Showing posts with label Doug Liman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Doug Liman. Show all posts

June 14, 2022

The Bourne Identity.

Review #1852: The Bourne Identity.

Cast: 
Matt Damon (Jason Bourne / David Webb), Franka Potente (Marie Kreutz), Chris Cooper (Alexander Conklin), Clive Owen (The Professor), Brian Cox (Ward Abbott), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Nykwana Wombosi), Gabriel Mann (Danny Zorn), Julia Stiles (Nicolette "Nicky" Parsons), Orso Maria Guerrini (Giancarlo), Tim Dutton (Eamon), Nicky Naude (Castel), Russell Levy (Manheim), and Vincent Franklin (Rawlins) Directed by Doug Liman (#1064 - Jumper (2008), #1256 - Mr. & Mrs. Smith, and #1569 - Edge of Tomorrow)

Review: 
The movie is a loose adaptation of the 1980 novel of the same name by Robert Ludlum. He did not have his first novel published until he was over forty years old, as he actually served as a theatrical actor and producer before finding a desire to make a living with writing; his writing may have been influenced by his experiences there, as he once stated that good theater and suspense were quite similar to him). An adaptation of the novel had occurred once before in 1988 that featured Richard Chamberlain as Bourne, which aired as a three-hour television movie on ABC. The basic premise of the novel is the key element retained here, since the novel was done during the Cold War with a lead threat involving terrorist "Carlos the Jackal", as the book includes newspaper articles from 1975 of his crimes (apparently, the Bourne in the book was actually a double-agent killed by the lead character before he assumed Bourne's identity to draw out an assassin). Ludlum followed this novel with two further books; after his death in 2001, with the approval of Ludlum's estate, new novels with the Bourne character were commissioned. After the success of his film Swingers (1996), Liman expressed interest in making a film adaptation of Bourne, and he wrote an outline, complete with taking inspiration for the CIA operation detail from the memoirs of Arthur L. Liman, chief counsel for the Senate investigation of the Iran-Contra Affair in the 1980s. Development would take a number of years in securing the rights to the novel alongside production; the final script was done by Tony Gilroy and William Blake Herron. The film was originally set to release in 2001, but the attacks on September 11 led to the producers deciding to alter the opening and ending sequences (which apparently featured flashbacks). The movie would prove quite successful, leading to further Bourne movies such as The Bourne Supremacy (2004), The Bourne Ultimatum (2007), The Bourne Legacy (2012), and Jason Bourne (2016), with all but one featuring Damon.

It is the kind of character-driven action movie where one seems to watch a man get calmer when things become more intense. As a different road presented when compared to spy movies such as James Bond or the Mission: Impossible series, it stands out pretty stark with its touch of action alongside its thriller aspect. It basically rolls along the lines of a noir (to the point where it has been thought to be a "neo-noir) with its slow unravel of mystery that manages to pull off the tightrope of balancing character interest with action that doesn't see one wanting more of either. The car chase in Paris alongside the hand-to-hand sequences are good ones to highlight in that regard. While Liman did not get to any of the sequels, he did serve as a producer on a number of them, while Gilroy would write the next two features, and it is evident that Identity makes for a good start to seeing further burrowing into who the lead character is without baiting itself. At the heart of that is Damon, who prior to this had been involved with films such as Good Will Hunting and Saving Private Ryan (interestingly, one actor who rejected the role before Damon was Brad Pitt, who did his own thing with Spy Game, released in 2001). Damon does pretty good here with the role required, one that is confused by the very idea that they can just have a hazardous situation thrust onto them and not bat an eye when solving it carefully. Sure, there is vulnerability present here, but the main idea is that we have a capable lead trying to find themselves more so than any random objective, and he also handles the action sequences with effectiveness. Potente, wrapped in the middle of all this, fares fairly well in meaningful patience, one who seems capable in being paired with Damon in general reaction (such as when she sees a man jump out a window). In a sense, Cooper is the adversary of the film, since he is the one trying to deal with a wayward agent. He approaches the material with steely timing and determination that matches differently on a spy movie without a willing spy, especially when Cooper and Cox are present together. The rest of the cast includes quiet adversaries such as Owen and mildly interesting side folks like Stiles or an outspoken Akinnuoye-Agbaje. At any rate, a movie like this works best when on its feet, for which the movie shuffles along with careful efficiency in 119 minutes with general effectiveness that makes for a fairly solid action-thriller that stands pretty well two decades after its release.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

October 20, 2020

Edge of Tomorrow.

