Scots Taffer on 28/8/2012 at 23:27
Did anyone else catch this?
Despite a whiffy 55% on RT, I actually found this to be totally fine. Going in with lower expectations than usual may have helped, I admit, but I thought it was a very watchable action flick. In fact, it's probably one of the better straight action flicks I've seen in ages. The shootout in the old house and pretty much all of the Manilla stuff was great nail-biting/wincing action.
Sure, it's essentially one huge chase sequence, the plot is thin as hell, and we're left in the dark about the trigger/motivations of the biochemist who suddenly goes Batman-cinema-shooter-crazy as well as how there were not only one but two other Bourne-esque programs running in tandem with the events of Ultimatum*.
But you know what? I don't care. Renner is a great in this, similar to Daniel Craig's style with the rough-edges but enough charisma to carry it. The rest of the cast are solid and make the flimsy material they have seem enough to hold it all together between the set pieces.
It was also good to have action sequences not filmed by drunk cinematographers on stilts constantly flicking the zoom button in and out.
* Although, I must say, I don't get why the events of this movie had to overlap with Ultimatum - other than the obvious "hey this is a connected franchise" motivation. In my opinion it made the first 20 minutes or so a little more confusing than was necessary to kick the plot machinations into gear. There's a point where Norton makes this speech whilst rifling through files on "how bad this could get" that just feels like an artificial inflation of stakes that just wasn't there, but once we have another renegade operative trying to run interference on their clean-up mission, it's on the right track.
Muzman on 28/8/2012 at 23:55
Reviewers have generally spilled that it's gone from a regular extreme assassin program to a sort of vague bio-chem super-soldier ish program. That's probably what bugs me the most. They went and got sci-fi in my (admittedly already far fetched, but religiously down to earth in a lot of respects) spy thriller series!
SubJeff on 29/8/2012 at 06:16
It's just the lack of originality/cashing in on coat tails that puts me off.
I'm sure it's well made and exciting and all, but it looks like it lacks a soul.
Thirith on 29/8/2012 at 07:07
It's the kind of film that (especially because of the actors) I'm happy to check out once it's on TV, but I'd not be particularly motivated to pay for cinema tickets. Then again, for me the other Bourne movies actually worked better on TV - I quite liked the shakycam aesthetic in them when watching them on a (big) telly, but when I saw the third film at the cinema I came away dizzy and confused by some of the action sequences.
SubJeff on 29/8/2012 at 08:17
Third one. Shaky cam at breakfast. Get out.
Thirith on 29/8/2012 at 08:23
I honestly wonder how much of it is that all the editing is done on small(ish) computer screens that make it easy to forget how different it'll be for audiences watching the films on a big screen. (Walter Murch's book In the Blink of an Eye addresses this to some extent.) I've never understood how angry some people get about shakycam until I watched the third Bourne film at the cinema (the previous ones I'd only caught on DVD).
Vasquez on 29/8/2012 at 10:12
Quote Posted by Thirith
I've never understood how angry some people get about shakycam
I have walked out of the theatre mid-movie because of shakycam (well, the plot was crappy too).
SubJeff on 29/8/2012 at 10:25
Walked out of The Kingdom because of shaky cam.
They were playing frikking scrabble!
N'Al on 29/8/2012 at 12:03
Hey, don't you knock Scrabble! It can be a very tense and exciting game! :erm:
SubJeff on 29/8/2012 at 12:23
I'm a big fan of scrabble. High scoring two letter words? Oh yes. It may be tense, but its not ACTION.
