Michael Clayton

As the years pass, I find myself more and more in agreement with the general consensus of film critics, and many of the top rated movies this year on Rotten Tomatoes are some of my favorites as well. But it seems like every year there is one movie that somehow blinds critics to how poor it really is, and this year that movie appears to be Michael Clayton. Movies like this one make me question my sanity, as surely I can't be the only one who sees the numerous flaws with the film.

With a very, very limited number of exceptions, I've found that movies that begin at the end and then flash back to the beginning are movies completely devoid of creativity. So when Michael Clayton began at the end, I already knew something was wrong. The movie starts with Clayton, who is a corporate "fixer," trying to help a new client. He realizes that the man he's been assigned to help is out of luck, so he leaves and just drives. He eventually stops in the countryside, gets out of his car, walks over to look at some horses (something that made no sense then, nor after we see what led to this), and finally his car explodes behind him. The reason the movie begins like this is simple: it's the only exciting part of the movie, and if you didn't know the car explosion was in it, you would certainly leave before it happens. By placing this scene at the start, it's a sign that the filmmakers had no faith in the material or the audience, so they tried to hook us with a scene that is tonally different from the rest of the film. Call me jaded, call me cynical, but I hate movies that do that.

From there we head back four days and find Michael (George Clooney) asked to help with a situation involving a friend of his, named Arthur (Tom Wilkinson). Arthur is a litigator for the same law firm that Michael works for, and it turns out he had a psychotic breakdown during a deposition, stripping off all his clothes and chasing the plaintiff down a street. Arthur apparently has realized that the company he's devoted his life to protecting has been killing people with toxins in its products, and he no longer wants a part of it. This makes the bigwigs at both his legal firm and the corporation releasing the products, u-North, very nervous, especially when they begin to realize that Arthur is planning to provide documents to the plaintiffs so that they can bring down u-North. Let it be said now that Tom Wilkinson, a vastly underrated actor, almost single-handedly saved this movie. He is astonishing with the limited screen-time he has, and he deserves some serious recognition come awards season. He is intense and frightening as a mentally unstable man, yet very sympathetic as we see him losing his mind while trying to finally do the right thing with his life. It's just a shame the film didn't focus more on him.

For a movie titled Michael Clayton, it's astonishing to see just how uninteresting and how unimportant Clayton is to the story. He's called in to help with the Arthur situation, but he is unsuccessful. It basically becomes a movie about Arthur's attempts to bring about justice, and the woman who is hiring people to follow him and try and stop him (Tilda Swinton). Clayton is just kind of there. There is a turn of events that leads to Clayton being the center of the action in the final act, but even then, he is such a minuscule part of the overall story. It doesn't help that the screenplay does an awful job of characterizing him. The film must have started a half dozen loose threads that were meant to give insight into Clayton, yet they never went anywhere. We see that he may have a gabling problem, we see that he is trying to open up a restaurant, and we see he has an alcoholic brother he doesn't want to speak to. Yet none of these threads ever go anywhere or tell us anything interesting, making it that much more frustrating to watch the movie.

You've seen this movie many times before, as the story structure is lifted directly from a number of other legal thrillers. The problem here is that they try and overwhelm you with too many subplots and confusing dialogue to mask the fact that this is a highly generic movie. The filmmakers are hoping you'll walk out slightly confused so that you'll assume that it must have been a smart movie. It's not. With the exception of Tom Wilkinson, everything in this movie falls flat or strikes a false chord. If you end up seeing this movie, savor Wilkinson. This would be a one star affair were it not for him.

