I love to hate Bill O’Reilly. According to the man, my whole city should fall into the ocean, and The Simpsons Movie is “more realistic” than The Bourne Ultimatum. Yes, he actually wrote that. In his latest column titled The Bourne Buffoonery, Reilly calls out the film for being unpatriotic.
“I knew this movie was trouble when I read the reviews. Almost all the critics liked it. The only way American movie critics would like a violent car chase film like this was if it bashed the USA, which, of course, it does,” wrote Reilly.
I was going to print a listing of all the chase movies or car chase films that made lots of money at the box office without bashing America. But I’ve decided that Reilly’s statement is so ridiculous that it isn’t really worth rebutting (which is often the case with most of O’Reilly’s statements).
“In the Bourne movie there are no shotguns to frighten Julia, but plenty of automatic weapons fired at U.S. intelligence agents, not by al Qaeda, but by American Matt Damon. As the casualty count rose, I kept thinking about all those disability payments we taxpayers would have to pick up,” writes O’Reilly. “[Paul] Greengrass has used his skills as a filmmaker to create a slick propaganda package that will make him millions of dollars. And standing between Mr. Greengrass and real life terrorists who would slit his throat are, of course, real life American intelligence people. In the end, the America-haters will love The Bourne Ultimatum and apolitical others may enjoy the action and carnage. The movie is a perfect storm of misguided ideology, silly plotting, and absurd conclusions. In other words, it’s a blockbuster.”
You can read O’Reilly’s full review at this link, or post a comment below.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Heh, its only because it’s a universal movie, and universal is owned by the same people that own MSNBC, and MSNBC spends a lot of time at night bashing Bill-O.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Please Slashfilm, keep his moronic comments off this blog.
We don’t need his ‘we are all good, they’re all evil’ mentality especially for a film.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Bill O’Reilly is losing his grasp on what is reality and what isn’t. This guy has no idea what he is talking about anymore.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Personally, I’m not an O’Reilly fan but I do think he, marginally, has a point here. Remember Mark Wahlberg’s movie (”Shooter”)? It had largely the same issues that I think O’Reilly points out. That movie was clearly set with an agenda and that agenda was how the government, at least at the highest levels, is corrupt, particularly in the intelligence services.
Now, before people jump on me: I disagree with O’Reilly’s comments about “car chase movies” and critics only loving movies that bash America. But I will say that there is a certain pernicious style to many movies that deal with the CIA or FBI or higher levels of government that portray *everything* as largely corrupt or involved in massive scandals. Remember Denzel in “The Pelican Brief” or Will Smith in “Enemy of the State” or Mel Gibson in “Conspiracy Theory.” Contrast movies like those with the relatively recent film “Breach”, for example, which showed how the agency tried to root out a mole in its own or even “The Good Shepherd” (which allowed you to draw your own conclusions without moralizing at you).
All this being said, it’s probably important for O’Reilly to remember that this movie (like the other two) are based (albeit very loosely) on the books by Robert Ludlum, whose books often involve our intelligence agencies being up to no good. So, really, O’Reilly should probably go after Ludlum, or rather his estate I guess since he died back in 2001.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I think the important thing to remember is that it’s a movie. It’s not a documentary or even worse a mockumentary. It’s an action flick, and that is what appeals to audiences and that is why it’s a blockbuster. It might also help that it stars Matt Damon and this is the third and final chapter to a series. Bill O just has to look for anti-patriotism in everything because that’s the way he’s wired. And some might say that that makes him, in a sense, an anti-patriot as well. Because rather than searching for the patriotic and promoting that, he searches for the opposite and in turn, promotes that. Kinda sad really.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I agree with Jeff.
“Ultimatum” was a little too preachy - its political points felt forced and dumbed down an otherwise cool film.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Bizarre. Ultimatum was good. If you want to make O’Reilly more angry, and see Damon in his other most recent role, check out this amusing video from the Center for American Progress: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8QaRw4a78Q
P.S. For Sarah Silverman fans, there’s Sarah Silverman to be found, too.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I have to agree that *lately* O’Reilly seems to be going off the tracks moreso than he used to. I reviewed the film and I’m not a part of any liberal, left-wing conspiracy - in fact I consider myself a conservative.
I don’t know how closely the film follows the book it’s based on, but the book was published 17 YEARS AGO.
If the film was based on a book written since 9/11 it might give his argument a bit more credence.
Vic
August 12th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Screenrant: The book shares the title of a Bourne book, but otherwise is an entirely original screenplay.
That said, O’Reilly would have a point if he just concentrated on the anti-Patriot Act/abuse of Patriotism angle the film has. Other than that, if he thinks this is an anti-American film, you might as well call any film where the hero shoots at corrupt cops an “anti-police” movie.
