Bourne Identity story problem

[Pants]

I watched it for the second time last night and I really like the Bourne Identity, but I think they made one very bad choice. (BTW, I havn't read the book)
SPOILERS BELLOW

I thought the filmmakers made a bad choice when they chose to reveal the nature of Bourne's character to the audience so early. In the first 10 minutes of the film, Bourne doesn't even know his name yet, and we already know that he is a secret agent for the USA. I think it would be more fun for the audience if, as Bourne goes on his adventure, we weren't several steps ahead of him. When Bourne discovers he is an assasin at the end of the film we are not surprised, we've known it all along.

By revealing his back story to the audience it allows for the parallel story of Chris Cooper and the CIA trying to catch him. But I don't think this parallel story is good enough to warent having to tell the audience so much so early. I would have prefered to find things out about Bourne as he did. I would have prefered to be in suspense as to the tru nature of this mysterious Bourne character.

[greatjedi]

I agree. . . sort of.
Yes, the audience was one step ahead of Bourne, but I also think that helped make the story less confusing. I think the suspense worked well enough as written.
At the same time, other films have pulled off the "figure it out at the same time as the character" plot very well. It worked in Memento, I just don't think it would have worked as well in this mainstream blockbuster film. That's JMO. :)

[silentbob007]

I think that the trailer, DVD art, poster, etc would have given away that he was some sort of spy.

[Pants]

But they give away that he was a spy for the US Government and that he was on a botched assassination attempt, all in the first 10 minutes. It would have been more fun to have our doubts about what side of right and wrong he is on and to figure out how he ended up in the water. Is he a terrorist or a secret agent? etc.

[jaeufraser]

Eh, personally I think it would have been unecessary. I thought the enjoyment of the movie came in seeing him use his spy skills in this highly stylized spy game. Quite frankly, the plot wasn't really important in terms of who he was trying to kill or why. It would have been a let down to build up to that, as...well...who really cared? I was more interested in seeing how he handled the situation of not knowing but knowing how to do things. What was actually happening was secondary in this movie...IMO>.

[Lastblade]

Well the book is nothing like the movie (other than the first 2 minutes of the movie)... Not saying the movie is bad, in fact, I enjoyed it quite alot, but, the plot is completely different between the book and the movie. The main character shares the same name (and a few other instances) but other than that, it might as well be called "Nothing to do with The Bourne Identity Book"

:p

[goose08]

Severely disappointed with the movie after having read the book. Wait to read the book for this one and the movie might be enjoyable.

[Heat]

There is an earlier Bourne Identity movie, from 1988 (made for TV), with Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith. That movie was pretty close to the book.

As for the new version, I haven't seen it though I plan on watching it tonight (I rented it yesterday).

[Heat]

OK, saw the new "Bourne Identity". The revelation made at 13:17 into the movie really didn't ruin the movie or anything, I kind of see why the director revealed it that early. Note that it isn't a clear revelation (Jason Bourne is our assassin, where is he? type of thing). Oh yes, in this movie he actually was an assassin, in the book and first movie, he only thinks he is an assassin.