There's a new Bourne movie out on August 13 but Jason Bourne's not in it. Is it OK to have a franchise where the hero or heroine is notable by their absence?

Related Posts on Kermode Uncut
Weather Proof

Mark's reviews on 5 live
Watch Mark's latest reviews

Hear Mark Kermode review the week's new films every Friday from 2pm on BBC Radio 5 live. Kermode & Mayo's Film Review is also available as a free podcast to download and keep.

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 138. Posted by willox

    on 26 Aug 2012 09:27

    just to answer the first question: 'how would you like this blog if I wasn't in it?' My answer is that I wouldn't. I have been an avid listener to the podcasts and viewer of the blog / vodcasts for years, but have to admit to skipping over those podcasts where the Good Doctor is on holibobs. I listen / watch / interact because I enjoy and engage with Mark's reviews. This is because of the entertainment, education and challenge that i get from them (sometimes i do not agree, and sometimes, just sometimes, i change my mind). The difference with films is that they are not real and, quite honestly, i just don't care that much about fictional characters. I may be wrong ...

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 138: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 138: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 137. Posted by chrisP698

    on 15 Aug 2012 00:05

    I have just got back from seeing this film at my local cinema, and completely agree with your review of this film as being disappointing. Whilst watching this I was consistently reminded how amazing the first three films in this series were, and how no matter how hard they try they cannot live up in this recent addition.

    The thing that made the first three films great was the mystery around the character Jason Bourne and his past life, though sadly in this film they choose to focus more on the companies behind these programs, than on developing the character Jeremy Renner portrays. By doing this it stopped me from really engaging in the story and left me not really caring what happened to any characters in the film. Not all the acting is terrible because as always Edward Norton does a very good job as the man trying to keep everything under wraps, though I felt he was underused in the grand scheme of things.

    Many people have commented on the fact that the fight/ chase scenes are well done, though even these great scenes just left recollecting scenes from the previous in which they were more intense. The chase scene towards the end of the movie, just served to remind me of the chase scene that was in the "Bourne Supremacy", which in turn led to a more satisfying conclusion.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 137: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 137: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 136. Posted by breadman84

    on 12 Aug 2012 00:16

    Frankenhooker?

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 136: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 136: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 135. Posted by James JM

    on 8 Aug 2012 08:30

    Son of Rambo, obviously. No Stalone to be seen!

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 135: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 135: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 134. Posted by iwasclaudio

    on 7 Aug 2012 21:31

    Well, Rebecca took the biscuit.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 134: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 134: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 133. Posted by dolfinack

    on 7 Aug 2012 19:38

    The Dark Knight Rises....... had no Batman in it.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 133: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 133: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 132. Posted by Matth Stil

    on 7 Aug 2012 16:04

    Oh for crying out loud, RoboCop 3 lacked Peter Weller, not RoboCop.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 132: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 132: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 131. Posted by Matth Stil

    on 6 Aug 2012 19:54

    #104 - 'Quadrilogy' is a 20th Century Fox-ism (I for one had never heard the 'word' until 2003's Alien Quadrilogy DVD set). Again, the correct word to use for a four-part series is 'tetralogy'.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 131: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 131: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 130. Posted by FantasticMrEthan

    on 2 Aug 2012 21:32

    How about Beneath the Planet of the Apes. Not a great sequel but probably made worse by the lack of Charlton Heston for the majority of the film. But the fact that he's not in it and the reasons that he does appear in it, do in fact make the story behind film more interesting than the film its self

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 130: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 130: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 129. Posted by Graphis

    on 1 Aug 2012 19:00

    "My name is Who.... Dr. Who".

    (Sorry, couldn't resist).

    I'm really writing to take issue with comment 2's criticism of the new (well, recent) Star Trek reboot. I actually think that film demonstrated the maker's sheer love and admiration for the original series, and I think both they, and the actors, did a fantastic job of recreating the main characters in their younger days. Kirk, Spock, Uhuru, Bones, Sulu, Chekov, and Scotty were all believable, and more importantly, recognisable, as the characters made famous by Shatner, Nimoy, et al. While not a "trekkie", I grew up with the original series, and loved it. This film did not do it shame, unlike some of the other spinoffs over the years.

    That said, it doesn't really come into the category of films the good doctor is talking about: neither do the Bond, Who, Dracula films etc. Having another actor play the same role isn't the same thing as having a film with "Bourne", or "Dracula", in the title, and not having "Jason Bourne" or "Count Dracula" actually in it. In fact, I can't think of very many films that have had the audacity to do it.

    Mark asks: "Is it OK?" I don't think so. People may say "does it matter, if it's a good film?" Well, yes, I'd argue it does. If it's that good a film, why try such an obvious cash-in as naming it after a pre-existing franchise, just to get bums on seats? It usually denotes a film that wouldn't otherwise succeed/make money/amount to very much at all if it wasn't otherwise part of a franchise, however loosely.

    I haven't seen the new "Bourne" film yet, but the trailer looks pretty good. I rather suspect this could have been a good film on it's own, without the "Bourne" tag. Trying to shoe-horn it into an existing plot-line, merely cheapens it.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 129: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 129: 0
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous

Next