THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM post release - Page 2

Is it still worth seeing when I somehow managed to miss the first two?
(Which, I might add, I am now regretting)

There's this thing called DVD...

ULTIMATUM begins very much in medias res. You get some flashback and contextual explanation of what's gone before but not a lot.

Still, it's a simple story. There's not all that much to get. You'll probably be fine.

My budget doesn't stretch to many DVDs at present, or the problem wouldn't arise.
Ah, well. Seems the Uk gets it in a fortnight.

At blockbuster you can buy used DVD at $5 a pop, or is it 4 DVD for $20. I buy a lot of DVDs that way.

Good stuff. Like Devin said, completely in line with the first two. I enjoyed it immensely, and liked the no cop-out explanation when Bourne discovers who he "was" and "is".

And when Landy faxed the Blackbriar stuff and Strathairn's character walked in on her, did anyone else think he was going to shoot her in the back as she walked out? I was just waiting for it.

That happened a lot to me in the movie, actually. I would think thing "A" was going to happen, and it usually never did, or something completely different would happen.

Love, love, love.

The CHUD reviews hit the high points of what I liked, so I won't just regurgitate. Instead, I'll add:

Loved how they brought back Clive Owen's line as Bourne's final line, "Look what they make you give." I've always loved it, and it's nice to see that the writers seemingly did as well. It works so well, and sums it all up so perfectly.

The trilogy is utterly perfect and consistent. It feels like one constant story. I don't know that there's an emotional beat in the movie I liked better than Bourne's confession to the Russian girl in "Supremacy", yet that's not the story for this chapter.

Action-wise, this is the best. I love martial arts films, but I've never watched one with the raw, tense feeling I had during the Tangiers bathroom brawl. I also liked that, for once, you got the feeling that if these guys fought 9 times, one of them would win 5 and the other would win 4. Evenly matched, it was just Bourne's day.

This is an amazingly rough PG-13. You feel everything.

Holy shit! I just got back from this and I can't stop thinking about how awesome it was. Forget Ah-nuld one-liners. When Bourne said, "If you were in your office we'd be talking face to face" my whole crowd just cheered in unison. I also loved how the movie hinted at a former relationship between Nicky and Jason, but didn't take it further. And they could have. The scene where Nicky echoes Marie's dye job/hair cut in the bathroom could have been the beginning of an unnecessary romance subplot. Instead, they left it vague and it worked perfectly with Nicky just smiling at the news that Bourne's body was never found at the end. Lastly, the shaky-cam which many of my friends hate so much, wasn't so shaky this time. When Bourne was fighting Desh, the fight was clear when it needed to be. I never knew a towel and book could be such deadly weapons. And has been said this movie is tight (there is no unnecessary filler), but still hits all the notes it needs to hit -- great tension (I was on the edge of my seat the whole 2 hours), great story, and great acting. I can't rave about this film enough.

Jeez haven't any of you ever heard of spoilers?







*I kid, I kid.*

It is a post-release thread. Enter at your own risk.

He's bringing Batman Begins into this.

I saw the 7:55 show in a packed theater. Every thing was spot on. This is definitely one of the best trilogies out there, and all the flicks make it feel like one long story. The foot chase in Tangier, and the car chase in New York were spectacular, and the bathroom brawl was extremely gritty. I loved how Bourne just looks at his hands afterwards. There's a spot in my dvd collection waiting for it when it's released.

It's kind of weird that Albert Finney and Brian Cox have both been in the Bourne series. It would be like Bill Pullman and Jeff Daniels being in the same series. Or Bruce Willis and Mickey Rourke 20 years ago in the same series.

Oh, and Bourne kicks ass.

I was expecting exactly what you thought would happen as well. When Landy tells him, "You're gonna need a good lawyer (or something like that)," I was thinking, "Don't rub it in his face!!!"

I also kept getting mixed up between Pam Landy's underling guy and David Strathairn's underling guy. They look kind of similar.

