Movie Review: The Bourne Ultimatum - What's In A Name?
Published August 19, 2007
James Bond is really more like a superhero than a convincing spy, like a Bruce Wayne who knows how to have a good time. He's an effective but high maintenance errand man. He goes where he's sent, he gets the nuclear bomb defused, he fights with henchmen, to the death if necessary in order to get that secret formula. There's no question that James Bond can be lethal, but somehow he always finds room in his suitcase for a really nice suit and time in his schedule for Pussy Galore.
Bourne is a mess. He's a down on his luck amnesiac with limited people skills. His battle is personal, because his use as a tool has expired. There are no suits in Jason Bourne's world, not for him or any of the operatives sent to kill him. They cultivate the look of the down and out backpacker. They spend their down time in dingy flats and hotel rooms waiting for the anonymous text message sending them to their next assassination. They do not spend their down time playing cards in Biarritz.
The operatives in Bourne's world are not much about name recognition either, or names period. If anything, names are a liability. The last thing anyone wants is a famous secret agent, which is how Jason Bourne finds himself in trouble in the first place. He wakes up with amnesia and asks the logical next question. What's my name? In the process of trying to answer that question, he goes from being a reliable "asset" to a dangerous loose cannon who is, god forbid, making his own decisions. In this case the answer to "What's in a name?" is everything.
"Bring the asset online," announces a CIA operations officer. What he means is "tell the field agent to kill" but it is said so matter-of-factly it somehow transcends euphemism. To call someone by name is to acknowledge their humanity. Certainly it's easier for everyone involved to "bring the asset online" then to "tell Omar to kill Nicky please". The desk lackeys might get squeamish.
As for the asset, a name just gets in the way there, too. If you want to create a person willing to carry out any order without question, a key requirement is to disconnect them from outside influence. Even for the most ethically challenged organization, it would be a tall order to eliminate every single person who ever knew a person named, say, David Webb. So you destroy David Webb instead, and replace him with a blank canvas, awaiting instruction. Inconvenient demands from sources like the payroll department require that you call them something, but it hardly matters what. If the agency responsible for training them could get away with calling them all John Doe, they probably would.
- Movie Review: The Bourne Ultimatum - What's In A Name?
- Published: August 19, 2007
- Type: Review
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Video: Action, Video: Thriller
- Writer: Kati Irons
- Kati Irons's BC Writer page
- Kati Irons's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
LOL--but Batman could dispatch them both before breakfast!
I don't think so, Batman...like Bond is a gadget freak!
Bourne EATS both of them!
Bourne would flip Batman's cowl over his head and suffocate him.
ahhh-- but you're forgetting Batman's emergency backup. At night, the Dark Knight wins hands down.
Yea...Robin Hood to the rescue.
On a serious note, I loved this movie, and now as a complete trilogy, one of the strongest as being successful.
Tense, taut, gripping, riveting, the Bourne series has been an enjoyable ride.
Actually--I was talking about thousands of bats. Robin never counted.
And also, seriously--I haven't seen this one, but I loved the first 2 Bourne films. Looking forward to seeing this one, too.And I hope that let it go gracefully. Generally speaking, if you can make a trilogy work, leave it alone.
BTw, Katie-- enjoyable review. (Where are my manners?) You piqued my interest even more than it was piqued before. In fact, any more piquing, and I'll be bruised for weeks.
Good Review...Even Better Movie!
F*ck Batman... Spawn would kill all three and he's even more of a mess mentally. LOL!! Honestly,in reality, I think Bourne would clobber most people because he knows that MMA type sh!t and he uses his surroundings like a goddamn pro!
This movie proves my point that you can make killer sequels. It may take a bit more work and this movie may have its down falls but The Bourne movies were fantastic even if they started out as a remake.
Though I did have a name for a review if this movie sucked... Boring Old Tomato
(Yes, that joke was bad...).
Ray,
Check this review out... and tell me if this doesn't excite you. I saw the movie on opening night and read this review a week after.
David Webb or Jason Bourne, whatever name he calls himself, is a dick. He wasn't brainwashed. And at the end of it, the sap didn't really remember anything. Some hero, the murdering prick.
Wow, RAF, did (the imaginary) Jason Bourne kill your (imaginary) dog? You seem a bit upset there.
I'm not sure how you can argue that he wasn't brainwashed while simultaneously arguing that he didn't get his memory back, the lack of memory being a primary symptom of being brainwashed.
But, clearly, you didn't like the film and that is a-ok, it being a free country and all. You'll excuse the rest of us for enjoying ourselves.
This quote may illustrate the point...
"...A Jason Bourne who just buys whatever he is told is no use. A Jason Bourne with no moral compunction is a liability. You need moral certainty. You find a true believer, and break him down into trusting you. He then acts with all of the conviction and dedication of a man of service, but none of the questioning attitude..."
Jason Bourne volunteering for the program is a moral act. Bourne shooting the man without any of his questions answered (which he did after two plus days of being awake [and torture]) is not...but he still did it. He committed. That was the decision point, and he made it...."
I don't believe I made the argument that Bourne was somehow a hapless victim, certainly I didn't intend to. As I said, he clearly chose to sign on the dotted line. My argument is that the people who created him did not live up to their end of the bargain. Instead of using him (and other agents like him) to keep the world safe from evil doers, they use them to kill inconvenient people before they become public relations problems.
Bourne is clearly morally culpable for the acts he committed. That's why the scene in Russia with the daughter of the couple he killed was so powerful. He apologized, but what did it accomplish? Is he going to wander the world apologizing to everyone ever affected by one of his acts? Would it be remotely useful if he did?
Bourne is a troubled mess, as I say, but he's an entertaining troubled mess. It doesn't mean I'd raise my kids to emulate him.
its a film god freaks
relax
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/67688)
"..Jason Bourne could kill James Bond using nothing but a tea towel and a phone book. He would use the vodka from Bond's martini to sterilize his wounds, and limp away, there being no sexy woman in a Ferrari to pick him up".
LOL....Yes!!!