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"

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.

Heat

I just watched it last night. This movie really wasn't "The Bourne Identity", it was just a decent to good action movie that uses a few basic plot lines from the book. It's like somebody read a 1 paragraph summary of the book and wrote an entire script based off of that summary. There were so many major differences between the book and this movie, here are just a few (contains some spoilers for the book):

Book:

Movie:

If you want to see what the book was like, watch the 1988 version of the Bourne Identity (with Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith, it was a made-for-TV series and is available on DVD).

I'm not saying that this new version is a bad movie, I highly recommend it as a rental. But the plot from the book was better.

chanster

Heat - I really think you should put some spoilers in your descriptions. I have read the books, and they completly ruin it for anybody that hasn't read the book. Yes, I know this is a spoiler thread for the movie, but don't ruin the book!

chanster

Secondly

Heat

Spoilers make sense for my above post, they have been added (if you read what is in spoilers you won't "spoil" the movie, you've already seen that, but you will "spoil" the book).

Anyway, in the book,

Pants

I agree with this. I don't think the filmmakers wanted us to think these guys are total "Manchurian Candidate" style automatons. They have these headaches because their training (which has been drilled into them) is conflicting with their conscinence

DVD.guy

What confuses me is that on one hand Cooper mentions that Bourne was just an observer, but on the other, Bourne remembers that he was there to kill Wambosi. So which is right?

davejt1

I can't remember exactly where that was in the movie, but IMHO I'm guessing that...



Also, in response to earlier posts about why Cooper wanted Bourne killed, I'm thinking that...



Again, just my humble opinion.

chanster

Heat- Got to disagree with you about Bourne's role in the book:

Ray_Chill

I know this is an odd question that may be misplaced on this forum. I want to know what gun is used by Clive Owen on that hill near Eamon's house and in the field where Bourne shoots him with the shotgun.

Anyone know? Thanks in advance to those gun gurus.

Seantn

Also, where can I buy one, and what are some of your addresses? Just curious.

Parcher

SSG something, think SSG 550.

Hold on, let me check to be sure....

Yeah, it's Sig550 IIRC.

Not 100 percent though.

Don't get that gun, get a HK.

tacomantt

Major movie spoilers below. You have been warned.

Ok, I just finished watching The Bourne Identity for the third time in a week. Why, I did it is a long boring story. But anyway...

Jason Bourne messed up.

He was supposed to assassinate Wombosi, but ended up having second thoughts. Bourne , picked the time and place of the assassination. And, if all was done correctly, the hit was supposed to look as if one of Wasobi's body guards did the job.

Bourne hides on the ship for 5 days before the kill and blew the opportunity. When Jason sneaks into the "living room" of the ship, he puts his pistol to the victims head, and decides not to do the job. The movie clearly implies that he couldnot kill his mark because Wasobi had his kids all around him (one sees Bourne and another is asleep).

My point: Jason Bourne messed up. Bourne needed to wait until Wombosi was alone. Any gun shot would immediately draw the kids attentions to him. He would have to kill them too because they new what Jason looked like (remember- one of Wombosi's body guards was supposed to have gone beserk). Bourne picked a "bad" opportunity to expose himeself, a bad time to do the hit.

So yes, I agree with Conklin- a $30M weapon that went haywire.

-T

Mopower

And...... ????? Isn't that the whole point of his boss trying to kill him?

FuzzyBallz

Nah, he just puss out. The agency should've sent a backup. Assassins have zero emotion, so I have no idea how the hell dude got the job. He could've simply killed Wombosi and the kids, but then the movie would've lasted 5 minutes.

Parcher

taco what's your point?

That's like "Hey, I get it. He could give Marie all that money because he just visited a bank!"

Not too quick on the uptake...

clemente

From his perspective, he didn't know the kids were there. They were so small that he may not have heard them scamper into the room as he would have a full grown adult.

Plus he hadn't recieved intel that the kids would be on the boat, so in essense he was screwed by the very government he worked for.....(just my take on the situation..and my attempt to amuse myself)

Kaffe_02

If he hadnt screwed up there wouldnt be much of a premise for the movie

tacomantt

Yeah many of you are right. I guess I did not relay my point very well.

Through-out the movie, you are "rooting" for Bourne. And when it comes to the end, you find out that he screwed up. All his problems lead back to his decision.

Summary: I guess I didn't like the way that the movie made you cheer for Bourne but yet, cast his agency supervisor as "bad".

I suppose I really dont have much a point than that. Wasted thread huh?

chanster

Read the book, its a lot different and a lot better