ROTTEN TOMATOES: Exclusive: Doug Liman Has Designs on Bond

Exclusive: Doug Liman Has Designs on Bond

by Joe Utichi | February 15, 2008

Summary

The Jumper helmer tells RT that though he reinvigorated the spy genre with Bourne Identity and had the producers of Bond terrified; it was that franchise he always wanted to do. Back to Article

(21-36 of 36 posts) | Reply

Bloody Mathias writes:
on Feb 15 2008 08:30 PM

Loved what Paul Greengrass introduced with the shaky-cam but i agree that it's become a "trend". After Supremacy, United 93 and Ultimatum, Kingdom and Cloverfield jumped on its bandwagon. I feel like it's no longer fresh but tired and expected now.

Although i like Greengrass' Bourne movies more than Liman's, i feel so glad that Liman made Identity. It's a great movie that put the Bond producers to shame and showed them what a spy movie should be. And when Supremacy hit the scene and a Bourne movie made more movie than a recent crappy Bond flick, the Bond producers took notice and hired Paul Haggis to help make their Bond "grittier".

Face it, because of Bourne, the days when Bond could dispatch hencmen with a gadget while no spilling a drop of his vodka on his Armani suit is long gone.

(Reply to this)

Bloody Mathias writes:
on Feb 15 2008 08:32 PM

* Bourne movie made more money....

** Henchmen

Damn my spelling errors.

(Reply to this)

BrokenDreamer writes:
on Feb 15 2008 11:28 PM

I admit that I actually appreciated the shaky-cams, even though it does leave me with a sense of uneasiness. However, I think the uneasy effect of the camera actually enhances the experience of watching the movie. To me, it accomplishes its goals: it creates a realistic, documentary-like feel. More importantly, it felt more gritty and intense. As a result, I found Paul Greengrass' direction to be far more compelling that Liman's (Did you know Liman was an executive producer for The OC? Sad.) It just felt more exciting to me.

By the way, for those who claim that the shaky-cam was just a cop-out for the director in regards to fight sequences, watch the behind the scenes. It is clear that the fights take no short cuts and that Matt Damon was well trained for those sequences. There was no compensating for bad fighting skills. Sure, the viewer does not get to see every action clearly and that training might seem to go to waste, but where is it written that action is to be perfectly polished? In a gritty fight scene, it's more realistic when we have to strain to see what is happening. I know a lot of people don't like this, but it is not bad directing, it's just a style: one I personally enjoyed.

As for my order, I would also put it Ultimatum, Supremacy, and then Identity. I like what Greengrass did with the franchise; maybe it's just my opinion, but even the acting seems improved in these later movies (possibly making Greengrass a better actors' director). When Ultimatum was released, I watched the first two movies before seeing Ultimatum in theaters. When I returned to the first movie after watching the adrenaline-fueled Ultimatum, Identity seemed too polished, too slow, and not as exciting. I liked how the camera was always moving in The Bourne Ultimatum. It gave the movie an energy that the steady cam doesn't match.

So, do I think Liman did a poor job? Not really. He brought to screen the franchise, which Greengrass than took to the next level. I can see why people don't like the shaky cameras, but I disagree with those who claim using this style is a sign of bad directing. But, really, we all have our own tastes, so who is wrong? You can not like a style, but that doesn't mean the movie is bad, just that you don't prefer it. It's all relative.

(Reply to this)

donatsu2000 writes:
on Feb 16 2008 06:47 AM

Once again, no defense for the second two Bourne movies, other than more action and the shaky-cam imparted a sense of uneasiness or energy to the scenes.

But please these are spy movies and PLOT is key. The second two HAD NO PLOT. The audience knew everything already from the first film. The only single development was the relationship of Nicky with Bourne.

PLEASE SOME OF THE SUPREMACY AND ULTIMATUM FANS PLEASE TELL ME THE PLOT AND HOW IT'S SUPERIOR TO THE FIRST.

And as to the acting being better, that's absolutely not true. Please name one specific moment where the acting "seemed" better.

And I don't care how long they planned out the fight scenes. To then shoot them and chop them up so unintelligbly is the sign of a lazy director with no vision. It doesn't make it more real to not know what is going on, because if you have seen a real fight you know what is going on.

You want more realistic violence go watch Eastern Promises. That Bath scene is some of the most realistc feeling fighting, because Cronenberg goes the exact opposite, instead of handicam, and choppy editing, he goes out of his way to linger and not cut. To show you clearly and it turns out more realistic, because you see the whole horror of the violence.

Greengrass is actually glorifying his violence, MAKING IT COOL for all the drooling idiots (there I said it) by giving it that fake cinema verite. But it is so obvious that it becomes overwhelming and thus more fake. AND THERE IS NO POINT TO IT. HE USED IT FIRST DURING BLOODY SUNDAY, BECAUSE IT WAS A TRUE STORY. Bourne is pure fiction and we know it, so trying to impart that much realism on a clearly fictional story does not work.

Liman knew this, he shot it handheld, but his services the story because it is ONLY slight and really only during action scenes. Greengrass does it the entire movie. That's why it doesn't work.

It only works for people who are shallow enough to fall for style over substance. AND that is what the second two movies are.

AND FOR THE FINAL TIME - WHAT ARE THE PLOTS OF THE SECOND TWO. He already knows he's a spy. We already know how he was made, etc. There is nothing left but boring, bungling CIA machinations and Bourne trying not to get killed.

