Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Ortiz Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Uriah43 The mini-series begins with a gunfight between two men on the deck of a ship ing through a storm somewhere in the Meditterean Sea. One of the men is shot and tumbles overboard and rapidly sinks into the murky water. Fortunately, he recovers his strength long enough to surface and eventually gets washed ashore on the southern coast of . Unconscious and bleeding from two bullet wounds he is taken to a village doctor by the name of "Dr. Geoffrey Washburn" (Denholm Elliott) who carefully patches him up. When his patient finally regains consciousness Dr.Washburn discovers that he has no recollection of anything—including his name. Yet it soon becomes apparent that he has a good skill with guns and self-defense. Not only that, but while he hunts for clues to his identity he also discovers that paid killers and the law are hunting for him as well. Now rather than reveal any more and risk spoiling this film for those who haven't seen it I will just say that the entire plot featured mystery and action throughout. Although Richard Chamberlain (as "Jason Bourne") and Jaclyn Smith ("Marie St. Jacques") performed in a decent manner, I thought the made-for-television format hampered what could have been an outstanding movie and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.

Koosh_King01 Based on of Robert Ludlum's suspenseful spy novel, this 1988 two-part TV movie begins with a man being shot in the head and falling off of a ship at sea, which subsequently sinks. The man washes ashore in Port Noir, , and is found and cared for by Dr. Geoffrey Washburn, an alcoholic English doctor. The man can't his name; his nonfatal but nonetheless critical head wound has rendered him an amnesiac. Dr. Washburn also discovers, surgically implanted into his patient, microfilm with an number for the Gemeinschaft Bank in Switzerland.Bidding his benefactor farewell, the man travels to Switzerland in the hopes of rediscovering his identity. At a hotel whose name he inexplicably re he discovers his name is "J. Bourne" and that he works for an organization called Treadstone 71. More, but not enough, is revealed at the Gemeinschaft Bank where Bourne learns that the "J" stands for Jason, and that he is a rich man with fifteen million dollars to his name. But he still has no idea what Treadstone is, or why he recognizes the American man being interviewed on TV about the recent assassination of Ambassador Howard Leland.Leaving, Bourne suddenly finds himself the target of hit men posing as bank employees, led by the cold-blooded killer nicknamed "Gold Glasses." He flees with the assistance of Dr. Marie St. Jacques, a Canadian economist in Switzerland for a conference. The pair, constantly dodging Gold Glasses and his men, track down various informants who know little but suggest Bourne is connected to a notorious Spanish assassin named Carlos, and, worse, that Bourne may have been hired by Carlos to kill Ambassador Leland!Is Bourne really who he - and everyone else - thinks he is? Is he a murderer? Did he kill Leland for Carlos? Just who exactly is Carlos? Why is Gold Glasses trying so hard to kill Bourne? Who do he and his men answer to? What is Treadstone? And why does Bourne recognize the American from the television? All these questions and more will be answered by the time the film's three-hour runtime draws to a close in a satisfying (if a little jostling) finale in New York City, but not before more chases, shootouts, car crashes and tons of political intrigue and double-crosses.A much more thoughtful and cerebral film than the remake starring Matt Damon, 'The Bourne Identity' is a bit slow in places but is never boring, and has plenty of twists and turns and surprises to keep viewers guessing. Richard Chamberlain is capable and likable in the lead role, and the ing cast includes familiar faces like Denholm Elliott as the amusing and kindly Dr. Washburn, Shane Rimmer as stern, no-nonsense American Army General Conklin, Anthony Quayle as French General Villiers, and Wolf Kahler as Gold Glasses.

rixrex Chamberlain was probably happy to shoot this film in Europe, but I'm sure he like the pay as well. At this time he was probably the highest paid actor doing films specifically made for TV broadcast.I got the DVD of it yesterday, and the main reason I got it was because I just watched the Matt Damon series, and was curious to see how this was adapted for the "small screen" (not so small anymore). It's very different but held up well on its own, as I see it. It has things that the Damon films miss, such as in-depth character development, mostly due to being twice as long too, and a much more realistic lead character. It also has other things that make it a lesser film, like some unrealistic plot contrivances and occasionally overplayed emotional conflicts, similar to what you'd see on popular TV shows of the time like Dallas and Dynasty.One thing I like much better in the older version was the wider shots of most action scenes. This version translates well to a large screen, whereas the new version uses too many super-tight close-up action shots. These are typically used when the wider action shots don't really work well, and the closer shots give the viewer less detailed info about the action, but more movement across the screen, so as to make viewers think they saw lots of intense action.

buiger Compared to the very d and highly praised 2003 remake, at least this movie has a storyline, some character development, and a slight resemblance to the original Ludlum manuscript. Also, Chamberlain as Jason Bourne is far more believable as a top spy than Matt Damon, who instead of resembling a spy, looks more like a kid who might need help in getting his nose wiped, and is more likely to get lost anywhere in Europe rather than having the experience to feel at home in several European cities and their high-class establishments.On the downside, this being a film made in the 80-ies originally for television and VHS, the picture and sound quality leave a lot to be desired. Some of the dialog is also a little overly simplistic at times. But all in all, this was a very enjoyable experience, a well directed, interesting made-for-TV movie, much better than the highly praised 2003 remake.