304 replies to this topic

[Professor Dent]

The shot of Bourne jumping from a balcony through a window was damn cool because the camera was right behind him all the way across the jump-I've never quite seen a shot done like that so it was a marvelous money shot!

I'm glad you mentioned this. I thought this shot looked great & definitely unique.

[hcmv007]

Trailer is available at yahoo movies!




"I remember everything."

[The Dove]

It looks like the full lenght official trailer is now up and running at the bourneultimatum.com site. http://www.thebourneultimatum.com/
Click on the "intel" link from the homepage and it'll take you to the trailer.. It looks awesome!!!

I've also saw a new tv spot for Bourne last night a few times!!

[Qwerty]

Can't wait for it!

[Professor Dent]

This movie looks awesome! The car chase scenes look incredible - I can't wait. For those video junkies, there is a high def version of the trailer on the Apple site.

[RogueSpy007]

I loved this new trailer. The movie looks awesome. I've really enjoyed the first two, so I'm realy psyched about this one. I can't wait.

[The Dove]

Me too!! Unfortunately it looks like The Bourne Ultimatum will be the final film in the series as Matt Damon has zero interest in returning for a fourth film. However, if this third film turns out to be as good as the trailer promises, then we'll still have one totaly kick trilogy!!

[dodge]

They all did well, keeping their cards as close to their vests as they did. The new trailer does look terrific, including a couple of terrific new fight moves. Love that hammer blow to the chest! Does Bourne look...different to anyone else? Five years from TBI doesn't seem all that long. We'll see what we see when we see it, but he does look a bit--blockier?

[LadySylvia]

I think it's a very poor film, although I absolutely loved the book, which I read first, as well as THE SUM OF ALL FEARS' immediate predecessor in the film series, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. What I really wonder, though, is why it didn't lead to a sequel. I mean, it did pretty well commercially, as I recall.

I had enjoyed THE SUM OF ALL FEARS very much. Considering that it had been released nine months after the 9/11 attacks, I think the bombing of Baltimore sequence had scared the out of many moviegoers and they haven't had the guts to admit this, ever since.

[bonded56]

Last night's ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT (July 12, 2007) showed a promo that they will be having some making-of Bourne Ultimatum coverage starting Monday. They showed some stunt related behind-the-scenes shots during the promo spot. Looked impressive.

[yolt13]

Matt Damon in GQ:

"Bond is part of the system. He

Edited by yolt13, 24 July 2007 - 05:53 AM.

[Loomis]

A couple of reviews are up on AICN. Looks like ULTIMATUM is a winner, but beware spoilers in these reviews - there's a mention of one plot development in particular that, despite following the production of the film fairly closely, I hadn't known about and would rather not have known about.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33431

yolt13, some interesting points there, particularly the one about Bond actually being more believable than the supposedly "realistic" Bourne:

Here's the problem I've always had with the Jason Bourne character as portrayed in the films and played by Matt Damon - how did this guy ever become the deadliest killer on Earth in the first place? He detests what he does, and he completely despises and mistrusts governmental authority. Now, I know why he supposedly had his "change of heart" in IDENTITY, but I'm not buying it. Anyone that had reached that level of proficiency as an instrument of death would have been mentally prepared for the kind of unforeseen event that set that film/novel in motion. Moreover, Bourne may not be a "misogynist" or an "imperialist", but he's certainly a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to his reservations about killing. When "the Man" wants you to do it, it's wrong, but when it's to save your own hide from paying a high price for your own past actions (which you took of your own volition) or to satisfy a personal vendetta, it's perfectly justified?

I agree that the whole amnesia concept is desperately contrived and unbelievable, but the Bourne films (which I love) do a great job in papering over the cracks in logic and making it all seem gritty, intelligent and realistic. IDENTITY, in particular, has an exceptionally silly sorry if you look at it in the cold light of day, but it's so well-made as to make up for this.

I've always argued that the Bournes aren't actually meant to be "serious" affairs; they're just escapist fantasy efforts in precisely the same way as the Bonds. It's just that the Bournes adopt (as the Bond series sometimes does) gritty trappings rather than, say, ice palaces and space rockets. But that doesn't mean that they're supposed to be believable films. I'm not saying that you think that they try to be serious spy stories and fail because they can't shake off their unbelievable elements, but I do think that that's some people's perception of the Bournes. Mine is that they're works of entertaining hokum that cleverly wrap themselves in the style of serious spy stories.

