June 15, 2002
Last night, I went with some friends to see The Bourne Identity, the new spy thriller starring Matt Damon. The movie is based on a novel by Robert Ludlum (also called The Bourne Identity...weird). The movie was fun and should leave most spy movie fans satisfied, but it could have been better.
In fact, it was better about 15 years ago. You see, the story was originally made into a 3-hour TV mini-series starring Richard Chamberlain and one of the old Charlie's Angels girls, Jaclyn Smith.
While watching the Matt Damon version, I was surprised by the number of changes to the plot that had been made. This was unfortunate, because the intriguing plot was the best part of the TV version. I wonder which one more closely follows the plot from the book?
If any of you have seen either variation of The Bourne Identity, I'd love to hear your opinions. And I've got the TV version on tape, so if anyone wants to see it, come on over and we'll cook up some popcorn!
ok i saw the movie, and while it was awesome and packed with action and espionage, it was nothing like the original plot of the book.
Thanks, Chase! My question has been answered, without me having to actually read a book. Whew.
That was close! How would ever think that a college student could ever read a book! I think we would implode! ;)
Hey Meesh! I couldn't agree more. My philosophy is simple. Whenever there is a choice of reading a book or watching its movie adaptation, always go for the movie.