The Darjeeling Limited

The Darjeeling Limited, from director Wes Anderson, is a rare beast indeed. It's the kind of film that I enjoyed watching, but when it was over, I knew that I could not recommend it to others. How could someone like a movie and not recommend it, you ask? It's not easy, to be honest, but Anderson has pulled it off. The problem is that Darjeeling feels far too much like his last two efforts: The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and The Royal Tenenbaums. It looks the same, touches upon the same themes, and overall has the same vibe (each one is about a maladjusted family coming to terms with each other while confined to a location - be it a house, a submarine, or a train). In other words, if you've seen other Wes Anderson movies, this one offers nothing new at all. And if you've never seen one of his movies, I can't recommend it either, as it never tackles any of these elements nearly as well as Tenenbaums did. That's not to say there isn't stuff to enjoy, just that the things I enjoyed never amounted to enough to satisfy me as a Wes Anderson fan.

The film follows three brothers played by Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, and Adrien Brody as they attempt to reconnect with each other during a spiritual train ride through India. Each brother has serious personal issues they are trying to deal with, all made more difficult by the recent death of their father. Wilson's Francis may have tried to kill himself by crashing his car (a sad irony in light of Wilson's recent problems). Schwartzman's Jack is a writer who based his novels on real life experiences, yet refuses to believe that they are in fact autobiographical. He is currently trying to deal with his obsessive infatuation with an ex lover who ruined his life. Brody's Peter is a cynical man who can't accept that he is about to become a father, using the trip to India as an excuse to get away from his pregnant wife. None of these characters are particularly likable, but that doesn't quite seem to matter. You never hate them, instead simply seeing them as deeply flawed characters that need some sort of life changing experience on this trip to turn them around. Suffice it to say, that experience happens in the most unexpected way.

For two thirds this is largely an outright comedy with spiritual inclinations, and if you're familiar with Anderson's style, you know what kind of humor to expect. But the final third of the movie takes a surprisingly dark turn, one you will either be able to get behind, or one that will ultimately turn you off to the film. I was able to accept this incident simply because it allowed us to see how it reflected the three brothers' reaction to their father's death a year before. Still, it takes the film on a twenty minute detour that is very sobering and not at all like what has lead up to it.

As you would expect, this is another visually stimulating film from Anderson, with an amazing set (Anderson actually used a real train to film on and had it travel around India while he filmed). He is one of those few directors who has found a unique visual style that works from film to film and doesn't seem to get too old, much like Tim Burton, Michael Mann, or Terry Gilliam. And while it could be argued that his films revel too much in their music video qualities - such as numerous slow motion shots set to indie songs - those moments often end up standing out as the best parts of his movies anyway. Take, for example, the opening scene in which a businessman and Peter are racing each other to catch the leaving train, perhaps the best scene in the movie. It sets the mood for the movie and is a fun introduction to a character and the location of the film.

I think my biggest problem with this film was that it felt so heavy-handed. Unlike Anderson's other films, this one relies far too much on a visual metaphor involving the brothers' father's travel bags that they carry everywhere with them. They've had these bags with them ever since he died, and they continually cause discomfort and trouble as the three men travel across India. If you can't figure out what happens to those bags by the film's end, then I envy your simple-minded naivety: you are surely one who is easily impressed by any movie you watch.

It's time for Wes Anderson to shake things up. If he does this story again for a fourth time, he will be in danger of losing many of his fans. It's not that it's a bad movie at all, just that I've come to expect these same things from him every outing. Unlike the Burtons and Gilliams of film, he is happy using his visual style to tell the exact same story over and over. It's frustrating, as anyone who has seen The Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore knows, he has some great talent that shouldn't be wasted on these facsimiles of his past films.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is a two hour and forty minute talky Western that spoils the climax in its title. It's a very deliberately paced, contemplative film with only a few scenes of action. It's a film that has been "sitting on the shelf" for over a year. In short (a word this film is not familiar with in any way, as indicated by the title choice) it has everything going against it. So how on Earth did it turn out so spectacularly?

