I saw it for the first time tonight - there’s some awesome kali in it.
Entertaining movie, shame it barely resembled the book.
did the book feature kali? no?
the movie is qualitatively better. 
(just pulling your leg. haven’t read the book. dug the movie.)
Pretty cool when he plays hands for a bit with the russian, then uses a pen vs his wittle knife.
gives new meaning to flicking your bic.
ah well, the movie was dang stout. the elbow work was what made me happy, because elbows are about as common in western action movies as good acting in a joe don baker film.
There were a handful of things in the movie that were in the book, but otherwise the story was completely different. Common points:
He was found by a fishing trawler in the Med.
He arrived in Marseille(sp?)
The bank was in Zurich
There was a lady called Marie
There was an organisation called Treadstone 71.
Otherwise the stories were completely different, and I kinda wondered why they bothered calling it the Bourne Identity :). Still, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.
Kali and…
His Chin Na was excellent too.
I enjoyed the film, but I found the speeded up, jump-cut, multi angle fight scenes disappointing.
Although not perfect a good mix of action, and story. The martial arts were okay, matt daomn is no jet li in kiss of the dragon but hey Matrix 2 and 3 come out this year. Being a wing chun and escrima guy I found the fight scenes interesting. Usually the fight scenes you see in movies have big movements ( for the camera). And good close range stuff can happen so fast and be blocked by the body from view.
About the post you linked to stumblefist…
The creaters of the film wanted Matts character to be energy efficient. They thought Kali was the most energy efficient art. I’m pretty sure thats why they chose Kali. The directors commentary on the dvd explains it better.
Originally posted by joedoe
[B]There were a handful of things in the movie that were in the book, but otherwise the story was completely different. Common points:
He was found by a fishing trawler in the Med.
He arrived in Marseille(sp?)
The bank was in Zurich
There was a lady called Marie
There was an organisation called Treadstone 71.
Otherwise the stories were completely different, and I kinda wondered why they bothered calling it the Bourne Identity :). Still, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. [/B]
Isn’t that the current trademark of Hollywood movies??
Like the comments by the surviving russians sailors after they saw K-19:
There were only 2 points in the movie that resembled the real events:
1.) The Champagne bottle didn’t break at the launch.
2.) There was an incident with the reactor on the sub.
Hollywood is known for creating many “facts” that are widely accepted as historically accurate:
Example:
No roman emperor ever gave a “thumbs down” signal to sentence a defeated gladiator to death.
another example of hollywoods “historical facts”…
The movie Braveheart. I think it captured the “essence” of the events, but was sorely lacking in historical fact.
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Hollywood is known for creating many “facts” that are widely accepted as historically accurate:
Example:
No roman emperor ever gave a “thumbs down” signal to sentence a defeated gladiator to death.
what the hell? dom delouise gave the thumbs down in history of the world, so i KNOW it happened! :mad:
Contrast that with the silly gun catch in “The Transporter” where a gun has been thrown in the air from the table and the guy catches it real fancy like BEHIND his back.
Like how many 1000 times did they shoot that scene before the guy could catch it? Or maybe they spiced it and dropped the gun into his hand. Anyway , just unreal.
the transporter unreal?! you take that back!!
come off it. they were going for a totally different feel in those two movies. it’s kinda disingenuous to present one as a better version of the other when they’re both so clearly different in intent. it’s like saying that the fight scenes in ‘iron and silk’ are ‘better’ than those in ‘crouching tiger.’
stuart b.
I saw this flic
The fight scenes looked amazing in the trailer but they were too fast in the movie. HOwever, I enjoyed this movie much more than one of Jet Li’s fake a$$ films. Everything Matt DAmon did looked do able, as opposed to Jet li. There was also the fact that the action was second to the story line where in Jet li’s movies, the story is always second to the action.
er, you lost me. now i can’t even tell whether you like the film.
perhaps i should follow the link…
okay, read it now. and most of your criticisms are still based on the level of realism in ‘the transporter.’ and while it’s fine not to like unrealistic action (the car landing on top of a truck), the movie isn’t supposed to be realistic. there are a million things that the main character could do to avoid having the cop barge in, for example. but that’s not really the point.
still, opinions vary. and i certainly won’t argue your right to criticize the film. god knows it wasn’t a masterpiece. but i still think it’s apples and oranges with regard to the bourne identity.
stuart b.
2 quick points…
- Books are not movies, morons.
- Movies are movies, morons.
:rolleyes:
:eek:
and morons is morons
_______________-
spare
Re: 2 quick points…
Originally posted by yenhoi
[B]1) Books are not movies, morons.
- Movies are movies, morons.
:rolleyes:
:eek: [/B]
Very good. Go to the top of the class.
If you are going to base a movie on a book and use the same name as the book, then you should at least make the movie resemble the book. Particularly when the book was so d@mn good that you really didn’t need to change the storyline to make a good movie from it.