Showing posts with label Bourne. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bourne. Show all posts

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Logos Revealed For Spy Sequels

Early posters were revealed at last week's big Licensing International Expo for two of the biggest spy sequels on the horizon: Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (aka Mission: Impossible IV) and The Bourne Legacy, both (oddly enough) starring Jeremy Renner.  The Daily Blam was there and snapped pictures of the posters hanging at the expo promoting both films.  Posters at the Licensing Expo are often slapped together well before the film in question has a real marketing plan, just to give it a presence on the floor, so these should not be taken for the official one-sheets.  When those finally appear, they'll presumably look much cooler.  But these banners do give us our first look at the title treatments the studios are currently using for these movies.  Interestingly, there is no colon, dash, or anything delineating the latest Mission: Impossible picture's awkward subtitle, "Ghost Protocol." It's just there, underneath the usual M:I logo. (On this blog, I will continue using the dash, because another colon would be one colon too many, and following the studio's lead and using nothing doesn't really work if you don't have different font styles on different lines like they do!) There's not much more to the posters than the logos you see here, but you can behold them in all their shabby glory at The Daily Blam. Meanwhile, the same expo also afforded fans a more revealing first look at the suddenly ubiquitous Renner's other big spy franchise movie, The Avengers (based on the Marvel comic, not the awesome TV show). That poster (viewable at AICN) shows his costume, and also gives us another look at Scarlett Johansson's sexy superspy Black Widow, a role she reprises from Iron Man 2.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is set to open on December 16, 2011... though Box Office Mojo has an interesting editorial advocating that the film switch dates to avoid directly competing with the Robert Downey Jr. sequel Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.  It does seem odd that two big action tentpoles after the same audience would go up against each other on the same day like that, and I have to concede that BOM is probably correct in their supposition that the Sherlock Holmes franchise has more momentum at the moment, with the sequel coming just two years after a hit predecessor as opposed to five years after the weakest performer in the Mission: Impossible series (though the best movie to date). Of the dates they propose, personally I'd like to see it move up a week to December 9, because I'm dying to see this film and don't want to see it put off until next year! But the editorial does make a good case for April 2012. Read it and see what you think. Tony Gilroy's spin-off from the popular Matt Damon series, The Bourne Legacy, meanwhile, has been set by Universal for an August 3, 2012 debut, as you can see on the poster at The Daily Blam. As previously reported, the film follows an original story conceived by Gilroy (co-writer of the first three movies), and is not based on a Robert Ludlum novel nor the Eric Van Lustbader continuation novel whose title it shares.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Tradecraft: Rachel Weisz Sought For Bourne Role

Uh-oh.  Will James Bond's girlfriend leave him for rival spy Jason Bourne?  Could be.  Deadline reports that Daniel Craig's real-life squeeze Rachel Weisz (The Constant Gardener) is in talks to co-star with Jeremy Renner in Tony Gilroy's Bourne spin-off movie, The Bourne Legacy.  Sounds good to me!  Weisz is an excellent actress and a good match for Renner, and I've always wanted to see her in a spy movie.  (Though I would have preferred Bond.)  Unfortunately, she's also in talks to star in Sam Raimi's Oz the Great and Powerful, and the shooting schedules overlap, so she might not be able to do both movies.  She'd make a good wicked witch, too, so I hope she's able to make it all work out.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Tradecraft: The Bourne Mantle Goes To Jeremy Renner

The Hollywood Reporter reports what Latino Review scooped everybody on a few weeks ago: Jeremy Renner will star in Tony Gilroy's The Bourne Legacy, a spinoff from the popular Matt Damon series based on Robert Ludlum's novels.  For those keeping count, yes, that means that the Hurt Locker actor will be starring in three potential spy franchises at once.  Is he the new Michael Caine (who must have more spy roles to his credit than almost any other actor), or is he over-extending himself in a mad grab for every franchise dangled in front of him?  Besides The Bourne Legacy, Renner also stars alongside Tom Cruise (another actor with a number of espionage roles under his belt) in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (for which he's been widely touted as a potential successor to Cruise in future installments of the series) and The Avengers.  The latter is not based on the real Avengers of Sixties TV, but on the unrelated Marvel comic book series of the same name.  Yet Renner's role is still a spy one.  He plays Hawkeye, a super-agent of Nick Fury's spy agency S.H.I.E.L.D., and just the other day Marvel prexy Kevin Feige stated the company's hopes that Hawkeye will prove popular enough in Joss Whedon's movie to spin off into his own series.  So that's a lot of spying for Jeremy Renner.  I don't begrudge the guy taking all the starring roles he's offered (I mean, he's not even a proven star yet!), but as a spy fan I do kind of wish we had more variety to look forward to in our spy heroes.  It seems like Renner, Robert Downey Jr. and Daniel Craig now control a small monopoly on all franchises... so get used to them!

