304 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

[Mods Note: Topic title slightly amended]

[Harmsway]

I take it you didn't find the action incoherent/numbing, then?

No. I actually found it more understandable than in SUPREMACY.

[Loomis]

Good. Based on what I've read, I'm worried I'll find it a headache-inducing blur. The shakycam/action scenes didn't bother me in SUPREMACY, so hopefully I'll be okay for this one.

[sharpshooter]

Hmm, didnt know this -

The Bourne Conspiracy is an upcoming video game for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. The game is set to be released in the summer of 2008. Developed by High Moon Studios, The Bourne Conspiracy is set to expand upon Robert Ludlum's character Jason Bourne, and immerse the player in a cat and mouse style espionage action adventure.

The gameplay as featured in the trailer is utterly sweet!

[Professor Dent]

Thanks for the tip, sharpshooter - I didn't realize a game was coming out either. It's not clear from the trailer if that was actual gameplay or an animatic. Hopefully, it's gameplay. The third person style view reminded me a little of EON.

[sharpshooter]

There is an official site there also at http://www.bournethegame.com/uk/

[Gri007]

I've never seen any of the Bourne Films, but The Bourne Ultimatum looks good with what I have seen from the TV spots. Reading an article it says that Damon is wanting to appear in fourth film. I only thought there was three Bourne books. Is there a fourth? If so could someone tell me what it is called.

[Loomis]

The fourth book is a "continuation novel" by Eric Van Lustbader, THE BOURNE LEGACY, published a couple of years ago. While it was obviously commissioned because of the success of the Damon films, it follows the Ludlum universe and timeline and Ludlum's Bourne (a very different character to Damon's, and rather older), and so would seem very unpromising material for a movie adaptation, at least for the foreseeable future. A key plot point calls for Bourne to be a middle-aged man (can't really give anything else away without spoiling it, but you'll understand what I mean if you read LEGACY), and the book also contradicts events of the films that contradict events of the Ludlum series. The filmmakers could, of course, write an all-new script using just the title THE BOURNE LEGACY, as they did with SUPREMACY and ULTIMATUM, but I imagine it would be easier and cheaper to, well, just write an original script with an original title (e.g. THE BOURNE RETRIBUTION), without (presumably) having to pay Lustbader.

There's another Bourne novel by Lustbader, either released earlier this year or due to be released later this year - can't remember the title, but an Amazon search ought to throw it up.

LEGACY is an okay timekiller of a book, nothing special, but then I'd say the same of the Ludlum Bournes.

[Gri007]

Ahhh- Thanks Loomis. That clears it up. They might do LEGACY in ten years time when Damon is a little older and would fit perfectly with the novel.

Cheers Dude!

[Loomis]

My hunch is that Damon will return as Bourne, but not for a good few years. When he comes back (for a record-breaking gazillion-dollar fee), it'll be in his late 40s or early 50s, and it'll be like the comebacks of Ford as Indiana Jones, Schwarzenegger as TERMINATOR 3, Stallone as ROCKY BALBOA and JOHN RAMBO, and Willis as John McClane in LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD.

Or perhaps it'll be more like Connery in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN - because I reckon that we'll see another actor essay the role of Bourne before Damon returns to it. I think they'll do a BOURNE IDENTITY prequel, or maybe a prequel trilogy, filling in more backstory and showing our hero on his training and early missions. And then, once that angle's been milked for a few years, and once Damon feels the need for a truly colossal sum of money, the hype machine will kick into high gear for the return of "the real Bourne".

Still, I may be completely wrong and Damon and Greengrass will do BOURNE 4 in just a couple of years. We'll see, but I think it's very safe to say that we haven't seen the last of our second favourite celluloid action hero with the initials J.B.

[LadySylvia]

If Damon does decide to do another Bourne movie, chances are the writers will simply lower the character's age to fit the actor.

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

[Roebuck]

There's another Bourne novel by Lustbader, either released earlier this year or due to be released later this year - can't remember the title, but an Amazon search ought to throw it up.

