Category Archives: Thrillers

Often imitated but never surpassed, the aesthetic vision of the “Bourne” series has influenced any number of action-film franchises. Coupling hyperkinetic camera work with densely layered conspiracies and an unsettling ambiance, the first three films in the saga were edge-of-your-seat adventures that revived a moribund espionage-film genre (the less said about the fourth movie, the better).

Discarding virtually all plot elements from the ho-hum “Bourne Legacy,” “Jason Bourne” reunites franchise veteran director Paul Greengrass with star Matt Damon. Longtime Bourne compadre Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) steals a cache of files regarding the various black-ops programs we’ve seen over the course of three previous films, planning to pull an Edward Snowden and leak them online. Naturally, some of the files have to do with Bourne…pulling the off-the-grid superspy back into the fray. Tommy Lee Jones promptly shows up as the requisite sinister intelligence director (bringing a reflective sincerity to his role) and dispatches a legion of faceless forces to bring down Bourne and Nicky.

On one level, this is familiar material – and indeed, all the pieces of a Bourne film, from chaotically destructive car chases to cross-plaza sniper showdowns, are here on full display. There are a few nice change-ups though, as screenwriters steeped in digital culture weave in subplots involving “big data,” social media, and mass digital surveillance (plot points that land better than their analogues in last year’s “Spectre”). And make no mistake: the franchise-staple elements are top-notch stuff. There’s a particularly ferocious motorcycle chase in the film’s first act that takes place in the midst of a violent nighttime riot, a dimly lit hand-to-hand battle that brims with brutal intensity, and plenty of tautly paced assassination attempts.

The acting is a bit more of a mixed bag. To put it gently, this is not Matt Damon’s finest hour: Bourne does virtually nothing other than look sullen and crush through everything in his path. Despite bearing the name of its central character, “Jason Bourne” doesn’t have time to probe Bourne’s own personality or psyche. By contrast, Alicia Vikander – channeling Eva Green’s Vesper Lynd – is the breakout star here, delivering a compelling performance as Heather Lee, an intelligence cyber-analyst with murky motives. And where the villains are concerned, Vincent Cassel (whom I have a hard time seeing as any character other than the sadistic ballet instructor in “Black Swan”) makes for a terrifying counter-assassin and one of the saga’s best antagonists. He stalks the set like an avenging ghoul, emotionlessly tearing through anyone who gets in his way, and poses a satisfyingly substantial threat to Bourne.

If you’re on the fence about whether or not to see it, “Jason Bourne” is great fun that follows in the worthy tradition of its forerunners. That said, it doesn’t feel much like a concluding chapter: the Bourne character arc needs a satisfying closing. If there are more films to come, consider me excited for a sequel that pits Damon’s brutal survivalism against Vikander’s precise tactical approach – “The Bourne Redemption,” anyone?

VERDICT: 7.5/10
While periodically uneven, this installment proves that the “Bourne” franchise still has some gas in the tank.

Normalized Score: 4.6

“Spectre” is a frustrating film to review: in its attempt to provide a resolution to the last several films, it has one hand in the best of modern James Bond (“Casino Royale,” “Skyfall”) and one in the worst (“Quantum of Solace”).

Here, Bond (Daniel Craig) continues his journey into the modern era: MI6 is planning to launch a giant global surveillance program, while villainous organization Spectre (headed by an enigmatic figure allegedly from Bond’s past) has nefarious plans for the technology. A new MI6 intelligence director plans to cancel the 00 secret-agent program, leaving Bond high and dry. Etc., etc. – it’s pretty much your traditional Bond fare, though there’s an overarching attempt here to conclude plot arcs that began in “Casino Royale” and have continued through subsequent movies.

I recall being slightly underwhelmed by the first few Bond films I watched – between the corny one-liners, hinky special effects, and thinly written plots (Roger Moore era, looking at you), I found myself craving a truly high-quality, pull-out-all-the-stops Bondstravaganza. And “Spectre” is decidedly that (at least in its first half). With a budget approaching the total cost of the entire “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, the film’s production values are off-the-charts impressive. For instance, “Spectre” kicks off with a classic Bond cold open set in Mexico City, featuring a mesmerizing tracking shot that puts “True Detective” to shame. It captures, within a 4-5 minute shot, the entire Bond ethos – exotic locations, espionage, sensuality, and violence. It’s not as nerve-shredding as the chases that kicked off “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” but it’s still spectacular. This is followed up by a supercar chase through the streets of Rome, an aerial battle in the Austrian mountains, and a merciless fistfight on a desert train. It’s the id of the Bond franchise at its most polished.

