It is tres chique at the moment to find Paul Greengrass brilliant. He appears to follow some kind of Soderbergh path, with a clear line between his more intimate productions on the one side, a bunch of serious blockbusters on the other. The thing is: while Soderbergh decided to have brain twisters (Schizopolis) and star-spangled claptrap (Oceans whatever) following in succession, Greengrass manages to create rather consistent and entertaining hybrid products: The Bourne films he directed have a clear blockbuster ambition, but with a hero who appears more twisted and messed up than the Nicholas Cages or James Bonds who usually fill the slots. On the other hand, the mainstream arthouse he creates (as Bloody Sunday or United 93) are – apart from all creativity and intelligence) extremely entertaining and thrilling. Should he just maybe be the better narrator, the better director, the better person who should be doing better films than most others? I think so, that is a wild but very interesting notion. Give him 10 more stories to tell, and I am sure there will not be a single boring and a single dumb film coming out of this.
Oh yes, and the film: wildly entertaining, even if you do not particularly like that kind of lone fighter superhero movie, and even if the epic chase through Tangier starts boring you halfway through (just not into car and motorbike chases…). Matt Damon (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/ for further reference) is getting interesting, and slim, and sometimes refreshingly violent. That’s a good path to follow, I reckon. Now that the trilogy is over, it will be interesting to see whether he builds on that or falls back into boy-dom again. I read he plays in the Coppola movie – and that may be a serious peril for his career, of course. Hope he saved some of the Bourne cash.
thomas4cinema 