Exclusive: Doug Liman Has Designs on Bond

Gimy on 02-15-2008 06:52 AM

well bra, you did one better...you did a trilogy better than the recent bond films. just one thing, whomever's idea it was to shoot OVER the shoulder and cut off the face of the person talking...don't do that in another movie. its annoying as h3ll. its like watching a movie in front of a sasquatch...if you can't see the entire scene, it ruins it...

Go was ok, nowhere near the caliber of Swingers. and Speilberg doing bond? that'd be ridankulous...

kenekgo on 02-15-2008 07:42 AM

In my opinion Go is his best film, then Swingers, then Identity. Hated The Smiths and havent seen Jumper yet. Hes 3/4. Thats good.

citizenjames on 02-15-2008 08:12 AM

not to hate on liman but i like SWINGERS but i also like MADE a lot so i think that has more to do with jon favreau having written both of them. GO is like a junior version of PULP FICTION and i am good with that. MR AND MRS SMITH is a lots of fun but really it's a mess with all the depth of a sitcom with explosions. i still can't believe simon kinsberg spun a career out of that screenplay. haven't seen JUMPER but it's an entire movie sold on a hunky dude and a special effect... eye candy for everyone.

as for BOURNE, people keep forgetting paul greengrass directed the second two. liman left after the first and weakest of the three.

give credit where credit is due.

Young Turk on 02-15-2008 08:16 AM

Smiths wasn't bad, and I can't see how Jumper is as terrible as critics say. Go, Swingers and Identity are definitely gold though.

photosuperstar on 02-15-2008 09:12 AM

One of my students thinks he's a guido!

Shatter24 on 02-15-2008 09:28 AM

The great thing about the Bourne series and choosing which is the best, is that no one has a particularly wrong answer. I believe the third Bourne film was the best and my favorite, followed by one and then two. Bourne Supremacy felt a little too story heavy and action light, compared to the well-balanced other two films.

Though none of them are bad movies. Still, I think Bond would have done better sticking to what makes Bond = Bond, rather than jumping on the gritty bandwagon. In Hollywood, once there's a good idea, everyone copies it until there is a glut, and then they go back to the original idea, and people think they're daring and inspired.

nathanpoitras on 02-15-2008 10:07 AM

I hear that Jumper is a big steaming pile of elephant poop. Liman's movies seem to be getting progressively worse as he goes along, and of the 3 Bourne flicks, he made the weakest one so please Doug, Leave Bond alone.

arendr on 02-15-2008 10:44 AM

I'm going to go off-topic here, because RT hasn't picked up on this story yet:

Al Pacino is going to be the Bond villain in Quantum of Solace?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1501119/story.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10492645

Hmm....

donatsu2000 on 02-15-2008 10:58 AM

I would love to hear from the lovers of the second two Bourne movies as to why they are better, when they clearly are weaker in every department. I guess for the ADD riddled masses they seem cooler. Smash, bash, crash. But they are over-edited, poorly photographed, and terribly plotted. From watching the movies you would never think they were actually books before hand, and they weren't made up as they went along or in the editing room.
Bourne globtrots, yet you cannot discern any kind of atmosphere or locale other than the turning the blue knob or the orange knob in the Color Timing Suite.

Oh it's soooooo gritty the way the camera bobs and weaves, TO BOB AND WEAVE. Shaky Shaky.
Paul Greengrass the fantastic master of reality. Taking his success from Bloody Sunday and thinking it was all because of the handheld camera, using it in every film he does now. Yet, his first film was more traditional with planned out shots. Etc. I guess since that was a bomb, he needed to get in everyone's face to get noticed.

The first Bourne movie is by far the best. The first one had a story. The second two repeated the same story but dilluted, and lacking the basic sympathetic premise of figuring out who he was, since that question was answered in the first. Every piece of information in the second two was already known. Conspiracy, brainwashing, assassins.

nathanpoitras on 02-15-2008 11:38 AM

Paul Greengrass is just a far better filmmaker than Doug Liman could ever hope to be, especially in the action department. oh and BLU-RAY WINS!

IndianaSchwartz on 02-15-2008 11:54 AM

i don't know why i'm posting on here, but did anyone notice how liman said spielberg "recently" said he wanted to do a bond picture? that's an old story, my friend. i don't know...i just can't respect a director who's not up on his spielberg knowledge. liman has gone a little crazy with his "style"... saw jumper and i had a headache halfway through. i like to actually SEE my bond movies.

ps - ultimatum was the best of the 3

knowingtoast85 on 02-15-2008 12:23 PM

The Bourne trilogy is just about excellent, but "Identity" was more like a nice surprise, bolstered by Damon's commitment to the role, the tried-and-true attraction of the premise and the moderate credibility of the love story. It worked. Greengrass' contributions took Bourne in the direction I feel it needed to go. For us to continue caring about his journey, we had to be there with him at all times. His sense of immediacy as a filmmaker was totally integral.

Not to mention Gilroy's adaptations were lean, muscular and intelligent. It proved that spy action thrillers could design set pieces entirely around ingenuity and quick-thinking instead of explosions and fight choreography, although there were some of those as well.

Joe Utichi on 02-15-2008 01:15 PM

I don't think I've ever been more interested to read everyone's comments in a thread. Your fine arguments are all making me feel very nervous for my job.

Ashron on 02-15-2008 01:46 PM

And no one has called anyone else an idiot yet. What's happening to my beloved RT forums :-)

Joe Utichi on 02-15-2008 02:00 PM

God knows, but I love it.

cabezone on 02-15-2008 02:46 PM

I loved identity, but just don't get the shaky cam stuff. I couldn't watch past the diner scene in Ultimatum, it's just too irritating.

Segkee on 02-15-2008 05:06 PM

Down with Shaky-cam. Greengrass is a brilliant director, but the shaky cam has to go. It's actually a cop out. To shoot action clean is actually a lot harder because less can be faked. And it's cheaper. In Ultimatum or The Kingdom the shakiness becomes distracting to vomit inducing even when no action is taking place. When real movement occurs - a car chase, a foot chase, a fight - I found I had to turn away from the screen.

I haven't seen Cloverfield yet, but I hear it's a similar problem.

It's a shame. It appears movies are not being designed for the big screen any more.

Bloody Mathias on 02-15-2008 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.

Bloody Mathias on 02-15-2008 08:32 PM

* Bourne movie made more money....

** Henchmen

Damn my spelling errors.

BrokenDreamer on 02-15-2008 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.