I'm not sure who we can thank for this cut of the film, as it's been rumored that the studio and director Andrew Dominik have been quarreling over the final cut for a year, but whoever it is, they did a fabulous job. They were able to create a film that doesn't make "long" synonymous with "slow." It's a film that plays out almost like a novel, complete with a narrator giving us inside details on the characters, life at the time, politics, and whatever else might set the mood. It's not the kind of film that is meant to entertain you in a surface way, instead trying to evoke certain feelings and emotions that will last long after you've left the theater. If that's the kind of experience you want to get from your movie-going adventures, then this movie is for you. If not, 3:10 to Yuma is an equally enjoyable Western that operates on the opposite spectrum of the genre.

One can't talk about this film without first noting its strongest asset: cinematography. You'd be hard-pressed to find better cinematography in a film this year, as DP Roger Deakins has crafted a sight to behold. Whether it be James wandering through a field, or people traversing through the snowy mountains, every shot is stunning. On top of that, these shots serve to set the mood. Many wide shots of James alone in big open spaces help to illustrate how lonely and shuttered off from the rest of the world he feels. Ford, on the other hand, seems often to be so tightly framed that he feels uncomfortable, like the world is pressing in around him, suffocating him. It's a visually spectacular film, almost reason enough to see it.

Thankfully, the visuals are not the only reason to see Assassination. Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck both give quite possibly their career best performances. Pitt is able to make James frightening and menacing, while also adding hints of sorrow and longing for another life. He's a conflicted man who ultimately receives our pity when the titular action occurs. Affleck, on the other hand, has created a role that should finally launch him out of his brother's shadow and into the forefront of Hollywood. His take on Robert Ford is truly a sight to behold. You may often find yourself asking what is this character thinking? His shifty eyes and cracking voice make you question him from the get go. What is he after, exactly? What are these big things he thinks he is destined for? To call him the film's villain would be misleading, as there isn't a villain per se. He is a man who is thrust into a world that he simply wasn't ready for, and as a result he did something that ruined his life and many others' forever. We grow to dislike him as we watch him, but the film's final twenty minutes attempt to pardon him, reminding us that he was only human. He sees the errs of his way, and is forced to live with that for the remainder of his life. It's surprisingly poetic.

This is a film that feels unfair to point out what is great, because everything is as good as it could possibly be. Yes, the writing, acting, directing, and cinematography are excellent - but so is the sound design, with such fine attention to details. So is the score, perhaps the year's best with its simple, melancholy piano cues. So is the art design. So are the costumes. You get my drift. There is no weak point to be found, assuming you are open to this sort of tale. It is a rewarding experience to those who like to be sucked in to a mood, to a story. Few movies can warrant a length much over two hours, but this is one of the few that I would have gladly sat through another hour had there been more to tell. Simply stunning all around.

3:10 to Yuma

Some people have been exclaiming that 3:10 to Yuma will be the film to revive the largely dormant Western genre. While I suspect it will take more than one movie to accomplish such a feat (where, for example, are all the pirate movies after the success of Pirates of the Caribbean?), 3:10 is certainly a monumental step in the right direction. Filled with searing action, crisp dialogue, and a number of pitch-perfect performances, this is the sort of film that transcends the Western genre and appeals to all fans of movies.

A remake of the 1957 original, 3:10 follows two seemingly different men who may have more in common than either would suspect. Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is one of the most notorious outlaws in the west. Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is a weary rancher trying to support his family while facing a foreclosure on his land. The two meet by chance one day when Evans and his two boys stumble upon Wade and his men robbing a stagecoach. From that point on, it seems the two's lives are destined to be intertwined. Wade comes across Evans again in town later that day and ends up helping the lawmen capture Wade. Realizing he can make the money needed to save his land, he offers to help escort Wade to the town of Contention, where a train will be arriving in a few days time that will take Wade to be tried and hung in Yuma. It becomes a task easier said than done, as Wade's men are on their tail.

That the film is filled with crackling action is no surprise. There are many extended gun fights, great chase scenes, and an explosive climax. Like some of the greatest of Westerns, violence is a way of life in these men's lives. The way in which director James Mangold depicts the violence, however, is often quite shocking and unpredictable. I was at times reminded of Scorsese's The Departed in the way that you're never sure who will die or what will happen next. For example, the way in which a major character is so matter-of-factly killed off half way through the film without a second thought serves to remind us that this film doesn't play by the typical rules of most Hollywood films. No film I've seen this year kept me on the edge of my seat guessing what could happen next quite like 3:10 did.