Anyway, can't wait for ULTIMATUM.

[dodge]

What I love about the trailers is the brilliant, simple tag: "I remember...I remember everything." That's all we need to know, really, aside from the fact that the stunts look better than ever. If I have one tiny 'if only' (vs. quibble) with the trilogy, it's this: While Bourne 1 had a similar, reverse tag--Bourne forgetting everything--Bourne 2 wasn't quite as distinct: he's starting to remember should have worked, but didn't come off, for me, as excitingly as it should have. I'd have liked to see more made of his starting to fit the pieces together. That, imo, would have made for a perfect trilogy. Anyway, a small if only. I loved 1 and 2 and expect 3 will rock.

[yolt13]

I've always argued that the Bournes aren't actually meant to be "serious" affairs; they're just escapist fantasy efforts in precisely the same way as the Bonds.

True. The fantasy in the Bourne films is that a guy who is basically a conscientious objector can also become a deadly killing machine, a sort of "have his cake and eat it too" action hero. While that is certainly consistent with how Matt Damon apparently sees himself, I find it a lot harder to swallow than ice palaces and invisible cars. If Bourne were presented as just a good agent who gets lucky sometimes, I'd be okay with it. But he's shown to be "the best" in the films, fighting off legions of more committed killers and soldiers each time, and one can't get to be the best lethal government agent in the world if one has a complete distaste for governmental authority or the business of killing for political reasons (unless one is simply a homicidal sociopath, which is not how Bourne is portrayed).

Damon took it upon himself to go after what he perceives to be the flaws in Bond as a heroic character. The fact that he's completely missed the mark on 007 is secondary to the fact that he's missed the more serious contradiction in his own franchise hero. It's okay to kill when you want to or when it's to save your own , but when it's for Queen and country, no matter who the target is, it's just imperialism/fascism at work. With Damon's comments in GQ and his actions as Jason Bourne on-screen, I can't help but see the character as a sort of modern-day Billy Jack, whose hypocritical "I'll teach you to love peace by whooping your !" message was always absurd in the extreme. At least the Jason Bourne movies are better films than those of the half-Indian, karate chopping Green Beret.

[Publius]

Matt Damon is just talking out of his . Not surprised he would do that to promote his film, considering all the comparisons made between the two franchises over the last year or so (plus, we all know his politics). Nevertheless, it won't impede my ability to enjoy Ultimatum or the previous Bournes.

Still, I will agree with yolt13 that his exact choice of words baffled me. Didn't he go to Harvard? Or is he just revealing his preference for Brosnan's Bond?

[yolt13]

Well, one can't spend too much time worrying about the political views of entertainment personalities or one would never be able to enjoy a television show or film, any more than one could practically apply the same concerns to going to the dentist or buying meat from the butcher shop or eating fast food, etc. The problem here is that Damon has chosen to project his political views onto a fictional character in both an inaccurate and unflattering way, in order to promote his own film. If Damon wants to believe that Bourne is some sort of anti-establishment rebel sticking it to the Man (as opposed to a fugitive at odds with a handful of specific indviduals who have wronged him), that's his prerogative. But to unfairly paint Bond as a symbol of the very evil that Bourne is fighting against is both ludicrous and telling of the actor's knowledge of the 007 franchise. It reminds me of Dino DeLaurentiis trying to sell people on the differences between JAWS and his 1976 KING KONG remake: "When Jaws die, nobody cry. When my monkey die, everybody cry." Except DeLaurentiis was not being insulting toward Steven Spielberg, Peter Benchley, JAWS, or the millions of people who loved that shark movie, whereas Damon is clearly implying that everyone involved in the creation of the Bond films and everyone who looks up to Bond as an iconic hero is either an imperialist or just blind to the truth.

I know I'm being a bit reactionary about this, but Damon's comments were as excessive and harsh as they were inaccurate.

[dodge]

I've always argued that the Bournes aren't actually meant to be "serious" affairs; they're just escapist fantasy efforts in precisely the same way as the Bonds.

