Filmed in Europe, the story is based on a classic Robert Ludlum novel. This made for TV movie is better than the average TV fare. Originally a two part mini-series, it tends to have some periods where it drags with too much interplay between the stars but it still contains the usual amount of Ludlum action, suspense and his keen senss of scenery. Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith are supported by a fine European cast which includes Anthony Quayle and Denholm Elliott. Well worth your time. A collectors movie.
53 Reviews
Nailbiting spy thriller
jamiecostelo589 June 2009
I thoroughly enjoyed this I must admit, but I can't help but wonder why it wasn't made for the big screen instead of being shown on television. What makes this Bourne Identity completely nonidentical to the 2002 theatrical release is that Richard Chamberlain's character is very much in line with Robert Ludlum's book (albeit with some subtle changes here and there). The big screen version may have featured more dramatic car chase sequences and fighting scenes etc, but it just seemed to focus away from the original plot.
Richard Chamberlain performs Bourne to a very high standard - with strong performances from the supporting cast - and makes the role his own. Primarily, I watched The Bourne Identity just to see Jaclyn Smith if I'm honest; I've always been a fan of Jaclyn, and she gives out a believable performance as Marie St. Jacques. This movie in no doubt sealed Jaclyn's crown as the "Queen of mini-series".
I don't think film and TV buffs should be put off by its three hour length; the plot and any questions that may arise when viewing The Bourne Identity are answered admirably come the end of the film, and should not disappoint fans of espionage/spy thrillers. It was a great effort from all concerned, certainly strengthened thanks to the wonderful imagery and intrigue of the many different cities involved. 7/10.
Richard Chamberlain performs Bourne to a very high standard - with strong performances from the supporting cast - and makes the role his own. Primarily, I watched The Bourne Identity just to see Jaclyn Smith if I'm honest; I've always been a fan of Jaclyn, and she gives out a believable performance as Marie St. Jacques. This movie in no doubt sealed Jaclyn's crown as the "Queen of mini-series".
I don't think film and TV buffs should be put off by its three hour length; the plot and any questions that may arise when viewing The Bourne Identity are answered admirably come the end of the film, and should not disappoint fans of espionage/spy thrillers. It was a great effort from all concerned, certainly strengthened thanks to the wonderful imagery and intrigue of the many different cities involved. 7/10.
Storywise much better than the new movies
pal-o-lo4 February 2007
Well, finally I saw the old Bourne movie/miniseries with Richard Chamberlain as Bourne. And I have to say i pretty much LOVED it. Chamberlain's Bourne was much closer to the one in the books than Matt Dammon ever was. Okay, Dammon is a better fighter, and he plays much better than I had thought before seeing his Bourne movies. But these movies are just about totally ignoring the plot of the books, which annoyed me greatly.
In Chamberlains Bourne movie they mostly stuck to the book, with few variations. I thoroughly enjoyed myself as I could follow the plot from the books from point to point. Especially I liked the way Marie St. Jaques were portrayed by Jaclyn Smith. Okay it got a bit overly mushy on both her and Chamberlines side, but all in all they both did a fair job. Franka Potente were a LOUSY Marie in the new movies. Partly also because of the infuriating way her character were written in the script.
The only complains I have, the before mentioned overly romantic air over the movie, and that I always had the feeling I was watching a seventies movie instead of one made in 1988. The col ours, the clipping and the way the movie progressed, it was so incredibly seventies spy movie.So therefore i give this one a 7. Otherwise it would have been a sure 8maybe more.
In Chamberlains Bourne movie they mostly stuck to the book, with few variations. I thoroughly enjoyed myself as I could follow the plot from the books from point to point. Especially I liked the way Marie St. Jaques were portrayed by Jaclyn Smith. Okay it got a bit overly mushy on both her and Chamberlines side, but all in all they both did a fair job. Franka Potente were a LOUSY Marie in the new movies. Partly also because of the infuriating way her character were written in the script.
The only complains I have, the before mentioned overly romantic air over the movie, and that I always had the feeling I was watching a seventies movie instead of one made in 1988. The col ours, the clipping and the way the movie progressed, it was so incredibly seventies spy movie.So therefore i give this one a 7. Otherwise it would have been a sure 8maybe more.
Faithful Adaptation
vox-sane8 October 2004
"The Bourne Identity" (1988) is a faithful recreation of Robert Ludlum's book about an amnesiac slowly (in a very long book) discovering who he is. The supporting cast is dotted with veterans that make the movie come to life during their brief parts: Denholm Elliott, Anthony Quayle, Peter Vaughan, James Faulkner.
The stars strain to carry the movie. Jaclyn Smith is immensely watchable, though her range is limited. Richard Chamberlain is a fine actor, but, perhaps because of insufficient rehearsal time or because he was never able to find a character who didn't know who he was, he comes off with the range of Bill Bixby, though that keeps him from burying Smith. In the end, Chamberlain may be much too nice for the character, but he's a likable actor and she's a likable actress and they make a pretty pair.
Because it was originally a two-part television drama, the 1988 "Bourne" has sufficient time to let the story unfold, as well as to build the unlikely relationship between Chamberlain's character and Smith's. It also gives the supporting characters flesh out their meager parts. After a slam-bang first hour, the movie settles into a more leisurely pace (that occasionally drags), that builds again into an exciting final hour.
The possible overplotting, as well as the outright absurdities (such as the truth of Treadstone 21) are squarely to be laid at Ludlum's door. And though it's quite faithful to Ludlum, the setting of the climax makes this movie version far more poignant than Ludlum himself was capable of.
"The Bourne Identity" has the technology of '80s television, so newcomers shouldn't expect contemporary sensibilities. It may not be as exciting as the remake, but it has a solid storyline.
