Kevin's Watch

I saw it yesterday. Good movie, especially considering the mixed reviews of other 3rd movie sequels. I recommend it if:

You liked either or both of the first 2. There's more of the same in this one. Jason Bourne is trying to find his past.

You like action flicks. This one might not fulfill the qualifications of balls-to-the-wall action (it's not as good as Die Hard 4), but it's smart and intense.

The problem is, like the B. Supremacy, the camera work is (intentionally) shaky and at times hard to follow. The editing focuses on close-ups instead of letting us see the whole scene. Overall, I'd say 3 is better than 2 in this respect, though I haven't seen 2 in a while.

It's a shame, because I really enjoyed the story and pacing.

Now I need to watch the sequel, Gross Pointe Blank, in which Matt Damon, er John Cusack attends his 10-year high school reunion.

I actually thought it was better than Die Hard 4. I liked DH4 and I got what I expected out of it but I prefer the semi-realism of the Bourne movies rather than the over-the-top action of DH4.

Saw The Bourne Ultimatum today and loved it!

I'm a latecomer to the Jason Bourne movies - watched The Bourne Identity only a week ago. It blew me away. Utterly. Easily one of the best action films I've ever seen. And if it isn't considered to fit the action genre by some (which is incomprehensible to me), then to hell with the labels: The Bourne Identity is one of the best movies I've seen, period. I never got the sense that I was watching another hackneyed action flick. (The only thing cliched is my gushing praise of it here.)

Then I watched The Bourne Supremacy (just yesterday in fact). It was excellent, too, in its own way. If I have to criticize, it might be that it didn't have the same clarity story-wise as the first film. It more or less makes up for that by delivering even more intense action sequences than the original.

In The Bourne Ultimatum, things are perhaps even more convoluted (I call it the Mission: Impossible Syndrome) but I guess that's because they're trying to tie everything up from the first two films. No matter, it's still highly entertaining. I would agree with ItisWritten that the editing focuses a tad too much on closeups, but the intentionally shaky camera work wasn't an issue for me.

The level of consistency among the three films is impressive; if there are any gaping continuity holes, I don't see them. All in all, the Bourne movies make for one awesome trilogy.

(Back in the '80s I did watch the Bourne Identity miniseries featuring Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith, but it didn't leave much of an impression on me. Chamberlain was at that time the unofficial "King of the Miniseries" - I'll always remember him best for his role in Shogun.)

Oops, Brinn snuck in while I was making up my post...I share your view about the DH movies, in that Die Hard 2 was so over-the-top that it totally turned me off the series. Even though crazy stuff also happens in the Bourne movies, it still retains some semblance of believability.

Matrixman wrote:Even though crazy stuff also happens in the Bourne movies, it still retains some semblance of believability.

Yeah, I'd agree, kind of:

Spoiler

"Where's Bourne?"
"He drove off the roof."

Matrixman wrote:Then I watched The Bourne Supremacy (just yesterday in fact). It was excellent, too, in its own way. If I have to criticize, it might be that it didn't have the same clarity story-wise as the first film. It more or less makes up for that by delivering even more intense action sequences than the original.

That’s good to know, Matrixman. It’s rare indeed to find a sequel that delivers on the first one’s promise—much less a consistently great trilogy of films.

Like Brinn, I prefer my action to have some level of realism (although I do enjoy the random Bond or Terminator). I noticed the first two Bournes are currently available in a cheap bundle at Wal-Mart; might make a move on that, before I catch the third one in theaters.

Hope you get a blast out of them, LF! (No, I don't mean blown speakers.)

Your mention of James Bond (the other JB, heh) reminds me that my comments here about "believability" might seem self-contradictory, because I rather enjoy the far-out stunts and technological toys of the James Bond films. The "new" grittier-style Bond as seen in Casino Royale was apparently influenced by the Bourne films, yet I don't care for the new Bond. Maybe my dislike has more to do with the particular portrayal of Bond than with his gadgets or lack thereof. I guess I'm just a conflicted, irrational moviegoer.

I really disliked the cinematography in TBS, but I suppose I'll give this one a chance.

This movie is so good.

I loved this movie. But them I really enjoyed all the Bourne movies.

All I gotta say is, "Wow!" Definitely the finest Bourne film.

I loved the whole theme of identity/finding one's self--and of giving one's self over to service. The theme could've been applied to everyday life, but Bourne adds car chases and assassination attempts.