By the way: the guy behind Renner in that picture from The Hurt Locker is Anthony Mackie, who was supposedly also in contention for the new Bourne role.  He might have been a more interesting choice.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Tradecraft: The Bourne Contenders, Part 2

Deadline has another story about possible stars for Tony Gilroy's The Bourne Legacy, a Matt Damon-less spinoff from the Bourne franchise—and this one has slightly more actual information in it than the last one. The trade blog reports that Dominic Cooper, Joel Edgerton, Garrett Hedlund and Luke Evans are all scheduled to read for the lead role in the first week of April.  Now, that doesn't mean that any of them will end up getting the job, but they're all definitely testing for it.  Interestingly, it seems that one of the primary qualifications for playing this American agent (assuming the new spy hero hails from the same Treadstone spy factory as Jason Bourne/David Webb, which drew from the ranks of the US armed forces) is not being American.  Hedlund is the only candidate of the bunch born in the States.  (Yet also the least exciting of the bunch, I think.) Oddly, I don't really care about that, but considering how up in arms we'd all be were so many Americans ever in contention for James Bond, it's an interesting observation.  Another interesting observation is that the three candidates from the British Commonwealth are also potential successors to the Bond mantle whenever Daniel Craig decides to turn in his PPK. (For my money, Cooper's the most likely to be in the running in that sweepstakes—and he has some interesting Bond connections already, having starred opposite Bond Girl Rosamund Pike in An Education and opposite former 007 Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia!) That in itself represents a shift in direction for the Bourne series, casting-wise, since Matt Damon seemed to have been selected largely because he's such a vigorous anti-Bond type. His non-Bondness, in fact, was probably in part responsible for the franchise's remarkable success to date. It certainly tricked people into believing the filmmakers' line that the Bourne movies were something entirely fresh, and not in fact very well-made imitations of the Bond films. (For the record, I love the Bourne movies, and fully recognize that they in turn have influenced Bond and all action films in general, but that doesn't alter the fact that without James Bond there would be no Jason Bourne, literary or cinematic.) Read the full Deadline story for the names of other possible contenders not currently scheduled to test for the part.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Tradecraft: Who Will Accept The Bourne Legacy? 

This isn't really news, but I guess any traction on a new Bourne film is worth reporting. According to Deadline, pretty much every good-looking actor between the ages of 21 and 35 is being considered as the lead in the next Bourne movie. You probably assumed that already, right?  Of course you did.  Remember, as we've heard many times before, this new lead actor won't actually be playing the same character Matt Damon played; he'll be playing another character, making this film a spinoff rather than a sequel.  Which seems really stupid to me, but I guess I should wait and see where writer/director Tony Gilroy goes with this; he has a good track record.  But can you imagine if EON had said that George Lazenby would be playing 009 or 0011 instead of 007 after Sean Connery left the franchise, in hopes that Connery would come back later? History might have played out more or less the same with Connery returning once more, but the best film in the series would have been ruined! The point is, you don't need to change the character to change the actor. Just give us another Jason Bourne (by which I mean the David Webb Jason Bourne) instead of another character who's clearly treading water while the studio prays for Damon to return. Anyway. Deadline's Mike Fleming offers a laundry list of hot young actors on Universal's wish list here. I'm not going to repeat the whole list because you can probably guess them all anyway, and it doesn't mean anything till someone's actually cast. Two interesting (non-Gemini) contenders on opposite ends of the age spectrum with previous movie spy experience include Alex Pettyfer and Michael Fassbender. I admit, there's something amusing about the idea of Alex Rider stepping into Robert Ludlum's world... but not that amusing.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Tradecraft: Ludlum-Based Treadstone TV Show Still Happening?