LEGACY is an okay timekiller of a book, nothing special, but then I'd say the same of the Ludlum Bournes.

I'm half way through The Bourne Betrayal. Sucks like a Dyson. All of Ludlum's supporting cast have been given the push and Bourne himself is a cartoon superman that bears no comparison to the character from either the movies or the original trilogy. I couldn't even recomend it as a light read, since there's no shortage of better spy stuff on the shelves.

[LadySylvia]

How long was Marie's stepbrother living in Paris?

[marktmurphy]

Terrific action and (especially) suspense; which is something the Bond films could really use.
The Bourne staples are wearing a bit thin, though (people typing into computers watching him on screens, a slambang car chase which feels a bit halfhearted this time etc.) so I hope this is the last in this style. This far in you feel that they should have raised the stakes this time; have all the police and army after him or something, but he's still just up against the same type of adversaries as in the last two.
The plot is rubbish- it's just Bourne following a standard detective trail of clues, which is pretty disappointing, and all in all it doesn't feel like a film on it's own; I have trouble comparing it quality-wise to CR because it feels like half of a movie; it's basically Supremacy Part 2.

But it's still a fantastic film; some of the best suspense/action set-pieces ever in there in the shape of the Waterloo and Tangier scenes (Tangier being especially good- loads of stuff happening!). And it's also something very rare nowadays- nice and short. Doesn't outstay its welcome. And don't listen to anyone who says that the shakeycam makes things hard to see; they're obviously easily distracted. Everything you need to see is right there on screen and the fights are fantastically choroegraphed (I was watching Identity last night and it's much harder to see what's happening in the fights in that one due to strange camera positions and editing).

Brilliant stuff, although my fave is probably still Supremacy.

[Loomis]

This far in you feel that they should have raised the stakes this time; have all the police and army after him or something, but he's still just up against the same type of adversaries as in the last two.

Good. I like the fact that the Bournes are relatively "smalltime" (insofar as he doesn't track down stolen nukes or go up against armies). Sure, having the same type of adversaries yet again may be repetitive, but I think raising the stakes rarely works (it didn't work for DIE HARD, although I know that we don't see eye to eye on DIE HARD 4.0; after saving a building, then an airport, then a city, then a country, I guess the logical next step would be for McClane to prevent the destruction of the entire world).

I know that you're not calling for overblown or zany Bourne films, or for the series to be turned into DIE ANOTHER DAY, or anything like that (and in any case it's a matter of how something is handled, not just whether it's gritty, fantastical, or whatever), but I'm not fussed that THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM is just more of the same, or BOURNE SUPREMACY 2. The important thing is that it seems to be well worth seeing, and I'm looking forward to checking it out.

[marktmurphy]

I felt the same before I saw it, Loomis, but as soon as it kicks off in the same place we left it and with the same people huddled over screens in Langley, you do yearn for a bit of variation.

[Bon-san]

Saw this yesterday. I enjoyed it quite a bit. Some random thoughts:

Hate to beat a dead horse, but the shaky-cam was definitely used to excess. I actually felt a tad nauseous in the first half hour (although that might have been due to the 10-gallon tub of buttered popcorn in my lap). I felt myself consciously thinking that Greengrass was using the shaky-cam to create tension where a REAL director wouldn't have to resort to such (just a little retaliatory jest on behalf of the Bond community for all those barbs Greengrass hurled on the marketing circuit ). I mean, a little shakey-cam goes a long way. But there was just way too much of it in Ultimatum.

This film definitely felt like Supremacy II, more than a whole new different Bourne film. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as Supremacy was very good. But I would have preferred a new story tack.

Action, action, action! It certainly was an action-fest. And all of it was first rate. Even the obligatory Bourne-fights-Treadstone-assassin bit was first-rate, as always. I can't fault any of the action scenes. Wish there was a bit more story in between, though.