What wasn't so expected about 3:10, and what serves to elevate it from a great action film to a great film, is the brilliant script and the performances that bring that script to life. The characters, especially Wade and Evans, have some very intelligent discussions about life and honor, right and wrong. Some people have criticized the end of the film as being a little too out of character for one of the leads, but I believe that if you listen to what the characters say throughout the film, it will make sense how the end plays out. It also helps that Crowe and Bale deliver some career high performances. Bale is his usual overly serious self, but with a hint of something more, perhaps desperation. This isn't just a man beat by life, but a man who knows he's been beaten by life and has realized that only some sort of miracle can save him. Crowe, on the other hand, seems to be having the time of his life. I've never been a big fan of Crowe for some reason, but here he is nothing short of genius. He is alternatively funny, scary, thoughtful, amused, and wounded. He's so interesting that we begin to wonder if we actually want Evans to get Wade to that train in the end. Supporting them are Peter Fonda as a grizzled old lawman who may be an even less decent human being than Wade, and Ben Foster as Wade's right hand man. Fonda is wonderful and mysterious, but it is relative newcomer Foster that really shines in the supporting cast. He is so frightening and menacing without ever going over-the-top that you begin to wonder why he isn't in charge of the band of criminals instead of Wade.

The Western has long been feared dead, but 3:10 reminds us why the genre was such an important part of film history. It has that rare ability to entertain us while delivering something more, something with weight. The final act is both smart in its dialogue about heroism and exciting in depicting two men who may both be heroes given the right situation. Director James Mangold is a man who had yet to impress me up to this point. His Identity was a fun thriller with an ending that betrayed all the film's built up suspense. Walk the Line was an example of why biopics are so dangerous, as he seemed to be on autopilot. Here he finally gets it right, and as a result he delivers one of the most exciting, thought-provoking, and downright fun pictures of the year.

Halloween

If you were to ask an average movie-goer to describe the movie Psycho, I suspect they'd have a pretty easy time of it until they get to the end. "So then, Norman jumps out dressed as his mother, only to be subdued before he can kill the girl. And then... um... he's arrested? I think..." Let's face it: Psycho is a brilliant film until the final scene - a scene so backwards and banal that most people don't even think about it. For those who don't remember, a refresher: we get a lengthy psychological explanation from a doctor as to why Bates dressed up as his mother and killed people. It's about as uninspired an ending as you can imagine to such a thrilling film. But what, you ask, could this possibly have to do with Halloween, Rob Zombie's re-imagining of the 1978 horror classic? Picture someone trying to remake Psycho (again) and centering the focus of the film not on Norman and his victims, but on that final scene stretched out for half of the run time. That, essentially, is Rob Zombie's Halloween.

Remakes are pretty much always a mistake. You generally have two options: you can either just retell the same exact story and update the setting and style to today's standards, or you can focus on a certain part of the original and go in that new direction. If you go the first route, you are basically saying there's no real reason to see the new version unless the first was deeply flawed. If you go the second route, you risk alienating fans of the original by going places no one cares about. Zombie chose the second option, and it is completely the wrong direction to take this story. What made Michael Myers so chilling in the original was that we didn't know anything about him. Why was he killing people? Why was he after Laurie Strode (an answer not given until the sequels)? By giving us explicit answers (and answers none too exciting or daring) it takes away from the suspense.