The stars strain to carry the movie. Jaclyn Smith is immensely watchable, though her range is limited. Richard Chamberlain is a fine actor, but, perhaps because of insufficient rehearsal time or because he was never able to find a character who didn't know who he was, he comes off with the range of Bill Bixby, though that keeps him from burying Smith. In the end, Chamberlain may be much too nice for the character, but he's a likable actor and she's a likable actress and they make a pretty pair.
Because it was originally a two-part television drama, the 1988 "Bourne" has sufficient time to let the story unfold, as well as to build the unlikely relationship between Chamberlain's character and Smith's. It also gives the supporting characters flesh out their meager parts. After a slam-bang first hour, the movie settles into a more leisurely pace (that occasionally drags), that builds again into an exciting final hour.
The possible overplotting, as well as the outright absurdities (such as the truth of Treadstone 21) are squarely to be laid at Ludlum's door. And though it's quite faithful to Ludlum, the setting of the climax makes this movie version far more poignant than Ludlum himself was capable of.
"The Bourne Identity" has the technology of '80s television, so newcomers shouldn't expect contemporary sensibilities. It may not be as exciting as the remake, but it has a solid storyline.
pleasantly entertaining
myriamlenys10 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
A well-made series with high production values, prestigious locations and good performances. Considerable effort is made in order to explain and recapitulate the story, which is a good idea since the story is quite complicated. As a result the viewer is able to enjoy the many plot twists without getting lost. There is a nicely maintained sense of ambiguity, doubt and suspicion. The ending is pretty spectacular, too, with a grand gunfight.
I would have liked to go higher than 7 stars, but I'm afraid that I found the love scene between Bourne and his beloved silly and cheesy beyond belief. (That music !) Well, "cheesy" may be an understatement - I found myself thinking of a king-sized luxury cheese board with French, Dutch, Belgian and English cheeses made from cow milk, sheep milk and goat milk, with five kinds of dark bread, with figs, with pickles and with walnuts...
Still, I liked this mini-series better than the later remakes with Matt Damon.
Some of the themes treated in the mini-series, such as plastic surgery and amnesia, lend themselves very well to the spy genre. If you're looking for a good spy movie containing both of these themes, and if you're not afraid of the occasional science-fictional accent, you can do worse than watch "The Groundstar Conspiracy", about the aftermath of an explosion in a top-secret research station.
I would have liked to go higher than 7 stars, but I'm afraid that I found the love scene between Bourne and his beloved silly and cheesy beyond belief. (That music !) Well, "cheesy" may be an understatement - I found myself thinking of a king-sized luxury cheese board with French, Dutch, Belgian and English cheeses made from cow milk, sheep milk and goat milk, with five kinds of dark bread, with figs, with pickles and with walnuts...
Still, I liked this mini-series better than the later remakes with Matt Damon.
Some of the themes treated in the mini-series, such as plastic surgery and amnesia, lend themselves very well to the spy genre. If you're looking for a good spy movie containing both of these themes, and if you're not afraid of the occasional science-fictional accent, you can do worse than watch "The Groundstar Conspiracy", about the aftermath of an explosion in a top-secret research station.
Better than the 2002 movie
cooltroy3 January 2011
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.
Bourne to TV.......
alfo_210629 May 2006
This is one of the best espionage/thriller ever produced on television. It's a shame that this production ended on television and not in the big screen during its released in 1988.
Although, it's understandable because during those times television was definitely much "bigger" than the movies....plus the stars Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith were the sort of royalties of U.S. television -- dubbed King & Queen of Miniseries.
Excellent performances which was awarded with nominations from the Golden Globe and Emmy Awards.
This is true to the book. If you're going to watch the movie version with Matt Damon make sure you see this one first...
Although, it's understandable because during those times television was definitely much "bigger" than the movies....plus the stars Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith were the sort of royalties of U.S. television -- dubbed King & Queen of Miniseries.
Excellent performances which was awarded with nominations from the Golden Globe and Emmy Awards.
This is true to the book. If you're going to watch the movie version with Matt Damon make sure you see this one first...
What's your name? Where do you live? I need to know where to send my outrageous bill.
lastliberal-853-25370812 February 2014
There are parts of the movie where you think it might be a comedy. Bourne (Richard Chamberlain) running in Théoule-sur-Mer, France (Port Noir) with children following.
He is never really convincing as a fighter. Maybe that is because we are used to the smoothness of Matt Damon in the later retelling of the story.
The film is very 80's with the apparently suave and sophisticated Bourne in his knitted sweater taking care of the bad guys, and then the ladies.
It is easy to tell that it was originally made for TV, as the story is almost broken down into "sound bites" so that you see whole but separate parts in between where each set of the commercials would go.
It was fairly enjoyable if a little long winded at times. The story was quite good and the long running time enables a lot of character development which is lacking in the remake.
He is never really convincing as a fighter. Maybe that is because we are used to the smoothness of Matt Damon in the later retelling of the story.
The film is very 80's with the apparently suave and sophisticated Bourne in his knitted sweater taking care of the bad guys, and then the ladies.
It is easy to tell that it was originally made for TV, as the story is almost broken down into "sound bites" so that you see whole but separate parts in between where each set of the commercials would go.
It was fairly enjoyable if a little long winded at times. The story was quite good and the long running time enables a lot of character development which is lacking in the remake.