Damon was fine, although he was mostly moving, fighting, stunting, etc. Not much time for talk, which I quite enjoy watching him do. Rest of the cast = terrific. What's-her-name, the sympathetic agent, is quite bland, though.

Locations = good. But things moved so fast there was little time to savour any local flavour.

Overall, I give it an enthusiastic thumbs up. My Bourne rankings:

1. Identity
2. Supremacy
3. Ultimatum

[LadySylvia]

Below is a link to an article I had written about the plotlines in the BOURNE Trilogy:

"Plotlines on the BOURNE TRILOGY"

[A Kristatos]

I just got back from seeing "The Bourne Ultimatum". It definately was the best of the Bournes! Just about as good as "Casino Royale", but on a different level. While CR pulled together all of the elements that make a Bond movie great, TBU took the one element it's great at (realistic action and tension), and took it to a new level. Okay, the car chase was over-the-top to say the least, but for the most part they perfected the tension, and most importantly, tied up a lot of loose ends in the plot that made "The Bourne Identity" confusing, and "The Bourne Supremacy" had left unexplained.

Others have posted previously on this thread that Bourne is the "anti-Bond". I agree, and that makes the Bourne trilogy a little less enjoyable to watch than the Bond series. But having said that, TBU certainly contains more realistic action and tension per minute than the previous two Bournes put together. And TBU could be watched as a "stand alone" since it does summarize what happened previously. Despite the political differences between the two JB's and the fact that the Bond series will always be the best of its genre, "The Bourne Ultimatum" certainly gives the best of the Bonds a run for their money!

[marktmurphy]

Hate to beat a dead horse, but the shaky-cam was definitely used to excess. I actually felt a tad nauseous in the first half hour (although that might have been due to the 10-gallon tub of buttered popcorn in my lap). I felt myself consciously thinking that Greengrass was using the shaky-cam to create tension where a REAL director wouldn't have to resort to such (just a little retaliatory jest on behalf of the Bond community for all those barbs Greengrass hurled on the marketing circuit ). I mean, a little shakey-cam goes a long way. But there was just way too much of it in Ultimatum.

Not really sure how that's a 'jest'. You think all of the work he did on constructing this film is 'first rate' and yet say he's not a 'real' director because you let yourself get a bit distracted by the camera movement?

[LadySylvia]

I just got back from seeing "The Bourne Ultimatum". It definately was the best of the Bournes! Just about as good as "Casino Royale", but on a different level. While CR pulled together all of the elements that make a Bond movie great, TBU took the one element it's great at (realistic action and tension), and took it to a new level. Okay, the car chase was over-the-top to say the least, but for the most part they perfected the tension, and most importantly, tied up a lot of loose ends in the plot that made "The Bourne Identity" confusing, and "The Bourne Supremacy" had left unexplained.

Others have posted previously on this thread that Bourne is the "anti-Bond". I agree, and that makes the Bourne trilogy a little less enjoyable to watch than the Bond series. But having said that, TBU certainly contains more realistic action and tension per minute than the previous two Bournes put together. And TBU could be watched as a "stand alone" since it does summarize what happened previously. Despite the political differences between the two JB's and the fact that the Bond series will always be the best of its genre, "The Bourne Ultimatum" certainly gives the best of the Bonds a run for their money!

If the BOURNE movies give the BOND movies a run for their money, then I might as well feel the same about a good number of other action films. Yes, the BOURNE movies are excellent. But I can think of at least four or five BOND movies that are just as good, or possibly better. I think that the media and the public are making too big of a deal over this latest BOURNE film. Yes, I had enjoyed it. But I certainly did not find it to be the best action film this summer. I have honestly seen better. I also feel that ULTIMATUM was not the best of the BOURNE films. And the other two films could be described as "stand alones" just as much as ULTIMATUM. And neither IDENTITY or SUPREMACY seemed bogged with plot holes like ULTIMATUM. As for the so-called "realism" of the BOURNE films. In the end, Jason Bourne is just as much a fantasy figure as James Bond. Only his type of fantasy comes in a different form.