In a report today about other shows that CSI creator Anthony Zuiker has recently sold, Deadline mentions Treadstone as if it's still happening, despite their own earlier report that the Robert Ludlum-based spy drama was now on the back burner at CBS.  Treadstone was first reported as a series focusing on "the Treadstone Project" (which, by the way, would make a considerably Ludlumier title for the series, if the producers want to stay on-brand), the CIA project in Robert Ludlum's novels and the films based on them responsible for the creation of Jason Bourne and other covert assassins. So which report is accurate?  While it seems completely feasible that Captivate Entertainment, the company which controls the rights to Ludlum's properties, would want to back-burner a TV series in favor of their own Tony Gilroy-directed Bourne spin-off film, The Bourne Legacy, which sounds like it deals with the same subject.  Yet Deadline's Nellie Andreeva apparently even has a new quote from Zuiker on the show, which certainly makes it sound like the project is very much active in his mind, anyway. "We are fascinated by the concept of the citizen spy who lives among us every day," the showrunner told the trade blog.  While I, too (and presumably most readers of this blog) am fascinated by that subject, that doesen't sound exactly like the Treadstone we know from the Bourne movies, which amounts to an evil factory turning special forces soldiers into covert government killers–a far cry from "citizen spies."  Indeed, the log line that Deadline offers today seems slightly different from the initial concept we heard about.  According to the trade blog today, Treadstone "centers on the workings of the Robert Ludlum-created fictional division of the CIA and chronicles how real spies live and operate in today’s world."  Again stressing a focus on "real spies" and "living," which aren't really the concern of the Bourne films.  Perhaps this project will draw more on Ludlum's novels, in which the Treadstone organization was not evil?  Yet that would be odd, too, presenting two completely different and conflicting takes on the same literary material in two different mediums.  Hm.  Well, it will be interesting to see where this goes.  Personally, I think I'm a bit more interested in the potential TV show than in a Matt Damon-less and more importantly Bourne-less movie continuation.

Variety sheds a little more light on the subject, but not much.  The most important takeaway from the trade's story is that it seems to echo the tone of the Deadline piece, suggesting that this project is definitely moving forward in development.  It also reiterates that the pilot script is being written by John Glenn (Eagle Eye John Glenn, not James Bond John Glen), and executive produced by Glen, Zuiker, Ben Smith and Captivate's Jeffrey Weiner.  According to Variety, "Zuiker had been looking to do a spy project for some time but hadn't found the right framework until the Ludlum concept pointed in the direction of 'citizen spies' who hold down everyday jobs and blend in with their communities. The sensational bust last June of ten alleged Russian spies who were living nondescript lives in the U.S. added heat to the project at CBS."  I really don't see that "citizen spy" aspect coming from Ludlum's material, but that definitely sounds like the direction they're taking the show...

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Tradecraft: Ludlum-Based TV Show On The Back Burner

I'd been wondering about this.  With Tony Gilroy's weird, Jason Bourne-less (and Matt Damon-less) Bourne spinoff movie The Bourne Legacy focusing on the Treadstone program that honed covert operatives into mindless killing machines, it looks like the Treadstone TV series we heard about a few months ago is on the back burner, if not dead in the water.  According to Deadline (and hidden in the midst of an article about the new Dune feature at Parmount), it was a condition of Gilroy's acceptance of the directing assignment that Treadstone be liquidated–at least for the moment.  (The two Treadstone mythologies might have, forgive me, tread upon each others' toes.)  Too bad.  I think I'd be more willing to accept a spinoff without Bourne himself in a different medium than as a feature.  I was excited about that TV show, which was being developed by CSI creator Anthony Zuiker.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Gilroy: Damon Won't Return For The Bourne Legacy

New Bourne director (and returning screenwriter) Tony Gilroy has told Hollywood Elsewhere (via Dark Horizons) that Matt Damon will not be back for the next Bourne movie, and indeed that his character (known best by the moniker of Jason Bourne, even if that's not his real name) won't appear.  He set the matter straight on some other things, too, and basically confirmed what I've speculated here before.  The title will be The Bourne Legacy, but the film will bear no resemblance to Eric van Lustbader's continuation novel of that name, just as The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum bore no resemblance to the plots of Robert Ludlum's novels of those titles.  "It's a completely original screenplay," Gilroy told the website, adding, "This is not a reboot or a recast or a prequel. No one's replacing Matt Damon. There will be a whole new hero, a whole new chapter... this is a stand-alone project."  He goes on to further clarify that Jason Bourne is still "very much alive," though he won't be a character in this film.  "What happened in the first three films is the trigger for what happens. I'm building a legend and an environment and a wider conspiracy."  Head over to Hollywood Elsewhere to read everything Gilroy had to say. 

Personally, I've got to say I'm a tad disappointed.  I had really hoped that Damon would see reason and return to the role that solidified his stardom, but he appears to be ingrateful.  Gilroy stipulates that this story will leave the door open for Damon's Bourne to return again in the future, so perhaps he'll still get a Never Say Never Again moment down the line.  Failing Damon's return, I would have preferred to see the role simply recast, Bond-style (not rebooted or remade), with the supporting players all returning and no one commenting on Bourne's "new face" or anything silly like that.  Instead, we get a sequel without the titular character, and it will be interesting to see how audiences respond to that.  I guess the title The Bourne Legacy is very much appropriate, though, to what Gilroy is proposing...