Review #1569: Edge of Tomorrow.

Cast:

Tom Cruise (Major William Cage), Emily Blunt (Sergeant Rita Vrataski), Bill Paxton (Master Sergeant Farell), Brendan Gleeson (General Brigham), Noah Taylor (Dr. Noah Carter), Jonas Armstrong (Skinner), Tony Way (Kimmel), Kick Gurry (Griff), Charlotte Riley (Nance), Franz Drameh (Ford), Dragomir Mrsic (Kuntz), and Masayoshi Haneda (Takeda) Directed by Doug Liman (#1064 - Jumper (2008) and #1256 - Mr. & Mrs. Smith)

Review:

"I never want to repeat myself. I can’t imagine anything else as upsetting as realizing I’m redoing something I did before. For some reason, when it comes to film, I’m very good at not repeating myself. Even though in the rest of my life, I’m constantly repeating my mistakes."

It is a strange thing to note this as one of Doug Liman's best features, since he has made a steady career for himself over nearly three decades of work, primarily in action or comedy. The son of a painter and a lawyer, Liman found himself interested in film at a young age, which led to study at the International Center of Photography and Brown University before studying at the University of Southern California and their school of Cinematic Arts. He started with small-scale features that resulted in notice such as Swingers (1996) before moving on to bigger budgets with The Bourne Identity (2002) and other various features. The film is adapted from a Japanese sci-fi novel named All You Need Is Kill, written by Hiroshi Sakurazaka and illustrated by Yoshitoshi ABe originally published in 2004, with subsequent adaptation into manga and graphic novel; one can only imagine how they might find inspiration from playing a video game and dying over again and make their own story from that, as was the case of inspiration for Sakurazaka. The film (which Warner Brothers mandated have their title rather than the title of the novel or Liman's preference for the tagline as the title) had gestated in pre-production for years, starting with a spec script done by Dante Harper in 2010, although this would be discarded for reworking by other writers such as Joby Harold. Before filming started, Harper's script was mostly discarded by Liman, and the resulting screenplay that eventually came out was done by Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth (which did not have a set ending at first).

What an interesting time one could spend with this film. It is a neat little action film, finding an edge in terms of making repetition involving action come across as useful entertainment with amusement. Is it more than just "Groundhog Day (1993) but with killing aliens"? In parts, sure. It proves to be a fun one, particularly for those who desire some sci-fi thrills with a light story that is right to follow along with for 113 minutes without becoming stuck in a loop. Cruise does fairly well with this role, one that invites curiosity for the challenges needed in playing a hero who has to fail over and over again and grow with the feature in capability and charm. Blunt proves efficient here, just as capable in handling action without hitting a false note, who makes her time of tough heroism roll along with guidance with enjoyment that never wavers from our attention once properly introduced to us. In other words, they make for a good team together in beat-by-beat training. Paxton and Gleeson make up useful support, generating some wry amusement when Cruise shares the screen with either of them (since each seem right at home with action fare like this). Taylor and the others do fine in parts, since the main threat is making sure to handle bulky suits and effects-driven adversaries, which is useful to follow along with. The ending does fine for what is needed in closing the loop for an action film without short-changing itself too much, relying on its effects to carry through without being too murky or unclear to follow (although novel fans will note its clear departure with its ending). The film was a modest success for its lofty budget (because one needs to spend over $100 million for either action movies or in marketing), and it isn't hard to appreciate the film as a useful example of an action movie that bets on itself in captivating the audience with flair and a degree of intelligence to it. In any case, there are supposedly plans to do another film (called Live Die Repeat and Repeat, because words fail me), but who knows how intriguing that could be? As a whole, while it certainly seems more polished for its first half over the second, it generally works out well in capturing the challenge of trying to make a breezy film with thrills that weaves a decently conceived idea together with a useful cast and visuals to go alongside it for a useful time to have time and time again.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

August 10, 2019

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

Review #1256: Mr. & Mrs. Smith.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (John Smith), Angelina Jolie (Jane Smith), Vince Vaughn (Eddie), Adam Brody (Benjamin "The Tank" Danz), Kerry Washington (Jasmine), Keith David (Father), Chris Weitz (Martin Coleman), Rachael Huntley (Suzy Coleman), and Michelle Monaghan (Gwen) Directed by Doug Liman (#1064 - Jumper)