[Loomis]

But I certainly did not find it to be the best action film this summer.

What did you find to be the best action film this summer?

The only other action film I saw at the pictures this summer was DIE HARD 4.0, which I thought was both an abysmal piece of work and vastly inferior to ULTIMATUM in the action department.

For me, ULTIMATUM is the best action rollercoaster ride since---- well, since SUPREMACY, I suppose. I can't actually think of anything at all that rivals Bourne in the exciting action stakes. Maybe CASINO ROYALE, but then only the African Rundown sequence is anything to write home about and in any case doesn't - IMO, at least - beat the Tangier pursuit/fight in ULTIMATUM. Mind you, I think CR is just as good a film as ULTIMATUM, indeed probably better, but the latter comes out ahead in terms of mindblowing action.

As for the so-called "realism" of the BOURNE films. In the end, Jason Bourne is just as much a fantasy figure as James Bond. Only his type of fantasy comes in a different form.

This I definitely agree with.

[LadySylvia]

The only other action film I saw at the pictures this summer was DIE HARD 4.0, which I thought was both an abysmal piece of work and vastly inferior to ULTIMATUM in the action department.

I disagree. One, I didn't have to deal with the whole shaky cam bit with DIE HARD 4. Two, I don't dismiss an action film, because the main character doesn't go against an authority figure or organization. And three, although I didn't like the fighter jet plane sequence, at least I wasn't able to spot any MAJOR plotholes in DIE HARD 4 as I was able to do in BOURNE ULTIMATUM.


In fact, BU is probably 4th or 5th on my list of favorite movies this summer.

[A Kristatos]

I just got back from seeing "The Bourne Ultimatum". It definately was the best of the Bournes! Just about as good as "Casino Royale", but on a different level. While CR pulled together all of the elements that make a Bond movie great, TBU took the one element it's great at (realistic action and tension), and took it to a new level. Okay, the car chase was over-the-top to say the least, but for the most part they perfected the tension, and most importantly, tied up a lot of loose ends in the plot that made "The Bourne Identity" confusing, and "The Bourne Supremacy" had left unexplained.

Others have posted previously on this thread that Bourne is the "anti-Bond". I agree, and that makes the Bourne trilogy a little less enjoyable to watch than the Bond series. But having said that, TBU certainly contains more realistic action and tension per minute than the previous two Bournes put together. And TBU could be watched as a "stand alone" since it does summarize what happened previously. Despite the political differences between the two JB's and the fact that the Bond series will always be the best of its genre, "The Bourne Ultimatum" certainly gives the best of the Bonds a run for their money!

If the BOURNE movies give the BOND movies a run for their money, then I might as well feel the same about a good number of other action films. Yes, the BOURNE movies are excellent. But I can think of at least four or five BOND movies that are just as good, or possibly better. I think that the media and the public are making too big of a deal over this latest BOURNE film. Yes, I had enjoyed it. But I certainly did not find it to be the best action film this summer. I have honestly seen better. I also feel that ULTIMATUM was not the best of the BOURNE films. And the other two films could be described as "stand alones" just as much as ULTIMATUM. And neither IDENTITY or SUPREMACY seemed bogged with plot holes like ULTIMATUM. As for the so-called "realism" of the BOURNE films. In the end, Jason Bourne is just as much a fantasy figure as James Bond. Only his type of fantasy comes in a different form.

Well note that I said "The Bourne Ultimatum" gives the best of the Bond films "a run for their money", NOT that it is necessarily better than the best of the Bonds. I still find CR, OHMSS, FRWL and maybe a couple of other Bond films better than "The Bourne Ultimatum". But TBU definately competes with them in terms of cinematic quality, just with more emphasis on action than the Bond films.

Edited by A Kristatos, 29 August 2007 - 05:19 PM.