A very good TV movie
berkel7 June 2001
I saw this movie for the first time when I was about 12 years old. I've seen it several times afterwards and I still think there's something very thrilling about this movie. Only little is revealed to the audience in the first half of the movie and it's easy to imagine how hard it must be for Bourne to know so little about himself. During the whole movie but especially in the beginning he's the one being chased by the others and everyone else seem to have more information about him than himself. I think that "The Bourne Identity" is well worth watching although it might seem a bit outdated now. Even if the historical facts (Carlos wasn't really killed by Bourne, on the other hand, the link to the real terrorist is pretty weak anyway) might not be true it's still a very good and exciting movie.
So much better than you expect
niall-161-67685128 July 2016
If you have read the Robert Ludlum books then you have no doubt been disappointed by the way the story has been handled in the movies.
This TV mini series keeps much closer to the book than the film.
If that were the only good part about this, I would not be writing a review.
It does not have the action of the films but it has the tension of the book. It is gripping!!
Obviously it still cuts some part from the book but it does have so much more than the films.
The acting is good, to be expected from the great cast.
I am so glad that I watched this. I was so disappointed by the films until I gave up and disconnected them from the books.
Brilliant stuff and well worth watching!!!
This TV mini series keeps much closer to the book than the film.
If that were the only good part about this, I would not be writing a review.
It does not have the action of the films but it has the tension of the book. It is gripping!!
Obviously it still cuts some part from the book but it does have so much more than the films.
The acting is good, to be expected from the great cast.
I am so glad that I watched this. I was so disappointed by the films until I gave up and disconnected them from the books.
Brilliant stuff and well worth watching!!!
What a Tangled Webb this Weaves
JayWolfgramm4 July 2023
For most modern audiences, this 1988 mini-series is a novelty in the Bourne Ethos. It's one of those things that has gained notoriety after the success of the more famous film franchise. It's one of those, hey did you know there is another version of "Bourne Identity"? Well, this is that "other" version. How does it hold up?
The story begins as does the book, with a man being found in the sea, with gunshot wounds and a mysterious marker under his skin. As the man recovers, he finds that he has no recollection of his past life, and so sets off on a quest to find who he is. In his attempts, government agencies seem to be after him and he tries to figure out why.
Elephant in the room, if you are going to be comparing this to the 2002 movie, you are going to be disappointed. This TV mini-series does not have nearly the amount of action, intrigue or general polish of that landmark movie. The series does have a fair amount of shoot ups, so I wouldn't call it boring. Just from an action standpoint, it is severely lacking. For TV standards, it does the action fine, but nothing that stands out.
The acting from those involved is all dialed up to 11. They are putting on stage performances for these characters so that the people in the back row of the auditorium can understand their emotional turmoil. There isn't much subtly to be found in the presentation.
Chamberlin as Bourne also does not sell the audience on his supposed espionage skill. He is completely unable to tell a lie or avoid looking suspicious. His detective work is sloppy, and he seems to only stumble upon the "final boss" of his journey.
The theme comes across very misguided. Bourne keeps wrestling with the dilemma of whether he is an assassin or not. Meanwhile he kills about 18 people in his quest to prove that he is not a killer.
And the romance between Maria and Jason is so tacked on and does not fit, it is almost hilarious. He goes from holding her up at gun point and abusing her to her professing her love to him in a manner of 10 minutes. It is ridiculous and possibly a dangerous message, that is, if anyone watched this hoping for relationship advice.
On the positives, although not great compared to the movie, the action scenes are not bad. Bourne doesn't feel invincible in his fights, it makes each of the conflicts more engaging. It has some good mystery if you are not already familiar with the pay off. And it remains a nice little relic from the 80's.
Overall, like the main character, this is something I will likely be forgetting very soon.
The story begins as does the book, with a man being found in the sea, with gunshot wounds and a mysterious marker under his skin. As the man recovers, he finds that he has no recollection of his past life, and so sets off on a quest to find who he is. In his attempts, government agencies seem to be after him and he tries to figure out why.
Elephant in the room, if you are going to be comparing this to the 2002 movie, you are going to be disappointed. This TV mini-series does not have nearly the amount of action, intrigue or general polish of that landmark movie. The series does have a fair amount of shoot ups, so I wouldn't call it boring. Just from an action standpoint, it is severely lacking. For TV standards, it does the action fine, but nothing that stands out.
The acting from those involved is all dialed up to 11. They are putting on stage performances for these characters so that the people in the back row of the auditorium can understand their emotional turmoil. There isn't much subtly to be found in the presentation.
Chamberlin as Bourne also does not sell the audience on his supposed espionage skill. He is completely unable to tell a lie or avoid looking suspicious. His detective work is sloppy, and he seems to only stumble upon the "final boss" of his journey.
The theme comes across very misguided. Bourne keeps wrestling with the dilemma of whether he is an assassin or not. Meanwhile he kills about 18 people in his quest to prove that he is not a killer.
And the romance between Maria and Jason is so tacked on and does not fit, it is almost hilarious. He goes from holding her up at gun point and abusing her to her professing her love to him in a manner of 10 minutes. It is ridiculous and possibly a dangerous message, that is, if anyone watched this hoping for relationship advice.
On the positives, although not great compared to the movie, the action scenes are not bad. Bourne doesn't feel invincible in his fights, it makes each of the conflicts more engaging. It has some good mystery if you are not already familiar with the pay off. And it remains a nice little relic from the 80's.
Overall, like the main character, this is something I will likely be forgetting very soon.
surprisingly touching and excellent adaptation
suze-418 February 2008
I didn't expect too much from a TV mini-series based on an adventure novel, which was later made into a big budget action film.
I had not enjoyed the 2002 version of The Bourne Identity with Matt Damon, but this one was gripping from the first frame. I read a lot of the reviews and posts here as I always do to compare reactions, and found people were praising some elements, and criticizing others. Here is how it affected me.
