ebiros2 This is a fair or should I say more accurate portrayal of Jason Bourne from Robert Ludlum's novel. The new Matt Damon based "Bourne" was only made to make Matt Damon look good. It really lacked any sobriety.Richard Chamberlain, and Jaclyn Smith is a much more convincing as the characters they're portraying. They're also far better looking than Matt Damon, and the other chick that played their part.This is a made for TV movie and blows away the big budget Hollywood movie that's made years later. The movie is worth a watch because of the foresighted nature of Robert Ludlum's story. In the '80s, there was no one else talking about mind control, or a super soldier assassin. But in recent years, the now declassified MK ULTRA material emerged, and the fact that super soldier program like mentioned in this story indeed existed (and probably still does).Chamberlain has lot more expression as Jason Bourne than Matt Damon, which makes this an excellent mystery / action movie from the '80s.

jamiecostelo58 I thoroughly enjoyed this I must admit, but I can't help but wonder why it wasn't made for the big screen instead of being shown on television. What makes this Bourne Identity completely nonidentical to the 2002 theatrical release is that Richard Chamberlain's character is totally in line with Robert Ludlum's book. The big screen version may have featured more dramatic car chase sequences and fighting scenes etc, but it just seemed to focus away from the original plot.Richard Chamberlain performs Bourne to a very high standard - with strong performances from the supporting cast - and makes the role his own. Primarily, I watched The Bourne Identity just to see Jaclyn Smith if I'm honest; I've always been a fan of Jaclyn, and she gives out a believable performance as Marie St. Jacques. This movie in no doubt sealed Jaclyn's crown as the "Queen of mini-series".I don't think film and TV buffs should be put off by the film's three hour length; the plot and any questions that may arise when viewing The Bourne Identity are answered extremely thoroughly come the end of the film, and should not disappoint fans of espionage/spy thrillers. It was a great effort from all concerned, certainly strengthened thanks to the wonderful imagery and intrigue of the many different cities involved. 7/10

gerry159 Last night I was pleasantly surprised and saw the TV version of The Bourne Idendtity starring Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith and I found it very intense and thrilling. Yes, I have the Bourne Trilogy which I like a lot because it stars Matt Damon and I'm a big fan of his. After seeing the TV version I can see that Damon is a little too young for Bourne but they did bring the story forward to suit the star and that's all right, too. But I sure won't knock the TV version as I would think that Chamberlain was closer to the age that Bourne should be. As to comparing a movie or TV to a book is not feasible 'cause we're talking about two different mediums. I'm happy with both versions and plan to watch the TV version again. It stands the test of time.

buiger Compared to the very advertised and highly praised 2003 remake, at least this movie has a storyline, some character development, and a slight resemblance to the original Ludlum manuscript. Also, Chamberlain as Jason Bourne is far more believable as a top spy than Matt Damon, who instead of resembling a spy, looks more like a kid who might need help in getting his nose wiped, and is more likely to get lost anywhere in Europe rather than having the experience to feel at home in several European cities and their high-class establishments.On the downside, this being a film made in the 80-ies originally for television and VHS, the picture and sound quality leave a lot to be desired. Some of the dialog is also a little overly simplistic at times. But all in all, this was a very enjoyable experience, a well directed, interesting made-for-TV movie, much better than the highly praised 2003 remake.