|
I thought the previous two Jason Bourne movies were pretty good, but nothing fantastic, but this one is probably the best of the trilogy. It isn't the best spy thriller I've seen, but it's the best one to come out in years. The plot is a rehash of the other two, Bourne still has some secrets (shown by flashbacks) that he needs to unravel meanwhile a crazy CIA director wants him dead, and chases him across Madrid, Turin, Morocco, and eventually New York City to do it. Matt Damon is fantastic in this movie and stays true to the Jason Bourne built up in the first two films. The "sensible bad guy" who wants to talk to Bourne instead of kill him and the "Bourne girl who helps him once, then gets her life saved before dying her hair and running off" round out the cast. The only character who seemed out of place was the CIA director who goes into a laughable "THIS IS A NATIONAL SECURITY BREACH TOP PRIORITY CLEARANCE LEVEL FOUR GIVE ALL ASSETTS KILL ORDERS NOW" spiel each time he's at the helm. The espionage scenes really draw you in, and probably are the best of the series. The fights and car chases are also top notch, but there is one thing that held all of the action back, and that was the camera. Maybe it's because I didn't see the other two movies on the big screen, but the camera shook, juked, and rumbled around so much that I had a headache by the end of the film. The fights, while excellent, took a lot of concentration to see, and the car chases were equally confusing. This was the major thing holding the movie back Pros: Great car chases, fights, and espionage scenes Cons: That goddamned seizure-prone cameraman Bottom Line: A fun movie if you have seven bucks and a bottle of aspirin 3.5/5
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2007 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
I liked the first two movies well enough, and insofar as the plot is concerned I think this one did them justice and tied up loose ends nicely. I do have one MAJOR gripe with the movie though. It's got the worst photography I've ever seen. Ever. In my entire life. I have NEVER seen a movie with more shakeycam. Every single drat shot was handheld and shaking like hell, and I mean even the DIALOUGE scenes. The action sequences, which otherwise might have been spectacular, were absolutely RUINED by a camera shaking so much that you can't see poo poo. Shakeycam is appropriate at some times, but this was absolutely insane. Even establishing shots of cities were done with shakeycam. At one point someone behind me complained loudly that the movie was making her dizzy, and I couldnt blame her. Maybe this stuff bothers me more than others, but I feel that it totally ruined the movie for me. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2007 17:05
|
|
|
None of the movies are great by themselves, but when you put all of them together they just seem to flow very nicely, No need for plot devices or Deus Ex machinas, the actions scenes were great and i never felt bored for a minute. I think this makes a good ending for the series and i hope they don't do another one. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2007 04:45
|
|
|
The camerawork in this one was fantastic. Less shakiness than the second one, you can definitely tell what's going on in the action now. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2007 07:48
|
|
|
Just to get the obvious out of the way: the "shaky-cam" gimmick of using handheld cameras to film EVERY loving THING, including scenes with people not actually doing anything active, was badly overused in this movie. It isn't quite as epileptic as the last Bourne movie, but watching the camera vibrate when you just have two people standing someplace talking in the scene is just idiotic. That said, I found it a lot more fun than the previous Bourne movie. In one sense it is just more of the same stuff - spy-on-spy action with plot twists and double/triple/quadruple/who knows what the gently caress-crosses galore. But it is better paced and just more fun to watch this time around, and the action scenes are more exciting and interesting. There is even a little bit of humor here and there to keep the whole thing from becoming too grim. 4/5. Probably the best of the series, certainly better than the last one. Give the DP decaf and it would have been a 5/5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2007 14:49
|
|
|
For some reason I've really enjoyed this series. They were never really original, but they didn't try to be something they are not are were great if you just wanted to see a good chase movie with a solid yet "human" main character. I agree with the consensus that the second was a retarded orgy of handheld seizure shots. The third is an improvement, but not a huge one. It still way over uses handhelds (see the otherwise excellent assassin, martial arts fight scene) but at least it is more coherent. The story is consistent with the first two and does answer the handful of questions and tie up the series to a nice clean ending. All in all, the movie was just plain fun with plenty of quality action and delivered all it needed to. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2007 07:44
|
|
|
