KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Wordiezett So much average

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

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, France, and is found and cared for by Dr. Geoffrey Washburn, an alcoholic English doctor. The man can't remember 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 account 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 remembers 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 supporting 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.

cooltroy Very good movie, enjoyed it much more than the 2002 Mat Damon one. I am not a fan of all the new age CGI than is constantly being crammed down our throats. This movie was quite realistic and didn't come off fake, like today's computerized bull.It had a bit more of a romance twist than expected, and Richard Chamberlain as a bad ass was the only part I didn't buy in to,but for the $1 rental it was fine. It's always nice to see original work than the constant Hollywood remade crap. It was also was cool to see the old school foreign cars, and real, shot on location scenes. Made me miss Paris. I would definitely watch again and recommend it to all.

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.

Jesse Dunaway (brimleg) I have no intention of spoiling this film for anyone. Sorry, you will have to view it for yourself.The film is outstanding for 1988 and even more so for a "made for TV" film. My favourite thing is the fact that it is a better adaptation than the 2002 remake starring Matt Damon.While the newer version has all the cinematographic advantages, this film is just more faithful to Robert Ludlum's book and I am excited every time I watch.Treat yourself to a great movie night. Get a bucket of Popcorn, chips, Pizza and Soda. Keep the remote handy for those intermissions you require (the pause button) and just get ready to enjoy.10 stars **********