True. The fantasy in the Bourne films is that a guy who is basically a conscientious objector can also become a deadly killing machine, a sort of "have his cake and eat it too" action hero. While that is certainly consistent with how Matt Damon apparently sees himself, I find it a lot harder to swallow than ice palaces and invisible cars. If Bourne were presented as just a good agent who gets lucky sometimes, I'd be okay with it. But he's shown to be "the best" in the films, fighting off legions of more committed killers and soldiers each time, and one can't get to be the best lethal government agent in the world if one has a complete distaste for governmental authority or the business of killing for political reasons (unless one is simply a homicidal sociopath, which is not how Bourne is portrayed).

Damon took it upon himself to go after what he perceives to be the flaws in Bond as a heroic character. The fact that he's completely missed the mark on 007 is secondary to the fact that he's missed the more serious contradiction in his own franchise hero. It's okay to kill when you want to or when it's to save your own , but when it's for Queen and country, no matter who the target is, it's just imperialism/fascism at work. With Damon's comments in GQ and his actions as Jason Bourne on-screen, I can't help but see the character as a sort of modern-day Billy Jack, whose hypocritical "I'll teach you to love peace by whooping your !" message was always absurd in the extreme. At least the Jason Bourne movies are better films than those of the half-Indian, karate chopping Green Beret.

Agreed. And, thank God, there's no danger of a Jason Bourne Goes to Washington flick!

[Agent 76]

I'm very looking forward to this movie, the Bourne series are really good cinema.

[HildebrandRarity]

Well, one can't spend too much time worrying about the political views of entertainment personalities or one would never be able to enjoy a television show or film, any more than one could practically apply the same concerns to going to the dentist or buying meat from the butcher shop or eating fast food, etc. The problem here is that Damon has chosen to project his political views onto a fictional character in both an inaccurate and unflattering way, in order to promote his own film. If Damon wants to believe that Bourne is some sort of anti-establishment rebel sticking it to the Man (as opposed to a fugitive at odds with a handful of specific indviduals who have wronged him), that's his prerogative. But to unfairly paint Bond as a symbol of the very evil that Bourne is fighting against is both ludicrous and telling of the actor's knowledge of the 007 franchise. It reminds me of Dino DeLaurentiis trying to sell people on the differences between JAWS and his 1976 KING KONG remake: "When Jaws die, nobody cry. When my monkey die, everybody cry." Except DeLaurentiis was not being insulting toward Steven Spielberg, Peter Benchley, JAWS, or the millions of people who loved that shark movie, whereas Damon is clearly implying that everyone involved in the creation of the Bond films and everyone who looks up to Bond as an iconic hero is either an imperialist or just blind to the truth.

I know I'm being a bit reactionary about this, but Damon's comments were as excessive and harsh as they were inaccurate.

He's clearly a big ing which will limit my viewing of the movie to a mere one. No multiple viewings at the cinema from me.

[Loomis]

I don't give a damn what Damon thinks about anything. All I care about is whether BOURNE 3 is a good film.

I saw BOURNE 2, THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY four times at the cinema, and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III and CASINO ROYALE three times, and ROCKY BALBOA twice. I was expecting to want to see LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD about three or four times on the big screen, sad fanboy git that I am, but to my disappointment thought it was absolutely dire so didn't bother seeing it more than just the once.

Point being, if BOURNE 3 is good, it can expect anywhere from two to three cinema viewings from me (although GOLDFINGER will be competing for my custom, so Bourne had better be very good to get my repeat theatrical business). But if I don't like it, I won't subject myself to it again. Damon's opinions on the price of tea in China aren't relevant to anything, and even if he were a bigger Bond fan than I am it wouldn't get me twice into a bad film of his. By the same token, he can slag Bond off all he pleases and I'll still enjoy his films if I like them.

[yolt13]

The best way to sum up my feelings about Damon's comments:

If he believes what he's saying about Bond, he's wrong and ignorant.

If he doesn't believe it but is just saying it to promote his own movie, he's wrong and a self-serving, classless jerk.

If he's just being petulant because he's tired of the comparisons, he's wrong and he's only adding to the difficulty I already have accepting him as a tough action hero.