I am pretty lucky in that I am almost completely unaffected by shaky-cam, and after noticing that they used it in every scene I was able to ignore it the rest of the movie. What I liked most is that the character's actions seemed logical. When they needed to find someone they would go to the last place they met and then follow a trail instead of mindlessly running. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2007 23:13
|
|
|
Brilliantly shot, with a great cast and superb sense of dread and suspense. Shakeycam doesn't seem to affect me, because I hardly noticed it, and the movie managed to draw me in regardless. The Waterloo scene, the Tangiers scene and the New York scenes really stood out to me as some of the best action scenes of the genre, never mind the trilogy. Watching all of them through, Matt Damon has really shined as the 'assassin without a memory', and I think this may be his defining series. 5/5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2007 23:22
|
|
|
I felt like I wanted to throw up for most of the movie. The way Bourne thinks on his feet is pretty cool, but beyond that the movie seemed to have almost no plot. The books, as usual, were way better. A lot of the film just wasn't explained very well. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2007 06:27
|
|
|
The shaky cam thing is true. I literally didn't know what the gently caress was happening the entire last car chase scene. The story also dragged in this one. When the story is moving along it's a good one, but it's too frequently slowed down by things like a 30 minute chase scene through Morocco. Not nearly as good as either of the first two, but at least it brings closure to the series. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2007 19:15
|
|
|
I loved this movie and I especially like the way it was staged and shot. The language of cinema is changing - keep up. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2007 06:08
|
|
|
Oh Dear God No posted:The language of cinema is changing - keep up. If you can't conceptualize better action scenes without the need for more shaky cam, then there's nothing new to offer. The Bourne Ultimatum is the weakest of the three Bourne movies. The story follows the same outline as the first two movies. It has the same action sequences without any real deviation. The events and twists unfold in a more unrealistic manner than ever before, even when you've already suspended disbelief. The back story has been reduced to a single, simple conspiracy. Even the soundtrack is exactly the same as before. In general, it feels like the filmmakers were not trying to go beyond what they had accomplished, but instead wanted to keep it very, very safe. It's an enjoyable watch, just not a great movie. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2007 13:27
|
|
|
I really liked the movie, and Matt Daemon is great actor. The movie had a great story and aciton that could be possible, unlike some movies. I prefered it to the other bourne films aswell. Overall 4/5 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2007 00:12
|
|
|
r2tincan posted:The camerawork in this one was fantastic. Less shakiness than the second one, you can definitely tell what's going on in the action now. That's good to know. I hate the shaky-ness of the 2nd one. I'll definitely go see this now. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2007 06:48
|
|
|
The Relentless posted:That's good to know. I hate the shaky-ness of the 2nd one. I'll definitely go see this now. Thanks. No, it's not true at all. This movie was one big shaky cam chase scene, I don't understand why it is so highly rated. Definitely the worst of the three movies. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2007 19:06
|
|
|
Shakeycam is back, since they didn't learn loving poo poo from the last movie. It isn't quite as bad as the second film, but that's like saying four bullets to the face isn't as lethal as five bullets to the face. It basically ruins the movie which isn't terribly strong to begin with, and while somewhat entertaining it's simply not fun to watch. Both the director and the DP should be executed for this film. If you want to see a Bourne film, watch the first one and be done with it. This is just pathetic. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2008 03:49
|
|
|
The shakey cam is not too bad at all, not as bad the second one, but enough to keep the feeling of hectic ation that I liked from the previous films. The shakeycam is unpopular amongst many people, personally I like it and feel it adds to the movie. This is the best of the three. I tend to dislike movies which are very different from the books, but in this case the absence of Marie helps. She was badly written in the previous films, sadly, and this film is much better for not having her involved. For the most part an excellent film. Pros: Good fast camera work Better than the first 2 movies Same great action and car sequences Cons: It bugs me how bourne seems to recover from injuries too fast The way the CIA act seems overly contrived, why not leave bourne alone? (yes, I know, no movie if that happened) 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2008 23:02
|
|
|