What's perhaps most jarring is that, for a film billed as a horror movie, there is a huge dearth of actual horror. The first half hour is spent with young Michael Myers and his deadbeat family. We see him verbally abused by his step-dad, tormented by bullies, and ignored by his older sister. But none of this is meant to scare us. Even when Myers snaps and kills his family, it's not presented in nearly as frightening way as the opening POV shot of the original. Instead, he just wanders around with either a knife or a bat, attacking whomever he comes across. There's no buildup, no suspense, no jump moments. It's all very matter-of-fact in the way it's presented. And once he does murder his family, we get a long period of him in the asylum with Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell), talking about his fascination with masks. One would assume that Zombie is spending all this time boring us with details about Michael so as to make him a more interesting character in the second half of the film, but alas, once Michael escapes and heads back to Haddonfield in search of his baby sister Laurie (Scout Taylor-Compton), everything that has been established about the character is thrown out in favor of simple slasher material.

Really, where the first half bores us with its silly examination of what makes Michael tick, the second half is even worse. Imagine taking the original Halloween and cutting it in half and you'd get the second part of Zombie's version. But even that is to give this too much credit. In order to get the film to its conclusion in under two hours, Zombie cuts out all sense of tension or atmosphere. One perfect example that sums up why this half of the film doesn't work is to look at the way Zombie kills of Annie (Danielle Harris) vs how Carpenter did in the original. Carpenter spent a good five or ten minutes building suspense without showing us Myers. We'd get spooky POV shots of someone watching Annie change her shirt. We'd watch with bated breath as Annie investigates a sound out in the laundry room in the garage. It wasn't until we began to assume that maybe she was safe that Carpenter let Myers pounce. Zombie, on the other hand, has Annie fooling around with her boyfriend while Myers just stands behind them. No build up, no tension. There he is at the beginning of the scene. One gets the impression that Zombie believes that copious amounts of blood and nudity will make up for that lack of atmosphere, but it never does.

Perhaps the reason it's all so boring isn't just the lack of artistry in how Zombie creates tension, but in the way he creates his characters. The cast is almost unanimously awful and unsympathetic. One would think that Malcolm McDowell would be a fascinating choice as Loomis, but he plays Loomis as far too jovial and lacking in gravitas. We begin to wonder if he actually realizes how dangerous Michael Myers is. At times he treats Myers as more of a buddy who had a few too many drinks and went on a drunken rage than as a man who has murdered close to twenty people. Tyler Mane as the adult Myers is satisfactory, but then anyone with a good build could do this role in their sleep. I don't like to rag on child actors, but there's no getting around the fact that Daeg Faerch is miscast as the young Michael Myers. Aside from the fact that he simply doesn't look like a future mass murderer with his blond hair and baby fat face, he can't bring any menace to his lines. Nor is he sympathetic, something we assume Zombie wanted him to be. Scout Taylor-Compton is a non-entity, not showing up until late in the movie and not getting an opportunity to do much more than call her friends bitches and scream a lot. It's clear we aren't supposed to see her as the same Laurie of the original, but she isn't able to create a new, interesting version of the character either. The rest of the cast is largely cameos, and none do much with their parts. And only Rob Zombie would think to cast Danny Trejo as the kindly janitor at the mental institution.

In every possible way that this movie can fail, it does. Zombie's desire to humanize Michael Myers comes off as silly and dull. His attempts at horror are rendered fruitless because he can't seem to build any suspense whatsoever. His intention to reinvent the characters we already know prove fruitless because of the way the film is split into two halves, forcing him to rush through each half without focusing on the characters. I consider myself somewhat of a horror film aficionado, and I can enjoy even some of the bad horror films out there as long as they deliver on the basic promise every horror film makes: a few good jumps, some suspense, and even a laugh or two. Rob Zombie's Halloween does not deliver on any of these promises, and even the most forgiving, open minded horror fan will find nothing to enjoy. It's simply a disaster.

Superbad

Who'd have guessed? In a summer of threequels, giant robots, rat chefs, amnesiac spies, and The Simpsons family, it is the duo of Judd Apatow and Seth Rogen that will walk away the real champs. Knocked Up started the summer off with a bang, and now Superbad - which Apatow produced and Rogen wrote - ends the summer on an even higher note.