Primarily it was a story about a man's search for his identity, and Chamberlain, never known as the greatest actor in the world, was very believable and effective. Jaclyn Smith was just adequate in her role and she is definitely one of the worst actresses they could have chosen, but one can't have everything. She makes good eye candy. The movie's other characters played pivotal roles and delivered excellent characterizations. Notably Denholm Elliott as the doctor.
The story was a fast moving adventure, which was almost Hitchcockian, the story of one bewildered man with villains trying to kill him, and a random pretty girl he abducts to help him (also echoes of the Redford movie Three Days of the Condor), and the extensive scenery of Paris was beautiful. Except for the obvious pauses where commercials used to be, this looks like a real movie and not a TV series. It doesn't look cheaply made. They obviously took pride in this production.
But to me the most surprising thing of all was the human element, the complex emotions in the amnesiac's story. Richard Chamberlain delivered them far above what one would expect from him, or from a TV movie. Yet this movie is all but forgotten since the theatre versions were made. I think that Hitchcock, if he had been alive to make this picture, would himself have chosen Chamberlain as he was very much like the James Stewart "everyman" who raced against time to solve the mystery of his amnesia.
There are a few places where key scenes from the past are shown briefly and never explained (apparently a sequel was planned, which would explain them), and yet I was able to fill in a likely explanation, from my own imagination. This is the mark of good film making.
There were no fantastic special effects or avant garde techniques. It was straightforward story telling.
I am easily bored, highly critical, and so because I loved this, I am very surprised and had to post about it, in case it might help someone decide to go ahead and see it. Yes, it is well worth it and highly enjoyable. It hails from another era (where the story was more important than the chases and effects).
I am glad it is still available in video, and if I find it in DVD I will buy it because it was a movie I would like to see again. I still think about it - and went to the library to get the book the next day - and that rarely happens with an action movie of this type.
I had not enjoyed the 2002 version of The Bourne Identity with Matt Damon, but this one was gripping from the first frame. I read a lot of the reviews and posts here as I always do to compare reactions, and found people were praising some elements, and criticizing others. Here is how it affected me.
Primarily it was a story about a man's search for his identity, and Chamberlain, never known as the greatest actor in the world, was very believable and effective. Jaclyn Smith was just adequate in her role and she is definitely one of the worst actresses they could have chosen, but one can't have everything. She makes good eye candy. The movie's other characters played pivotal roles and delivered excellent characterizations. Notably Denholm Elliott as the doctor.
The story was a fast moving adventure, which was almost Hitchcockian, the story of one bewildered man with villains trying to kill him, and a random pretty girl he abducts to help him (also echoes of the Redford movie Three Days of the Condor), and the extensive scenery of Paris was beautiful. Except for the obvious pauses where commercials used to be, this looks like a real movie and not a TV series. It doesn't look cheaply made. They obviously took pride in this production.
But to me the most surprising thing of all was the human element, the complex emotions in the amnesiac's story. Richard Chamberlain delivered them far above what one would expect from him, or from a TV movie. Yet this movie is all but forgotten since the theatre versions were made. I think that Hitchcock, if he had been alive to make this picture, would himself have chosen Chamberlain as he was very much like the James Stewart "everyman" who raced against time to solve the mystery of his amnesia.
There are a few places where key scenes from the past are shown briefly and never explained (apparently a sequel was planned, which would explain them), and yet I was able to fill in a likely explanation, from my own imagination. This is the mark of good film making.
There were no fantastic special effects or avant garde techniques. It was straightforward story telling.
I am easily bored, highly critical, and so because I loved this, I am very surprised and had to post about it, in case it might help someone decide to go ahead and see it. Yes, it is well worth it and highly enjoyable. It hails from another era (where the story was more important than the chases and effects).
I am glad it is still available in video, and if I find it in DVD I will buy it because it was a movie I would like to see again. I still think about it - and went to the library to get the book the next day - and that rarely happens with an action movie of this type.
Proves once again that made-for-TV can be very good...
buiger28 January 2007
Compared to the very advertised 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.
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.
Only for Bourne die-hards
oshram-31 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Starring Richard Chamberlain as Jason Bourne (see what a difference casting can make?) and Jaclyn Smith as Marie (a far cry from Franka Potente, indeed), this Bourne ostensibly hews a little closer to the book (I've never read it, but I've been told that the only thing the book and the Damon film have in common is the title). In this version, Bourne is helped by a kindly old doctor named Washburn (the ever-remarkable Denholm Elliot) and meets up with Marie while he is trying to escape being gunned down by sinister Swiss spies (led by Wolf Kahler, better known as slimy Nazi Dietrich from Raiders of the Lost Ark). There's a whole lot more going on (at three hours, there'd better be), but there's also a snorefest of details about international finance that the Damon version wisely condensed to a single tense scene at a Swiss bank. This Bourne is longer on plot, and there's even more going on behind the scenes at Treadstone and so on. There's also a ludicrous and maudlin revelation near the end about who Jason really is (compared with the tag-on at the end of Supremacy delivered by Pam Landy, this is positively Harlequin-esque).
Granted, it's damned hard for a TV miniseries to compare with a fairly-big budget film, and both of the new Bourne films play much better to the short attention span of modern sensibilities. This Bourne delves into a lot more character and takes a much longer time developing the relationship between Jason and Marie (though it's never half as believable as the Damon-Potente one). The films also had very different aims, so in a way comparing them isn't fair, but since they are interpretations of the same material, one can't help but see how they match up.
