ROTTEN TOMATOES: Exclusive: Doug Liman Has Designs on Bond Comments

Exclusive: Doug Liman Has Designs on Bond

by Joe Utichi | February 15, 2008

Summary

The Jumper helmer tells RT that though he reinvigorated the spy genre with Bourne Identity and had the producers of Bond terrified; it was that franchise he always wanted to do. Back to Article

(1-36 of 36 posts) | Reply

Gimy writes:
on Feb 15 2008 06:52 AM

well bra, you did one better...you did a trilogy better than the recent bond films. just one thing, whomever's idea it was to shoot OVER the shoulder and cut off the face of the person talking...don't do that in another movie. its annoying as h3ll. its like watching a movie in front of a sasquatch...if you can't see the entire scene, it ruins it...

Go was ok, nowhere near the caliber of Swingers. and Speilberg doing bond? that'd be ridankulous...

(Reply to this)

fullmetalnek writes:
on Feb 15 2008 07:42 AM

In my opinion Go is his best film, then Swingers, then Identity. Hated The Smiths and havent seen Jumper yet. Hes 3/4. Thats good.

(Reply to this)

citizenjames writes:
on Feb 15 2008 08:12 AM

not to hate on liman but i like SWINGERS but i also like MADE a lot so i think that has more to do with jon favreau having written both of them. GO is like a junior version of PULP FICTION and i am good with that. MR AND MRS SMITH is a lots of fun but really it's a mess with all the depth of a sitcom with explosions. i still can't believe simon kinsberg spun a career out of that screenplay. haven't seen JUMPER but it's an entire movie sold on a hunky dude and a special effect... eye candy for everyone.

as for BOURNE, people keep forgetting paul greengrass directed the second two. liman left after the first and weakest of the three.

give credit where credit is due.

(Reply to this)

Young Turk writes:
on Feb 15 2008 08:16 AM

Smiths wasn't bad, and I can't see how Jumper is as terrible as critics say. Go, Swingers and Identity are definitely gold though.

(Reply to this)

photosuperstar writes:
on Feb 15 2008 09:12 AM

One of my students thinks he's a guido!

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Feb 15 2008 09:16 AM

In reply to this comment (#1576414)
"first and weakest of the three"? gonna have to disagree with you there. i feel like the films got propgressivley worse. now don't get me wrong, i enjoyed parts 2 and 3, but let's think about what set 'identity' apart in the first place and aided in this whole 'reinvention process.'

it was bourne's fighting style coupled perfectly with liman's direction. unlike greengrass' eforts, where he will put 5 cuts inside 3 seconds, liman's shots were clean and specific.

i always felt like greengrass just had 3 or 4 handicam's rolling at once and then picked through the footage, cutting together the best moments from each perspective. this rough-and-tumble, hands-on approach stands in stark contrast to liman's clearly intentional, storyboarded shot selections.

it's impressive the greengrass makes it work as well as he does, but the increased grittiness of films 2 and 3 isn't really in keeping with bourne's personal style: well-kept, efficient and sharp.

greengrass' films wind up looking like reality TV, whereas liman's was an exercise in specificity and the execution of pre-determined shots (ya know, "cinematography" not just getting lucky).

(Reply to this)

Shatter24 writes:
on Feb 15 2008 09:28 AM

The great thing about the Bourne series and choosing which is the best, is that no one has a particularly wrong answer. I believe the third Bourne film was the best and my favorite, followed by one and then two. Bourne Supremacy felt a little too story heavy and action light, compared to the well-balanced other two films.

Though none of them are bad movies. Still, I think Bond would have done better sticking to what makes Bond = Bond, rather than jumping on the gritty bandwagon. In Hollywood, once there's a good idea, everyone copies it until there is a glut, and then they go back to the original idea, and people think they're daring and inspired.

(Reply to this)

nathanpoitras writes:
on Feb 15 2008 10:07 AM

I hear that Jumper is a big steaming pile of elephant poop. Liman's movies seem to be getting progressively worse as he goes along, and of the 3 Bourne flicks, he made the weakest one so please Doug, Leave Bond alone.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Feb 15 2008 10:44 AM

I'm going to go off-topic here, because RT hasn't picked up on this story yet:

Al Pacino is going to be the Bond villain in Quantum of Solace?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1501119/story.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10492645

Hmm....

(Reply to this)

donatsu2000 writes:
on Feb 15 2008 10:58 AM

I would love to hear from the lovers of the second two Bourne movies as to why they are better, when they clearly are weaker in every department. I guess for the ADD riddled masses they seem cooler. Smash, bash, crash. But they are over-edited, poorly photographed, and terribly plotted. From watching the movies you would never think they were actually books before hand, and they weren't made up as they went along or in the editing room.
Bourne globtrots, yet you cannot discern any kind of atmosphere or locale other than the turning the blue knob or the orange knob in the Color Timing Suite.

