I originally watched the Bourne Trilogy as a young teenager. I found them to be great action movies, and quite enjoyed them. At the time I knew they were regarded as great action movies, but did not understand the influence they had. Recently, I have heard about how influential they were on the genre, so I decided to re-watch them in my late 20s, with a lot more media awareness. A lot of the commentary I had seen going into this is how the movies popularized the shaky cam and fast cutting on action scenes. Going into this re-watch, I did not remember much, with only remembering just a few standalone scenes, but not much about the plotline (except Bourne has amnesia).

If you have not seen the movies in the past 5 years, I highly recommend you bookmark this post and stop reading then go back and watch them before continuing reading

So going into this movie, my expectations were more along the lines of a dumb action movie, with well done fast-paced editing for action scenes. I was thinking along the lines of mid-2000s equivalent to the John Wick franchise. I was wrong on this. The plot is a lot tighter than the action movies I was expecting, and the action a lot lighter. The entire trilogy has lighter action than compared to more modern action movies. There is a grand total of two explosions for the entire trilogy (one in Identity, where Bourne explodes a propane tank as a diversion, and the second in Ultimatum where another agent blows up a car). Instead, the movie focuses on hand-to-hand combat for the action (which will be discussed later), but also strongly prioritizes Bourne trying to sneak out of a situation rather than fight out of it. Trying to sneak out of an area definitely changes the tone of the movie, and for the better in my opinion.

For the action sequences, I found the fast cutting and shaky cam actually really good. I have been annoyed at other movies that have copied this style, because when done wrong it just turns the scenes into an unreadable mess. I think there are a few things done in Bourne that makes this editing style actually readable. The first is that the scope of these fight scenes are quite small. Normally they are 1v1 fights, not the fighting through a hallway of opponents that can be common in other movies. When the viewer has to keep track of only two people in a fight, the fast cuts are not as jarring. The second trick they use is providing establishing shots of the environment, keeping the environment small, and doing familiar environments (normally apartments). The viewer can very easily keep track of the different rooms they fight through, which grounds it. The third is that the fight scenes are relatively short. Also, all the fights have very clear goals (normally defeat this single person that is preventing escape). Too many movies looked at the well done Bourne action and copied it, without understanding what made the scenes work.

The other part of the movie that uses fast cuts is in the car chases. Bourne car chases are fantastic, although I would argue that there needs to be suspension of disbelief, as the damage to the vehicles are a bit extreme while staying operational. The fast cuts work well as the goal is clear "escape the city center." The viewer is not expected to be able to keep track of where in the city they are, just that they are being followed and Bourne needs to escape. Also, the movie does not use high performance cars, but instead does regular cars in tight European streets, which is a fun change compared to other movies.

The editing in general for the movie is quite engaging. I would describe it as a fragmented editing style, which works really well for the plot. The fragmented style disorients the viewer a bit, which matches well with Bourne suffering from amnesia. Cutting between various things puts the viewer into the mode of trying to piece everything together alongside Bourne (although the viewer has a bit more info, since they are aware of others actions). Then there is the two ending scenes in Supremacy (Bourne in Russia, then Bourne in the US on the phone with Landy) being reused in Ultimatum with it starting with Bourne escaping Russia and then the phone call taking place about 2/3 of the way through Ultimatum. Since I watched the two movies within about a week of each other, I found that having the movie partially exist between the two ending scenes of the previous movie really fun.

Hello,

I just rewatched the final boss fight of the spectacularly amazing 2010 movie Kickass, and I remembered something I've been meaning to float by movie-knowers...

As I see it, this boss fight is the reason this movie exists. The way I picture how "hollywood"-movies are made is that there is a writers room or producers meeting where nothing happens until someone brings out the weed, schrooms and/or coke which lets real brainstorming take place. And suddenly BAM! You have a single amazing thing happen: the Event.

Once that is settled they work backwards to building a believable story that leads up to that event.

The Event for Kickass is having a grown man beat the pulp out of a young girl without anyone really noticing or making a big deal out if it.

This creates some constraints (remember its 2008/9 at the time of writing), for example:

• the girl can not be seen as a helpless victim.
• the man can't win in the end.
• the beating must be reasonably justified within the story and not just pure sadism/misogyny.
• the beating must look very unrealistic.

From those premises they created a a scenario that would make it possible and wrote out a whole film.

I often find myself having an A-ha!-moment when I find the Event in movies, it's one of the reasons I watch them.

This is in my view one of the biggest reason why sequels are bad: the Event has already been had in the first movie so there isn't really anything of value left to the story.

I'm up for talking about things like:

• how far away I am from the real method of making films
• what defining Events you see in this or other movies
• how and why sequels in general or particular are good/bad
• who went as Kick-Ass or Hit-Girl for Halloween
• ....

I'm here watching Furiosa which has noticeable CGI. So noticeable in fact that my partner, who doesn't give a second thought to the technicalities of movie making commented on it. Painted backgrounds, obvious green screen and so on.

What is also noticeable is that the movie wasn't cheap to make. It has also excellent, energetic direction, camera work and action set pieces and the character design has the same care as Mad Max Fury Road.

The movie also has this cooky, kinda goofy tone from the get go. Stylistically the CGI doesn't really get in the way because there's a real distinct step between our reality and this crazy world on screen. It serves its purpose.

So what's y'all's thoughts about this? I think with money and time (I guess they're the same thing) the movie could've looked a lot better and avoided the paintbrushly fogginess that comes with the green screen -- but would've that actually been worth it?

(There's also a lot of stunts, real handcrafted care and crazy, inspired camera movement. The movie's good, you should probably consider seeing it.)