[Bon-san]

Hate to beat a dead horse, but the shaky-cam was definitely used to excess. I actually felt a tad nauseous in the first half hour (although that might have been due to the 10-gallon tub of buttered popcorn in my lap). I felt myself consciously thinking that Greengrass was using the shaky-cam to create tension where a REAL director wouldn't have to resort to such (just a little retaliatory jest on behalf of the Bond community for all those barbs Greengrass hurled on the marketing circuit ). I mean, a little shakey-cam goes a long way. But there was just way too much of it in Ultimatum.

Not really sure how that's a 'jest'. You think all of the work he did on constructing this film is 'first rate' and yet say he's not a 'real' director because you let yourself get a bit distracted by the camera movement?

'Jest', as in 'joke'. As in, when I said he's not a REAL director, I was just joking. Which I was doing in retaliation for his heinous, atrocious and cruel defamation of James Bond.*

But I'll have to remember that I let myself get distracted business. That will come in handy whenever I want to invalidate any criticism of any film: '...you let yourself get distracted by the over-the-top performances...' Very good stuff, that.


* This is another jest/joke/not serious comment.

[draxingtonstanley]

I saw it last night,enjoyed it,BUT..
The basic concept is stretched pretty thin over three films.
For all the talk of Bourne being 'relevant' and 'more real' I have to agree it's just as (if not more)far fetched than Bond-Bourne is superhuman basically. All the documentary style flourishes can't disguise the fact he's as indestructible as Droopy the Dog. As a result there are moments in the first half an hour or so when I half expected him to wait around the corner with a frying pan and bop the CIA goons on the head one by one. This where Bond has the advantage for me. Sure we know Bond will win,but we are sometimes in doubt. With Bourne there is no doubt. Sorry to make the comparison but Messrs Greengrass and Damon invited it.

The film really picks up in Tangier,I really thought they made the best of that location. Great moment when Desh sets off the bomb,I felt genuinely wrong footed. And a fantastic punch up.
The action is as impressively done in this film as the others,technically these films are incredible.
I don't think though,that any of the Bourne car chases have outstripped the one in Ronin. For me that's still the one to beat.
As the story unfolded it was interesting to find out about Bourne's origins but it wasn't much of a payoff after three films. We knew he was an assassin,it wasn't a suprise to find out that the training methods were ugly. As Bourne was finally chased to the rooftop of the CIA building I found myself thinking he'd become Frankenstein's monster in the old Universal pictures,pursued by villagers brandishing burning torches. And I have a feeling that like that character he'll return.
Great fun,but a little disappointing after the hype. And a change in pace would've been nice. Part of me felt like I'd been watching a 2hr trailer.

[Loomis]

The only other action film I saw at the pictures this summer was DIE HARD 4.0, which I thought was both an abysmal piece of work and vastly inferior to ULTIMATUM in the action department.

I disagree. One, I didn't have to deal with the whole shaky cam bit with DIE HARD 4.

I found the action in DIE HARD 4.0 more difficult to follow than the action in THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM. It may not have as much shakycam, but it's still indifferently photographed and poorly edited - I honestly found it hard to tell what was going on at some points during the action scenes; and, as well as being incoherent, the action in DIE HARD 4.0 is also over-the-top and cartoonish (e.g. McClane slams into Maggie Q with an SUV and barely injures her, and fells a chopper with a flying car, and don't get me started on all that TRUE LIES-type stuff with the fighter jet).

It's true that ULTIMATUM has a couple of moments of OTT action (e.g. driving the car off the roof, and the skyscraper jump), but for the most part its action is much more realistic than that in DIE HARD 4.0, as well as better-staged and - because it's blended nicely with suspense, something DIE HARD 4.0 totally lacks - vastly more exciting.

BTW, I'm a massive, massive fan of the first DIE HARD, which may well be my most watched movie of all time, and I also like DIE HARD 2 a lot (and if you catch me on a good day I might also tell you that DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE has its moments), so don't think I'm a McClane-basher.

Two, I don't dismiss an action film, because the main character doesn't go against an authority figure or organization.

Neither do I.