Oh it's soooooo gritty the way the camera bobs and weaves, TO BOB AND WEAVE. Shaky Shaky.
Paul Greengrass the fantastic master of reality. Taking his success from Bloody Sunday and thinking it was all because of the handheld camera, using it in every film he does now. Yet, his first film was more traditional with planned out shots. Etc. I guess since that was a bomb, he needed to get in everyone's face to get noticed.

The first Bourne movie is by far the best. The first one had a story. The second two repeated the same story but dilluted, and lacking the basic sympathetic premise of figuring out who he was, since that question was answered in the first. Every piece of information in the second two was already known. Conspiracy, brainwashing, assassins.

(Reply to this)

nathanpoitras writes:
on Feb 15 2008 11:38 AM

Paul Greengrass is just a far better filmmaker than Doug Liman could ever hope to be, especially in the action department. oh and BLU-RAY WINS!

(Reply to this)

IndianaSchwartz writes:
on Feb 15 2008 11:54 AM

i don't know why i'm posting on here, but did anyone notice how liman said spielberg "recently" said he wanted to do a bond picture? that's an old story, my friend. i don't know...i just can't respect a director who's not up on his spielberg knowledge. liman has gone a little crazy with his "style"... saw jumper and i had a headache halfway through. i like to actually SEE my bond movies.

ps - ultimatum was the best of the 3

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Feb 15 2008 12:23 PM

The Bourne trilogy is just about excellent, but "Identity" was more like a nice surprise, bolstered by Damon's commitment to the role, the tried-and-true attraction of the premise and the moderate credibility of the love story. It worked. Greengrass' contributions took Bourne in the direction I feel it needed to go. For us to continue caring about his journey, we had to be there with him at all times. His sense of immediacy as a filmmaker was totally integral.

Not to mention Gilroy's adaptations were lean, muscular and intelligent. It proved that spy action thrillers could design set pieces entirely around ingenuity and quick-thinking instead of explosions and fight choreography, although there were some of those as well.

(Reply to this)

Joe Utichi writes:
on Feb 15 2008 01:15 PM

I don't think I've ever been more interested to read everyone's comments in a thread. Your fine arguments are all making me feel very nervous for my job.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Feb 15 2008 01:46 PM

And no one has called anyone else an idiot yet. What's happening to my beloved RT forums :-)

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Feb 15 2008 01:58 PM

In reply to this comment (#1577248)
Shut up, you idiot.

:-)

(Reply to this)

Joe Utichi writes:
on Feb 15 2008 02:00 PM

God knows, but I love it.

(Reply to this)

cabezone writes:
on Feb 15 2008 02:46 PM

I loved identity, but just don't get the shaky cam stuff. I couldn't watch past the diner scene in Ultimatum, it's just too irritating.

(Reply to this)

Segkee writes:
on Feb 15 2008 05:06 PM

Down with Shaky-cam. Greengrass is a brilliant director, but the shaky cam has to go. It's actually a cop out. To shoot action clean is actually a lot harder because less can be faked. And it's cheaper. In Ultimatum or The Kingdom the shakiness becomes distracting to vomit inducing even when no action is taking place. When real movement occurs - a car chase, a foot chase, a fight - I found I had to turn away from the screen.

I haven't seen Cloverfield yet, but I hear it's a similar problem.

It's a shame. It appears movies are not being designed for the big screen any more.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Feb 15 2008 08:24 PM

In reply to this comment (#1577396)
lol. There it is...

My personal tally? Identity, Ultimatum, Supremacy.

(Reply to this)

Bloody Mathias writes:
on Feb 15 2008 08:30 PM

Loved what Paul Greengrass introduced with the shaky-cam but i agree that it's become a "trend". After Supremacy, United 93 and Ultimatum, Kingdom and Cloverfield jumped on its bandwagon. I feel like it's no longer fresh but tired and expected now.

Although i like Greengrass' Bourne movies more than Liman's, i feel so glad that Liman made Identity. It's a great movie that put the Bond producers to shame and showed them what a spy movie should be. And when Supremacy hit the scene and a Bourne movie made more movie than a recent crappy Bond flick, the Bond producers took notice and hired Paul Haggis to help make their Bond "grittier".

Face it, because of Bourne, the days when Bond could dispatch hencmen with a gadget while no spilling a drop of his vodka on his Armani suit is long gone.

(Reply to this)

Bloody Mathias writes:
on Feb 15 2008 08:32 PM

* Bourne movie made more money....

** Henchmen

Damn my spelling errors.