O’Reilly has been off his rocker for years. I used to believe he was a shoot from the hip type of guy, but then I watched this clip and lost all respect for the man:
http://tinyurl.com/2oacly
(youtube clip)
August 12th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Hmmmm… Bourne is a character who wants to his country to be a better place and hold itself to higher moral and ethical standard than it currently is. I can see where Falaferl-fan O’Reilly would have a problem with that.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
O’Reilly is ridiculous, plain and simple.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Oh, and as stated above, these books were written almost 20 years ago. Bourne was in Vietnam for God’s sake. If O’Reilly is comparing patriotism…
August 12th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
For such a smart guy, he has a tendency to be just plain ignorant and child-like. What scares me is the thought of people who appreciate Bill O. It’s frightening to think that there are people that not only share his warped views, but encourage and support him enough that he will never be taken off air….ever.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
bill o’reilly is a fucking moron and so is anyone who takes anything he’s got to say seriously. he is the most twisted man in news media.
end of discussion.
August 12th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
So, Peter, you’re from San Francisco, too?
August 12th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Aber, way to argue your point, dude.
Vic
August 12th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
here’s why this article has no place on /film:
Graviti:
“O’Reilly is ridiculous, plain and simple. If anyone SHOULD’VE been shot in that film, it should’ve been him. Bourne should’ve stopped by his studio for one last assassination job and taken ‘ol Bill out.”
aber:
“bill o’reilly is a fucking moron and so is anyone who takes anything he’s got to say seriously. he is the most twisted man in news media.
end of discussion.”
i come here to get movie news, not read this hate.
August 12th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Seinfeld, that’s pretty idiotic. Just read the article and don’t read the comments. How hard is that?
August 12th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Jerry, I’m with ya. Peter is a very nice guy, but I’m more of a hard ass. On my site I would have deleted offensive comments and probably locked this thread by now.
Vic
August 12th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Uh Dur,
I’m surprised to read a comment like that from you following your very intelligent comments above. If people don’t read the comments what the heck is the point of commenting?
Vic
August 12th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
jerry seinfeld:
“i come here to get movie news, not read this hate.”
Wow… Vote O’Reilly for President?… much?…
The point is, good ‘ol Bill sees a cause (at least one in his mind) and is quick to pick at the “hidden meaning” of a movie made to be entertaining, not to make a political stand.
There are other things to pick at in the movie without having to worry about whether Bourne had on his American Flag underoos while he was trying to avoid BEING killed by “U.S. intelligence agents” he was aiming “plenty of automatic weapons” at.
August 12th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Didn’t Bill O’Reilly die like 5 years ago?
August 12th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Plus:
I think it’s a bit funny how O’Rielly has had little if anything to say about some other movies made with American antagonists, particularly American government…
I guess every movie made with a reference to ‘Area 51′ and Roswell are unpatriotic too - as they suggest government cover-ups etc. God knows that our government really DOESN’T have cover-ups and what not - I mean hell, that’s been proven on an almost weekly basis in the last few years… right?
August 12th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Screenrant, you’re missing the point of what Seinfeld was saying. He said he comes here for movie news, “not to read this hate”. Well the comments aren’t part of the movie news. So why does he read the comments in the first place? Nobody is forcing him to read the comments. And it’s not like you can’t tell where the article ends and comments begin. I just find it dumb to complain about something that he’s subjecting himself to. That’s all. That is, if he really only comes here for movie news. But I guess that’s a lie on his part because if that was true, he wouldn’t have made a comment himself.
August 12th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Graviti:
“Wow… Vote O’Reilly for President?… much?…”
give me a break, dude. just because i don’t agree with your hateful rhetoric, i’m obviously a the right-wing devil.
grow up.
August 12th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
But just to make things clear, I’m not a big fan of the useless hate comments. They’re unintelligible and a waste of space. But I guess Bill O has a tendency to bring out the worst in people. Ya know what I mean?
August 12th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Evan: yes I’m from San Francisco
jerry seinfeld: Hate comments towards a movie star, director, writer, or tv star are allowed. We’re all here to criticize and comment on the latest movies and movie related news. Heck, I write one blog post hating on Brett Ratner at least once a week (sure, I try to use some intelligence in my comments and try to refrain from ‘I hope ratner dies’, but we can’t expect intelligence from everyone). What we do not allow hate speech between the people commenting on the site however. We have words that put comments directly into moderation (gay, fag.. etc). But some comments do get onto the site (but are usually removed within a few hours depending on how busy things are).
Vic: I was out at a press screening so I’m just now reading/moderating all these comments. But other than one one death threatish-type comment about Bill O’Reilly (which I edited out), I don’t really consider much of the other comments to be offensive. Sure, I would like more intelligent comments like yours, Graviti and Uh Dur, but I feel like censoring comments that don’t reach that level would probably be wrong.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:10 am
O’Reilley is getting old and cranky. He’s become so irrelevant to today’s world that he’ll try anything to get attention. And he even fails at that. Poor old geezer.