As for someone bringing up Christopher Nolan and Batman Begins' indecipherable fight scenes to compare it to Greengrass's action in the Bourne movies... I feel like I can actually tell what is going on during the fight scenes in the Bourne movies. Maybe I'm not, but I feel like I can. Maybe it's because the sound editing is much better or maybe Greengrass is obviously much more consistent with his handheld camerawork. I think it's both.

Batman Begins' camerawork is controlled pretty much throughout the movie except for the fight scenes. When the fights come, it's totally jarring and it came off lazy. If you can get comfortable watching the handheld camerawork with the fast-paced editing in Greengrass's films, you're fully prepared to watch those action scenes.

I loved the movie. I loved that Bourne is all business and just sends Julia Stiles off on a bus. I loved how it worked the 'closure' of Supremacy into Ultimatum as just another reversal.

I wonder what it would be like if you tried putting the two movies together as a single film. Would that be just too much tension to handle?

PS: Anyone think Joan Allen had some botox in this movie?

"He drove off the roof" killed me.

Also, what happened to Landy's boss? The guy that Vosen told he would hang the whole Blackbriar operation on if it failed. I though he would be indicted along with Dr. Hirsch and Vosen, but he sort of just dropped out of the movie.

Me too. For the longest time I didn't know Landy had an underling and I thought Vosen's guy was undermining him to work with her.

This film was a juggernaut. Airtight, muscular with no fat.

The casting & performances, direction, music, story all sum up to be the best movie of the year for me.

Spolier:
I loved the scene at the end when the assassin asks Bourne why he didn't pull the trigger when he had the chance.
The end of this film was absolutely perfect. It could end the trilogy on a great note, but it also works by leaving the door open for a fourth. Whatever is decided, if the writers and Universal decide to go for a fourth, I have faith they can come up with something just as special as Ultimatum. There are a few storyline possibilities they could explore in the fourth.

I thought this exact thing in the scene when she meets with Strathairn for breakfast. Her forehead looked so smooth. She looked younger than she did in The Contender, which was 10 years ago. But she looked good, and she is very convincing and very effective in her role.

I thought Kramer (Scott Glenn) told Vosen he'd hang Blackbriar around Landy's neck if it failed, and then start over again. Or it may have been the other way around, with Vosen telling Kramer that.

Kramer says it. And his subplot is not dropped. He is seen on television in front of the Commitee as the newscast describes the fallout. He appears to get what's coming to him.


Goddamn this movie was the shit. And yet, at least for now, I must hold Supremacy as the jewel of the series. But I also need another viewing of this soon.

Devin,
No Devin, that's dumb. First of all, there is no connection between action being part of the story and character and whether or not you can see something in a fight. Just because Greengrass' is shaking the camera like a madman doesn't underline that makes it more a part of story and characters. That doesn't even make any sense. Going by what you are saying, then that means any other fight sequence where you can see what is going on is not part of the story and characters. That's dumb.

Quite simply, this entire notion of it's about "feeling like you're there" is bull. Shaking the camera like an idiot is going to cause a reaction because visuals are bouncing back and forth and you can't tell what's going on. Add sharp and loud sound effect to it and you are given a sensation indeed, but it's a cheap one. A cheap feeling that you're "experiencing" a fight but all it is messy visuals and loud sound effects. There is nothing masterful about that. Anyone can achieve that.

And don't give me this crap about it's not at all about "Look at the great move he did". There are clearly shots that are there so that you can indeed "Look at the great move he did" (i.e.the fight in the apartment where the assassin counters Bourne by flipping sideways).

I don't doubt that Greengrass and Nolan want to achieve some sort of intensity and that you are in there in the fight, but they don't know how to do that and what they are doing. If that is what they were trying to achieve, then with their methods they don't even need a choreographer. They can just have the guys wave their arms back and forth while they shake the camera and pick random shots in post, and every now and then get a stunt double to do a hard fall. But they do hire choreographers but they have no idea how to translate those movements and at the same time what they want to do.

They are not action directors, plain and simple.