(Reply to this)

BrokenDreamer writes:
on Feb 15 2008 11:28 PM

I admit that I actually appreciated the shaky-cams, even though it does leave me with a sense of uneasiness. However, I think the uneasy effect of the camera actually enhances the experience of watching the movie. To me, it accomplishes its goals: it creates a realistic, documentary-like feel. More importantly, it felt more gritty and intense. As a result, I found Paul Greengrass' direction to be far more compelling that Liman's (Did you know Liman was an executive producer for The OC? Sad.) It just felt more exciting to me.

By the way, for those who claim that the shaky-cam was just a cop-out for the director in regards to fight sequences, watch the behind the scenes. It is clear that the fights take no short cuts and that Matt Damon was well trained for those sequences. There was no compensating for bad fighting skills. Sure, the viewer does not get to see every action clearly and that training might seem to go to waste, but where is it written that action is to be perfectly polished? In a gritty fight scene, it's more realistic when we have to strain to see what is happening. I know a lot of people don't like this, but it is not bad directing, it's just a style: one I personally enjoyed.

As for my order, I would also put it Ultimatum, Supremacy, and then Identity. I like what Greengrass did with the franchise; maybe it's just my opinion, but even the acting seems improved in these later movies (possibly making Greengrass a better actors' director). When Ultimatum was released, I watched the first two movies before seeing Ultimatum in theaters. When I returned to the first movie after watching the adrenaline-fueled Ultimatum, Identity seemed too polished, too slow, and not as exciting. I liked how the camera was always moving in The Bourne Ultimatum. It gave the movie an energy that the steady cam doesn't match.

So, do I think Liman did a poor job? Not really. He brought to screen the franchise, which Greengrass than took to the next level. I can see why people don't like the shaky cameras, but I disagree with those who claim using this style is a sign of bad directing. But, really, we all have our own tastes, so who is wrong? You can not like a style, but that doesn't mean the movie is bad, just that you don't prefer it. It's all relative.

(Reply to this)

donatsu2000 writes:
on Feb 16 2008 06:47 AM

Once again, no defense for the second two Bourne movies, other than more action and the shaky-cam imparted a sense of uneasiness or energy to the scenes.

But please these are spy movies and PLOT is key. The second two HAD NO PLOT. The audience knew everything already from the first film. The only single development was the relationship of Nicky with Bourne.

PLEASE SOME OF THE SUPREMACY AND ULTIMATUM FANS PLEASE TELL ME THE PLOT AND HOW IT'S SUPERIOR TO THE FIRST.

And as to the acting being better, that's absolutely not true. Please name one specific moment where the acting "seemed" better.

And I don't care how long they planned out the fight scenes. To then shoot them and chop them up so unintelligbly is the sign of a lazy director with no vision. It doesn't make it more real to not know what is going on, because if you have seen a real fight you know what is going on.

You want more realistic violence go watch Eastern Promises. That Bath scene is some of the most realistc feeling fighting, because Cronenberg goes the exact opposite, instead of handicam, and choppy editing, he goes out of his way to linger and not cut. To show you clearly and it turns out more realistic, because you see the whole horror of the violence.

Greengrass is actually glorifying his violence, MAKING IT COOL for all the drooling idiots (there I said it) by giving it that fake cinema verite. But it is so obvious that it becomes overwhelming and thus more fake. AND THERE IS NO POINT TO IT. HE USED IT FIRST DURING BLOODY SUNDAY, BECAUSE IT WAS A TRUE STORY. Bourne is pure fiction and we know it, so trying to impart that much realism on a clearly fictional story does not work.

Liman knew this, he shot it handheld, but his services the story because it is ONLY slight and really only during action scenes. Greengrass does it the entire movie. That's why it doesn't work.

It only works for people who are shallow enough to fall for style over substance. AND that is what the second two movies are.

AND FOR THE FINAL TIME - WHAT ARE THE PLOTS OF THE SECOND TWO. He already knows he's a spy. We already know how he was made, etc. There is nothing left but boring, bungling CIA machinations and Bourne trying not to get killed.

(Reply to this)

vaodsi writes:
on Feb 17 2008 12:44 AM

supremacy....... Bourne knows he's a spy and is trying to go on with his life. But this is made impossible when he is framed. he has to prove his innocence and Konklin's (sp?) corruption.

Ultimatum........ The CIA still sees him as a threat. He decides in order for this to be over, he has to find out the WHOLE story and find just who is responsible for the what's happening. This is how he discovers himself. The end (?)

(i don't think so...... ;)

my personal favorite would be supremacy, but probably just because that was the first one i saw..... that was hard to follow.... but so fun. I really like all those movies. AND NO! Liman did not "Back OUT" from the last two. He was the Executive producer, just like george lucas(UGH!) and star wars 5 and 6. Yes, I like Greengrass better. But hey, I'll be honest..... I haven't seen swingers or go (i'm young and busy)

luv RT.

goodnight everybody. live long and prosper.