Superbad sounds like many a teen comedy: a single day in the life of high school seniors looking to lose their virginity before graduation. Indeed, many of the plot points are straight out of other films: the two leads, Seth and Evan (Jonah Hill and Michael Cera), need to buy the booze for the party in order to impress their respective crushes. They enlist their friend Fogell (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), who has a fake ID, to get the alcohol. From there their night is filled with many misadventures. In short, this could easily be a pretty generic movie. Yet somehow it is able to overcome the plot to be probably the best, most sincere, and funniest teen comedy since American Pie.

What makes it all work is a script that understands high schoolers. That could be a result of the fact that Seth Rogen and co-writer Evan Goldberg first wrote the screenplay when they were in high school. These characters aren't high school stereotypes, but recognizable people. I don't know about you, but my high school didn't have nearly as defined cliques as John Hughes might lead you to believe. Yes there were nerds, yes there were preps, yes there were jocks, but there were also a lot of people who just were. They weren't popular, but they weren't losers either. That gray area is where Seth and Evan exist. They get picked on by people of higher status, but then in turn are held up in comparison to other characters. Not taking the characters to an extreme is what makes it so relatable, and so funny.

It also helps that it's really about something, not just getting drunk and having sex. At the core of Superbad is one of the best examinations of a friendship I've seen in a teen film. Seth and Evan aren't going to the same college after graduation, and you can tell from the beginning of the film that they're very uncomfortable about that, though they don't know how to broach the subject with each other. They've been friends since elementary school, and they aren't sure if their friendship can survive such a big hurdle. The ways in which the two come to terms with their impending separation is surprisingly touching and at times bittersweet, and it is this element that shines above all others.

Because the friendship aspect is so important, two really strong actors were needed. Hill and Cera do a great job of making you believe they've been friends for years. Hill can be a bit one-note at times, often going over the top. Yet Cera is able to reign him in every time with his subdued, subtler work. Indeed, Cera's Evan really is the funniest character in the movie, though you'd probably not be able to quote his lines like you might with the other characters. Instead, the laughs with him come from the smallest things, like way he looks at things, the way he walks, or the way he reacts to the world around him. The third member of the gang is Fogell, aka McLovin. A lot of people have already proclaimed him the funniest character of the summer. The hype isn't totally warranted, but he is still quite amusing. Had the McLovin jokes not been revealed in trailers, he might have seemed a lot more fresh than he came off as. Still, his story of getting booze for his friends could have felt like a major tangent to the film had newcomer Christopher Mintz-Plasse not been able to handle it so well, so he deserves some recognition for that.

But above all else, this is a comedy, and a very funny one. I'd say it's probably funnier than Knocked Up was, although it could be close. Even the opening and closing credits are handled in a very funny way. And often the humor is unexpected in that the film never repeat the same kinds of jokes. They hit us with a gross out joke, then hit us with an over-the-top fantasy sequence, then make us laugh at a silly childhood flashback. The film is constantly flowing and surprising, rarely allowing us to guess what jokes could come next. It all works really well, with the disparate jokes never feeling too out of place or contrasting in styles to each other.

While I liked the movie more for its examination of teenage friendship than for its story of a booze search, I can't deny that it all worked very well and I was never bored. Hopefully this doesn't turn into a franchise like American Pie did (the opportunity is clearly there). But then again, Apatow and Rogen have been consistently surprising us for almost a decade now, and if anyone could be trusted to make a sequel that is actually warranted, it'd probably be these guys.

The Bourne Ultimatum

When I first watched The Bourne Identity five years ago, I found it to be a passably fun time, but pretty forgettable. I had no real interest in a sequel and skipped The Bourne Supremacy when it was released. Yet I kept hearing from people who felt the same way as I did about Identity that Supremacy was far and away better than the first. One evening I stumbled across Supremacy on TV and ended up watching it. I was astonished. This was how to make a sequel, I thought. This was Aliens. This was T2. This was Wrath of Khan. A large part of this had to do with the new director to the series, Paul Greengrass. Greengrass understood why so many sequels are awful, and why only a few succeed. A sequel has to be more than just another adventure with the same characters, but a deepening of an audience's understanding of those characters and the world they inhabit. Like Supremacy before it, The Bourne Ultimatum is able to build on what we've seen so far to create a more than satisfying conclusion to an increasingly impressive trilogy.