Russ Fitcher,
No, but you utterly missed my point. I wasn't talking about "Hong Kong 'biceps and flip kicks' " I was talking about action direction and editing. The fact that someone mentions Hong Kong action directors and you think nothing else but "flip kicks" shows an enormous amount of ignorance from you about Hong Kong action.

And Devin's criticism of action in a movie like Fearless but the applause of inane action direction in the Bourne is moronic.

And that bull about Casino Royal being highly influenced by the Bourne films is just that. Bull. I can actually see what's going on in those action scenes and Martin Campball still managed to achieve an intensity and rawness that people claim the Bourne movies have, but genuinely don't.

...wait, you don't think Casino Royale was influenced by Bourne? Really?

I must have missed that. I recall only seeing Hirsch and Vosen.

And thank God for it.

I love martial arts films, but they're about choreography and fight moves, which the Bourne films have not been about. I refuse to let this turn into a "Batman Begins" conversation, but it's worth noting that in both, the fighting is not meant to be a dance, it's meant to be brutal.

You're also ignoring the fact that, on top of Greengrass not being an "action director", he's not making a movie with martial artists. I've said it before, but watch the documentaries on the previous "Bourne" films. Those lightning fast hard-hitting fight sequences look like a slow-moving slap boxing match on set. Damon's great, but he's no martial artist. There's a certain degree of movie magic required, and I don't begrudge them that. It's the price you pay for getting a performance from Matt Damon instead of Gary Daniels.

But actually, unless you're willfully trying not to pay attention, you can get a sense of every single major move in these fight sequences, a lot more so than in "Supremacy". I mean what are you doing during this fight sequence where you don't get a sense of what's happening?

I've never been all that big on this series but I rewatched IDENTITY and SUPREMACY a few days ago and while IDENTITY still doesn't do much for me, SUPREMACY clicked with me better a second time. ULTIMATUM is on par with that entry as well.

I don't see how you can have a problem with the fight scenes at this point. Like Stew said they've pretty much established with this series that the fights are all about close quarters and not there to be admired for their beauty or grace. The main fight in this film is as tense as it gets. It doesn't need to be pretty.

Loved the stuff with Albert Finney. Would have liked more to be honest. It was much more interesting than the usual CIA types shaking their fists and constantly saying "We must get Bourne! We must get Bourne!"

Oh man, in 10 years when Damon's star has fallen a bit and he makes a 4th BOURNE I'd love to see Daniels as an asset. Little to no dialogue, I'm sure he could adjust his fight techniques. It would be perfect.

It's no big deal one way or the other, I just thought that the shot without the CG window looked perfectly fine as it was. It was definitely the attention grabbing shot of the trailer. It's really cool, especially for something so simple.



Plus, it just seems like something that isn't usually done in this series, with Greengrass in particular. I know they used some CG & greenscreen in Supremacy, but it was more for the car chase and other such minimal things. I haven't seen the film yet, but I was just wondering what the thinking was to adding it in - I wasn't necessarily bitching about it...

I had been completely unspoiled as to him being in the movie, so I was very pleasantly surprised. He was a great addition, and I loved his final scenes with Bourne. Like Devin said in his review, I really like that Bourne made the decision to enter Treadstone voluntarily, rather than through some hokey "brainwashed" cliche.

Somehow I knew that uttering the name "Gary Daniels" was akin to rubbing a lamp and having the Moltisanti genie appear. I liked the two "assets" they had here, but they sort of paled in comparison to those who came before them (Owen, Urban). Speaking of, which role was Gael Garcia Bernal up for? Desh or the Paddy Considine role?

Saw it last night and loved it. Probably even better than Supremacy. I don't have much to add that hasn't already been stated above. All the actors were in top form, especially Damon, who now seems totally in sync with the ruthless, unstoppable character he's spent the past couple films turning back into. The action was much easier to follow this time, and that fight with Desh was spectacular. The great thing about this series is its willingness to kill characters, no matter how important, so at no point did I feel that anyone was safe. Although I thought Greengrass relied a bit too much on flashbacks and footage from the first two Bourne movies, I loved the callbacks and reversals of some of said flashbacks, like Nikki dying her hair and looking like Marie. The most satisfying example came toward the end, when Bourne repeats something Clive Owen's character said to him in the first film. The way Damon plays it and the way the other agent reacts was really great.

