I’m going to break all sorts of rules and habits here, and start with the summary. The film is as good as the other 2, and completes the trilogy well. I’m not sure it’s any better than the other two, but it’s a pacy action film. As with the other two, don’t even bother thinking about it as a book conversion - you’ll just get confused. If you like 1 & 2, then see 3 - you won’t be disappointed.

Having said all that, I _was_ a little disappointed, but mainly because I had seen many positive reviews for the film, and expected it to be obviously better than 1&2, but I didn’t think it was.

And now for the rants.

One of my biggest problems with the first two films, and doubly so with this film, is the use of shaky, handheld camera work to make things feel “edgy” and as if you were “really there”. Here’s a hint to Mr Greengrass, and other directors who are using this method: don’t do it. It _can_ be really good (see Firefly and Serenity for good camerawork), but it can also be really nauseating, and very frustrating, particularly in chase and fight scenes, because you _don’t_ feel like you’re really there - you feel like you’re missing all the action. If you want to see the way it should be done, check out some proper fight films - Ong Bak, old Hong Kong martial arts films, hell - even the Matrix films. If you want to use a handheld, use it in a way that allows people to see the action, rather than using 100 cuts in 30 seconds.

I guess the other disappointment is still that they didn’t really attempt to engage with the books. I got the feeling a couple of times that they _thought_ they had, but they didn’t at really. Aside from the use of the names, and a couple of minor plot items in the first film, they haven’t approached the books at all. Which is a shame.

Now, at this point I could stop. Normally I probably would have done. However, I would like to go forward and try and explain what I would have done if I was making these films myself. This will, however, contain some definite spoilers for anyone wishing to read the books. Which you should. If you haven’t, then stop reading now

The 3 books are very different. (FWIW they’re not my favourite Ludlum books, although they are the most famous by far) They have distinctly different feels. Book 1 is very “hazy” as Bourne/Webb tries to find his identity. Book 2 is more assured, with it’s oriental theme. Book 3 is about the two aging “assassins” circling each other like tigers, gradually getting closer and closer to each other. I’ll tackle book 1 for the moment, and maybe look to the other two another time.

You’re never going to get the whole plot of the book in - it’s too big for 1 film. (There is a tv mini-series from the 80s with Richard Chamberlain as the eponymous hero; apparently it’s very true to the book, and over 3 hours long) You need to focus on the main characters, and the main element of plot. Thus you have the following people and elements:

• Jason Bourne / David Webb - the amnesiac. Confused by the skills he has, and the conflict he feels between the “good” that he feels, and the “bad” that he is implicated in. He’s also quite old by now - he doesn’t know it yet, but he’s already been married, had 2 children, and then fought in Vietnam, before becoming Jason Bourne for (IIRC) 18 months.
• Marie St Clair - a Canadian economist, initially kidnapped by Bourne, and then gradually captivated by the conflicting messages she sees in him. She becomes is his wife by book 2. She is the anchor that holds him together at times. Equally, there are times when he wants to push her away, as he becomes aware of who he think he is.
• Alexander Conklin - an aging CIA analyst. Convinced that Bourne has gone rogue, and determined to kill him off.
• Carlos the Jackal - mostly unseen - the infamous assassin for whom Bourne was the “bait”. Such an important character as he is the reason for Bourne’s existence, and yet just as determined to end that existence.
• As the film unfolds we need to see the conflict between Webb and Bourne. His memories are mostly of Bourne - they have been hammered into his brain - but his thoughts are often Webb’s. This conflict is extremely important in all three books, and it is only in the 3rd that there is finally a resolution that allows both Bourne and Webb to coexist happily in the same person.

There has been some debate that you couldn’t really use Carlos the Jackal, nor Vietnam, as the backdrop. However, rather than ignoring the plot like the current films, I would probably have attempted to update them some. Vietnam could easily be Iraq. Anybody could be a famous assassin to counterpoint Webb.

Anyway - that’s a few random thoughts. Hopefully you’ve enjoyed them - if so I’ll maybe think about books 2 and 3 a bit too.

mrBen