The Bourne Identity

I don’t claim that Young’s version of Ludlum’s book is any worse or better than the modern version of Jason Bourne. It’s simply different. Less action-packed, more concentrated on characters themselves and certainly more faithful to the original. And I don’t claim that, considering the long running time, not much happens and so it gets boring. In fact, quite the opposite applies. There are an absolute minimum of action sequences, but in this version they really aren’t important. What worked really well is the direction. But what lets today’s Bourne’s “elder brother" is Chamberlain who is absolutely unsuitable for this type of character. Unfortunately. (24.08.2007)

In The Bourne Identity, I was most surprised by the information about its date of origin because when watching it, I had the feeling that I was watching a film from the first half of the 70s... I can't shake off the impression of a certain shabbiness and obsolescence, not only compared to the high-budget action spectacle in the new version. Even The Professionals, which is a few years older, seems much more modern and dynamic to me. It's not about the quantity and quality of the action, but rather about the overall concept, where, for example, the CIA spy center in the film looks like a tea party of men and women from a village of carpenters, the terrorist disguised as a beggar on the church steps looks like he stepped out of a parody, and the chief terrorist arranges meetings - where else but in the confession booth of the church under a monk's cassock. There's the heavily wounded friend who dies in a disciplined manner only after saying goodbye to Bourne and telling him everything about his past and patriotic duties. At least a few of Bourne's dialogues with his Canadian girlfriend strongly reek of sentimentality.... my criticism could go on. The original Bourne is not a disaster, just a purely average spy thriller of its time. Overall impression 55%. (16.10.2007)