Now please, let them end this franchise on a high note, no matter how much money it makes (and judging by all the sold out shows last night, it's gonna do a lot of business).

What was this quote you're referring to? I just rewatched the first one a few weeks ago, but I didn't catch the callback. Another one I loved was the bit with the car chase. When Bourne was t-boned and heading for that barrier, he was in the position that killed Urban's character in the last film. However, Bourne knew a trick to get out of it.

Oh, and I loved this movie. It was non-stop suspense from beginning to end, and probably my favorite of the trilogy.

I think it's such a perfect capper for his character. As uttered by Bourne it carries all the more weight, and it sort of adds another little nuance to Owen's sad utterance of it in the first film. It was one of my favorite moments from the original film, and hearing ir brought back is just another genius way in which they've made this eries like one coherent whole.

The quote is from after Bourne shoots Clive Owens character and he states...
And Bourne closely echoes this sentiment to the asset.

Edit to add: Bested by Stew! Also I thought I should say I was joking about the spoiler comment earlier, sorry I couldn't resist.

Can someone clear things up for me before I spend money on this film?

In the book, IIRC, (yes, I know the books are different) Bourne is forced
to save peoples' ass by facing off against this Carlos the Jackal-type character.

In the movie, according to all the glowing reviews I've read, this intriguing plot idea, mixing up premises and motivations in the service of a consistent character arc (Bourne trying to regain his humanity and stop killing people) is discarded.

Instead we get what sounds like the plot of a bad martial arts flick, with one invincible man up against dozens of heavies and no sense of remorse or repulsion to violence.

Most consistent trilogy ever?

How can it be consistent with the first two, where Bourne gradually
learned to cope with his former self while also learning that killing is
unnecessary and wrong?

What the fuck makes Bourne so special if he can go thru three movies
without growing or progressing as a human being?

In the service of a Hollywood where amoral vigilantes like Jack Bauer, who kill or torture without compunction, (and often merely to gain revenge or knowledge) are idolized and celebrated by the general public? Is that America now?

I don't want to "feel like I'm in a room with a bunch of crazy-ass super-human fighters." I came to expect more from this series than Matrix-style idolization of violence.

A good thriller doesn't just have you seeking out & cheering for the villains' demise.

So, if I'm wrong that this film ignores Bourne's character progression
(in the previous two movies) and continues to have him endlessly seeking
out and killing people for the sake of self-knowledge or revenge,

Then I'll have a reason to see it.

(And I had high hopes before I started hearing more about film 3.)

BTW, as regards "threequels" (the new Mediocracy term for what used to be called trilogies):

I continue to be saddened that films like Simpsons and Transformers are being praised "in a summer of horrible threequels like Pirates 3" (the best movie of the summer so far) --

and if Bourne 3 is a shallow no-progression remake of Bourne 1 & 2 I'll be terribly disappointed, but even if it IS consistent with Bourne's characterization as Devin suggested,

I don't understand why people in this country rate spy thrillers and sitcom flicks so highly on their "personal preference" meter, all but ignoring gems in other genres such as Pirates 3 and too many other panned flicks to mention (not to mention praising other flicks for all the wrong reasons -- Return of the King because it is a "great war movie", etc.)

If Bourne is a good spy thriller, it is a good spy thriller. Period. The problem with spy thrillers is that they don't attempt to speak to real-life physics or more importantly, real-life morality (as in: glorification of torture and violence).