(Reply to this)

vaodsi writes:
on Feb 17 2008 12:44 AM

supremacy....... Bourne knows he's a spy and is trying to go on with his life. But this is made impossible when he is framed. he has to prove his innocence and Konklin's (sp?) corruption.

Ultimatum........ The CIA still sees him as a threat. He decides in order for this to be over, he has to find out the WHOLE story and find just who is responsible for the what's happening. This is how he discovers himself. The end (?)

(i don't think so...... ;)

my personal favorite would be supremacy, but probably just because that was the first one i saw..... that was hard to follow.... but so fun. I really like all those movies. AND NO! Liman did not "Back OUT" from the last two. He was the Executive producer, just like george lucas(UGH!) and star wars 5 and 6. Yes, I like Greengrass better. But hey, I'll be honest..... I haven't seen swingers or go (i'm young and busy)

luv RT.

goodnight everybody. live long and prosper.

(Reply to this)

vaodsi writes:
on Feb 17 2008 01:00 AM

I like shaky cam... i can understand what's going on just fine. I also feel more adrenaline.... and if you don't agree with me then you're probably over thirty! And you are probably stupid! And you are shallow! And you probably could never keep your goldfish alive! And you probably suck at communication in relationships! And you probably never had a girlfriend! And you probably wear a diaper! And you probably don't get the fact that this is satire! ;)

goodmorning.

but seriously, i was talking to my dad and he had a cool theory. He was thinking that if you notice, the majority (meaning not all, but most) of the people who like shakycam are younger and grew up with video games and cell-phone cameras and video cameras and made their own shaky movies, while the older generation gets sick and confused, not being accustomed to it. I remember making movies as a kid. the camera was always shaky! I couldn't help it! I was excited! my friends and siblings could watch it fine. My mom would always get nauseated. just food for thought. Interesting theory.

peace out! ( and no offense to people over thirty! I mean, in ten years i'll be over thirty ;)

(Reply to this)

vaodsi writes:
on Feb 17 2008 01:03 AM

I like shaky cam... i can understand what's going on just fine. I also feel more adrenaline.... and if you don't agree with me then you're probably over thirty! And you are probably stupid! And you are shallow! And you probably could never keep your goldfish alive! And you probably suck at communication in relationships! And you probably never had a girlfriend! And you probably wear a diaper! And you probably don't get the fact that this is satire! ;)

goodmorning.

but seriously, i was talking to my dad and he had a cool theory. He was thinking that if you notice, the majority (meaning not all, but most) of the people who like shakycam are younger and grew up with video games and cell-phone cameras and video cameras and made their own shaky movies, while the older generation gets sick and confused, not being accustomed to it. I remember making movies as a kid. the camera was always shaky! I couldn't help it! I was excited! my friends and siblings could watch it fine. My mom would always get nauseated. just food for thought. Interesting theory.

peace out! ( and no offense to people over thirty! I mean, in ten years i'll be over thirty ;)

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Feb 17 2008 09:20 AM

Just saw Jumper. Not great, but not a complete waste of time. Story has gaping plot holes (We're supposed to believe a group of people who can teleport at will are contained by a group of religious nutjobs with tasers and they've been doing this since the Dark Ages....ummmm, what did they do before electricity was invented in the last 100 years? Pray for lightning?), but if you check your brain at the door it's not so bad. The jump special effects and action sequences are what really make the movie work when it does along with Jamie "Billy Elliot" Bell who gives the only notable performance in the film besides Samuel L. Jackson who plays Samuel L Jackson better than anyone in Hollywood(In this case evil Sam, who glowers a bit more than heroic Sam, but oddly doesn't swear as much).

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Feb 17 2008 10:16 AM

Well, I'm over 30 (well over 30) and I have no problem whatsoever with shaky cam, if it's done in service of the story, which I thought it was in the last two Bourne films. I believe someone else adequately explained the plots of the movies (not deep, but not every plot has to be. Sometimes an adrenaline rush is all you really need.)

As to which is better, that will always be a matter of opinion, so why argue about it? What would be interesting is to see if Greengrass can direct a film without resorting to that camera style, or if that's all he's capable of doing.

(Reply to this)

vaodsi writes:
on Feb 17 2008 11:45 AM

agreed.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Feb 17 2008 12:26 PM

In reply to this comment (#1581109)
Electricity was invented???

(Reply to this)

gunslingR writes:
on Feb 17 2008 01:07 PM

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1501119/story.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10492645

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1501119/story.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10492645

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1501119/story.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10492645

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1501119/story.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10492645

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Feb 17 2008 02:54 PM

In reply to this comment (#1581702)
I already pointed that out but I don't think anyone listened. Maybe if I shout:

AL PACINO IS IN QUANTUM OF SOLACE!!!

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Feb 18 2008 02:07 AM

In reply to this comment (#1581602)
Good catch. I should have said harnessed.

(Reply to this)

renodc writes:
on Feb 18 2008 11:08 AM

I may be mistaken, but doesn't the Broccoli family that controls the Bond franchise have a strict policy of only using British directors. I believe I read something about that when Quentin Tarantino was trying to convince the Broccoli's to remake Casino Royale with an edge and let him direct. I could have sworn they shot him down because he wasn't British. Although, they did end up going with something similar to what he was proposing. Of course, all of that could have been rumor.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Feb 18 2008 11:51 AM

In reply to this comment (#1583986)
I'm not sure if they have a policy like that, but they're always British productions.

As far as Tarantino directing, I think that would have been a bad idea. It would have had too much of the Tarantino mark on it to really work as a Bond movie. It might have worked on a different level, just not as a Bond movie.

(Reply to this)