(Reply to this)

vaodsi writes:
on Feb 17 2008 01:00 AM

I like shaky cam... i can understand what's going on just fine. I also feel more adrenaline.... and if you don't agree with me then you're probably over thirty! And you are probably stupid! And you are shallow! And you probably could never keep your goldfish alive! And you probably suck at communication in relationships! And you probably never had a girlfriend! And you probably wear a diaper! And you probably don't get the fact that this is satire! ;)

goodmorning.

but seriously, i was talking to my dad and he had a cool theory. He was thinking that if you notice, the majority (meaning not all, but most) of the people who like shakycam are younger and grew up with video games and cell-phone cameras and video cameras and made their own shaky movies, while the older generation gets sick and confused, not being accustomed to it. I remember making movies as a kid. the camera was always shaky! I couldn't help it! I was excited! my friends and siblings could watch it fine. My mom would always get nauseated. just food for thought. Interesting theory.

peace out! ( and no offense to people over thirty! I mean, in ten years i'll be over thirty ;)

(Reply to this)

vaodsi writes:
on Feb 17 2008 01:03 AM

I like shaky cam... i can understand what's going on just fine. I also feel more adrenaline.... and if you don't agree with me then you're probably over thirty! And you are probably stupid! And you are shallow! And you probably could never keep your goldfish alive! And you probably suck at communication in relationships! And you probably never had a girlfriend! And you probably wear a diaper! And you probably don't get the fact that this is satire! ;)

goodmorning.

but seriously, i was talking to my dad and he had a cool theory. He was thinking that if you notice, the majority (meaning not all, but most) of the people who like shakycam are younger and grew up with video games and cell-phone cameras and video cameras and made their own shaky movies, while the older generation gets sick and confused, not being accustomed to it. I remember making movies as a kid. the camera was always shaky! I couldn't help it! I was excited! my friends and siblings could watch it fine. My mom would always get nauseated. just food for thought. Interesting theory.

peace out! ( and no offense to people over thirty! I mean, in ten years i'll be over thirty ;)

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Feb 17 2008 09:20 AM

Just saw Jumper. Not great, but not a complete waste of time. Story has gaping plot holes (We're supposed to believe a group of people who can teleport at will are contained by a group of religious nutjobs with tasers and they've been doing this since the Dark Ages....ummmm, what did they do before electricity was invented in the last 100 years? Pray for lightning?), but if you check your brain at the door it's not so bad. The jump special effects and action sequences are what really make the movie work when it does along with Jamie "Billy Elliot" Bell who gives the only notable performance in the film besides Samuel L. Jackson who plays Samuel L Jackson better than anyone in Hollywood(In this case evil Sam, who glowers a bit more than heroic Sam, but oddly doesn't swear as much).

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Feb 17 2008 10:16 AM

Well, I'm over 30 (well over 30) and I have no problem whatsoever with shaky cam, if it's done in service of the story, which I thought it was in the last two Bourne films. I believe someone else adequately explained the plots of the movies (not deep, but not every plot has to be. Sometimes an adrenaline rush is all you really need.)

As to which is better, that will always be a matter of opinion, so why argue about it? What would be interesting is to see if Greengrass can direct a film without resorting to that camera style, or if that's all he's capable of doing.

(Reply to this)

vaodsi writes:
on Feb 17 2008 11:45 AM

agreed.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Feb 17 2008 12:26 PM

In reply to this comment (#1581109)
Electricity was invented???

(Reply to this)

gunslingR writes:
on Feb 17 2008 01:07 PM

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1501119/story.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10492645

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1501119/story.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10492645

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1501119/story.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10492645

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1501119/story.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10492645

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Feb 17 2008 02:54 PM

In reply to this comment (#1581702)
I already pointed that out but I don't think anyone listened. Maybe if I shout:

AL PACINO IS IN QUANTUM OF SOLACE!!!

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Feb 18 2008 02:07 AM

In reply to this comment (#1581602)
Good catch. I should have said harnessed.

(Reply to this)

renodc writes:
on Feb 18 2008 11:08 AM

I may be mistaken, but doesn't the Broccoli family that controls the Bond franchise have a strict policy of only using British directors. I believe I read something about that when Quentin Tarantino was trying to convince the Broccoli's to remake Casino Royale with an edge and let him direct. I could have sworn they shot him down because he wasn't British. Although, they did end up going with something similar to what he was proposing. Of course, all of that could have been rumor.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Feb 18 2008 11:51 AM

In reply to this comment (#1583986)
I'm not sure if they have a policy like that, but they're always British productions.

As far as Tarantino directing, I think that would have been a bad idea. It would have had too much of the Tarantino mark on it to really work as a Bond movie. It might have worked on a different level, just not as a Bond movie.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Quantum of Solace

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links