Bourne 1 & 2 attempted to transcend that, attempting to bridge the gap between real life spies in movies like MUNICH and GOOD SHEPHERD (not to mention LUMUMBA) with the fantasy of spy-as-action-hero, in which stars increasingly attempt to sell the public on a fascist vision of the secret agent as ubermensch, beyond morality, and glorify spy agencies as Olympian Justice Leagues unburdened with problematic concerns of "rights" or "local law enforcement". Increasingly, we seem to be educating our high-school/college-age public to believe that this is how the world should be run. If all we cheer about in action films is for motivations like self-preservation and revenge, and the enemy is totally expendable and the only purpose of the villain is to die, we're training ourselves to see the world in a certain way, like a sort of passion play.

(And yes, I know the opponent here is the CIA, but that doesn't mean it's anti-establishement. Sounds to me like the film is basically saying "forget all that humanity stuff, Franka's dead and Bourne has to kill all these people if you want there to be a film... and it's his right to do so.")

By my count Bourne kills exactly one person, and it's an assassin sent to kill he and Julia Stiles.

And by consistent, I'm talking quality. If you liked the first two, I think it's nigh impossible for you to dislike this one. If you didn't like the previous films, well, I don't understand you and I wouldn't advise spending money on this one.

Wow, Stew. How did you do that? I couldn't translate that guy's post at all.

This guy is like duke fleed without the loveable childlike innocence.

"Look at what they make you give" or something along those lines. Owen said it to Bourne when he was dying out in that field, and Bourne says it to the asset when he's cornered on the roof.

EDIT-Somebody beat me to it. In any event, that should answer your question.

The Dark Shape,
Really, really.

Show me examples where the action scenes in Casino Royal are directed and edited like the Bourne films. Because all of them are done in the way that Martin Campbell always shoots action.


Stew,
First of all, I never mentioned anything about "martial arts films". But such is the case when someone says, "Hong Kong action". I wrote "Hong Kong action" to talk about the direction and editing that is understood there in general. Not a specific genre.

Second, I don't think Stew you have seen then enough Hong Kong action films for you to claim that there aren't that many intense fight scenes.

I recommend Wilson Yip's "SPL" starring Donnie Yen and Sammo Hung (renamed inanely here in the US as "Kill Zone"). But then again, you can actually see the action in that movie...so I don't know if you'll like it or not.

It don't matter. The characters in the films are martial artists.

There are ways to make a non-martial artist look like one on screen. Action legends like Sammo Hung have mastered that.

I have. And aren't they great? They actually have the choreographer talk about stuff like specific and unique fighting styles he is using for the fighting. But you would be damned if you can catch any of that in the finished product.

Funny you mention this. I've heard this theory numerous times with other people I have discussed this with, except they weren't bringing it up to defend it.

Now if we consider that, then perhaps this theory about these fights being all about the emotion and intensity isn't 100% factual as it seems now is it?

I mean, if you have to hide the badness of what's actually going on set, well then that means it ain't really all that good to begin with.

That's like saying that some guy is having half a seizure.

You are telling me you can give me a pure blow by blow of what's going on?

Pattern in a Greengrass/Nolan fight scene, "Blur, blur, blur, 'Is that a fist', blur, cut, blur, 'I think he picked up something', cut, blur, 'I guess he didn't', blur, cut, 'Or maybe he did', blur, cut, blur, 'Did he just kick him', blur, cut, cut, cut, 'I think I actually just saw something', blur, blur, blur "Well, I can certainly hear something going on', blur, cut, cut, cut, blur, blur, blur, 'Are they fighting or fucking', blur, blur, blur, blur, blur, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, blur, blur.....'Oh, he's dead'.


Devin,
No Devin, my complaints are more like, "If this is supposed to be a sex scene, then why are we quickly cutting from close ups of the pillows and blankets and every now and then get a shot of maybe a foot and hair?"

You sound like, "Oh yeah...that sex scene where you can't see shit except for maybe a strand of hair and part of a foot...that's real sex baby! Feels like you're right there!"

Which would then beg the question, "Umm...have you had sex? And if so, what kind?"

Are you masturbating as you go apeshit on this thread? If you were then I might excuse your craziness.