August 13th, 2007 at 4:50 am
Does this man realize that it’s only a story?
The whole world is aware that in real life there is no such thing as a baddie working for the American government.
August 13th, 2007 at 6:16 am
Everyone (including Bill) seems to forget that there are at least two people in the government that are not corrupt - Pamela and Nickki - and even only a small group that are corrupt. Bill wants to focus on the traitors in Hollywood not the traitors in the movie, probably so he can keep making money and keep watching his ego float across the tv screen.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:03 am
jerry seinfeld:
“give me a break, dude. just because i don’t agree with your hateful rhetoric, i’m obviously a the right-wing devil.
grow up.”
I come here to get movie news; not read this hate.
:-p
Besides, my idea would’ve made a good plot twist.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:09 am
I’m always amazed at the intense seething hatred liberals have for anyone who dares to express a differing opinion. Sorry guys but everyone deserves free speech, not just the left.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Little late to the party there Bob. Besides, noone’s saying Bill O can’t have an opinion or express it. We just feel he’s lost it. I’m not liberal, but I don’t agree with half the things Bill O says nowadays. Now, back in the day, he was an intelligible conservative with valid points and opinions. But you wanna talk about everyone deserves free speech, not just liberals? Then why doesn’t Bill O acknowledge that fact? Don’t come here trying to be preachy about the first ammendment when Bill O is the type of guy to tell you to Shut Up when your opinion differs from his. Your comment was unfounded and unecessary, but I’m not gonna tell YOU to shut up. That would be ignorant. Like Bill O.
I’m always amazed at how extremist right wings band together without rhyme or reason.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Wow. I am very torn over this. For the most part, I usually side with Mr. Bill’s views. But, I do realize Mr. Bill has very different political views then Matt Damon, so I guess that is where the resentment/hostility comes from.
However, I absolutely love this movie, and I had to even see it a second time over the weekend. I, in no way, saw personal, political opinions being broadcasted in this film.
If the government office/division [Treadstone/BlackBriar] in the Bourne movies wasn’t run by such, undoubtly evil people, maybe I would see the point that Mr. Bill is trying to make.
But, in this fictional movie series, they are the true bad guys, and, their actions have proven that they are the true bad guys.
I don’t feel calling the movie, or the actor, “anti-American” is logical or professional.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:53 am
I’d like to give the world a Coke… La Da Dee Da Dee Da
Anyone over 40 will probably get that. :-)
Vic
August 13th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Here he goes again. 1. It is a movie, fiction. 2. Can he please team up with RL and give us a comedy show together? 3. Ever hear of Steve McQueen? 4. Is he off his meds?
August 13th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Why are we even taking what he said remotely seriously? It’s no secret that O’Reilly, and his entire show, is a monster of propaganda. Anyone who’s going to take such a bogus review without a grain of salt wouldn’t appreciate a movie that doesn’t have a fade-in of an American flag every ten minutes, anyway.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Raise your hand if you care what Bill O Reilly, or any other person who gets paid to spout off about stupid stuff instead of real issues going on in this country, says… really… cmon, raise em… anyone….
I mean the Homeless? High Poverty levels? No Health care? NO…. BOURNE ULTIMATUM.. Those Movie making Commies….
August 13th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
dbunker–
Agreed!! It’s offensive that O’Reilly quips about how our tax dollars would pay off some fictional characters’ disability rates for getting shot, yet he fails to mention how deep our country’s defecit is because of the war overseas that HE supports a hundred percent. Bourne could cap a hundred million kneecaps with the amount of tax dollars being blown to hell over there.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
It is so sad that none of you can find anything better to do than sit around and bash Bill all day for having his own opinoins when you yourselves feel it’s okay for you to express your’s freely. Pathetic. Maybe some of his comments were pretty extreme, but so are your’s, so just back off!
August 13th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
You bashed mine, Nicole. What’s the issue? Hypocrite.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Who’s bashing? Why pathetic? Because we disagree? Because we have our own opinions? Grow up Nicole.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Matt Damon makes the Borne movie.That is why movie is a success.Borne flicks are much like the James Bond movies.
O’Riley is looking for an agenda to capture listeners.
Borne books were written long before 9/11.
Get a life! Borne movies are for entertainment.
Jack
August 13th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
It’s a work of fiction, but not a work of fantasy. If you read anything at all about the history of the CIA, you’ll quickly find out what I’m talking about. People like O’Reilly think the ends justify the means, everyone’s our enemy and that it’s unpatriotic to air dirty laundry. They would have much preferred that Abu Gharib would not have been revealed. They’re the kind of people who are willing to destroy democracy and liberty to save their definition of “freedom” that roughly equates to economic prosperity for the richest 10% of Americans.