Spoiler

The revelation at the end--that Bourne decided to become Bourne--was not all that shocking to me. Still, I couldn't think of a better way to give an added dimension/more moral ambiguity. He still came off as sympathetic, though, despite the fact that he did ultimately pull the trigger and erase his self.

I am in the minority on this one I guess.
Just saw it last night.
Firstly I love the series. Matt Damon does an amazing job at injecting humanity and beleivability in to this character in what could easily be schlock. And the secondary characters are always well cast.
kudos on all fronts there.

The stories are great and Ultimatum is pretty good too. It does have a certain sense of trying a little too hard to wrap certain things up (which I don't mind), but injects a few too many things in for potential sequals that seem (to me) to be forsed. More on that later.

Overall I give the movies (out of 10):

B Identity = 9
B Supremacy = 8
B Ultimatum = 7.5

OK, my reasoning.
Supremacy and Ultimatum have one noticable trait about them: the director (Greengrass) is trying to hard to leave his mark on the film.
I find his style of action filming very annoying.
Shaky camera work does not necessarily make a movie more "real" or "edgy" ... in both these cases, it makes them annoying! His choice of the shaky hand-held camera work and
extremely choppy editing makes for a movie that is trying too hard to be action-filled and edgy/real, and comes off hacknied.
He should take a look at Ronin or a better look at Bourne Identity .. those are great examples of how to shoot an action movie.
One of the things that really pissses me off is that subliminally we 'know' that there is some GREAT action sequences, but unfortunaly we can't see them very well... or not at all! I'm not asking for a full pan out/one-take shot of actions sequences, but there are better ways to shoot them and edit them than were used in Ultimatum.
(I could seriously go on and on about this thing, but lets just say I am unimpressed).

Another thing I didn't like, back to the script, is the hinting that Nicky Parsons is somehow linked to Bourne --- perhaps a lover or sister or something. the insetion of her line "it was very difficult for me at the beginning" is sooooo comic book ... there is no way I can beleive that based on the way her character was played in the first 2 movies, that this hinting is nothing more than a tag on at the last minute to allow stuff for potential sequals...
blech!

OK. my

[/i]

Usivius wrote:His choice of the shaky hand-held camera work and
extremely choppy editing makes for a movie that is trying too hard to be action-filled and edgy/real, and comes off hacknied.
He should take a look at Ronin or a better look at Bourne Identity .. those are great examples of how to shoot an action movie.

I think shaky-cam can be done well (Private Ryan, for example, shows some camera work that augments the confusion and claustrophobia in a good way).

I have to agree that Ultimatum got a little too happy with the shaky-cam (though not as overboard as Supremacy).

Spoiler

I had trouble enjoying the bathroom scene, where Bourne confronts the assasin with a towel.

Besides that, I think the cinematography was spot-on; it was more focused on the actual action itself--the "let's make this visceral"--rather than the conceptual "let's show how unstable Bourne is." Supremacy focused on the latter, which I think seriousy hurt some otherwise brilliant choreography.

I am in the minority on this one I guess.

I disagree; the rest of your post is spot on.

Another thing I didn't like, back to the script, is the hinting that Nicky Parsons is somehow linked to Bourne

I cringed at that, worried that they intended another woman to replace Marie as a love interest. Thinking about it, the purpose seems to be to "remind" Bourne (us) that he had a past before Bourne. Still, it was clumsily done. I was all set to start squirming in my seat, but thankfully they took it no further.

Supremacy and Ultimatum have one noticable trait about them: the director (Greengrass) is trying to hard to leave his mark on the film.

There's not another reason for the change in style. And why did they change directors in the first place?

I had no problem with how they handled Nicky Parsons's relationship with Bourne. Oh, and she was terrific.

Usivius and ItisWritten, I'm sorry that Greengrass's shaky-cam style as well as the rapid editing annoyed you so much that it ruined your enjoyment. It's interesting that it didn't bother me. I remember when Terminator 2 came out, some critics didn't like how James Cameron always had the camera in motion, circling around people and so forth (which I thought was a ludicrous criticism - Cameron's roving shots were an essential part of what made T2 so exhilarating). And at the other end of the spectrum, people disparaged Kubrick for his "static" shots. I guess I'm more forgiving of such directorial "manipulation."

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on what the "correct" style for the Bourne movies ought to be. The first one has its own "identity" (heh) as do the sequels, and I love all three.