I'd only recommend this film for serious Ludlum fans or people like me who simply loved the two modern movies and wanted to see how an older stab at the material would play. Most people would find this version needlessly talky and slow I did and at three hours, I really can't suggest this to anyone. It's far longer and far slower than it needs to be, and it compares most unfavorably to Damon's films. There is a neat plot in this film that they could use for a potential third movie Bourne sort of fighting the anti-Bourne, an uber-terrorist named Carlos but it's certainly not worth sitting through this whole film to get to. A passably interesting exercise for Bourne die-hards, but certainly one to be skipped by anyone else.
Granted, it's damned hard for a TV miniseries to compare with a fairly-big budget film, and both of the new Bourne films play much better to the short attention span of modern sensibilities. This Bourne delves into a lot more character and takes a much longer time developing the relationship between Jason and Marie (though it's never half as believable as the Damon-Potente one). The films also had very different aims, so in a way comparing them isn't fair, but since they are interpretations of the same material, one can't help but see how they match up.
I'd only recommend this film for serious Ludlum fans or people like me who simply loved the two modern movies and wanted to see how an older stab at the material would play. Most people would find this version needlessly talky and slow I did and at three hours, I really can't suggest this to anyone. It's far longer and far slower than it needs to be, and it compares most unfavorably to Damon's films. There is a neat plot in this film that they could use for a potential third movie Bourne sort of fighting the anti-Bourne, an uber-terrorist named Carlos but it's certainly not worth sitting through this whole film to get to. A passably interesting exercise for Bourne die-hards, but certainly one to be skipped by anyone else.
Fantastic!
jmcb26 October 2002
I have just finished watching this Movie and felt very complelled to come and write a review on here.
Where to start??! A good compliament of "The Bourne Identity" is simply that the 3 hours went by very quickly, never dragged on. It would have been perfect I imagine when first screened, over two evenings and the end of the first part is an excellent cliff hanger!
I loved the way clues, plot pieces unraveled as the Movie went along. The micro chip... finding out Bourne's name?... various clues forced out of people...
Richard Chamberlain, was good, likeable. He tackled the role very well and was, in the most part, very sucessful. Jaclyn Smith, I suppose, was the reason I watched this Movie. I am a fan of hers, initially from Charlie's Angels of course, and this was the 8th Movie featuring her I have collected. Because it's the most recent one I have seen I would be inclined to say it is my favourite but I honestly think it is! Far too often her Movies are family dramas and this is a Spy Thriller!! Yay! Marie (Jaclyn's character) develops a great deal through the Movie, her preconceptions alter, she falls in love, she becomes stronger.
I get the impression the 2002 version won't spend as much time focussing on the relationship between Bourne and Marie but I think that is just as important as the action. I certainly imagine the action scenes are better. There are no major complaints I can make about the action in this 1988 version except perhaps the "fat villain" may not have been very good at it, not too convincing. To mention one other slight down side to the film (there must be + and -) the opening scene didn't look great, of the ship, looked a bit model-ly.
But that is simply because there was no huge budget, afterall it is a TV Movie, and an excellent one at that! A good cast, Paris was an inspired choice for the main location of the movie and overall this is a Movie with a fantastic plot and main cast.
Where to start??! A good compliament of "The Bourne Identity" is simply that the 3 hours went by very quickly, never dragged on. It would have been perfect I imagine when first screened, over two evenings and the end of the first part is an excellent cliff hanger!
I loved the way clues, plot pieces unraveled as the Movie went along. The micro chip... finding out Bourne's name?... various clues forced out of people...
Richard Chamberlain, was good, likeable. He tackled the role very well and was, in the most part, very sucessful. Jaclyn Smith, I suppose, was the reason I watched this Movie. I am a fan of hers, initially from Charlie's Angels of course, and this was the 8th Movie featuring her I have collected. Because it's the most recent one I have seen I would be inclined to say it is my favourite but I honestly think it is! Far too often her Movies are family dramas and this is a Spy Thriller!! Yay! Marie (Jaclyn's character) develops a great deal through the Movie, her preconceptions alter, she falls in love, she becomes stronger.
I get the impression the 2002 version won't spend as much time focussing on the relationship between Bourne and Marie but I think that is just as important as the action. I certainly imagine the action scenes are better. There are no major complaints I can make about the action in this 1988 version except perhaps the "fat villain" may not have been very good at it, not too convincing. To mention one other slight down side to the film (there must be + and -) the opening scene didn't look great, of the ship, looked a bit model-ly.
But that is simply because there was no huge budget, afterall it is a TV Movie, and an excellent one at that! A good cast, Paris was an inspired choice for the main location of the movie and overall this is a Movie with a fantastic plot and main cast.
A Story Ahead of Its Time
ebiros22 February 2013
This is a fair or should I say more accurate portrayal of Jason Bourne from Robert Ludlum's novel. The new Matt Damon based "Bourne" was only made to make Matt Damon look good. It really lacked any sobriety.
Richard Chamberlain, and Jaclyn Smith is a much more convincing as the characters they're portraying. They're also far better looking than Matt Damon, and the other chick that played their part.
This is a made for TV movie and blows away the big budget Hollywood movie that's made years later. The movie is worth a watch because of the foresighted nature of Robert Ludlum's story. In the '80s, there was no one else talking about mind control, or a super soldier assassin. But in recent years, the now declassified MK ULTRA material emerged, and the fact that super soldier program like mentioned in this story indeed existed (and probably still does).
Chamberlain has lot more expression as Jason Bourne than Matt Damon, which makes this an excellent mystery / action movie from the '80s.
Richard Chamberlain, and Jaclyn Smith is a much more convincing as the characters they're portraying. They're also far better looking than Matt Damon, and the other chick that played their part.
