make it personal I guess? Jase, Shark. Shark, Jase.

But as offensive as all that ridiculousness is, the biggest offense here is simply that the movie just doesn't bother to be as good as any of Jason's other outings. Personally, I found that each sequel to be slightly worse, but at least they all fit together as a cohesive unit; this one tries to attach itself to the trilogy, while having more in common with Jeremy Renner's spin-off -- except without the freshness of a new face and story line. I enjoy Legacy immensely, but I do consider it to be on a lower quality level than the other Bourne movies. This one is on that step down with its general quality and being, and can't even manage to be fun and entertaining to make up for it.

I appreciate what you've done in the past, but if this is what you're gonna give us now, I'd rather someone else have a shot.

Jason Bourne has always been a great character, and Matt Damon seems incapable of failing to pull the weight of any movie, but he sure does come close here. He gets very few lines (he's never been chatty, but this is like BvS Superman-level-bad), and even when he does speak words they have nothing to do with his character at all, and are delivered so weirdly flat... I just don't get it. Why did they jump the shark to bring a personal issue to this movie if they weren't going to make Jason sympathetic, and develop the character in new ways? Yeah, he's still good at and driving, and hiding in a crowd, and punching people, and looking good with blood on his face, but it turns out that those are not things that resonate with an audience on a personal level.

I should also mention that Vikander I've always enjoyed in movies so far, but she does nothing to help out this film either. Her accent kept slipping through, her character was way too deadpan, and this is hardly her fault, but the twist of her being the bad guy in the end was poorly timed. It should have been earlier or later. Tommy Lee Jones was decent for what he had to work with. I was very impressed by his death scene, actually. On board with the wooden line delivery was Stiles. That was the only upside of her being in the film so briefly. Vincent Cassel is the obligatory cool and mysterious asset who's sicced on Bourne, and Rogue One's Riz Ahmed makes an appearance too.

*cue disappointed and resigned sigh*

Cinematography and action is the film's biggest pro. There's still a shaky-cam during a lot of the action -- sometimes it felt like the camera was being punched along with people's faces -- but that's something we've come to expect, and it wasn't too hard to follow. Otherwise there were a few memorable shots. And the climatic chase and subsequent fight scene was a well-done and entertaining piece of action. What was in the rest of movie up til then could hardly be considered action at all, let alone entertaining action.

This is a little sad. I kinda just feel sorry for everyone... mainly the characters who got dragged back out of a nice retirement for basically nothing -- just to join the ranks of "Franchises With Too Many Sequels" and films that suffer slow deaths via half-hearted sorta-reboots. Leaving well enough alone has never been in Bourne's wheelhouse, but one might have hoped that it would be for filmmakers who really care about his story and making good movies. This movie is perhaps not nearly as terrible as it could have been, but it's a long way from justifying its unnecessary and uninspired return.

Hamlet (2000)

This review is Spoiler-free.

After reading Hamlet for the first time with fellow blogger Hamlette's read-along, I was very excited to win this DVD in her giveaway, and have finally watched it!

This poster though... is beautiful.

Ethan Hawke becomes the first film version of Hamlet I've seen. The turn-of-the-21st-century Hamlet adapted and directed by Michael Almereyda is modernized to fit the day -- Denmark is a company; Elsinore is a hotel; and everyone certainly dresses like it's the year 2000. But Shakespeare's script is still used almost exclusively. The king has been murdered by his brother for his "throne" and for his wife, and the prince, Hamlet, is out for revenge.

The most obvious thing about this adaptation is it's modernization. I always have, and imagine always will enjoy modernization's of stories. They appeal to me; I'm not exactly sure why, but they do. I get a kick out of seeing the way small (and some larger) things are tweaked to fit the new era the story is set in. This movie is no exception. However, I was very early struck by the idea that this film should have actually been futuristic. Maybe it's because the year 2000 unfortunately thought it was futuristic though it was quickly proved otherwise. (Or, maybe it was just because I liked Ethan Hawke in Gattaca so much.) The tone of the film was very suppressed and understated, which is often found in science fiction dramas, and some things, like the architecture of the Hotel Elsinore, was beautifully modern. But then there were some obvious thing that are easily dated to the 2000's -- Hamlet's knitted hat, and yellow sunglasses, the women's hairstyles, and Ophelia's costumes -- all date the film, and ruin the ageless effect.