The Bourne trilogy is now my favorite spy/thriller/action (whatever you want to call it) movie series, and by a fair margin. Jack Ryan had his day, but Patriot Games was the only one I really enjoyed. James Bond had his day, too - and I'll still defend Pierce Brosnan against the Daniel Craig acolytes. But for now, the only JB who has my attention is Jason Bourne.

I totally agree that the actress playing Nicky Parsons is great -- and hot! Love her.

Thinking about it, the purpose seems to be to "remind" Bourne (us) that he had a past before Bourne. Still, it was clumsily done. I was all set to start squirming in my seat, but thankfully they took it no further.

And I agree with that too.

However, I have no problem with a moving camera. I love Scorsese (he pratically made it cool to have a constantly moving camera (check out "After Hours") ... and Saving Private Ryan is an excellent example of shaky camera work. The issue to me is not "moving" .. I love when there are scenes when a camera can be in motion! But when you start to use a hand-held and have it purposely shaking, you tread a fine line. At what point does it become too shakey. The last two Bourne movies, to me, went over that line, and I felt it took away from a great movie, and especially! some great action sequences.
The first Bourne movie used hand-held work. Please, check out the fight scene in Identity where Jason fights the assassin in his London apartment (great hand-held-shakey-cam-cut-editing style!!!) and compare it to the fight sequence in Ultimatum where Jason is fighting assassin dude in the apartment/bathroom ... in my humble opinion, you cannot compare the effectiveness of the first over the last. To see the action and these two guys fight, and how they are fighting, is amazing.

once again, my little rebuttle 2 cents.
<wink>

Hand-held camera work can certainly be used effectively (see the awesome climactic fight/chase in Children of Men), but I agree with the criticisms of the work in the Bourne films.

OK, the wife and I watched the 3 movies again over 3 nights (we do this often with some trilogies)... and again, after watching them I am struck by how bad this third one is. One thing I didn't notice as much, but became so glaring in its "badness" is the script. The dialogue is positively terrible and cliche ridden. And the number of convenient coincidences is cringe-worthy ... case in point when Bourne heads to an abandoned floor of an office building across from the CIA heads ... OK I will accept that Pam Lany's office is right next to Noah Voden's, but that he gets there, takes out his little spyglass just in time to see her come back to her office and Noah just happening to put classified documents titled "Blackbrair" into a folder and then in to his safe ... jeez ...
too many of these types of scenes ... really annoying to my movie-going intelligence.
I guess I'm mainly peeved because of how much I like this series and how downhill it went...

ah well...

Usivius wrote:... And the number of convenient coincidences is cringe-worthy ... case in point when Bourne heads to an abandoned floor of an office building across from the CIA heads ... OK I will accept that Pam Lany's office is right next to Noah Voden's, but that he gets there, takes out his little spyglass just in time to see her come back to her office and Noah just happening to put classified documents titled "Blackbrair" into a folder and then in to his safe ... jeez ...

I assumed (my disbelief filter) Bourne had hung out there for a while, waiting. But that's the inherent problem with action movies. The directors are so concerned about pace that they're afraid to take the time to show stuff like that. Would have made more sense to show Vosen at his safe earlier, then Bourne wait for Landy to arrive.

ItisWritten wrote:

Usivius wrote:... And the number of convenient coincidences is cringe-worthy ... case in point when Bourne heads to an abandoned floor of an office building across from the CIA heads ... OK I will accept that Pam Lany's office is right next to Noah Voden's, but that he gets there, takes out his little spyglass just in time to see her come back to her office and Noah just happening to put classified documents titled "Blackbrair" into a folder and then in to his safe ... jeez ...

I assumed (my disbelief filter) Bourne had hung out there for a while, waiting. But that's the inherent problem with action movies. The directors are so concerned about pace that they're afraid to take the time to show stuff like that. Would have made more sense to show Vosen at his safe earlier, then Bourne wait for Landy to arrive.

I agree that it is somewhat 'lazy' filmmaking', and another reason why I dislike Greengrass. I have not seen his other movies, but I found his work on the Bourne films, especially this one, to be overrated. He is too wound up with giving the fill the feel of action and 'reality' and forgetting that people actually have to watch the darn movie and enjoy what they see. And there are a number of jump-cuts to nothing but one second of blur ... there are a LOT of them ... and not just in the fight sequences (which I find truly annoying ... I mean what was the point of extensively training your actors in a realy cool fighting style and choreographing amazing fight sequences if you are just going to ruin it with a flurry of cuts.... I mean, you could film two 8 year-olds fighting and edit it like that and make it look cool... )

sorry,,, i'm blathering again ... just ignore me...