The Bourne Ultimatum

Well, as with most things these days we have to have a trilogy, and the Bourne series is no exception. Everything good comes in threes; Arthur C Clarke's Rama series, the number of Godfather films and the legs on a martian fighting machine from War of the Worlds.* However, trying to use that line with your girlfriend to get a threeway is a diplomatic nightmare and if you can manage it......well, my hat is cocked to you, sir.

All this preamble is to say that although I enjoyed the third instalment in the Bourne series, I could have lived without it. There's nothing exceptionally new that we haven't seen before, and since Bourne spends a lot of this movie on his own, there's not even much dialogue. Most of that comes from the CIA agents trying to chase Bourne down.

Some of the best scenes are criminally short, like the scene with Bourne in Noah Vosen's office. Where was the build up to it? I can accept Bourne is a brilliant infiltration agent, but for god's sake, where was the money shot of the infiltration?

Yes, by the end you understand more about Jason Bourne and his origins, but frankly, he's never really interested me much as a character. He was better as a mysterious agent with no memory, who can take out a dozen cops without killing any of them. It's why I loved the TV show John Doe. I like the mystery, and unlike most people (and by most people, I of course mean Americans), I don't necessarily have a compulsion that drives me need to know all the answers. I often prefer not to know what's going on, even at the end of a film/series.

And yet again....my arch-nemesis rears its ugly head. The best line in the film isn't in the film!

Pamela Landy: This is Jason Bourne, the toughest target that you have ever tracked. He is really good at staying alive, and trying to kill him and failing... just pisses him off.

Score: C+
I enjoyed it, I don't regret seeing it and I would recommend it to others. I just don't think it added much overall to the Bourne story.

OQ: Jesus Christ, it's Jason Bourne!
(A quote I heard at the time and thought; I am so going to quote that out of context.)

*Except there are four Rama books, I've never seen all three Godfather movies, and despite what Hollywood says; tripods cannot walk.

Murder on the Orient Express (2001, TVM)

What fresh hell is this?

Is not the sort of phrase you want to use when watching a film starring Alfred Molina. And yet.....here we are.

I caught this TV movie on ITV at the weekend. Normally I enjoy Hercule Poirot stories. I was passionately keen on David Suchet's series, not so keen on Ustinov's but still found them enjoyable. So it is with some trepidation that I make the following claim.

This film is the worst piece of crap 'made for TV' dramatisation I have ever seen.

Right from the off, something was wrong. The cut of the suits was far too modern for the expected period, and I was fairly sure the locomotive pulling it was diesel. The honk of the horn just wasn't right. Then it happened. Someone pulled out their cellphone.

At this point, my brain went through what I later came to understand is called a paradigm shift, which let me tell you, is a hell of a thing to happen to a fellow.

"Ow!" Said my brain. "I think something just broke."

So while I sat there trying to re-assemble my brain's gearbox, the film (unlike the train) rolled on. The film makers here apparently using the unusual method of period acting, of giving up altogether being authentic and setting the film in contemporary times, presumably because it was cheaper. This motif would return later in the film.

The worst part is that after finally reassembling my mental gearbox, as with all DIY jobs, I still had a few extra parts left over.

The film continues to plod on, with acting courtesy of rent-a-cliché, and little if any surprises. The final ending was an insult to everyone's intelligence, see the really big whopping spoiler, below.

The continuity mistakes abound, the most annoying of which is: While Poirot is examining Ratchett's body for the second time, Ratchett is clearly still breathing. My god, even I spotted this one. Actually, I spotted most of these (courtesy of IMDB).

The diesel locomotive hauling the Orient Express out of Istanbul has the prominent markings of EWS: the English, Welsh & Scottish freight train operating company.

In the next exterior shot after departure from Istanbul, a differently coloured diesel locomotive is on the train. During the night scenes before the journey is interrupted, a steam locomotive is shown (presumably stock footage). Then when the train stops at the rockfall, the same EWS diesel is back on it, but now it's facing the other way (the EWS letters and the locomotive number 47744 have swapped places as seen from the same side of the train). Finally, when the journey resumes the next night, the steam locomotive is back.

On departure from Istanbul the first car of the train is named Perseus. When stopped at the rockfall, the first car is Lucille.

I think though, what annoyed me the most about this film, was not that Poirot let the killer go, nor that for probably the first time ever in a Poirot story that the victim really did deserve what they got. What really annoyed me was that when it's finally revealed who killed Ratchett, who did the deed. They all did! Seriously: What The Deuce, Man?!?