This is a made for TV movie and blows away the big budget Hollywood movie that's made years later. The movie is worth a watch because of the foresighted nature of Robert Ludlum's story. In the '80s, there was no one else talking about mind control, or a super soldier assassin. But in recent years, the now declassified MK ULTRA material emerged, and the fact that super soldier program like mentioned in this story indeed existed (and probably still does).
Chamberlain has lot more expression as Jason Bourne than Matt Damon, which makes this an excellent mystery / action movie from the '80s.
Bourne for grown-ups
JD_Sydney19 January 2024
Superficially the 2002 Matt Damon movie is better as far as action and pacing goes and I almost passed this by seeing that Richard Chamberlain (not my favourite actor) is in it. But this is a very well made and watchable version (though slow paced). What I found most striking was that the lead characters are played by adults and it was obviously made with that audience in mind. It's supposedly truer to the original book as well. It's not quite a classic but better than I expected and a reminder of how movies (even those made for tv) used to have substance - as opposed to just being a series of strung together action sequences.
I liked it!
tin201931 May 2004
I agree that the movie is a bit old, and I haven't read the book so I can't say if it's better. But I like it more than a newer, Matt Damon, version because it has a more interesting plot, and an intriguing ending.
The acting is good and the characters are well developed. The only thing I liked better in the new Bourne Identity is that the martial arts are phenomenal and the action scenes very intense, but everything else is better in the older one.
All in all it is a very good thriller with some corny scenes here and there, but it'll provide you with much suspense and an interesting ending that you would never expect.
The acting is good and the characters are well developed. The only thing I liked better in the new Bourne Identity is that the martial arts are phenomenal and the action scenes very intense, but everything else is better in the older one.
All in all it is a very good thriller with some corny scenes here and there, but it'll provide you with much suspense and an interesting ending that you would never expect.
Bourne Again.
rmax30482329 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I've only watched Part I of this two-part miniseries but it's possible to see with some clarity where it's going. I may have managed to see the whole thing when it was released some twenty years ago but didn't remember any of it except for the criminally beautiful Jaclyn Smith and a sexy scene in which Jason Bourne, Richard Chamberlain, tenderly undresses her. Don't worry. No nudity, and the sex is all slow-motion close ups and dissolves, one cliché following in lockstep on the heels of the previous one.
Compared to the more recent release with Matt Damon in the title role, it's better than I'd expected. TV movies don't have the time for rehearsals and the budget imposes other limits on the production. I worked in a miniseries with Jaclyn Smith -- the critically acclaimed cult hit, "Sidney Sheldon's Windmills of the Gods" -- and it was slam-bang fast.
Compared to the recent version, this one is more of a mystery than an action movie, and although I gather it sticks closer to Ludlum's novel (you can do that better in three hours than in half that time) it still has a couple of holes that were missing from the Matt Damon feature. It was never hard to follow the feature film but this series sometimes lost me in its divagations. In the film we get a good look at every piece of information Damon uncovers in his search for his identity. Here, sometimes Chamberlain acts on intuition.
The lack of rehearsal time and character development shows too. Two times, in Part I, someone mentions how good Chamberlain is at fighting and killing people. But he's not particularly good at it. He gets the crap beaten out of him several times. And when he pulls a hidden gun from his sock and blows his captor away, it's something any routine Private Eye could do. The magisterial mano a mano combat in the feature film required extensive choreography and rehearsal. It was evidently based on karel maga, the most brutal form of martial arts. We were treated to some practice in it while I was in boot camp, only it didn't have a name then. Here's one of the lessons. If you're in a fight for your life, you use whatever objects are at hand -- ball-point pens or blankets -- and you can't lose if you simply pop the other guy's eyeball out with your thumb, as if it were a grape. That's what a professional assassin would learn. Chamberlain, on the other hand, seems to know nothing of this. His natural form is the fist fight, like those you've seen in thousands of other movies. Easier to learn and to choreograph, therefore easier and faster to shoot, and therefore less expensive.
Chamberlain's conception of Bourne's character is different from Damon's. Not necessarily worse than Damon's, but different. Chamberlain's Bourne is constantly puzzled by what he's being put through, and shows an occasional cranky mood. Half the time he's unsure of himself, uncertain about what to do next. And the writers have him (and Jaclyn Smith too) talk to themselves quite a bit so the viewer can keep up with his thoughts and the emotions that accompany them. "What am I doing here?" Or, "That CAN'T be true." Or, waiting for someone to answer a phone, "Come on! Come on!" Damon's Bourne acts almost entirely on instinct. He seems to remember more of how to behave like a prey animal, and he remembers how to speak French and German. He strides quickly from place to place and he reacts impulsively and with skill in situations of violence. He's entirely aware of his surroundings and their potential, while Chamberlain is befuddled by them.
The miniseries, like the film, was shot in European locations and captures well the chill drizzle of a continental winter in Zurich and Paris. Not a bad effort, all things taken into account.
Compared to the more recent release with Matt Damon in the title role, it's better than I'd expected. TV movies don't have the time for rehearsals and the budget imposes other limits on the production. I worked in a miniseries with Jaclyn Smith -- the critically acclaimed cult hit, "Sidney Sheldon's Windmills of the Gods" -- and it was slam-bang fast.
Compared to the recent version, this one is more of a mystery than an action movie, and although I gather it sticks closer to Ludlum's novel (you can do that better in three hours than in half that time) it still has a couple of holes that were missing from the Matt Damon feature. It was never hard to follow the feature film but this series sometimes lost me in its divagations. In the film we get a good look at every piece of information Damon uncovers in his search for his identity. Here, sometimes Chamberlain acts on intuition.