Monday, October 4, 2010

Tradecraft: Tony Gilroy To Direct Fourth Bourne Movie

Deadline reports that Tony Gilroy, who wrote or co-wrote all three Jason Bourne movies to date, will take the directing reins on the next film in the series. Bourne 4 is tentatively titled The Bourne Legacy, but seems unlikely to bear Eric Van Lustbader's continuation novel of that name any more resemblance than the existing movies to to Robert Ludlum's original novels.  Gilroy was hired to write the script in June, after two other writers, George Nolfi (who co-wrote The Bourne Ultimatum) and Josh Zetumer (who did uncredited script work on Quantum of Solace) had prevously developed "parallel scripts."  It's unclear whether anything from either of their drafts will be incorporated into Gilroy's.  Having worked on all the previous Bourne films and directed two critically acclaimed features of his own, Gilroy seems like an obvious choice to replace Paul Greengrass.  Greengrass brought an exciting new style to his first film in the franchise, The Bourne Supremacy, which (for better or for worse) changed the face of action filmmaking.  If The Bourne Supremacy was something of a laboratory for Greengrass to experiment with this style, he perfected it in The Bourne Ultimatum and his non-Bourne follow-up collaboration with Matt Damon, Green Zone.  However, while in post-production on Green Zone, Greengrass begged out of directing another Bourne movie.  Damon, in turn, very publicly stated that he wouldn't return to the franchise without Greengrass.  Gilroy, meanwhile (who is rumored to not get along with Greengrass, and vice versa), went off to direct Duplicity, a very entertaining spy caper that I never got around to properly covering here on the Double O Section.  Duplicity sadly tanked at the box office, but abely demonstrated that Gilroy has what it takes to make a good spy movie (particularly a fascination with tradecraft procedures) in a potentially very different style from that of Greengrass.  And after two quick-cut, shaky-cam movies, I think that's exactly what the franchise requires. 

Don't get me wrong: I believe Greengrass's action verite style was exactly right for the two films he directed, and, as I said, the results in The Bourne Ultimatum and Green Zone were nothing short of thrilling.  But while Greengrass has mastered that style, others have failed in trying to imitate him.  Marc Forster's disasterous attempt in Quantum of Solace should prove particularly instructive for Gilroy on what can happen when a director not experienced with action scenes to begin with attempts it.  Personally, I think that even though Greengrass redefined the genre on the second Bourne movie, what the franchise needs now is a new approach.  I hope Gilroy sticks to his own style rather than trying to emulate Greengrass's.  And I have a feeling he will. 

Of course, the other thing this franchise undeniably needs is Matt Damon.  He's said "never again" as many times as Sean Connery by now, displaying a similar disregard for the role that made him an action star.  Hopefully he'll see reason or dollar signs or both and decide to return to the part once again, Greengrass or not.  It's clear that Universal intends to proceed with or without him.  Let's hope it's with.

Monday, July 26, 2010

Movie Review: Salt (2010)

Salt is kind of an odd movie. For its first half, it’s exactly what I expected: a thrilling (if utterly preposterous) spy movie combining the barest bones of a Le CarrĂ©-esque espionage plot (which is quickly abandoned) about defectors and sleeper agents with breakneck action sequences that come as fast as those in the Bourne movies, but with a refreshing pre-Greengrass 90s sensibility. What I mean by that is not aimed as a slight against Greengrass, who is a master of the quick-cut, shaky camera sensibility he pioneered, but merely a frustration with his many imitators. Greengrass’s influence has been so pervasive that that style has become de rigeur for the genre today–and in less capable hands it often doesn’t work. In Salt, Phillip Noyce (an accomplished veteran of 90s spy movies like Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger* who then fled Hollywood to spend the last decade directing artier independent fare, including the terrific spy film The Quiet American) very competently builds action sequences that you can easily follow and allows them to play out in full view. There is very little room for CGI trickery here, and the practical effects and physical stunts are highly impressive. Noyce’s action style reminds me of that of Bond veteran John Glen (perhaps the most underrated action director of all time) in that its genius is the appearance of no style. By that, of course, I don’t mean that it’s actually without style; I mean that the art of the style is to remain unobtrusive. You will enjoy the action for the stunts themselves, and not get distracted by flashy direction. I love this, and found the old-school approach quite refreshing. In its second half, however, Salt veers wildly off the rails.

