The Bourne Trilogy

keefg

I did use the search option to see it this had been discussed already but all I could find was a few "film of 2007" comments & a bit in The Ladies Lounge about how they all fancied Matt Damon, so here goes.

WARNING - may contain spoilers.


OK, I am probably going to be in the minority here but what the hell.........

I just got around to watching The Bourne Trilogy, all three films over the space of a week. I did see the first film when it came out but couldn't really decide if I liked it or not so I thought I would wait until all three were available to watch together hoping I could make more sense of the story and "get" what the trilogy was about.

While the general plot is very interesting I just think that these films were terrible. The first one was (IMO) the best of the three and much easier to watch but the last two films were just awful.

I have no problem with (most) of the acting and I think Matt Damon & Brian Cox were the highlights of a painful 6 hours or so.

I can understand that the director was going for the "realistic, gritty" feel by using handheld cameras but jeez, most of the 2nd & 3rd films look like they were shot by a recovering alcoholic using a very cheap camera phone.

And as for the "action", well, it is a poor reflection on the director (of 2 & 3) that he has to rely on the editing team to cut the film every half a second to make the chase & fight scenes look more exciting. The only effect this had on me was that it made me feel dizzy and a bit sick, and as for the sound effects used during the fight scenes - I haven't heard "slapping/punching/kicking" sound effects that poor since the Hong Kong martial arts films of the 70's.

And why bother with a trilogy? They could have easily fitted the whole lot into one movie. Most of the (2nd & 3rd) films were spent either watching Bourne wander around European train stations & streets or watching a group of CIA people shouting orders and furiously tapping computer keyboards. And while I am on the subject of the CIA scenes.....what a crock! Someone shouting "I want a trace on that cell phone now" and it being available to them in 2-3 seconds. Or the ability to tap into and control every single CCTV camera in the world at the snap of their fingers or a particularly cringeworthy bit where after a journalist is killed these super spies can have access to dozens of photos of the journalist apartment in 10 seconds so they can find a couple of initials on a scrap of paper in an apartment in London all the way from a dark room in America. Yeah yeah...I know it's just a film but I have witnessed more "realism" in Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Star Wars Episode One (including Jar Jar Feckin' Binks).

I think the only saviour of films 2 & 3 was the chase/fight scenes with the Arab guy, Bourne & the CIA girl across the rooftops of Morocco or Tunisia (or wherever it was meant to be), it was the only part I thought had an ounce of suspense.

I might give the book(s) a go to see if it's any better because like I said, the general story was very interesting, I just hated the films, well 1 was OK but 2 & 3??.........shakes head:mad:

Phew...rant over.

tman

1 was great from what I remember, easily the high point of the trilogy... I'll definitely have to give it another watch soon anyway.
2 was absolutely terrible. Think it was the closest that I've ever come to walking out of a film in the cinema.
3 didn't suck as much as 2, but was still fairly crap. I nearly switched it off during the fight scene in Morocco, the horrible cutting totally did my head in!

senordingdong

1st, was good but had to spend alot of time setting up the whol situation with Bourne and ultimatly left other story points like the woman in the mini, and the family she takes them too, neglected.
2nd, was my favourite, it didn't have to worry about establishing or tieing up the story and was just a balls out good 'adventure'.
3rd, seemed to go out of their way to furthur complicate the story and all the while, made a bollocks of trying to wrap things up.

So no. 2 gets my vote.

Zippitydoo

The books are infinitely better in my opinion, you should definitely check them out.
The films pretty much rewrote the books though- just took the general gist of things, I was horrified when I saw the second film after reading the book.

Charlie

I thought that the 3d film was superb, certainly the best film from all of the summer blockbusters.

The 2nd was a little weak, but on the whole I think that the Bourne Trilogy has been the best series of action films in a long long time,certainly would take any of them over Casino Royle.

Tusky

The first was definitely the best of the three. The overuse of shaky cam spoiled to the others to a point. I enjoyed all three though.

Running Bing

Tusky wrote: »

The first was definitely the best of the three. The overuse of shaky cam spoiled to the others to a point. I enjoyed all three though.

Three quality films.


1st was definately the best due to the relationship between Bourne and Marie.


2nd was a great movie and in many ways just as good as the first but it lacked that central relationship to really give it depth imo. Also Paul greengrass took over here from Doug Liman hence the introduction of shaky cam which I can see why some people dislike.

3rd has to be one of the best threequals ever made. Not as strong as the first two but that scene at Waterloo station is one of the finest action scenes ever filmed. Incredibly tense and interesting. The tangiers scene was also immensely impressive technically.



You say why did they need to be made....why does any film need to be made? Im sure you like at least one film that has less to say than the bourne ultimatum.

Running Bing

Zippitydoo wrote: »

The books are infinitely better in my opinion, you should definitely check them out.
The films pretty much rewrote the books though- just took the general gist of things, I was horrified when I saw the second film after reading the book.

The books are absolutely god awful.


I am a massive fan of the films and think the Bourne character is one of the best fictional characters ever created. Naturally I was tempted to look at the books but after the first one I wasnt going near the rest.

Robert Ludlum is a horrible writer with absolutely no sense of pacing or what makes an exciting plot. Definately created a great character and a very exciting premise put it is a pianful experience to read one of his books. Thank god they reworked it for the movie.