Review: 
What can you really expect from a summer blockbuster like this one? Perhaps it is good that I didn't have many expectations for one aimed to deliver action and laughs, as it makes the disappointment over the final result less awful to bear. If I actually felt something of interest over these characters when it comes to the action scenarios or the sitcom-level atmosphere besides it, this could actually fit just fine as a neat gem to eat popcorn with. As is, it i's just a mediocre product that feels like it should be much better, headlined by a cast that seems like it wants more to do. Sure, you could say that Pitt and Jolie make for a decent team, but they just seem stuck in something more pale than Lethal Weapon 4 - at least that film's highlight wasn't a dance between its main two characters. Chemistry is one thing, but how about a script with something more substantial to go with it? This is especially apparent when it comes to the scenes beside the action sequences, where there isn't really anything too funny or charming, where the lines feel like they want to be yukked out on a sitcom than an actual film. Even the therapy scenes seem bereft of something interesting to write something about. The action sequences are alright, but nothing too special to really write home about. I never really feel that either of them are in any actual danger, especially for its climax. Obviously they aren't going to hunt each other down, so why would I think a bunch of spies are going to finish the job for them? It just seems ridiculous to begin with that they could actually hide this sort of info from each other for years - actually, what exactly is the film's endgame if their agencies went to go take them down but failed the first time? An episode of Get Smart probably has more personality with their agency than this film, honestly. Vaughn gives off a few laughs in the brief time he shows up; Brody is essentially an afterthought until he has to deliver a key plotpoint before the climax. Washington and David aren't too particularly involved with things too much to make highlights of. On the whole, the film likes to talk a big game with trying to mix action and comedy, but it sure comes up flabby in the final result - it fits more for background noise than something really put on for involvement. I would say that this should be expected from someone who gave us Jumper (which can also be said for its writer, Simon Kinberg), but this actually was the film done by Liman three years prior. Imagine going from this to Jumper. If you have to make a mediocre product that will make a bunch of money and being just okay, this is probably a decent example of that scenario.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

March 23, 2018

Jumper (2008).


Review #1064: Jumper.

Cast: 
Hayden Christensen (David Rice), Rachel Bilson (Millie Harris), Samuel L. Jackson (Roland Cox), Jamie Bell (Griffin O'Connor), Diane Lane (Mary Rice), Teddy Dunn (Mark Kobold), and Michael Rooker (William Rice) Directed by Doug Liman.

Review: 
It is only fitting that a movie like this involve teleporting, since the film seems to like getting away from itself, constantly shuffling between two modes: erratic and plain. I can't say that the idea of teleporting wouldn't make for a good film (The Fly (#710), anybody?), but I can't say that this movie succeeds, mostly because there isn't much fun delivered with its story nor its contents. The film is based of the book of the same name by Steven Gould, who also contributed to the story (with a screenplay done by David S. Goyer, Jim Uhls & Simon Kinberg), and I imagine that the novel must've had some sort of energy and life to it that must've felt appealing to try and make a movie out of. To say the film feels jumbled is an overstatement, such as the "Paladins", the villains of the film that don't really have much development besides some vague reasoning, or "jump scars", since I guess jumping leaves a trail (or something like that). This is a stunted narrative that can't make us care about what is going on; it's not so much that the film's plot is insulting in a dumb way, it's just that the plot is bland and not particularly involving, with a lack of focus.

In a way, the flatness of the characters means that you can't put all of the blame on Christensen, who delivers a stiff performance that in no way helps the movie get any sort of life, although his character isn't even easy to go for. His character never does anything that makes you really want to root for him, and if it wasn't for the hunting by the paladins, you could re-write him into a villain, complete with a bratty nature and an even more boring amorality, complete with his first lines of the film that describes how he was a normal person, a "chump, just like you" (good start). He doesn't seem to be a terrible actor, but he definitely isn't good in this film. Bilson doesn't bring much energy to a role that feels stiffer than a board, complete with no real chemistry between her and Christensen. Jackson can't really make this villain character anything other than a cliche - where his grey hair is the most noteworthy thing about him. I'd say Bell is the highlight - but that isn't giving the movie any real favors. The rest of the small cast is fairly standard, not doing anything too particularly amusing. The effects aren't terrible, but they also aren't anything that'll make the film any prettier to look at, particularly since the action sequences seem muddled and ridiculous (combined with no real stakes). Even the climax is dull, and the fact that it ends so anti-climatically and so lazily makes for a perfect capstone in this mess. You could likely have a laugh with this if you're in the mood to make fun of a paperthin plot, a cast that can't elevate said material, and 88 minutes to kill, but even re-watching RoboCop 3 (#006) over this dreck seems preferable.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.