What begins as a Bourne-ish spy story (and now I’m using Bourne as a story comparison rather than a style one; there’s no denying the Bourne influence in that respect!) goes places you might never imagine from the trailers and becomes a conspiracy thriller involving the President of the United States, the President of Russia, control of America’s nuclear arsenal, multiple assassinations and the fate of the world. Clearly I’m not against such a story, but I was enjoying the first story better and didn’t really appreciate the radical shift in the second half. (I suppose the writers would probably argue that it’s an escalation rather than a change, but in escalating the stakes they end up discarding most of what they built in the first half. See The Tailor of Panama instead for an example of perfect unexpected escalation in a spy movie!) The conspiracy half (which features one of the least convincing–and dopiest–actors to ever play the American president) strays from Bourne territory into more 24 territory–or even Eagle Eye territory. Personally, I preferred the first half. But my girlfriend felt just the opposite, and thought that the movie really came alive when it went so over the top in the second, so perhaps you’ll find that more your cup of tea as well. I suppose the glass-half-full way to look at it is that there’s something for everyone!

The movie (surprisingly short for a modern spy film) also ends rather abruptly. I recognize that this ending (extremely Bourne-like, by the way) is a set-up for a sequel and I will happily line up for that sequel. But in this movie, I felt a bit ripped off, like someone had turned off the TV before it was over. I wanted to yell, “Hey! I wasn’t done watching that yet!”

What’s odd is that now it seems like I’m giving this film a negative review–and I’m not. I really did very much enjoy the first half–and I did enjoy the movie as a whole, as well, even if I had misgivings about the second half. It’s also impossible to deny that it’s a better movie than Knight and Day, for which I wrote a very positive review, so I suppose that comparison exposes the extreme subjectivity in film reviewing, and the large role that expectations play. (I felt defensive of Knight and Day, a far-from-perfect but highly enjoyable movie that seemed to be under attack on all sides; Salt, on the other hand, seems to be garnering rather favorable notices that it doesn’t totally earn.) Anyway, the action is amazing, and Angelina Jolie is at the top of her game. She is sexy, and that certainly adds to any movie star performance, but the role doesn’t rely on that fact. (In fact, she spends a good chunk of the film in decidedly un-sexy drag, sporting a very unfortunate kd lang haircut!) She’s also an extremely physical actress, and the role does rely on that. Overall, it doesn’t really show that the part was originally written for a man (Tom Cruise flirted with the project for a long time), but that fact may have served to create a tougher female role than we usually see, even today. Tough without relying on sexiness, I mean. (Salt is never pictured in her bra, I don't think... though she does discard her underpants–off camera–in the middle of a rather tense standoff!) There are plenty of strong female roles in the spy genre, but most of them thrive on combining capability with sexuality. (Think Sydney Bristow.) In Salt we get a female agent who doesn’t rely on that crutch in her actions. As when Honor Blackman stepped into a part originally written for a man and in the process forever changed female portrayals on genre TV, I think that might be attributable to the character’s sex change on the page.

We’re never fully aware of Evelyn Salt’s true motivations (Who Is Salt? indeed!), but that doesn’t alienate us from the character–largely thanks to Jolie’s compelling performance. Pretty much off the bat her character’s world is thrown into chaos when a walk-in defector accuses her of being a Russian sleeper agent, and we’re plunged into that chaos along with her. Her performance and Noyce’s slick direction were both strong enough that I didn’t really stop to ponder the utter preposterousness of the spy plot until after the movie was over. If she is really a sleeper agent, though, then how on earth would it benefit the Russians to expose such a successful mole right before they really needed her? It makes no sense whatsoever, but such questions of logic are easy to ignore amidst a fast-moving action plot. (Once you do start asking those questions, however, you might also ask yourself exactly why “the world’s foremost arachnologist” has unprecedented access to the North Korean border. Is the North Korean border just crawling with exotic spiders?) Instead of wasting time contemplating the logic of it all (or lack thereof), we’re breathlessly following Jolie’s daring escape from a CIA tactical team. Along the way she improvises with tactics equal to Jason Bourne’s, mountaineers along precarious ledges, leaps from moving truck to moving truck, and–when the situation dictates–ruthlessly mows down whole cadres of enemy agents. Salt is a truly exciting movie with refreshingly old-school action, and for that it deserves to be a hit. I just can’t escape the feeling that it could have been so much more. Oh well. We have the inevitable sequel to look forward to for that...

*To protect his dignity, we’ll say nothing of The Saint.