'Identity' is the only stand out movie
-
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. -
adamseven7 — 15 years ago(December 26, 2010 12:46 PM)
damn, i just watched the first (identity) as was suprised that i hadnt watched such a well regarded trilogy by now, first time i saw this was tonight, i wasnt overly enamoured with it, maybe partly due to the seemingly glowing reviews, it was not bad but just a bit underwhelming
and was assuming that 2 and 3 somehow built on this and improved and expanded the story, making, as an overview, the trilogy something more grandeur, but reading this i am seeing people saying identity is the best, doh!
oh well, will definitely watch the others, maybe its a marmite trilogy, who knows
H
is pronounced
Aitch
NOT
Haitch
! -
Lucy9596 — 14 years ago(August 15, 2011 03:20 AM)
I like the first one the most but I'm glad they didn't stop after that. Maybe if the director hadn't changed they would be better though.
I don't like that shaky camera work or whatever you want to call it. One post says agitated I believe.
I rather see the guys act than the camera. That may seem boring but I like to watch the people, stunts, fights, etc. not some split-seconds of it. I'm getting seasick watching this.
The trilogy is good, I stayed with it because I was interested in the character of course. Spoiler question:
Is Marie getting killed that soon in part two in the book as well? I am aware that the character was quite different.
"Don't you dare bad-mouth Star Wars, that was all accurate!"
Terry Hoitz, The Other Guys -
hnt_dnl — 13 years ago(August 08, 2012 08:56 PM)
Agreed. This film is outstanding and it's in my top 10 movies of the decade. The 2nd movie had a dull plot and all that shaky cam motion. The 3rd was good, but was all about action and little about character.