We need at least one or two more Bourne movies. The books have already been written. Matt Damon would be a fool to turn down another chance to have a #1 movie at the box office.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:16 am
O’ Reilly may be a pompous jerk, but there is some limited truth in his rant. As pure entertainment fare, I was discouraged that the enemy in the film is basically the CIA. I am cynical enough about the US government and I don’t need to see my country depicted as paranoid. I much rather watch an uplifting, patriotic tale where Jason Bourne kicks foreign tail and waves the American Flag.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:58 am
I’m not even freakin’ bashing you, but if I really want me to, maybe I will. I was just saying that you have your opinions, he has his, back off. I don’t know if it is really anti american as he says since i have not seen the movie yet, but the fact that you guys are getting so riled up about it is weird. If he’s against movies that make our country look bad, how is he the bad guy? Excuse me for being a patriotic American.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Are you guys kidding? The movie was being kind to our government. Bush and his cronies are much worse. I don’t even think we can imagine what they’ve really been up to these past few years - or as I like to call them “Neo-Dark Ages”.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I agree. Bill’s fantasizes about being America’s “culture warrior”, when, in reality, he’s just an American idiot: http://badbilloreilly.blogspot.com/.
The film made it very clear that the enemy was NOT the CIA but those in it that don’t hold the American values of transparent government and equal protection under the law. It was very patriotic.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Nicole, you’re like a seven-year old. Supporting O’Reilly is not synonymous with being patriotic; in fact, many people feel that disagreeing with O’Reilly on many issues — pro-life, the Patriot Act, etc. — as patriotic, as a defense of what Americanism is.
And my point was that you called some of us “pathetic” for slamming O’Reilly’s opinions, whilst, after called a hypocrite, you decide that you will outright slam ours, yet again.
Last I checked, ‘pathetic’ isn’t in the phonebook under ‘compliments’.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
O’Reilly didn’t say violent car chase movies never made lots of money at the box office. He said *critics* would never like such a movie unless it bashed the USA.
JJ
August 17th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Ok, so, Bill O’Reilly points out that the two main actors, Matt Damon (works for MoveOn.org) and Julia Stiles (missed a MoveOn meeting because she was seriously afraid O’Reilly would shoot her if she attended), are far left types. Bill mentions that Matt Damon thinks waterboarding is eroding American values, and oh, look, there’s a waterboarding scene in the film. The horror! He also refers to a Times London article where Paul Greengrass SPECIFICALLY STATES he’s exploiting the unease people feel about their government for the purposes of this movie. I read the article for myself–Bill didn’t make it up.
So what exactly is so ridiculous about what Bill O’Reilly said? The answer, of course, is that there ISN’T anything ridiculous about it–what he said was true. And THAT is the real reason you don’t like the article, Mr. Sciretta.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
“So what exactly is so ridiculous about what Bill O’Reilly said?”
He said the movie was “anti-USA propaganda”. I’m also opposed to waterboarding and a most of the issues the Bourne Ultimatum brings up, but that doesn’t make me have anti-American sentiments… not by any measure.
September 1st, 2007 at 11:15 am
Oreily is the only unpatriotic person in this issue. He cant stand anyone with a different opinion than his. America is about tolerence. He belong in Hitlers Germany.
September 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
I didn’t say I was commenting you, but I wasn’t bashing you either. And agreeing with Bill O’Reilly is not what makes me a patriotic American. No, in fact there’s quite a few instances when I disagree with him. What makes me a patriotic American is that I don’t like to see people bashing our country for no particular reason. And critics do love that stuff, thank you Jungle Jim. And after seeing the movie, (which I did yesterday finally) I can see where he would’ve gotten it, so no, there was nothing outrageous about what he said, even though I don’t really agree with him. In this case, no, I don’t really agree with him, but that’s the thing about opinoins. You don’t have to agree with them, but you don’t have to be uncivil about it to have a discussion.
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Uh Dur Says:
“Seinfeld, that’s pretty idiotic. Just read the article and don’t read the comments. How hard is that?”
If you read the article, how easy is it to ignore O’Reilly? The article certainly has little to nothing about the worth or non-worth of the film.
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Uh Dur Says:
“… it’s not like you can’t tell where the article ends and comments begin….”
That’s truer: The article starts out “I love to hate Bill O’Reilly….” and the comments, for the most part, continue that theme.
The comments on the film itself are remarkable for their paucity.
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Rodney A. Hoiseth Says:
“’… it’s not like you can’t tell where the article ends and comments begin….’
“That’s truer: The article starts out “I love to hate Bill O’Reilly….†and the comments, for the most part, continue that theme.”
Oops. Poor editing plus typo. Should have said:
“I beg to differ: The article starts out “I love to hate Bill O’Reilly….†and the comments, for the most part, continue that theme.”
March 13th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
F*ck Matt Damon.