Ultimatum does something I don't think I've seen a sequel outside of Back to the Future Part II do: it doubles back onto the previous installment, telling us what happened between the final action scene in Moscow and the epilogue in New York. As such, this doesn't feel like a new movie as much as a direct continuation of the last film. If you were to cut off the epilogue and credits on Supremacy and just insert this movie where they were, you'd never even notice that they were two different movies. This means that if you aren't totally up to speed on the last film, you'll be instantly lost. For some this might be a detriment, but to me it's a big plus. Greengrass and Co. assume you are an intelligent viewer who doesn't need everything spoonfed to you, and it makes for a much more fulfilling experience.

The basic premise should be familiar by now. Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is an amnesiac hitman trying to find out who exactly he is. At the same time he is trying to evade people who want him dead before he remembers something that might ruin them. Unlike too many franchises, the Bourne trilogy makes a point of not just bringing back all characters who survived previous installments, but showing how their presence in the sequel is significant to Bourne's journey. Everyone has a connection to Bourne's story, and characters who played small parts in the first two installments prove to have a bigger overall role when everything is finally revealed. Take, for example, Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles). She seemed so insignificant in the past, yet she kept popping up. This time around we begin to realize that she has a direct connection to Bourne's past that he no longer remembers. Also back is Pamela Landy (Joan Allen), a CIA head who realizes that Bourne may not be the villain that her bosses make him out to be. She has proven to be a strong element to this series, and she keeps the scenes not focusing on Bourne interesting and gripping.

If the film suffers, it's with the new cast members. Great actors all around, but none quite fill the void left by people like Chris Cooper and Brian Cox. David Strathairn is the direct descendant of the characters played by Cooper and Cox, but he is never as intense or menacing as his predecessors. Adding a bit of needed gravitas to the villainous side, but with far too little screen time, is Albert Finney, playing a mysterious man who may hold the answers to Bourne's past. Strangely enough, I think that had the two actors switched roles, it would have worked even better. Finney can play menacing much better than Strathairn, while Strathairn can play mysterious with the best of them. Yet this is a minor quibble: both get the job done, and neither is the reason we're watching the movie in the first place.

The action here is the best of the series. Whether it be a cat and mouse game in a train station, or a car chase through New York, Greengrass stages set pieces that leave you breathless. Many people have complained about his shakycam style, and to a degree I understand that complaint. Yet at the same time, it pulls you in so much more because of how real everything feels. The fight scenes, the car crashes: they all feel more impactful, more intense. Sure, on occasion it becomes difficult to tell what is happening, but by and large, things are easy to watch and understand.

What elevates The Bourne Ultimatum above other action films is that it's actually about something. Imagine waking up one day and learning that you used to kill people, some of whom may not have deserved to die. How do you deal with that? The whole trilogy has dealt with that in some fashion, but here it is front and center. Bourne must struggle with the fact that he was once no different from the people being sent to kill him, and that had he not been struck with amnesia, he'd probably be in their shoes trying to kill someone like him. It's an adrenaline fueled morality tale.

I don't know that on its own The Bourne Ultimatum is a four-star film. Yet as a conclusion to a trilogy, it most definitely is. I doubt anyone would watch this as a stand-alone film, so I think the four-star rating is deserved. Few, if any, trilogies raise the bar with each installment, and none really come together as tightly as this one has. Everything falls into place by the end, and this has proven to be a journey I am glad I took part in. There are still a few threads left unfinished, and the possibility of a fourth film is certainly there, but I suspect that this will be the end to the series. Then again, Greengrass has proven he knows how to raise the bar each time, so maybe a fourth one could be a worthwhile experience one day.