I was already leaning away from seeing this one in theaters because the teaser trailer had a very "been there, done that last time" quality to it. Now it's certain that at best I'll see it on video, at worst not at all. Unlike a certain "misogynistic imperialist", there's no real lasting connection to the Jason Bourne character for me after the first two enjoyable but flawed installments of his series. I'm more likely to catch a Dean Martin Matt Helm groaner on cable that weekend than watch a snarky neo-Rat Packer doing his "ruthless but sensitive" pseudo-Bond shtick for the third time. At least the cinematic Matt Helm and the guy who played him had the sense and class to know whose shoulders they were standing on.

[dinovelvet]

Its pretty sad that the Bourne people have to keep bringing up comparisons with Bond. I dunno, is this just publicity or are they really that insecure that Bond has staged a fantastic comeback? Little Matty sounds really annoyed that Casino Royale whomped anything Bourne had to offer both critically and commercially. I keep seeing ads for this new one, and it looks exactly the same as the other ones - car chases, all too obviously overchoreographed fight scenes, a lot of running, Matty trying his best to look all gritty, with his nice white gleaming teeth, etc. And people say Bond is too formulaic!! I'm pretty sure you could easily cut and paste the car chases and fight scenes from one Bourne film into another and nobody would notice the difference. Bah.

[yolt13]

Its pretty sad that the Bourne people have to keep bringing up comparisons with Bond. I dunno, is this just publicity or are they really that insecure that Bond has staged a fantastic comeback? Little Matty sounds really annoyed that Casino Royale whomped anything Bourne had to offer both critically and commercially. I keep seeing ads for this new one, and it looks exactly the same as the other ones - car chases, all too obviously overchoreographed fight scenes, a lot of running, Matty trying his best to look all gritty, with his nice white gleaming teeth, etc. And people say Bond is too formulaic!! I'm pretty sure you could easily cut and paste the car chases and fight scenes from one Bourne film into another and nobody would notice the difference. Bah.

Well said. When I saw the "I remember everything!" trailer with Bourne calling a government office to tell his pursuers that he's coming I thought to myself, "Wasn't that basically the same shtick they did in both IDENTITY and SUPREMACY?" Though his ego won't let him admit that both spy series are built around their big action scenes, international locations, and spectacular stunts, Damon is right about the basic assertion that Bond and Bourne are fundamentally different. One is an iconic character who crosses generations in his timeless escapist appeal, almost singlehandedly created an entire genre of film, and is accessible to people of all walks of life and political views all over the world. The other (at least as portrayed on film) is a basically one-note combination of any Steven Seagal character and Robert Redford in THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR. One has been the most popular movie character in the world for nearly half a century and spawned countless imitators. The other is an imitator, and is unlikely to carry on beyond a fourth entry (if he makes it that far) without a major overhaul. One is a fixture of global popular culture. The other is just another movie hero, less recognizable to your average person than dozens other such figures, including some (Dirty Harry Callahan & Martin Riggs spring immediately to mind) who haven't appeared in a film in years and are unlikely to ever grace the silver screen again.

Okay. I've given Matt Damon enough grief today, and I don't want to be guilty of trying to spoil anyone's enjoyment of a film they're looking forward to. For those who are excited about BOURNE ULTIMATUM, my apologies for all of the negativity. I sincerely hope you enjoy the film. Damon took his shots at Bond and this Bond fan has taken his shots back. 'Nuff said.

Edited by yolt13, 25 July 2007 - 12:39 AM.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I can't wait for The Bourne Ultimatum. As far as I'm concerned, Casino Royale exists because of Bourne.. I love both series now and I have Bourne to thank for that. Damon's comments sound more like Paul Greengrass', btw.Either way I don't care if Damon is a wildly left wing radical or a rabid right winger....just don't care...nothing to see here...I don't care if he's the most obnoxious, arrogant or pretentious guy in Hollywood(I don't think he's any of these things).If he makes more Bourne movies I'm good to go.