Loved it. Totally. Having just watched the first two again, and having read the EW article, its amazing to think they made this up on the fly, because the way they wrap it up, with Bourne returned to the water, emerging, this time as himself, is exactly where the series should end.

I also love that the film begins by showing a scene from the timeframe of The Bourne Supremacy, and then reuses the dialouge from the end of that film for his phone conversation with Landry.I wonder if it was reused or reshot, but its a strangely ingenious way of extending the action and thought process. That way you can say Bourne doesn't know his real identity until sometime toward the end of the film.

The book to the throat. God damn. I love how the first film has apen, the second a newspaper, and the third a book. The man is lethal. Too bad there wasn't more Considine.

I also love all the callbacks, Julia Styles dyeing her hair, and Clive Owen's lines. When Rameriez lowered his gun and asked why he didn't shoot, the first thing I thought of was The Professor's lines. That Bourne said them, again, this film brings everything full circle. Bravo

No, but I sure do question your motivation for quoting my entire post when it's already found just before yours.

Great Spy Flick!

Very awesome, as others had said. Some more thoughts (sorry there might be repeats of others' notes):

- Shocked that Paddy bit it after all that trouble of navigating him.
- Loved the back & forth flashback bits of Marie (kissing from Identity, live-breaths from Supremacy).
- Scott Adkins was wasted. I recognized him immediately and was anticipating more than just "that's cool, there's a digital camera screen on his gun".
- Really enjoyed the callbacks and echoes. They really must have tortured the shit outta him in training though to get him as skinny as he was in Identity.
- Was also confused that Landy's aide wasn't the same guy.
- Amazing set pieces and I was really glad they ended it in NYC. I've been in Port Authority a million times and it was cool to see an action scene in a location that was so familiar to me.
- Was Julia's Stiles' relationship ret-conned, or was there stuff in the books that it was gleaned from?
- I've heard nothing about this being improvised. Is there a link where I can read more? Or can anyone give me some quick details? I was confused about Devin's article when it mentioned that it was unscripted and yet there was screenwriters. Did they just use an outline? Surely there was some sort of planning. What was the process?
- Really wish the trailer didn't have the "We'd be having this conversation face to face" line. I was waiting for it that whole scene and wished I had been surprised.
- Wish they didn't CGI glass (in the window leap) after seeing it without in the trailer. Stood out as an effect as a result.
- I had no trouble following the action (as I did in Batman Begins and Supremacy).
- Left feeling quite exhilerated, much like Casino Royale. Can't wait to own it.
- Thanks Best Buy! My recent Bourne set purchase (with bonus disc) that cost me $9.99 had a free ticket inside. Can't beat that with a book/towel.

EDIT: Saw trailers for 3 secret-plot/Middle Eastern themed flicks before the "these gov't assholes have gone too far" Ultimatum: The Kingdom, In the Valley of Elah, and Rendition. I think Hollywood's trying to tell us something.

The improvisation, I think, came into the Waterloo sequence. If I remember reading correctly, they shot it during business hours, and the people you see in the shots are actual travellers. If you look you can even see some of them looking into the camera in the background.

You're bitching about the fight sequences and holding up HK films as the example of what the Bourne fights should have been. You specifically started whining about Devin not liking the fights in "Fearless", a martial arts film. Back pedal all you want, your inference was pretty clear.

I've seen plenty of Asian films, but I'm not going to get in a pissing match over it. You are obviously one of these "Asia = Inherently Greater" models of film geek, more power to you. You're still wrong.

You're bringing Sammo fucking Hung into this? Then go watch an episode of "Martial Law". You can watch Sammo take out bad guys in slow motion, and salivate over every flabby, telegraphed punch. Wow, what an exciting martial artist. I'm so glad they choreographed it so we can appreciate every. single. action. packed. move.

Most of the time, you either cast a martial artist and sacrifice performance, or get a real actor, and utilize that crazy stuff called filmmaking to make them look like a martial artist.

