pilothouseman

From the first few minutes of this film and until the sorry end one thought dominated every other. A question, 'why can't the camera stop shaking?' How much coffee did the camera operator have? Did he have Parkinson's? Was there and earthquake? Why, after having paid good money to see a movie, am I compelled to close my eyes to relieve my nausea? This film was very deliberately made to look like it was shot by a hyper-active twelve year-old with a brand new camcorder and a fascination with zooming. Regrettably its becoming a fad in movies today. I'm not against a hand held camera, its just another color on the cinematographers palette. But a one color painting? I'm not against intentional camera shaking. It has been used to great effect in Star Trek, for example, to simulate a hit from the Klingons. With Bourne Ultimatum, whatever chase or shooting or car crash on the screen was in direct proportion to the spinning and jerking and zooming of the camera. More action = more blurry shakes.

BU was like one of those irritating shows that has music in every scene from start to finish. Why is that done? To create a sense of drama where the visuals and acting have failed to do so.

Apparently Paul Greengrass was insecure about his ability as a director and resorted to this cheap gimmick in order to give the movie a kind of first person reality feel. It was either insecurity or pretentiousness that would explain his ignorance or contempt for all of the conventions and innovations of movie making, like steadicam. Sitting in the theater I found myself thinking, not about the movie but about the director, 'what is he trying to do?, why doesn't he respect his audience?' From the back rows of the stadium seating I looked down at the couple of hundred other people there. They had paid to be there like me and I could see them all, transfixed, looking at the screen above them when I had an uncomfortable thought about what suckers we all are.

OK apart from the tremor-cam I give this movie five stars as part three of a trilogy. If you liked Bourne 1 & 2 then you might like this one. Its like eating yesterdays leftover pizza. Its the same thing but not fresh and its cold. There is no "warmth" to this movie. No romance and not a single likable person and not a single smile until the very end. As a stand alone movie it falls completely flat. We don't find out anything about what Bourne thinks or feels until fully three fourths into the film. All we know is that Matt Damon is having some bad flashbacks and he is going to find out why and beat the crap out of anyone that gets in his way.

Also, before the movie starts we are told to turn off our cell phones, evidently so we can devote the next two hours to watching people talk on their cell phones. Yes,in this flick, there is a lot of cell phones and LED screens and the video game feel is unmistakable. My advice, stay home and play a video game or read a comic, but if you must see this movie, take some Dramamine before.

I thought this was going to be a (dull) fantasy epic like Narnia but it was much more interesting. Like other good fantasy movies, (Wizard of Oz, Time Bandits) the fantasy world is linked to the real world and serves a purpose in it. 98% of the film is real world, 2% fantasy. Basically its a story about how some kids learn to successfully deal with the often harsh realities of life and how they teach others to do the same. Thats what "play" is. I enjoyed watching their friendship develop over the course of the daily routine of bus rides, school room struggles, home realities, and play in Terabithia. Some IMDb reviewers complained that it wasn't a 'kids movie' and others complained that there was no sexual element between the boy and the girl. This only illustrates that much of the movie-watching public and movie producers are total morons. I like this movie because it defied the widespread assumption that movies starring kids should be witless and meaningless and watched only by children. Also the assumption that movies starring adults should be sexual, violent, witless, meaningless and watched only by adults. This mentality is demonstrated by the fact that the word "adult" often equals "pornographic" and is also reflected in ratings systems which are usually age based. As if to say that an arbitrary level of sex and violence is right for a 17-year-old but wrong for a 14-year-old. Age based ratings systems are more about masking conscience than protecting children. And protecting them from what anyway? Their parents? The society they live in? Adults? I'm straying from the movie now but the is one more point I want to make. Children are, and have always been entertained by watching adults and adults are and have always been entertained by watching children. If you want to see some really good movies with kids and at the other end of the spectrum from the American movie industry, check out Iranian director Majid Majidi.

The best thing about this movie was watching the classic Hollywood and TV actors. The writing was good and is seldom found in movies today. Apart from that the film was nothing special.

After 20 minutes I could already see the end of the movie. Also I thought it a stretch that Henry Fonda's character could be so persuasive simply by standing his ground and saying 'maybe he's guilty and maybe he isn't.'

Perhaps its high IMDb rating is because a lot of people agree with the moral message it preaches. Maybe the moral message is 10 star but the movie is not. If you want to see a really good, classic, one scene, character study movie, check out Hitchcock's "Lifeboat".