The Bourne Identity

Since the release of the 2003 theatrical version starring Matt Damon, this mini series version of "The Bourne Identity" has been much maligned, primarily by people who have never seen it. While it is a little dumbed down from Ludlum's book, and has some soap opera elements inherent to being a Richard Chamberlain mini series, it's also infinitely more faithful to the book than the Damon version, and considerably less dumbed down. If you want to see some great action scenes, check out the movie. If you want a good story, try the mini series (or even better, read the book).

I didn't expect too much from a TV mini-series based on an adventure novel, which was later made into a big budget action film.

I had not enjoyed the 2002 version of The Bourne Identity with Matt Damon, but this one was gripping from the first frame. I read a lot of the reviews and posts here as I always do to compare reactions, and found people were praising some elements, and criticizing others. Here is how it affected me.

Primarily it was a story about a man's search for his identity, and Chamberlain, never known as the greatest actor in the world, was very believable and effective. Jaclyn Smith was just adequate in her role and she is definitely one of the worst actresses they could have chosen, but one can't have everything. She makes good eye candy. The movie's other characters played pivotal roles and delivered excellent characterizations. Notably Denholm Elliott as the doctor.

The story was a fast moving adventure, which was almost Hitchcockian, the story of one bewildered man with villains trying to kill him, and a random pretty girl he abducts to help him (also echoes of the Redford movie Three Days of the Condor), and the extensive scenery of Paris was beautiful. Except for the obvious pauses where commercials used to be, this looks like a real movie and not a TV series. It doesn't look cheaply made. They obviously took pride in this production.

But to me the most surprising thing of all was the human element, the complex emotions in the amnesiac's story. Richard Chamberlain delivered them far above what one would expect from him, or from a TV movie. Yet this movie is all but forgotten since the theatre versions were made. I think that Hitchcock, if he had been alive to make this picture, would himself have chosen Chamberlain as he was very much like the James Stewart "everyman" who raced against time to solve the mystery of his amnesia.

There are a few places where key scenes from the past are shown briefly and never explained (apparently a sequel was planned, which would explain them), and yet I was able to fill in a likely explanation, from my own imagination. This is the mark of good film making.

There were no fantastic special effects or avant garde techniques. It was straightforward story telling.

I am easily bored, highly critical, and so because I loved this, I am very surprised and had to post about it, in case it might help someone decide to go ahead and see it. Yes, it is well worth it and highly enjoyable. It hails from another era (where the story was more important than the chases and effects).

I am glad it is still available in video, and if I find it in DVD I will buy it because it was a movie I would like to see again. I still think about it - and went to the library to get the book the next day - and that rarely happens with an action movie of this type.

There are parts of the movie where you think it might be a comedy. Bourne (Richard Chamberlain) running in Théoule-sur-Mer, France (Port Noir) with children following.

He is never really convincing as a fighter. Maybe that is because we are used to the smoothness of Matt Damon in the later retelling of the story.

The film is very 80's with the apparently suave and sophisticated Bourne in his knitted sweater taking care of the bad guys, and then the ladies.

It is easy to tell that it was originally made for TV, as the story is almost broken down into "sound bites" so that you see whole but separate parts in between where each set of the commercials would go.

It was fairly enjoyable if a little long winded at times. The story was quite good and the long running time enables a lot of character development which is lacking in the remake.

Superficially the 2002 Matt Damon movie is better as far as action and pacing goes and I almost passed this by seeing that Richard Chamberlain (not my favourite actor) is in it. But this is a very well made and watchable version (though slow paced). What I found most striking was that the lead characters are played by adults and it was obviously made with that audience in mind. It's supposedly truer to the original book as well. It's not quite a classic but better than I expected and a reminder of how movies (even those made for tv) used to have substance - as opposed to just being a series of strung together action sequences.

Filmed in Europe, the story is based on a classic Robert Ludlum novel. This made for TV movie is better than the average TV fare. Originally a two part mini-series, it tends to have some periods where it drags with too much interplay between the stars but it still contains the usual amount of Ludlum action, suspense and his keen senss of scenery. Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith are supported by a fine European cast which includes Anthony Quayle and Denholm Elliott. Well worth your time. A collectors movie.