The lack of rehearsal time and character development shows too. Two times, in Part I, someone mentions how good Chamberlain is at fighting and killing people. But he's not particularly good at it. He gets the crap beaten out of him several times. And when he pulls a hidden gun from his sock and blows his captor away, it's something any routine Private Eye could do. The magisterial mano a mano combat in the feature film required extensive choreography and rehearsal. It was evidently based on karel maga, the most brutal form of martial arts. We were treated to some practice in it while I was in boot camp, only it didn't have a name then. Here's one of the lessons. If you're in a fight for your life, you use whatever objects are at hand -- ball-point pens or blankets -- and you can't lose if you simply pop the other guy's eyeball out with your thumb, as if it were a grape. That's what a professional assassin would learn. Chamberlain, on the other hand, seems to know nothing of this. His natural form is the fist fight, like those you've seen in thousands of other movies. Easier to learn and to choreograph, therefore easier and faster to shoot, and therefore less expensive.
Chamberlain's conception of Bourne's character is different from Damon's. Not necessarily worse than Damon's, but different. Chamberlain's Bourne is constantly puzzled by what he's being put through, and shows an occasional cranky mood. Half the time he's unsure of himself, uncertain about what to do next. And the writers have him (and Jaclyn Smith too) talk to themselves quite a bit so the viewer can keep up with his thoughts and the emotions that accompany them. "What am I doing here?" Or, "That CAN'T be true." Or, waiting for someone to answer a phone, "Come on! Come on!" Damon's Bourne acts almost entirely on instinct. He seems to remember more of how to behave like a prey animal, and he remembers how to speak French and German. He strides quickly from place to place and he reacts impulsively and with skill in situations of violence. He's entirely aware of his surroundings and their potential, while Chamberlain is befuddled by them.
The miniseries, like the film, was shot in European locations and captures well the chill drizzle of a continental winter in Zurich and Paris. Not a bad effort, all things taken into account.
A Wonderful Film
brimleg25 July 2006
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 **********
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 **********
Not bad for a TV movie!
mm-399 February 2003
This film is not bad for a TV movie. B actor Richard Chamberlen king of 80's TV mini series does a fine acting job. The casting is fine, and the shoot in Europe is excellent. Not as good as the higher budget theater released movie, but this is expected. The TV version has filler in it that drags the show on. Watch the newer one first. 6/10
This Film Is Now Pointless
damianphelps5 March 2021
IF you have a cpl of hours to kill leave here now and go straight to the 2002 Matt Damon version. It is by far superior to this effort.
When this movie/series, came out it was okish but now a quality version has been made, then this film unfortunately doesn't really cut it in comparison.
If you enjoy this cast, you will like it, or find the 2002 a bit to dazzling and entertaining and you like your mail delivered by the postman not the internet , then this could work for you.
When this movie/series, came out it was okish but now a quality version has been made, then this film unfortunately doesn't really cut it in comparison.
If you enjoy this cast, you will like it, or find the 2002 a bit to dazzling and entertaining and you like your mail delivered by the postman not the internet , then this could work for you.
Long before Matt Damon, there was Richard Chamberlain.
planktonrules22 January 2017
Like the much more famous 2002 version starring Matt Damon, this elaborate and expensive looking TV mini-series (actually just a long two-part movie) is a non-stop roller-coaster ride of a picture. If you like action, then you are in for a treat....though you wouldn't exactly expect Richard Chamberlain to be playing an action star! A mini- series star yes...action hero...nah!
When the film begins, Jason Bourne (Chamberlain) is shot, tossed overboard and assumed dead. Obviously someone dislikes the guy...at least just a bit! He soon washes up on shore in the south of France and is found by a doctor who manages to save him. But when Bourne awakens he has a serious problem. He has no idea who he is and the head wound no doubt is the reason why. While the doctor cannot tell him who he is, he does know he's someone unique, as he somehow survived, has had significant plastic surgery to hide his identity AND he had some secret information implanted in his leg!! Bourne is determined to discover who he is and very, very slowly tiny bits and pieces come back to him. The first big shock is that he has a bank account with $15,000,000 in it! The next is when he tries to withdraw some of it, bank employees begin shooting at him and he goes into super action hero mode! Clearly there is a very severe penalty at this place for an early withdrawal!! From here, the film continues with one killer after another coming for Jason...and he has no idea whether or not he's a good guy or a bad guy--but he is a LETHAL guy. And, there is some indication he MIGHT be the international mega-criminal, the Jackal!
Along for the much of the ride is Marie (Jaclyn Smith), a Canadian woman vacationing in Europe. At first he grabs her in order to blend in and evade assassins. Later, she comes to realize her kidnapper is not one of the bad guys and she willingly helps him in his quest to see who he really is.
The biggest strength of this film is that although it's practically non-stop action, because it's three hours long it gives you a bit of time to breath--something not possible in the later film because it was an hour shorter. How else it is better or worse I can't say. I've seen both, but saw the Matt Damon version long ago and cannot remember all of it--just that it was a bit too frenetic in pace.
So is this any good? Well, yes and no. The plot, while frenetic (and I am not much of an action film lover--you should know that), the film is exciting and the plot satisfying and interesting. However, the movie also suffers from its love story....which just doesn't make much sense. Why does Marie fall for Jason so quickly?! Why do they go to bed together so quickly?! And, why does she continue to risk her life again and again for a man she doesn't really know?! None of this makes any sense.
The bottom line is that this IS a very good film and is well worth seeing despite its love story. The international filming locations are pretty amazing for a made for TV film and the acting is generally pretty good. But, for a much better film involving Carlos the Jackal, try watching "Day of the Jackal"...one of the best suspense films of all time.
