The Bourne Ultimatum
 

I liked this movie, but it still had the quirks I disliked from The Bourne Supremacy: the shaky camera, long pauses in conversations, the shaky camera, the shaky camera, etc. I really wanted a return to The Bourne Identity's style of camera work, and even style of storytelling (not so much of an issue, though), but all I get is a line of dialogue?! "Look at what they make you give." I duly wish Greengrass and his perpetual shaky camera had never been put in charge of these movies.

Anyway, shaky camera aside (my only real problem with this film and the last, but it's a BIG problem, the camera should be mounted on a tripod when two people are JUST TALKING TO EACH OTHER FOR GOODNESS SAKES), I really liked the movie. I thought the fact that about 2/3 of the movie took place before the ending of the last movie was a bit out of left field, and the climax was not the type I expected, no car chase, return of his memory and jumping off a building IS a climax, just not what I expected after The Bourne Supremacy

Oh, and did anyone else think that Nicky Parsons and Jason Bourne were romantically involved prior to Jason entering the program? I could see no other real reason for the dialogue between them, or even for Julia Stiles' character to keep showing up in the flicks. Nicky saying that it was hard for her when they put him through the mental treatment, and her asking him if he remembered anything makes me think this. And the parallel between her and Marie in the first movie seemed to strengthen this supposal of mine, you know helps Bourne even though it puts her at risk, she dyes her hair and cuts it in the same style, etc.. If anyone else thought this too please tell me.

Anyway, I wanted to give it a 10 but now that I've watched it is firmly an 8.5-9, that camera style should NEVER have been used again, in fact if I had my way the ratings board would hand out automatic NC-17 ratings for using it to keep movies from adopting for fear of not appearing in theaters! Definitely something to only be used in small doses for specific things, not a full two hours of a film.

Eh, I'm not going to watch it. I hated the Bourne Identity. I don't think I'll ever get over the fact that they took Carlos out. I mean, I get that things are lost in book to movie transitions, but you usually at least keep the antagonist around. He's kind of important. They basically made a generic action movie and slapped on a few names from Ludlum's books. I mean, he's supposed to have been married with children during the Vietnam war. The guy who's playing him could literally have been one of Bourne/Webb's children.

Only because they set the movie in modern day. The protagonist of the book is really only a little older than the protagonist of the movie.

And I don't mind that they got rid of Carlos so much, becuase I loved the movie enough that it stands on its own. And then when they went and made sequals that barely even pretend they're based on the books, you really can't compare them. It bugs me that they deviated so much from the source material, but I live the movies on their own so I pretend they aren't connected to the books.

I love all three movies, shaky camera and all. And I love the books. I just don't consider them part of the same universe.

Was there a shaky camera?

I liked it, but I think Supremacy is still my favorite. This one was good, but it was a bit more introspective than the viscerality of Supremacy. The fight with Desh was the best fight of the series, but the car chase was a bit weak after the last two movies.

Also, chew some Dramamine and stop complaining. This isn't a personal snipe, it's more a solution for the endless broken record moaning that's been following these films.

Well, in Transformers the camera was shaky in some instances when I felt it shouldn't have been...
Same for Spider-Man 3...

I think it's just how they're doing movies now.

I was upset about the lack of resolution with Pearson, I mean WTF, that was one of the few actual plot points and they just left us hanging.

Also if they'd stuck with the book all along... I mean c'mon. A couple old men beating the shit out of each other doesn't ring my bells for an action flick unless they got the guys who did the Harrison Ford Clancy movies and put those guys on the projects.

Just got back from seeing it. Great movie... I noticed the shaky camera, though, and couldn't stand it. I understand that when the characters are moving and fighting, it makes it seem a bit more intense, but when they're talking, and the camera isn't centered, it just feels distracting.

I saw Supremacy shortly after reading the books, and was disgusted by how much they changed the story and got rid of the depth. I left halfway through. This time around, I'm not as fresh from the books, and was in the mood for action. Ultimatum was great, and it made me want to see the first two (never saw Identity).

Well, I like the books as well, and yes Carlos was a stronger villain, I think they could've done with a better recurring one than a vague entity like the CIA and six to seven former bosses. And yes, this movie abandoned even a vague premise based on the book (since Carlos doesn't exist in the movie universe) whereas the first and second at least had a basic thing (loses his memory and is targeted for extermination, has a rival masquerading as him, though in the case of the movie the government actually believes it is him instead of just pretending to believe he did it, which was a better thing for the book).

Still like the flicks, though. But the first is my favorite of the three.

And yes there is a shaky camera, for anyone doubting THAT. I suppose I can accept people of the opinion that it is a good thing, and no, it didn't make me sick to my stomach, it made it hard to tell what was going on during the chase scenes, which is like the polar opposite of what the filmmakers should be trying to do. In my opinion. And I'll quit whining about it now that it is over and done with, and of course the movies will probably be remade sixty years from now the way Hollywood is going.

That's fair. However, they've completely changed his backstory, his character, the central theme, the other characters, the antagonist, and basically everything. They haven't even kept the same basic plot or the main character's internal struggles. Using the Bourne series names seems a little insulting to me, especially because I went into the theatre expecting something that at least resembled the book in some way. I don't think that's unreasonable. All I got were a few of the names, and one scene, and that annoys the hell out of me. They took out everything that defines it.

It'd be like Peter Jackson making Lord of the Rings about a short guy named Frodo slaying a dragon.