'Identity' is the only stand out movie
-
iLikeMovies22 — 16 years ago(September 01, 2009 05:44 PM)
Agreed. The first was the best. Does anyone know how much it made in the theaters? Because I think it kind of went unnoticed for a while. I had friends come to me and say "Have you heard of the movie The Bourne Identity?", and this was like a month before Supremacy came out. I would give them kind of a 'are you serious?' look and say "Yes I have heard of it. I've seen it, I saw it the theaters actually."
-
Ilario1 — 16 years ago(September 02, 2009 06:22 PM)
It made less than the sequels but a lot more than anyone expected. It was definitely a hit. Grossed over $100 mil here in the states. So it was very respectable. I agree it went under the radar because I had not heard of it until it was on DVD or maybe even VHS, lol. I was surprised to see Matt Damon starring in something like this. I remember watching it and saying to myself what a badass movie. Very suspenseful and lots of action as well. I thought it was great the way they told the story in that the audience and bourne was in the dark about what was happening. The car chase scene in the mini cooper is my favorite from all 3.
-
duketakamoto — 16 years ago(January 15, 2010 10:09 PM)
So the shaky camera bothered you during the fighting scenes, but you weren't bothered by the obvious speeding up of the fights in the first one? It looks extremely tacky. I know that's not a big deal to most people, but I think it's one of the worst ways to compensate for not having a better way to film the scene.
-
naxself — 16 years ago(January 31, 2010 08:04 PM)
The best thing about "The Bourne Identity" is that Doug Liman didn't use a shaky camera to screw up all of the elaborately planned fight scenes. He let Bourne and his opponents fight so the audience could see it.
Also, the Mini chase scene was great. Up there with "Ronin", IMO. -
LTUM — 15 years ago(December 15, 2010 03:07 AM)
dude it is not even the fight scenes that were the prob, in number 2 and 3, but they shook the camera in ALL scenes, like sitting still in the cafe talking, and other times when it clearly should have been a tripod shot. that infuriated me so much i blasted paul greengrass a thousand times over on his board. he is a very stupid man, in my opinion.
but in the first one, the camera work was on spot. never faulty or wiggly or whatever. yes they cranked up the fight scenes, but when bourne one came out that was a fresh thing, and more of a style feature than a cop out. since then they have done it in lots of other films.
but to shake the cam all over the d@mn place when two people are sitting still at a cafe talking. that, my friend, is insane
"Where. can I put my ash?" -
fredgarv79 — 15 years ago(January 09, 2011 07:41 PM)
I just noticed this. I tried watching the third one and just could not do it. like you said, every scene, no more than 1.2 seconds per shot. just watched the first one again, and wow, it was so great, I just love franka potente, I'm in total all out love with her, I love that german accent. anyway, first movie fantastic stuff, second one just barely ok, third one unwatchable, nothing but all out action with no story at all
-
oonagimaki — 15 years ago(January 30, 2011 09:00 PM)
Handheld is nothing new but Greengrass gets that amateurish you are there credit. I mean his stuff is so insane that kids from this gen probably couldn't even spot the beautiful handheld work Liman did in the first one during the love scene.
-This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. -
sanddragon939 — 16 years ago(December 12, 2009 09:26 AM)
Both the first and the second stand out on their ownthe third, I admit, is a bit of a rehash of the first two put together, albeit, it does resolve the storyline of the series, so it stands out at least in that regard.
What I particularly like about this series is how each movie actually stands out well on its own as a full-fledged film inspite of being part of a series with tightly knit continuity. -
linda303 — 16 years ago(December 13, 2009 09:28 PM)
The first movie is excellent, the others are good. It is the first one that makes you want to see the others. The first one is better written because it is about the characters, not the action. We watch the sequels because we care about what happens to Jason Bourne, not because there is a shortage of films out there with car chases.
-
filmmaniac111 — 16 years ago(February 11, 2010 12:57 PM)
no
we watch the others because we want to know what happens and to see incredible direction
the Bourne Films are different, exciting, have an amazing screenplay, and most of all, extreme intelligence
people only find out inconsistencies because they like to be snobs. they don't complain about foolish films because those are stupid. -
LTUM — 15 years ago(December 15, 2010 03:09 AM)
im sorry but if you think the second and third are 'incredibly direction' then you should have your head examined.
they couldnt hold the camera still for either of those movies. insane. crazy.
"Where. can I put my ash?" -
LTUM — 14 years ago(February 11, 2012 08:45 PM)
so true, so true
(hello michele)
drugschangedeverything..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8MGBn3KawM&feature=related -
charliebennett — 16 years ago(March 05, 2010 11:21 AM)
Couldn't agree more. I bought the box set cheap last week and have to say I really wanted to see Supremacy after Identity but watching the former nearly destroyed my will to live. I forced myself to watch Utimatum which was only marginally better. Greengrass, the Editor and the scriptwriter combined to ruin all that was good about the first. Shame.