The next thing that left an impression was the tone -- like I said, very similar to a sci-fi drama, and I often do really love that kind of tone. Here I appreciated it, but often wished to be given more. But the characters usually delivered their lines with such repressed emotion that I couldn't tell any more what they were thinking any more than I could while reading.

... why did he need to be in a Blockbuster?

One of the things that excited me most about watching film adaptations of Hamlet was that I wanted to see what other people's interpretations of the story looked like. This one didn't give me as much to chew on as I expected, and most of the things left open to interpretation in the original script were also left open here. Like, when Hamlet accuses his mother of murder, I was sure she was innocent; but when she asks the king to pardon her after drinking the wine, she seems definitely guilty. Which is it? I suppose the filmmakers want us to decide, but I wanted to be convinced.

Hamlet himself took most of the change that the heavy tone created, and was almost nothing like the Hamlet I imagined. I enjoy Ethan Hawke's work, and there no one who does the kind of character he does here like he does -- the inner passion that you can see boiling under his stony face -- but he spends the movie in that state, brooding, silent, angry. Not utilizing the outward fire, or the wit, or the liveliness that Hamlet had in my mind's eye. Hawke speaks very deliberately always, and in monotones, and when he'd monologue to himself, I could never grasp the depth or the meaning behind what he was saying.

Not to say it was a bad character, but just, I thought, a bad adaptation of a character.

The best, I thought, was the king, Claudius. Kyle MacLachlan came across well through more simple, honest, easy to understand line delivery, and a natural theatricality. Horatio (Karl Geary) was more of a side character than I wanted. My impression of him from the book was that he was the noble character that witnesses everything (sort of like Nick Carraway of The Great Gatsby), so the story is more or less through his eyes. There wasn't anything to dislike about Geary's performance, so I wanted to see more of him. Liev Schreiber I enjoyed, but I had less preconceived notions about Laertes, and I am biased toward liking Schreiber.

I didn't particularly like Julia Stiles' Ophelia. I am currently not sure if I really like Ophelia at all, but while Stiles' lines were said convincingly, I never felt much for her. Well, I never felt much for any of the characters -- a side effect of the tone. Everyone else -- The Queen (Diane Venora), Polonius (Bill Murray), Rosencrantz (Steve Zahn) and Guildenstern (Dechen Thurman), were all not very impressive, but honestly, as far as my liking as appreciating characters goes, they all were none of them very high, or very low.

I wish I could put a photo of Liev Schreiber here, but alas, I could not find a single good one.

Before I actually sat down and watched this, I was kinda worried that I wouldn't feel qualified to judge it. I'm certainly a relative newbie to Shakespeare's Hamlet. So I was rather surprised when I immediately began to noticed things that I liked and didn't like about this adaptation. I wouldn't be surprised if after watching more adaptations my opinions on this one change slightly, and I definitely judge it more from the standpoint of understanding film than understanding Hamlet. But I suppose that's just it -- Hamlet, no matter how overwhelming and complicated on page, is still a film once it's put on film. And this one strikes a square balance between good and bad, by having some qualities that I really liked, and some that were disappointing.

As a film, it was engaging and enjoyable, and successfully made to suit a certain style. As an adaptation, it wasn't what I would hope for; though I'd imagine it was the adaptation someone would hope for. The coolest thing, I found, is that seeing this brought me to a full understanding, that I know what I want to see in a Hamlet adaptation, even if this isn't it. And that makes me even more excited for all the other Hamlet's I will see it the future. I doubt it will be my favorite once I have the luxury of multiples to pick from, but I am more than glad to have taken the journey.