[yolt13]

I can't wait for The Bourne Ultimatum. As far as I'm concerned, Casino Royale exists because of Bourne

That's debatable. After all, DIE ANOTHER DAY outgrossed the first two Bourne films combined, so their success could hardly be seen as a viable financial impetus for changing the tone of the Bond series. The reality is that DIE ANOTHER DAY had taken "cartoon" Bond about as far as it could go and, as the series has done in the past on such occasions (OHMSS, FYEO, LD), the logical move was to go back to Fleming basics. There is also the truth that EON only recently acquired the rights to CASINO ROYALE and the desire was there to adapt it into a series entry, a situation which by default necessitated a shift away from ice palaces and invisible cars to a more character-driven espionage story.

A more accurate statement might be that the Bourne novels and films exist because of Ian Fleming's CASINO ROYALE. The Bourne films may have influenced Broccoli and Wilson to some degree in their decision, but the idea that CASINO ROYALE wouldn't have been made when it was or presented in such a gritty, straightforward manner if not for Jason Bourne is a bit far-fetched.

[Publius]

I can't wait for The Bourne Ultimatum. As far as I'm concerned, Casino Royale exists because of Bourne.. I love both series now and I have Bourne to thank for that. Damon's comments sound more like Paul Greengrass', btw.Either way I don't care if Damon is a wildly left wing radical or a rabid right winger....just don't care...nothing to see here...I don't care if he's the most obnoxious, arrogant or pretentious guy in Hollywood(I don't think he's any of these things).If he makes more Bourne movies I'm good to go.

Agreed. I actually think it's great that Bond, Bourne, and other franchises riff off each other, just as long as they're not carpon copies of one another. It can force everyone to stay at the top of their game, and I think that's what we've seen here, with the first two Bournes inspiring CR, which in turn seems to have influenced the third. Presuming it's as good as it looks, I approve.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I disagree although I'll grant you that Ludlum use Bond as the templete for Bourne-even the intials are obviously the same. I think the success of the scaled down, realitively cheaper Bourne films and their more realisitc, grittier action was definately an influence on the direction of Casino Royale-even the film's star is closer to Damon's Bourne than any previous 007 incarnation.

Anyway, I love this series. Bourne is the Star Wars of my 30s in terms of fanboy anticipation and I'm glad to have Bond(my lifelong favorite character/series in fiction) back in top form to boot.


P.S. Anyone see 'The Hitman' trailor? It's pretty damn cool.

[dinovelvet]

P.S. Anyone see 'The Hitman' trailor? It's pretty damn cool.

Heh yeah I am actually looking forward to that.

[mrsbonds_ppk]

What a stupid article. I like the Bourne series, but not really looking forward to the new one. I saw the trailer and all that for Bourne 3 and it wasn't anything to get me excited so I'll most likely check it out on DVD. I also bet that that clown Roger Moore Bond would take out Jason Bourne as quick as Daniel Craig's Bond. Hmm.. but I would've thought they might meet each other and drink a few beers.


Gimme the imperialist misogynist anytime. Bond is so misunderstood.

[RazorBlade]

I just read what Matt Damon said over at MI 6. What a doofus. Plus he really is short. Why anyone thinks he holds a candle to DC or any bond actor is beyond me. I never liked the Boring series so he can piss off.

I can't wait for The Bourne Ultimatum. As far as I'm concerned, Casino Royale exists because of Bourne

That's debatable. After all, DIE ANOTHER DAY outgrossed the first two Bourne films combined, so their success could hardly be seen as a viable financial impetus for changing the tone of the Bond series. The reality is that DIE ANOTHER DAY had taken "cartoon" Bond about as far as it could go and, as the series has done in the past on such occasions (OHMSS, FYEO, LD), the logical move was to go back to Fleming basics. There is also the truth that EON only recently acquired the rights to CASINO ROYALE and the desire was there to adapt it into a series entry, a situation which by default necessitated a shift away from ice palaces and invisible cars to a more character-driven espionage story.

A more accurate statement might be that the Bourne novels and films exist because of Ian Fleming's CASINO ROYALE. The Bourne films may have influenced Broccoli and Wilson to some degree in their decision, but the idea that CASINO ROYALE wouldn't have been made when it was or presented in such a gritty, straightforward manner if not for Jason Bourne is a bit far-fetched.

On this yolt13, we agree.