![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Bourne Identity (original)
Aug. 22nd, 2011 01:28 pmI generally think that remakes of movies aren't as good as the originals.
There are exceptions, however.
The Bourne Identity is one of them. I got the DVD of the original from Netflix and watched it last night.
First of all, it's not really fair to compare the 1988 version with Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith with the 2002 version with Matt Damon and Franka Potente. The former was a made for TV movie, the latter a fully funded major film. The original was limited on budget and rehearsal time, and certainly on special effects.
Having said that, as I was watching it, I kept thinking, "1988? Really? Not 1978? Or maybe 1968?" The style seemed way earlier than 1988. The cars looked right for '88, as did the TVs, pay phones (half rotary, half touch-tone), etc.
It has more than its fair share of schmaltz and corny, "but Jason, I love you!" nonsense that was so heavy-handed it was kinda painful to watch. We actually fast-forwarded through bits that were rather tiresome.
The plot is more complex, and arguably more interesting, but the execution was somewhat dated. The 'net says it's more true to the Robert Ludlum book than the '02 version, but I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing. Things that make good books aren't (always) the same things that make good movies.
It wasn't a total disaster; there is some quite good acting, and some clever plot devices. If you like to see every version of something, watch it. It's not as terrible as I make it out. But it wasn't really worth 3 hours and 8 minutes of my time.
There are exceptions, however.
The Bourne Identity is one of them. I got the DVD of the original from Netflix and watched it last night.
First of all, it's not really fair to compare the 1988 version with Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith with the 2002 version with Matt Damon and Franka Potente. The former was a made for TV movie, the latter a fully funded major film. The original was limited on budget and rehearsal time, and certainly on special effects.
Having said that, as I was watching it, I kept thinking, "1988? Really? Not 1978? Or maybe 1968?" The style seemed way earlier than 1988. The cars looked right for '88, as did the TVs, pay phones (half rotary, half touch-tone), etc.
It has more than its fair share of schmaltz and corny, "but Jason, I love you!" nonsense that was so heavy-handed it was kinda painful to watch. We actually fast-forwarded through bits that were rather tiresome.
The plot is more complex, and arguably more interesting, but the execution was somewhat dated. The 'net says it's more true to the Robert Ludlum book than the '02 version, but I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing. Things that make good books aren't (always) the same things that make good movies.
It wasn't a total disaster; there is some quite good acting, and some clever plot devices. If you like to see every version of something, watch it. It's not as terrible as I make it out. But it wasn't really worth 3 hours and 8 minutes of my time.
