'Identity' is the only stand out movie
-
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.
-
evonygameracc4 — 13 years ago(June 22, 2012 07:05 AM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourne_(film_series)
so legacy is not included at this point ???
http://www.imdb.com/board/11194173/
( so I'll agree, identity is the best so-far ) -
!!!deleted!!! (14789810) — 15 years ago(July 31, 2010 12:58 PM)
I would agree that Identity is the best but I feel it is a great trilogy.
The films get worse as they go but they stayed very high quality in my eyes
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=30520828 -
m-slovak79 — 15 years ago(October 06, 2010 09:25 AM)
110 percent agreed with OP.
Identity (8/10) is much better than it's vastly overrated sequels especially the 3rd film which is currently #156 in Top250 as that's nothing special. (i liked the 3rd film better than 2nd but considering how praised the 3rd one is it's definitely overrated)
i think some of the problem with the 2nd/3rd is a lot of the action sequences are dulled down a little from that 'shaky cam' stuff or maybe editing to quick from scene to scene during action sequences etc. but either way something is missing from the 2nd/3rd Bourne films.
so personally i think the sequels should have a average rating of no more than the high 6's.
p.s. but for the record Matt Damon's best films are clearly Good Will Hunting/Rounders (both a 9/10) and 'The Departed' (9/10+) if you want to count that but he's not the clear star in The Departed like he is in the other two i listed.
but since people like to compare Bourne to Bond none of the Bourne films can touch Casino Royale (2006 which is a 9/10.
My Vote History
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=11026826 -
koffeenkreame41-1 — 14 years ago(September 12, 2011 07:54 AM)
I preferred the first but the other two weren't that bad. Ultimatum was a great conclusion to the series. Supremacy was awesome and had a great story in it. All three Bourne movies are good enough to stand on their own.
"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna*beep*wit' me!" Hudson in Aliens. -
Gandalf886 — 15 years ago(January 12, 2011 03:24 AM)
I've watched all 3 of the Bourne movies (only once each), and they all seemed to be equal. I never noticed an annoying "shaky cam style" in the 2nd and 3rd one, but now that everyone's mentioned it, I probably will.
-
randyhndrsn — 15 years ago(January 18, 2011 10:25 AM)
They are all good movies, it's why this trilogy is so respected.
Greengrass haters are the only people who don't like the sequels, he is maybe the only director to do the shake came as well done as he does.
Look at quantum of solace, that movie did it poorly and the film overall just didn't work because of the camerawork.
Greengrass is able to get a high level of energy from almost every scene he shoots and it's very kinetic, like how John Woo gives energy with over the top gun fights.
It's the way Greengrass likes to shoot and it works for him, he even got a best director nom for united 93 because of how good he is at doing this.
It is not easy to do it right and he is the master, I love that the sequels are differen't because it keeps them from trying to copy indentity and what made it so good. -
m_antonioni — 15 years ago(February 13, 2011 11:03 PM)
randyhndrsn, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I hate shaky cam as much as anyone, but I'd call the style in the last two Bourne movies an agitated camera rather than a shaky one. (The worst example of a gratuitously shaky camera I ever saw was The Hurt Locker.)
I wouldn't like to see this "kinetic" shooting and editing in every movie, but it certainly works in these two movies (which I've just watched for the second time), and is part of what makes them what they are. Also, they have fairly strong narrative lines and a more coherent plot than your average Bond movie, for example, so it's not correct to say that they're made up of nothing but action scenes.