Reviews

!! Warning !! At the time of this review, there is no season 3 (reports are it has been canceled).

The problem is, regardless of how much one does or does not enjoy the show, the last episode of season 2 is a cliff hanger.

So unless you don't mind getting upset regarding not knowing what happens next (and at this point in time, you will NOT), do not watch this show. You will NOT get the payoff you would like from a last episode of a season or series. Unfortunately you will not get a satisfactory conclusion either. And the new 2015 film (THE TRANSPORTER REFUELED) will not answer any questions either, as its events do not relate to the series.

Apart from that, the feel is more Bond-wannabe than what the film trilogy established. Not saying it IS a bond-wannabe, but the filmmakers (of the second season especially) leaned toward that direction. There are still elements of the film trilogy intact, but they are not enough; Frank is written as a can't-fail hero, put through many contrived situations. Thus, the problem with the series is the writing and contrived action. However the action is quite acceptable, and not bad.

If you have no problem with any of the above, as well as unnecessary female nudity, then you will find something you'll enjoy. AGAIN, so long as you don't mind the incomplete cliffhanger ending.

PS. Season 2 episode order is irrelevant, as there are very few linked events (they are quite episodic/standalone). But certain episodes have to be watched in order: First episode of season 2 should be 2B, then T2 at whatever point in the middle, followed by CHIMERA / EUPHRO / TRUST / SIXTEEN HANDS (at any order), then ending in ENDGAME.

Score explanation: 10 excellent, 9 very good, 6 good, 5 OK, 4 average, 3 below average, 2 poor, 0 avoid!

Had never seen (nor heard of this film) until the last couple of months, when the original was released to the cinemas here in a "Dolby Digital New Panavision print". Well, I can't see anything "new" or "restored" about this, except that it wasn't the "edited" version that was apparently released in 1981 in the USA after some (justifiably) bad press.

Here are this cinema lover's problems with it: 1) Slow and overlong scenes, and requires much editing. 2) Has lacklustre focus. 3A) Poor sound: Could not hear the dialogue during scenes with noisy backgrounds, whilst other times it left one wondering if they were speaking English. 3B) Lack of subtitles for non-English dialogue. Often it is not important as one eventually understands the approximate point of a non-English dialogue exchange, but here there is QUITE a bit... and when also considering 3A, there is DEFINITELY a feeling of "missing" quite a lot of the story. 4) A poor "restoration" (perhaps it was a re-release of the original 219min print?). 5) Poor film quality or photography. 6) The film is very unclear as to what point it was attempting to make. It was understood (during the screening) it dealt with the plight of new immigrants, but it FELT more about being SOMEWTHING in regards to the protagonist - and/or perhaps his view of the world. 7) Leaves too many plot & character questions unanswered. 8) Badly directed (or should this be #1?).

The only good thing was the artistic direction (sets, locations, etc); the acting wasn't bad either (when one could actually hear the dialogue).

It makes one wonder how a film could be so bad, when it contains such good actors - who at the time, were either at the top of their game or were about to become famous through their future work). This obviously proves (once and for all) that having the best actors does not necessarily make a good film.

One wonders if the original re-cut 149min version is any better, but reports (and other comments here) suggest otherwise. So it only gets 1.5½ out of 10 (for the scenery and acting, when it "shone through".

This sums up the film for me...: "People tend to live 2 lives: Those they do and those they wish they did. The best that can happen marrying and managing the 2 according to one's ability."

Not having read the book, the film is one that I can watch again and again.

It has an excellent score and direction.

The acting is also first rate. Everyone puts in a good performance, but the performances by Redford, Duvall, Close, Hershey, McGavin, Prosky - and even Michael Madsen in a very believable but tiny performance - are excellent. Even if Close did not have a demanding role, her performance adds to the film's "heart".

In some ways, this almost perfectly captures the "magic" of baseball. A definite for fans of the historical (as opposed to the modern) game.

"Even killers have choices". An extension of the prequel and not an adaptation of the book, it is definitely one of the better assassin films.

The script was one reason for the film's improvement over the original, the direction was another (except for the action cinematography, discussed later). There are also good all-round performances, and it is a pity we have not seen Joan Allen in more "major features" lately. Though her acting will not garner any Oscars, it does bring a certain class we do not see too often in such films. Damon manages to depict Bourne's character successfully this time - convincing in both the assassin and human sides of the role's coin. So as Chris Cooper was the standout actor in the prequel, Allen and Damon share the plaudits this time - whilst the reliable Cox and Stiles do not let the production down in their respective roles.

