The Bourne Conundrum

Film fans and pretty much everyone else don't just like it. They love it. And for once, they're joined by the critics who were pretty much united in their acclaim for - as the Daily Telegraph would have us believe - "the only action thriller of the past decade that actually thrills".

So it would be pretty safe to assume that The Bourne Ultimatum (because that's what we're talking about) is heading for a clutch of Academy Awards. Well you'd be wrong.

"I have never seen a more exciting finale to an action trilogy," gushed The Times.

Empire weighed in that it set "the standard to which future blockbusters should be held."

"The Bourne movies are the action- thriller success story of the 21st century," rhapsodised The Independent.

And New York's Village Voice observed: "This is, simply put, some of the most accomplished filmmaking being done anywhere for any purpose"

Yeah, read that again: "the most accomplished filmmaking being done anywhere for any purpose."

It's difficult to see that paean to the cinematic arts being levelled at Atonement, even though it's an undeniably decent film.

Yet director Joe Wright's sprawling adaptation of the Ian McEwan's novel is up there with an Academy Award nomination for best picture. The Bourne Ultimatum is nominated for two, low profile technical awards.

Strange then that the movie - the third in the saga of brainwashed hitman Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) piecing together his past - was a sensational four-star film garnering lavish praise, not just from the tabloids but the broadsheet press.

In America, the LA times praised British director Paul Greengrass for his ability "to make a movie as fresh and frank from a genre as mouldy and bombastic as the spy thriller."

The Independent maintained that Bourne's "bleak, fast-paced, pared-down style was so authoritative that even the Bond franchise took note with Casino Royale."

At the red-top end of the market, The Daily Mirror enthused: "Bourne is not just the best movie of the summer but also a strong contender for film of the year."

So what's not to like?

The American movie review aggregate site Metacritic, surveying a cross-section of the international press, gives Atonement a score of 85 - the same figure achieved by The Bourne Ultimatum.

Even more revealing, the George Clooney thriller Michael Clayton, another best picture nominee, scored 82 while the indie comedy Juno brought up the rear with 81.

So what gives? Why doesn't a film that achieved great box office - $227m in the states - and the thumbs up from the world and his wife get the nod from Hollywood's great and good?

"First-class films with a populist agenda tend to get squeezed out," explains The Daily Telegraph's David Gritten. "I'd say The Bourne Ultimatum is this year's victim."

"It's a brilliant, complex thriller, yet its nominations are for editing and sound".

There's also the problem that Bourne was the third movie in a series - and the Academy is notoriously resistent to sequels no matter what the quality.

It's also innately conservative with the pretty frocks of Atonement coupled with the clean cut leads - Keira Knightley and James McAvoy - bound to appeal over the gritty populism of Bourne.

The depressing truism is that before wildfire speculation about the Oscar nominees was even warm, regular awards watchers knew that Bourne wasn't in with a chance. Like Knocked Up - a universally acclaimed comedy - it was never going to make the cut.

Quite simply, Bourne and its ilk are the type of movie the Academy - through snobbery, stifling decorum and old-fashioned elitism - cannot handle. Shame on it.

Tim Evans