Wacker

I think the films are consistently good. The shajy camera is over the top in the second one, but it isn't bad in the third one at all. Once everything is in the shot and there are no quick cuts then I'm happy. I particularly liked the way that they subtly reference things from the previous films in the third obe (like the last shot being very similair to the opening of Identity).

Caveat

Considering the often (exceptions obviously) dodgy reputation of sequels I think they've been pretty consistent and all enjoyable.

It's open for a fourth maybe but if so, I honestly can't see the momemtum being kept up.

faceman

I enjoyed the first and third one. Second one wasnt great. Ive read the 3 books. They're dated at this stage and very different to the films. But enjoyable none the less.

Neo#

I loved all 3 films. Im not sure which is best. If I had to choose i would say the first one because I didnt know what to expect and as previously mentioned the relationship between Bourne and Marie really made the film. I was very impressed with the first film the first time I saw it as I was expecting a pile of ****.

The 2nd and 3rd films were well written and well directed. Im a fan of shaky cam which helps:). I think the technique helps place a person in the actual scene. The fight in the apartment in Morroco for instance. It was excessive however in Ultimatum somewhat. The action and fight scenes were the best I have ever seen in cinema. Ultimatum pushed the boundaries out.

I loved the locations throughout the series and I also loved the gritty realism to it. There is a sense of danger and threat in these films which isnt apparent in other films in the same genre. The Bond films for instance. it made such an impression that it directly influenced Casino Royale which is also damn good. I remember watching that and thinking 'ripoff'!

I cant understand how people dont like these films. But different people have different tastes and all that. It helps to be a fan of the genre and I love similar films. 3 Days Of The Condor springs to mind. I have all 3 in my dvd collection.

To the OP are you generally interested in these types of films or would PS I Love you be your type of thing:D

Vikings

Babybing wrote: »

Robert Ludlum is a horrible writer with absolutely no sense of pacing or what makes an exciting plot. Definately created a great character and a very exciting premise put it is a pianful experience to read one of his books. Thank god they reworked it for the movie.

Going to disagree with you there. I havn't read the Bourne books only seen the films but I have read Robert Ludlum before (the Prometheus Deception) and thought he was a good writer. Really enjoyed that book, while it could be an exception I would imagine the rest of his books are quite similar and would also be good.

I enjoyed the 3 films for what they were, action flicks. There was a decent storyline to it yes, but it wasn't taken advantage of as much as it could have been. I don't think that takes anything away from the films though.

1 then 3 then 2 I think would be my order of preference.

Running Bing

Vikings wrote: »

Going to disagree with you there. I havn't read the Bourne books only seen the films but I have read Robert Ludlum before (the Prometheus Deception) and thought he was a good writer. Really enjoyed that book, while it could be an exception I would imagine the rest of his books are quite similar and would also be good.

I enjoyed the 3 films for what they were, action flicks. There was a decent storyline to it yes, but it wasn't taken advantage of as much as it could have been. I don't think that takes anything away from the films though.

1 then 3 then 2 I think would be my order of preference.

I could be being a bit harsh seeing as I have only read one of his books. But the BI left me very cold and I felt it was very poorly written...especially as I am usually such a big fan of such novels.

pirelli

I found one was Good, like the book a litle bit boring while the
second film was the best action Film in years. Like a james Bond in hard boiled egg John Woo fashion.

1. Ok
2. The film was a brilliant action film.

I havent seen 3 yet...

Wacker

pirelli wrote: »

Like a james Bond in hard boiled egg John Woo fashion.

Hard Boiled Egg! That would be the greatest movie ever. It could be about an egg with two 9mms that never need to be reloaded.

Lawless_Samurai

Am I the only one who thought these films got better as they went on???

I loved the first one and remember not initially liking the second but it grew on me and I was totally blown away with the pace and intensity of the third. Loved the story line and thought these films achieved what many fail at, that is, make a good solid trilogy

keefg

Babybing wrote: »

You say why did they need to be made....why does any film need to be made? Im sure you like at least one film that has less to say than the bourne ultimatum.

What I meant was that there is such little happening in 2 & 3 that they could have fitted everything into one (decent) movie.

Like I said, I had a feeling I would be in the minority here but I just think they were crap and I enjoy a good thriller as much as the next guy, shame these weren't any good.

Just my opinion anyway

Third_Echelon

I have to say I really like all 3 movies...

I do enjoy this genre and the bourne trilogy has set a good standard I reckon. I like the bit of 'grit' in the action scenes. The realism of the fight scenes with just the action and noise of the fight (no music etc)....

I actually thought the 'shaky camera' as its being referred to was a nice feature. Gets the audience more involved as if they were actually there.

I don't know about a 4th movie though. Sometimes is best to leave a good trilogy alone...

Lawless_Samurai

Third_Echelon wrote: »

I don't know about a 4th movie though. Sometimes is best to leave a good trilogy alone...

Here here

Valmont

+1 for all three films being good. I know the second one was the weakest but I thoroughly enjoyed all three. I enjoyed the European setting and the great soundtrack. What more do you want from an action/thriller?

Although I definitely hope they don't do number 4

unionman

Lawless_Samurai wrote: »

Am I the only one who thought these films got better as they went on???

No, I love the trilogy and think they really did improve. The story arc in each does not deliver the sense of completion of conventional Hollywood action movies. The tension only slightly diminishes at the end of the third, so they have been well set up as a trilogy.

Brilliant and innovative movie-making. I think they stand apart, and divide audiences as a result. Paul Greengrass is a brilliant director (see also Bloody Sunday and Flight 93).