This makes no sense, but hell, I'll give it a shot. They choreograph some nice looking fights, but because Damon is an actor, not Jet Li, they use editing and camera techniques to speed him up as he does the moves. That and so he doesn't accidentally knock out a stuntman's teeth or give someone a concussion. What crappy filmmakers they are.

Dumb. Try again.

Again, why the fascination with analzying every single frame of Damon and Desh grappling with each other? Off the top of my head I can remember just about every noteworthy move or back and forth of that fight, from window crashes, to tackles, to flips, to punches, to books to the throat, to the bathroom, to choking, blah blah blah. I know I was tense and on the edge of my seat, which was exactly what they were going for.

Although granted, it didn't hold a candle to "Martial Law".

Sammo Hung. Give me a break.

I can't help but think we've had this martial arts arguement in a different thread, but with a different user. Who I think was eventually banned for being a dumbass. Or it might be the same guy. I'm too lazy to figure it out.

I saw these and Lions for Lambs as well. I have no love for my government, but I rolled my eyes at all of these. Not so much for what they were trying to say but the clunky, self-righteous and boring polemic manner in which it was said. Something's wrong in the world? I had no idea. Thanks movies!

At least Bourne (and possibly The Kingdom will do this as well) have the good sense to put such messages inside a movie that actually works on a level of entertainment as well. Topical shit won't be topical forever, but a good story and energetic filmmaking will go the distance. And I also really don't want to be told these things by Paul Haggis or Robert Redford. I suppose there is some truth to Vosen's line in Ultimatum about making armchair judgement calls. The fact that the character is pure evil is beside the point.

It felt like a barrage of stress-inducing trailers. I was tense before the movie even started. They didn't try to mix it up at all. Howbout something fun?

What a great film, I managed to get my whole family to go out and see this and everyone liked it. Even my two teenager brothers who hadn't seen the first two really liked it.

Saw it at a matinee showing yesterday, easily my favorite of the three and just a tremendous effort all around. As much as I'll miss catching Bourne in theaters, I'm glad that this is were it'll all apparently stop, there's just too much about this film that's clean, bookended and simply gratifying as I could have ever hoped for.

Before this, Transformers was the last film I'd seen in theaters, and thankfully, The Bourne Ultimatum cleared out that listless, dull space that Bay's film punched into my brain and gave me a substantive and memorable piece of entertainment to dig into near summer's end.

As far as I know, the movies have absolutely nothing to do with the books. They use the same titles, and that's about it.

Here's a bit of EW interview with Damon.

There's also some discussion about what happened on Bourne Identity, a pretty funny joke about Tom Hanks, almost making Brokeback Mountain, and comparisons to James Bond...

Crazy, isn't it? Considering the conditions that Damon described on set, it's a wonder this didn't turn out to be a massive disaster...

EDIT: Just found this 4 minute video on CNN of John Powell talking about his scores for the three films.

So there's a big fight going on these threads here with Running Man and at first I thought I shouldn't step into the fray, but then I thought I might be able to help.

One way to conceptualize the difference between Greengrass' style vs. a conventional action director is by comparing scenes from both of them.

Witness first Paul Greengrass' version of a Bourne car chase scene from Bourne Supremacy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCHzmKplMi0

Note the kinetic, (intentionally) messy editing and cuts. Disparage it all you want, I still heave a sigh of relief every time that scene ends (as did the audience I originally saw it with).

Compare this with Doug Liman's car chase scene from Bourne Identity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv9BEwvoDoY

Sure you can see everything that's happening...but the scene is positively sedate in comparison! Not only does it feel much slower, there's not nearly as much tension.

Given the contrast between these two scenes, can you really say that Greengrass didn't know exactly what he was doing?

I think in the end it's just a preference. Some people prefer the "cleaner" action that you find in the Bond movies, and some people prefer the Greengrass/Nolan method of pure "you are there" brutality. I think both styles have their place and can be done exceptionally well, but to say that Greengrass doesn't know exactly what he's doing is completely ridiculous. You don't have to like his style, but if you can't see how well thought out and perfectly choreographed it is...well, you're an idiot.