The Bourne Identity

Superficially the 2002 Matt Damon movie is better as far as action and pacing goes and I almost passed this by seeing that Richard Chamberlain (not my favourite actor) is in it. But this is a very well made and watchable version (though slow paced). What I found most striking was that the lead characters are played by adults and it was obviously made with that audience in mind. It's supposedly truer to the original book as well. It's not quite a classic but better than I expected and a reminder of how movies (even those made for tv) used to have substance - as opposed to just being a series of strung together action sequences.

Well, finally I saw the old Bourne movie/miniseries with Richard Chamberlain as Bourne. And I have to say i pretty much LOVED it. Chamberlain's Bourne was much closer to the one in the books than Matt Dammon ever was. Okay, Dammon is a better fighter, and he plays much better than I had thought before seeing his Bourne movies. But these movies are just about totally ignoring the plot of the books, which annoyed me greatly.

In Chamberlains Bourne movie they mostly stuck to the book, with few variations. I thoroughly enjoyed myself as I could follow the plot from the books from point to point. Especially I liked the way Marie St. Jaques were portrayed by Jaclyn Smith. Okay it got a bit overly mushy on both her and Chamberlines side, but all in all they both did a fair job. Franka Potente were a LOUSY Marie in the new movies. Partly also because of the infuriating way her character were written in the script.

The only complains I have, the before mentioned overly romantic air over the movie, and that I always had the feeling I was watching a seventies movie instead of one made in 1988. The col ours, the clipping and the way the movie progressed, it was so incredibly seventies spy movie.So therefore i give this one a 7. Otherwise it would have been a sure 8maybe more.

I have just finished watching this Movie and felt very complelled to come and write a review on here.

Where to start??! A good compliament of "The Bourne Identity" is simply that the 3 hours went by very quickly, never dragged on. It would have been perfect I imagine when first screened, over two evenings and the end of the first part is an excellent cliff hanger!

I loved the way clues, plot pieces unraveled as the Movie went along. The micro chip... finding out Bourne's name?... various clues forced out of people...

Richard Chamberlain, was good, likeable. He tackled the role very well and was, in the most part, very sucessful. Jaclyn Smith, I suppose, was the reason I watched this Movie. I am a fan of hers, initially from Charlie's Angels of course, and this was the 8th Movie featuring her I have collected. Because it's the most recent one I have seen I would be inclined to say it is my favourite but I honestly think it is! Far too often her Movies are family dramas and this is a Spy Thriller!! Yay! Marie (Jaclyn's character) develops a great deal through the Movie, her preconceptions alter, she falls in love, she becomes stronger.

I get the impression the 2002 version won't spend as much time focussing on the relationship between Bourne and Marie but I think that is just as important as the action. I certainly imagine the action scenes are better. There are no major complaints I can make about the action in this 1988 version except perhaps the "fat villain" may not have been very good at it, not too convincing. To mention one other slight down side to the film (there must be + and -) the opening scene didn't look great, of the ship, looked a bit model-ly.

But that is simply because there was no huge budget, afterall it is a TV Movie, and an excellent one at that! A good cast, Paris was an inspired choice for the main location of the movie and overall this is a Movie with a fantastic plot and main cast.

"The Bourne Identity" (1988) is a faithful recreation of Robert Ludlum's book about an amnesiac slowly (in a very long book) discovering who he is. The supporting cast is dotted with veterans that make the movie come to life during their brief parts: Denholm Elliott, Anthony Quayle, Peter Vaughan, James Faulkner.

The stars strain to carry the movie. Jaclyn Smith is immensely watchable, though her range is limited. Richard Chamberlain is a fine actor, but, perhaps because of insufficient rehearsal time or because he was never able to find a character who didn't know who he was, he comes off with the range of Bill Bixby, though that keeps him from burying Smith. In the end, Chamberlain may be much too nice for the character, but he's a likable actor and she's a likable actress and they make a pretty pair.

Because it was originally a two-part television drama, the 1988 "Bourne" has sufficient time to let the story unfold, as well as to build the unlikely relationship between Chamberlain's character and Smith's. It also gives the supporting characters flesh out their meager parts. After a slam-bang first hour, the movie settles into a more leisurely pace (that occasionally drags), that builds again into an exciting final hour.

The possible overplotting, as well as the outright absurdities (such as the truth of Treadstone 21) are squarely to be laid at Ludlum's door. And though it's quite faithful to Ludlum, the setting of the climax makes this movie version far more poignant than Ludlum himself was capable of.

"The Bourne Identity" has the technology of '80s television, so newcomers shouldn't expect contemporary sensibilities. It may not be as exciting as the remake, but it has a solid storyline.

In light of its recent availability on tape and DVD (circa Sept 2002) and this year's film version there is likely to be some curiosity among movie fans about the merits of this tv movie. Here is my opinion on whether you should spend 3hours on this movie.

If you can get past Chamberlain as the hero of Ludlum's complex thriller, you will certainly enjoy the movie. The script adaptation by Carol Sobieski is very faithful to the book and it takes time to develop the romantic relationship between Bourne and Marie (a relationship that is key to the plot and to the book's sequels). Although this might discourage action fans, the complexity of the plot and the manner by which the script unfolds it, is in my opinion, very well done. The music score by Laurence Rosenthal is especially good and is not the usual tv film drek. The score is alternately eerie, menacing and moody and suitably atmospheric. The European locations are well shot by camera ace Tony Pierce-Roberts. The film looks good. The acting by a great team of seasoned pros is uniformly good (not a ham in sight!)

Some might find the key plot device---the chase for carlos---anachronistic but i think it resonates well even today when there is no shortage of villains to chase on the global stage. So savor the 188 minutes of exciting complex talespinning by an A-Team of technical crew and seasoned actors.

Incidentally the romance is largely thrown away in the 2002 film. In that version, the female lead does not figure in the development of the plot beyond acting as a device to get the hero from point A to point B. I found the intimacy depicted in the 2002 film to be rather shallow. And the film itself despite some substantial thrills and modern violence is largely unsatisfying as a result in comparison to this tv film. For a good example of excellent balance of romance and action watch how Peter Jackson (of Lord of the rings movie fame) develops the romance between Michael Fox and Trini Alvarado in the Frighteners.