And three, although I didn't like the fighter jet plane sequence, at least I wasn't able to spot any MAJOR plotholes in DIE HARD 4 as I was able to do in BOURNE ULTIMATUM.

Well, apart from McClane yet again stumbling upon a major terrorist plot. And I don't think DIE HARD 4.0 has a clever, involving script, exactly. It's meat-and-potatoes, by-the-numbers stuff that just strings together overblown action sequences and tired wisecracks, mixing them with stock characters and a boring villain with a scribbled-on-the-back-of-a-postage-stamp McGuffin of a "scheme". The film builds zero tension, never giving a sense of a nation under siege, or looming catastrophe, and as for plot holes I give you the question: why, when the lights in the tunnel go out, don't the drivers the villain intends to crash into McClane switch on their headlamps? Or: why is McClane carrying so much weaponry when he goes to pick up Justin Long? There are unanswered questions in ULTIMATUM, and probably larger ones (although I forgive them because I find that the film works so well in what it sets out to do, which is to be an edge-of-seat action thriller), but DIE HARD 4.0 ain't exactly a masterpiece of watertight or intelligent scripting.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Just back from Vacation...went to L.A. to meet up with a friend and we drove to Vegas, and then home(ugh). America is boring. Well, I mean between Breckenridge, colorado and Chicago, you might as well criogenically freeze yourself until the trip is over. It all looks the same! Although I thought Iowa was prettier than expected...anyway, a week later the TBU vs CR debate lingers on...I'll say I think the films are a tie: I love them equally although I prefer the glamorous staples of James Bond over any film series but the action/tension in Bourne U is vastly superior;there are no action scenes in CR that touch TBU's-it's no contest.But Bourne U doesn't have the ultra cool moments of CR like the way he seduces Solange, the meeting of Vesper on the train, The poker game,Le Chifre,The overall arc of Bond...etc.

Hey, speaking of Poker, I won my first live match in Vegas. Er,actually I made it to heads up and we agreed to 'chop the pot', ie declare a tie and split the winnings. I got $300 as opposed to either $180 for second place or $420 for first-we were about equal in chips so it seemed like a wise call. Anyway, feels frickin wonderful to scoop up a pile of chips!

[LadySylvia]

Well, apart from McClane yet again stumbling upon a major terrorist plot. And I don't think DIE HARD 4.0 has a clever, involving script, exactly. It's meat-and-potatoes, by-the-numbers stuff that just strings together overblown action sequences and tired wisecracks, mixing them with stock characters and a boring villain with a scribbled-on-the-back-of-a-postage-stamp McGuffin of a "scheme". The film builds zero tension, never giving a sense of a nation under siege, or looming catastrophe, and as for plot holes I give you the question: why, when the lights in the tunnel go out, don't the drivers the villain intends to crash into McClane switch on their headlamps? Or: why is McClane carrying so much weaponry when he goes to pick up Justin Long? There are unanswered questions in ULTIMATUM, and probably larger ones (although I forgive them because I find that the film works so well in what it sets out to do, which is to be an edge-of-seat action thriller), but DIE HARD 4.0 ain't exactly a masterpiece of watertight or intelligent scripting.

And I'm supposed to believe that BOURNE ULTIMATUM was a masterpiece of intelligent screenwriting? I don't think so. Frankly, I found DIE HARD 4's script a little more impressive. Not because its wildly original or anything like that. It's basically a solid action story. But I didn't find it marred by shaky logic (let alone shaky camera work), plotholes and a finale that seemed more anti-climatic than earth shaking.

[triviachamp]

It's meat-and-potatoes, by-the-numbers stuff that just strings together overblown action sequences and tired wisecracks, mixing them with stock characters and a boring villain with a scribbled-on-the-back-of-a-postage-stamp McGuffin of a "scheme". The film builds zero tension, never giving a sense of a nation under siege, or looming catastrophe

Sounds like a Bond movie, especially the kind Loomis wants Bond to be like!