FYI--You might be too young to know, but Carlos the Jackal is a REAL person--a real international terrorist and not just some character in films. Ilyich Ramírez Sánchez was nicknamed Carlot the Jackal and is currently in prison in France for his infamous crimes.
When the film begins, Jason Bourne (Chamberlain) is shot, tossed overboard and assumed dead. Obviously someone dislikes the guy...at least just a bit! He soon washes up on shore in the south of France and is found by a doctor who manages to save him. But when Bourne awakens he has a serious problem. He has no idea who he is and the head wound no doubt is the reason why. While the doctor cannot tell him who he is, he does know he's someone unique, as he somehow survived, has had significant plastic surgery to hide his identity AND he had some secret information implanted in his leg!! Bourne is determined to discover who he is and very, very slowly tiny bits and pieces come back to him. The first big shock is that he has a bank account with $15,000,000 in it! The next is when he tries to withdraw some of it, bank employees begin shooting at him and he goes into super action hero mode! Clearly there is a very severe penalty at this place for an early withdrawal!! From here, the film continues with one killer after another coming for Jason...and he has no idea whether or not he's a good guy or a bad guy--but he is a LETHAL guy. And, there is some indication he MIGHT be the international mega-criminal, the Jackal!
Along for the much of the ride is Marie (Jaclyn Smith), a Canadian woman vacationing in Europe. At first he grabs her in order to blend in and evade assassins. Later, she comes to realize her kidnapper is not one of the bad guys and she willingly helps him in his quest to see who he really is.
The biggest strength of this film is that although it's practically non-stop action, because it's three hours long it gives you a bit of time to breath--something not possible in the later film because it was an hour shorter. How else it is better or worse I can't say. I've seen both, but saw the Matt Damon version long ago and cannot remember all of it--just that it was a bit too frenetic in pace.
So is this any good? Well, yes and no. The plot, while frenetic (and I am not much of an action film lover--you should know that), the film is exciting and the plot satisfying and interesting. However, the movie also suffers from its love story....which just doesn't make much sense. Why does Marie fall for Jason so quickly?! Why do they go to bed together so quickly?! And, why does she continue to risk her life again and again for a man she doesn't really know?! None of this makes any sense.
The bottom line is that this IS a very good film and is well worth seeing despite its love story. The international filming locations are pretty amazing for a made for TV film and the acting is generally pretty good. But, for a much better film involving Carlos the Jackal, try watching "Day of the Jackal"...one of the best suspense films of all time.
FYI--You might be too young to know, but Carlos the Jackal is a REAL person--a real international terrorist and not just some character in films. Ilyich Ramírez Sánchez was nicknamed Carlot the Jackal and is currently in prison in France for his infamous crimes.
Solid version of the Ludlum novel
ODDBear11 October 2008
Made in the era when the mini-series were in relatively high regard and one classic was swiftly followed by another, this very respectable version of "The Bourne Identity" was released and, if memory serves, it was quite popular.
Production values here are very good, it's tightly written (for the most part) and the Robert Ludlum story is full of surprises and suspense. Despite the three hour-plus running time it never slows down too much and keeps a solid momentum.
Richard Chamberlain is no Robert De Niro but he pulls the role off well enough. He's quite fit and handles himself in the action department admirably. There are some good supporting actors here as well but I've never thought Jaclyn Smith to be a very good actress. She's wonderful eye candy but I didn't find her believable here at all. But then I never do.
Also, call me crazy but I actually prefer this to the Superhuman agent Matt Damon portrayed in the big budget trilogy based on the Ludlum novels. Chamberlain looks a bit more human and he actually takes beatings here and gets bruised like a normal human being. He's a good fighter but nothing that borders on supernatural.
Production values here are very good, it's tightly written (for the most part) and the Robert Ludlum story is full of surprises and suspense. Despite the three hour-plus running time it never slows down too much and keeps a solid momentum.
Richard Chamberlain is no Robert De Niro but he pulls the role off well enough. He's quite fit and handles himself in the action department admirably. There are some good supporting actors here as well but I've never thought Jaclyn Smith to be a very good actress. She's wonderful eye candy but I didn't find her believable here at all. But then I never do.
Also, call me crazy but I actually prefer this to the Superhuman agent Matt Damon portrayed in the big budget trilogy based on the Ludlum novels. Chamberlain looks a bit more human and he actually takes beatings here and gets bruised like a normal human being. He's a good fighter but nothing that borders on supernatural.
Disappointing and now outdated
tabuno6 April 2023
At the time, the original Bourne production starred three well-known actors, Richard Chamberlain (who was nominated for a Golden Globes for his performance and acted as the lead role in television's Dr. Kildare), Jaclyn Smith (original Charlie's Angels), Anthony Quayle (Oscar nominee) as well as Denholm Elliott (Indiana Jones). Time has not been kind to this television mini-series where its slow pacing, overly dramatic acting, and now with the opportunity to compare the series to the updated movie franchise starring Matt Damon reveals this television series as almost a parody and soap operatic version of the movie version. Chamberlain is loud and frantic and surprisingly not appealing as Damon's more subdued and authentic feeling along with his heightened smart and sharp assassin talents. There are only a few moments of quality movie production here, mostly in the second half of the series especially the intense dramatic scene between Chamberlain and Quayle. Perhaps at the time of its release the movie plot was exciting and new, but today it now seems old fashioned and melodramatic. The problem may have been with the director and writers of an old television mentality. Unlike the updated version, the musical score lagged and really did not contribute to or enhance the television production. The acting, especially the fight scenes felt artificial like old television westerns. With an intriguing potential to exploit the plot twists and relational turmoil, this television series never reached its potential and is probably only worth watching to compare with Matt Damon's performance and storyline.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
