Just a quick question, did having read the books help you understand the ending of the film more, i.e. fill in gaps and know what certain things where hinting at?.
]]>The Bourne movie threw me completely, in being completely different from the novel, but I'm really glad it was, because I think it would have been incredibly labourious otherwise.
]]>It's a TV show from the creator of "The West Wing", this time going behind the scenes of a late night sketch show (i.e. Saturday Night Live), it starred Matthew Perry as the head writer, Bradley Whitford as the fictional shows Executive Producer and Amanda Peet as the Network's President.
Despite being mind boggingly good, funny and smart the good people of america didn't get it so it got cancelled after one run of 22 episodes.
Matthew Perry's is a particularly stand out performance as his character does on paper have a lot of similarities to Chandler (making a lot of jokes, perhaps not the most well adjusted person) but when you see him in the show you really aren't thinking about Chandler at all.
]]>Do watch some Studio 60.
]]>Matt Damon, I've seen him in a few movies prior. Talented Mr Ripley, Good will hunting, and other stuff.
Carlos, I've never heard of before. not before Tony. so actually it should be Carlos whom I shouldn't be able to detach from the Tony part. and it'll probably be so.
As for Matthew Perry, I really haven't seen him anywhere outside of Friends, so the first and only thing that comes to my mind when I think of that name is Chandler Bing (Bing! )
]]>With Matt Damon, it's likely you probably knew more. But ofcourse film is a different medium.
To add another name to this, Matthew Perry, if and when you can try catching a few episodes of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, I had no difficulty forgetting Chandler.
Yes, it would be nice to hear from Steve on this.
]]>I do like it when movies use original locations instead of studios. though I mostly can't really tell if things have been filmed in hollywood with a prop of a city or in the city itself. but I guess that's why it's hollywood - dream factory
here's looking forward to the movie then.
on a different note, something I thought about last night. actors and their defining roles.
frankly, to me, kiefer sutherland - ever since 24 - simply looks like jack bauer in most of his movies - especially if they're action characters. it has to do with the way kiefer acts of course, too. though he's brilliant as jack, i suppose after 6 years of that, it's probably hard to just detach yourself from the part when it's LIGHTS, CAMERA, ACTION. in a movie. in non-action flicks, I find it easier not to see Bauer in it, but it's still present.
I'm sure it will be the same thing with Carlos Bernard. Tony Almeida is so memorable (to me at least, and I won't take anyone contradicting! evil stare danger!) that when I see Carlos somewhere else I'll simply be thinking of Tony. In that respect I'm interested to see Apocalypse with MFL in a couple of weeks and see if I'm right. Carlos's character there apparently has some of the same mannerisms as Tony does - and if that's so, then I'm frankly not sure if I even want to watch it - so as not to distort the image I have of Tony and of Carlos as an actor.
on the other hand, with Matt Damon - and here's the tie in to the actual topic - despite having seen him and loved him in the Ocean's movies and in the Bourne movies which are both trilogies and hence somewhat of a "serial" role - I have no problem "buying" that he's playing different characters in other movies that I've seen with him. now, surely, a film trilogy isn't the same as three years of a series but I was curious as to what others think of this - maybe especially steve, who would be at the center of this discussion somewhat, but hasn't been posting lately (though I *have* actually seen him check out the boards).
]]>Okay, well favourite bits. hmm.
A chase scene in waterloo station, which is doubly impressive if you know waterloo station because you can tell they did actually film in the station in the middle of the rush hour. And the scene itself is so beautifully staged, and intricate that I can't imagine anyone not being impressed.
Nearer the end, they do something very clever with some seemingly innocuous scenes from the second film Supremacy.
]]>care to share any favorite bits without spoiling it too much?
]]>btw, dan, it is because of you that I decided to watch those bourne movies as they were shown. knowing that you love them so much and you've encouraged me to see t hem
Good good.
]]>Anyone who has seen it, but disagrees with me, feel free to air your opinions, but please be forewarned, you may be subject to the evil stare faster than J_A reacting to the numbers 5-13.
ROTFL. indeed, if that evil stare is faster than mine when you mention those numbers then I understand
I fully intend to see the movie. i've watched the other 2 movies over the past weeks as they were aired on telly. the bourne ultimatum is starting here on sept. 6th and i won't be back from visiting MFL until 14th. but thereafter I will see it and post my thoughts.
btw, dan, it is because of you that I decided to watch those bourne movies as they were shown. knowing that you love them so much and you've encouraged me to see t hem
]]>Certain parts I'm certain will have Bond producers doing one of the following.
1) Furiously taking notes.
2) Watching through there fingers
3) Desperating searching for Paul Greengrass' number
4) Going green with envy.
or some combination of all four.
I encourage everyone to go see this film, in the cinema. Having seen Bourne Supremacy is helpful, but not essential.
Anyone who has seen it, but disagrees with, me feel free to air your opinions, but please be for-warned, you maybe subject to the evil stare faster than J_A reacting to the numbers 5-13.
]]>