uh, I'm thinking if one of the consequences is these people not wanting to go to movies with you that maybe would be a good thing!

more like harassment for the rest of the month along the lines of "you big baby, were we bothering you? Hey, [everyone], Julie went into the back of the theatre and sulked! Remember? It was sooo funny."

I totally loved reading at least the first Bourne book. What sort of espionage deprived childhoods did y'all have?

The Bourne books are hilariously baroque. There's a 100-page digression about financial transfers across national borders! There are detailed cockamamie explanations of brain trauma! And actually, what I always liked best about it, there are all sorts of little details of paranoia, Plans B, C, D, and E, and keeping them all available at all times.

In the books, Bourne starts out with a lot more skills. And it's the skills -- at lying, at being charming, at assessing his chances and perpetrating armed robbery -- that are his first clues that he is Not A Normal Guy. He's also got about a billion times more affect than in the book, so he comes across as John Q. Public slowly having his own underbelly revealed to him, rather than as Scary Robot slowly being humanized.

I went through a major Robert Ludlum (and James Bond) phase in college. And the first Bourne novel was one I couldn't put down. Ludlum kept the action moving fast enough that I didn't realize, in particular, what a ridiculous character Marie turned out to be.

And Nutty put her finger on a lot of Ludlum's appeal. Most of his lead characters are fairly normal people roped into very dangerous spy situations. And they end up doing things that, at the beginning, they never dreamed they'd do.

Satisfactory literary cotton candy.

I haven't seen the movies, so I can't comment. May I cast a vote for Our Man in Havana instead?

May I cast a vote for Our Man in Havana instead?

Having read the book, I don't know if I could watch the movie. Severe read-from-the-hall for me.

Alec Guinness (as the lead), Ernie Kovacs (as the police officer), and Burl Ives (as the doctor) are magnificently cast. And I found the movie very droll in the British way. But I can agree that it isn't everyone's cup of tea. And the luncheon scene is decidedly watch-from-the-hall stuff.

Severe read-from-the-hall for me.

I'm heading in that direction on Two for the Seesaw. Two people with too many issues to belong in a relationship get together and drive each other crazy. And not in the comedy way.

Alec Guinness (as the lead), Ernie Kovacs (as the police officer), and Burl Ives (as the doctor) are magnificently cast. And I found the movie very droll in the British way. But I can agree that it isn't everyone's cup of tea. And the luncheon scene is decidedly watch-from-the-hall stuff.

And directed by Carol Reed of THE THIRD MAN, though it's nowhere near as stylish. Probably his last really good movie (though I am fond of OLIVER).

though it's nowhere near as stylish

Both (actually, so does Oliver!) create very clear settings. Maybe it's that postwar Vienna had more style than pre-Castro Havana. Or the limitations of filming in newly-Castro Havana.

Both (actually, so does Oliver!) create very clear settings. Maybe it's that postwar Vienna had more style than pre-Castro Havana.

I'm thinking more of the way Reed filmed the setting more than the setting itself - all those tilted angles and expressionist lighting (and the zither music). I agree that all three really grounded the stories in their respective settings. Definitely a Reed trait (see also ODD MAN OUT and THE FALLEN IDOL).