Okay, hi! I wrote this about a month ago and then life moved on and I kind of forgot about it until all the forces of the universe converged to time the release of the following around the same time: The Grey starring Liam Neeson, AKA Liam Neeson: Wolf Puncher, and the trailer for the forthcoming
Bond Bourne Legacy. The following is therefore bathed in irony because Bourne sans Jason Bourne, Matt Damon or Paul Greengrass is the defiling of a perfect trilogy and I really want to see The Grey because apparently it has lovely 70's nihilism man versus nature overtones YUM. This, to some degree, should counteract my bias. Hopefully.
Now, without much further ado, I bring you, THE GREAT BOURNE VS. TAKEN DEBATE: FINALLY SETTLED. Other opinions are available
but they are wrong.
Early January 2012
EVERYONE: Rosie, you must watch Taken. It is awesome and amazing and other non-specific adjectives beginning with a. Also, it is like Bourne (but better).
ROSIE: *internally* WHUT?! BETTER THAN BOURNE?! BLASPHEMY! A PLAGUE A’BOTH YOUR HOUSES! *out loud* Well those are some pretty big shoes to fill, Grandma, but I shall take your ambitious claim and test it since I have wanted to see Taken for quite some time and I trust your fair judgement.
[ROSIE WATCHES TAKEN]
ROSIE: ...Huh. I feel peculiarly underwhelmed. I shall investigate the reasons, take a poll, and record my findings. Natch.
By now I’ve done the research; I’ve studied both Taken and the Bourne trilogy, taken notes, read good and bad reviews, interviewed people, thought about it way too much, and two weeks later I feel ready to present a coherent argument intended to settle the Great Bourne vs. Taken debate. (Actually, I’m not sure it’s that great outside of my circle.) However, before I begin, I’d just like to offer this disclaimer: if it isn’t already obvious it will become so soon; I am firmly in the Bourne camp, four-season sleeping bag and all. Despite this, I have tried to the best of my ability to eliminate any bias from this argument. Enjoy.