Damon's Bourne films are not faithful to the books, and they do not need to be: the book would almost always look better in one's head than any film could hope to portray. But the author has been dead for a few years now, so I assume there is freedom to explore this film series' potential and take on the Bond films in the spy-action genre. That is, so long as the Bourne series does NOT become yet another Bond series, for we already HAVE a Bond series.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS: Where this fails over the prequel is not in the editing (which connects a film's sequences), but the choice for action cinematography. It fails to give the action sequences a proper perspective (ie. to see what's going on), because the camera was "too close" to properly capture (and frame) the action. This is easily seen in some of the unarmed-combat sequences, or the (Moscow) car chase which alluded to be superior over the prequel's (Paris) chase - but could hardly be judged from the camera's position relative to the action.

The choice is understandable, for this type of camera work gives more immediacy/intensity to the action. But it becomes useless when one has no perspective to place such immediacy within. After all, one of the prequel's most memorable scenes was the (Paris) car chase - and it was memorable because one could "see" the action and the chase, rather than JUST "feel" it.

There are times where this style does work, as in the director's previous film (BLOODY Sunday). Unfortunately, the action cinematography (and relevant handycam) approaches here fail more than gaining. Perhaps a marriage of the 2 styles would have succeeded to appease both director and audiences.

If this film had test audiences, one wonders why no executive picked up on the feedback from this critical issue. As most of this film's IMDb comments also found it a problem, how could test audiences possibly miss it? Isn't this why Hollywood executives are there - in addition to disrupting artistic visions whilst chasing lucrative box office $ through formulaic fare?

POSSIBLE SPOILERS.

For fans of the book, do not watch this version expecting a remake of the Roger Young version (with Richard Chamberlain). It is a well crafted script that is based on aspects of the book, but it is NOT the book brought to film.

Personally, the action was done well - and the chase scenes are among the better vehicle chases. But if there were any attempts to wring any emotional elements from the script, they were unfortunately found lacking.

The other Bourne was more calculating and human, whilst this newer Bourne is a better assassin. Watching both will detract from neither, as they are different enough not to be confused with each other.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS.

It does not have the greatest of on-screen chemistries, but the protagonists just manage to be believable.

The film itself is not a very good (and definitely not great) romantic encounter - but it is by no means bad or average either. You do believe they are romantically interested in each other, but that is not the main focus.

It is a look at the various aspects of romance and relevant relationships, as the would-be lovers discuss away whilst walking through the city - which means, a LOT of talking. Look elsewhere for romantic saccharine.

And in some ways, it is also an attractive postcard from Vienna.

Ivan The Terrible is more a filmed stage play than a "big-screen-opus". Citizen Kane - a similar work in many ways - is quite the opposite (in the way we come to expect such fare) in that it has lots of location shooting for example.

Acting is meant to convey a character's motivations and thinking to the audience; if it succeeds in making you understand the character, what does it matter HOW it was done? And considering the low amount of action, how else is one to express events that influence the story, and consequently the characters' machinations and decisions other than "exaggerated movements"?

As well, there's a historical level why the acting style should not surprise. The rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany and USSR forced film-makers who stayed behind to make films the way they knew how. As they were prevented access to more modern works that showed cinema's evolution and techniques, they only used what they knew.

The Nazi's control of government in Germany destroyed the great German film industry of the 1920's, due to their total control over that film industry. And propaganda films can only "entertain" German troops so much; hence the need for popular German silent films of the 1920's, for example. So a lot of Ivan The Terrible film's techniques would have been derived from such captured German films supplied to the film crew (as mentioned in other comments).

There was no confusion anywhere and though personally it was found over-hyped, it is by no means a bad cinematic experience - and definitely NOT amongst the worse films ever. The acting is fine, and part of the cinematography excellent (even by today's standards; more below). Definitely not a popcorn flick; one can't leave their brain outside this one's door. Dated perhaps and very symbolic - only worth watching on the big screen if one is unable to view the films with the lights off at home, for many of the cinematic elements will be lost in these films' chiefly B&W experience. It all depends upon what expectations one walks in with...

WARNING - SPOILERS: Do not read the following comments, in case they influence your personal view of the film(s).

...and if one does not mind the obvious communist propaganda (as opposed to capitalist propaganda). For Ivan is how Stalin saw himself - obvious in his influence on the film's direction (see other comments) - and anyone with a world historical awareness outside the US perspective will definitely understand this. Maybe Ivan was an earlier incarnation of Stalin, or maybe not; this is more a diatribe on Stalin and his motivations, decisions, loneliness, promotions of lackeys, etc - using the persona of Ivan - than any true historical record of Ivan. Also note the obvious use of particular colours in the sequel: Red (for the USSR) in the banquet scene. And perhaps blue (for the USA) during certain shots when the usurper wears the crown?

But it has many excellent visuals such as the profound use of shadows, or the exterior shot of the populace coming to beg Ivan's return to Moscow.