Score: E-
Oh god, yes it was that bad.

OQ: To give you a quote would imply that I cared enough to choose one.

Rush Hour 3

It's a sad day for the movie club folks. For the first time in...well ever actually, I'm going to disagree with Symon.

I didn't like this film, and that upset me because I was so looking forward to it.

There are a lot of funny scenes in the film, the Yu and Mi one in particular is inspired lunacy. The interrogation with the translating nun is funny, but I got the impression it had been filmed a lot of different ways and the producer then chose the one he liked best. And Tucker and Chan singing in the nightclub had be in stitches.

So if I found all that funny, why then did I not enjoy the film? I think the problem with the film is that it's not sure if it wants to be a comedy film, an action film, a buddy film, or something in between. There's plenty of scenes with all out pant wettingly-good comedy, and plenty with all out full throttle action. Yet rarely do the two meet. The car chase scene is one example, the only example that springs to mind.

In order to out-do the last film, the two heroes have to be pitted against a bigger and badder foe, in this case the Triads. Yet in order to ensure they don't get killed in the first ten minutes, the Triads they encounter are portrayed as the most inept bunch of gibbering morons who ever lived. These guys couldn't hit the broad side of a barn even if you held the gun for them and all they had to do was pull the trigger, and for a group who we're told in the opening minutes of the film are the most dangerous and ruthless criminal organisation in the world, this just gets on my nerves really quickly. The film also relies on the audience remembering certain elements from the last film, and since that film was made back in 2001, that's really stretching most people's memories. It's been six years since we last saw Detective Carter and Chief Inspector Lee. How about a freakin' flashback or two? Personally I think the franchise peaked with Rush Hour 2, and the fact it's taken this long to get a sequel kind of shows that. IMDB's trivia section is replete with examples of the dropped plots, actors, and re-writes necessary to get this film made.

I was dismayed to read yesterday on Yahoo Movies that Rush Hour 3 has knocked The Bourne Ultimatum off the top slot in the US. I remember thinking at the time: How? Rush Hour 3 has managed to break Rush Hour 2's record for an opening weekend takings, standing at a staggering $68 million. Bourne only took about $38 million. Why? Why would people chose to watch a mindless action-comedy sequel over a thought provoking, intelligent spy film? Why would Americans chose to watch a mindless actio-.... Ahh. Answered my own question there, I see.

Score: D+
I didn't like it, and only the occasional comedy moments saved it from a D-

OQ1: I don't know what you been feedin' that boy, but he is TOO DAMN BIG!

OQ2: Look at this licence! A hundred and twenty-five pounds? Girl you weigh more than the damn car!

The Hoax

Richard Gere, Alfred Molina and a bunch of people I didn't recognise in what the trailer assured me would be some sort of comedy/heist movie. I didn't know much about this prior to seeing it, other than it was the true story of the Clifford Irving, who wrote the completely fictitious Howard Hughes biography. The film is not what the trailer advertised. That's not to say I'm annoyed (you know how I get with misleading trailers...), because it's a very good story and it's well told, but just be warned. This is not a comedy caper. It's actually quite dark in places.

The story does try to elicit some sympathy for Irving, claiming that his publisher backed out of a book deal with him, but for the most part he comes across as pulling the fraud simply because he can. There's a bit about wanting revenge against Howard Hughes because of a ruined holiday, where Hughes threw everyone out of his hotel at three in the morning because he wanted the pool to himself, but even there Irving is still shown to admire Hughes. "Now that's power...," he muses at the silhouette of Hughes in the penthouse apartment.

Richard Gere plays Clifford Irving very well. Alfred Molina plays Irving's friend, Richard Susskind, who helped him research Hughes and co-wrote the biography. He's also struggling with a dilemma, which I won't spoil (but it's funny). There's no moment where one actor outshines the other, they compliment each other very well, stepping back from the lime light when the story needs it, shining when the plot calls for it.

For a film about true events, it makes some silly errors, and I'm not just talking about the lever style door handles in the White House that should have been round knobs (thank IMDB for that one). For example, as the end credits roll there's the usual "what happened next" text explaining what happened to the people involved, the usual fare for a film based on real events. But the film claims that Clifford Irving is still trying to get the hoax biography published. It's been in print for two years. So either the film makers didn't check their facts, or this film has been sitting on a shelf in some studio vault for yonks and no-one bothered to update it.

Score: C++
I enjoyed it, it just wasn't the film I was expecting.

OQ: "It's the most important book of the twentieth century..."