Reviews

I rarely give movies a 10, but this one clearly deserves it. For a movie to stay this compelling after being the third in a trilogy is remarkable, and remarkable is a good adjective for the film.

The score is a good adrenaline push. The pace is quick and pumping. The acting is wonderful. The locations are exotic and grand. The on foot chase scene in Tangier is as good a chase scene as has ever been in a movie.

But it is the story of Jason Bourne's quest to deal with his situation that drives this picture. Matt Damon is Jason Bourne. He is so human in his dilemma while at times acting with superhuman skill to carry out his quest, and we want him to succeed with a relish. And while the word is that the trilogy is finished there are enough elements left at the end of movie that we can hope for a sequel.

This is a feel good movie about something that deserves being felt good about. Too often "feel good movies" are about sex, drugs, rock and roll, or anything that serves in the selfish interest of person. This is about how family, and cultural values can impact for good. Some have written that the movie is on their side of the abortion issue. More importantly, this movie is about helping someone who is forced into a situation that looks like it is going to make life disastrous by someone who has been living disastrously since being involved in a catastrophe. What takes this movie up a notch is the talent. The characters are wonderful as well as the music. I especially enjoyed the acoustic vocals. The family scenes are touching and the movie as a whole is a refreshing look at a Latino situation that isn't ruled by drugs, poverty, over expressed machismo or some other tragic element.

I have read a number of reviews who have lambasted Stein's direction in this documentary. I applaud him. Decades ago, I was a staunch evolutionist, accepting it as proved and good science. Then, I was challenged to "prove" evolution to a minister who defiantly said that evolution was only a theory, that it had been changed numerous times and still had no basis in fact when you consider that there was not a single transitional form (in the fossil record) ever found. I was shocked at the "ignorance" of this man, and went to the library to find him wrong once and for all. In my local library I found a dozen or so books on evolution, all in favor of it, without a single dissenting voice among them. However, I was dismayed to find out that this minister was right. While the texts went to great lengths to explain the theory and potential ramifications, there was at best limited, but inconclusive, evidence of evolution. Additionally, claims of "proof" fossils were later found to be hoaxes. I couldn't believe it.

Why was I so persuaded about something with such limited proof? Luckily I still had some of my school textbooks. I looked in the science texts, but I couldn't find evolution explicitly taught there at all. What I did find was very disappointing. In the introductions and prefaces I found statements that talked about the first small celled creature crawling out of the ocean and breathing air to start the development of land based creatures. My science texts did not present any alternative, although I do remember at least one occasion when creationism was presented briefly in an unconvincing manner. At that time intelligent design was not a concept that was taught. That is indoctrination! I believed in evolution, not because I was shown the scientific evidence that supported it, but because it was what I was INDOCTRINATED to believe it!

In Christian biblical interpretation the first chapters of Genesis were taken not literally for most of history. The young earth creationist viewpoint is of relatively recent origin. My point here is that the debate is not focused solely on evolution vs a young earth six literal day creation belief. The debate is based on whether evolution is based on good science. And that is what this movie is about. Evolution is not a proved concept like gravity, inertia, or electricity. There are strong, legitimate arguments for at least some of the principles of evolution. But there are also legitimate points for intelligent design. To not allow for presentation of alternative theories of the growth of life to this point shows the same quality of bias that clouds the thinking of those who say that blacks are inferior or women should be kept home and pregnant.

There IS a huge bias in some parts of the scientific community where there is a PERCEIVED relationship of any concept to a religious belief. I worked for a USD for a number of years where I saw the power of the NEA to censure anything perceived as religious. This is not a religious argument.

Some have lambasted Stein's references to the relationships between Nazism and evolution. One argument is that with all philosophies there are inappropriate uses, for example, the Roman Catholic church and pedophilia, or the crusades. My reply is that the concept of enforced celibacy is wrong and has caused much needless harm in the form of pedophilia, and the concept of the church as a world power is wrong and like wise caused much harm. That evolution was a crucial component of Nazism is a fact, and another reason that broad, blind, acceptance is dangerous.

Congratulations, Ben, on speaking out.

Okay, this is an action flick, Ice-T, Tiny Lister as super bad boys, Costas Mandylor as the tough hero risking his future with his family to serve his country. I guess if you are fans of those guys there is something in here, but couldn't you have given them a tighter story, and better execution. And, puleeeze, make it a little believable. This is pure formula with too much unbelievability, like when Ice-t rats out William Sadler's character to the president and his staff. Why did I know that Sadler was going to be leak here. That is another example of formulaic casting. Give the guy some roles where he's not the bad guy so its a harder to spot. Or how about the fight at the end where highly decorated Costas' character puts down his gun so he can go hand to hand with Ice-T's character? Then Ice-T doesn't kill him!? What is that? Some kind of honor among thugs routine? It is just too much of a fairy tale to be a good action flick. Costas "sneaking up" on character after character while making all kinds of noise, the enemy compound so sophisticated it controls top secret space satellites, but such shoddy security that the marines' walkie-talkies go undetected as far a underground subs and Costas runs around without any surveillance picking him up. TOO Unbelievable!!!!

The information about the movie on the TV guide read, "A farming community living near a U.S. missile base suffers the effects of environmental pollution." It is true there are a few scenes of military jets that land on a nearby base and are seen in the air. And there are some dead fish floating in a pond. But all that is a backdrop for the poor relationships and decisions that are everywhere in this move. Jen Cross is a 15 year old who is angry with the way things are and decides to use young Raif sexually as a means of escape. Her parents fight constantly, he is a poor tenant farmer, and she is the homemaker, but it is not much of a home. The mother is cross with the kids and more cross with the husband. The owner of the property is a shallow shell of a man, who fires Jen's father when he speaks up that the pesticide the owner has been using is polluting and killing the fish. The problem there is that it is probably the military base is the polluter. The owner hires the mother as a cleaning lady, which further infuriates and saddens the father. The father commits suicide in a way that his body is never found. There are other characters in the movie, Raif's mother, the cleaning staff of the Rector, is ill and dies, there is just a remote inference that the pollution caused the illness. The Rector is an ineffective, lonely man himself. The movie is completely a tragedy, and there appears little, if any, hope anywhere in the movie. Even in the end when Jen strikes out on her own, the move may be trying to present this as a hopeful act, but the mood is so somber by now that I, for one, wasn't encouraged, she appears as just another person who is running away. The setting is beautiful, there are some meager attempts that show a little compassion, a little love, but it is not enough. If you want to commiserate on misery, or just like tragic movies, you might like this. But I for one see the world where there is invariably sun and rain everywhere. There are good times and bad times, and even in mostly tragic circumstances, there are hopeful things to cling to, which this movie seems to argue against. I can't recommend it.