Where music is concerned, let’s face it up front: Sam Smith is no Adele. That said, my distaste for “Writing On the Wall” is mitigated by the gorgeously hyperstylized title sequence, which ranks with the “Casino Royale” titles as one of my favorites of the Daniel Craig era. Juxtaposing sinister and erotic imagery, it’s an eerie echo of the title sequence from David Fincher’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” and sets the tone nicely. (It also bears mention that the booming “Spectre” score is a highlight).

As top-notch as the “Spectre” production values are, however, the film suffers from several glaring weaknesses.

First off, it’s abundantly clear that the screenwriters never intended to make a coherent quartet of films (plot elements from “Skyfall” feel shoehorned in at best, and glaringly out-of-place at worst). Though dedicated fans could no doubt piece together the web of alliances and organizations that ballooned in “Quantum of Solace” and are insanely overcomplicated here, it’s probably best not to think too hard about internal coherence.

That being said, “Spectre” works much better if it’s not viewed as “Bond 24” but rather as the fourth and final entry in the Daniel Craig Bond saga (which, I think, may eventually come to be viewed as the “Dark Knight Trilogy” of the long-running Bond franchise). Like “The Dark Knight Rises,” “Spectre” is overstuffed and doesn’t always successfully draw its predecessor films together. But in the context of a plotline that definitively began with “Casino Royale,” “Spectre” is much better – and indeed, serves as a thematic capstone for the reboot. One might even characterize it as Bond’s redemption story.

But as “Bond 24,” “Spectre” is a mess.

Second, Christoph Waltz’s archvillain (it’s not much of a spoiler to say that yes, he’s playing Ernst Stavro Blofeld, right down to the cat) is painfully underdeveloped. Here, Blofeld’s villainy hinges upon a half-baked backstory involving childhood grudges turned patricidal. It’s more than just frustrating: it’s insultingly banal. He never comes off as satisfyingly malignant, nor is it exactly clear what his endgame is. I’ll take Le Chiffre (or, heck, even Dominic Greene) any day.

Third, “Spectre” erodes the distinctive elements that have always defined the Bond franchise. Namely, I suggest the last few years have witnessed a distinct convergence in narrative and style within the action-entertainment genre. Some elements of this convergence include: a “topical” story involving surveillance, computers, artificial intelligence, or some combination of the above; team-based action in which everyone gets a chance to cause mayhem; near-future timeframe involving cool gadgetry; gargantuan budgets; the vague suggestion of cyborg technology; world-spanning villainous organizations that instantly disintegrate when their headquarters is blown up; etc. Films that rely on this convergence include “Mission: Impossible,” “Fast & Furious,” “Call of Duty,” Christopher Nolan’s “Batman,” “Iron Man,” and many others. (You could argue that some of these tropes have always been common to the genre, but the technological themes and team-based approach to action are pretty distinctive).

“Spectre” is the first James Bond film to join those ranks – and this is not at all a positive development.

James Bond is a compulsively watchable hero because he is a one-man army: even in the most horrific situations, he manages to prevail through sheer luck and his own raw proficiency. He works alone and frequently breaks the rules. Here, M, Q, and Moneypenny (Bond’s longstanding British Intelligence support staff) all get their chance to be action heroes during the film’s third act. And this doesn’t feel progressive or pro-social: it feels like lazy writing.

In the end, is “Spectre” worth seeing? In many ways, “Spectre” is the consummate Bond film. It’s phenomenally high-quality, brings in elements that bridge Bond generations old and new, and brings long-running plot arcs to a close. I prefer to see this as the end of the Craig era – a context in which “Spectre” is both enjoyable and largely satisfying.

As a stand-alone Bond film, it doesn’t come close to rivaling “Casino Royale” or “Skyfall.” But to expect it to reach such heights is perhaps unfair. “Spectre” is still Bond doing what he does best – and I, for one, look forward to seeing where the franchise heads next (here’s to Idris Elba as the next Bond!)

VERDICT: 7/10
As merely part of the Bond canon, “Spectre” doesn’t fully satisfy; as a coda to Daniel Craig’s tenure, it’s a compelling finale.

Normalized Score: 3.4