Review taken from my site: “The Bourne Ultimatum” is the last film, at least for now, in the Bourne trilogy, the hectic high speed spy action franchise that instantly antiquated the pre-Daniel Craig Bond series. The Bourne movies are lean and efficient, cutting the Cold War window dressing and excessive bloat of the spy movie genre in favor of tightly woven action sequences. The old exposition heavy plots of the espionage thriller became extended chase sequences and a breakneck narrative style was created, one that jumped from Paris to London to Virginia with nary a moment of pause. In the first film, Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) was discovered floating in the Mediterranean with amnesia and an army of killers on his trail. As the film progressed, he recovered enough memories to figure out he was a black ops CIA experiment gone awry and found the time to develop a romance with fellow traveler Franka Potente. The efforts of various parties, including the CIA and Russian intelligence, to take Bourne down ended with her death at the opening of the second Bourne movie, leading Bourne to hunt down both American spooks in Berlin and ex-KGB in Moscow to exact revenge against his old bosses and his girlfriend’s killers. In “Ultimatum,” Bourne has recovered some earlier memories, these of torture (waterboarding) and reprogramming at the hands of another, even more sinister CIA officer, Albert Hirsch (a greasy Albert Finney). This revelation compels him to confront the CIA directly, including the man in charge of taking him down, Noah Vosen (David Strathairn playing the thankless role of incompetent authority figure). The film follows the established globetrotting formula with a slew of violent confrontations in London, Madrid, Tangier, and New York City. The action is still fast paced and kinetic. Paul Greengrass’s methods- constantly moving handheld camera, rapid fire cuts, and splintered takes- confused a lot of critics and audiences in the last film, but I suspect they’ll see the method in the madness this time out, having had time to assimilate the style, which draws on Greengrass’s docudrama “you’re there” style to place you directly into the action. The style is expertly employed in an intense early scene in Waterloo Station, London, where Bourne must escort a Guardian reporter to safety in a crowd while the CIA tracks their movements with security cameras and assassins stalk the terminal- I somehow doubt the CIA is quite that wired even in these excessively connected times, but from a pure film making standpoint, the scene has a paranoid immediacy, taking place in both NYC and London but feeling impossibly claustrophobic. Greengrass employs the same tactics throughout the film, though even his style begins to wear thin by time we get to the third act and we’ve had our fill of car chases and beatdowns. Matt Damon’s performance is what holds all the absurd action together, and he plays his cards close to his chest this time out, with darkened downcast eyes and scarcely a smile or frown. In the first film, Bourne was lost and confused, startled to discover killing reflexes and frightened by forces that seemed perilously arbitrary- there’s a certain gee-whiz quality in Damon’s performance in that film. In the second, Bourne is sad, angry, and revenge minded- he’s aggressive but grounded by tragedy. Here, he’s driven by single-minded determination to find out who he once was with no time for love or regret. Damon is able to do a lot with a little, and somehow drives the whole film with nothing so much as an expression of aloof resolve; he’s one of the few stars working who can completely disappear into a role. Inside the CIA, Bourne has a few allies. Joan Allen reprises her role as Deputy Director Pam Landy, an incorruptible force within the agency who would like Bourne to be brought in with minimal bloodshed. She tries to assist Bourne within the agency and tangles her antlers with the violence inclined Vosen, who has a more Bondian view of espionage. Julia Stiles also returns as the deer-in-headlights field agent Nicky Parsons, who may or may not have had some kind of deeper affection for Bourne in the past. As always, the cast is formidable and thankless. As Bourne movies go, this is probably my least favorite, since it lacks both the novel conceit of the “Bourne Identity” (superhuman amnesiac), and the emotional oomph of “The Bourne Supremacy.” “Supremacy” was an action film that moved me with its underlying humanity. Despite being about a killing machine, it was strangely touching, a revenge film that ultimately showed why revenge doesn’t work. “Ultimatum” is fine for what it is, a sleek action movie with an existential trajectory, but the series is moving away from the pastures of invention into the ghettos of formula. What was once new isn’t so new anymore. The Politics of Bourne A lot of film critics, particularly in the indie rag circuit, have championed the film’s progressive politics. Of course, any action film that effectively combines humane politics with smashing entertainment is of considerable interest to film fans on the left. Perhaps the most heartening development of the series is the move away from the world of Bond clichés: the spy as world class playboy who spends much of his time burning Her Majesty’s tax dollars on roulette tables and fast women. This spy was more or less retired by the last Bond, Bronsan, in subversive films like “The Tailor of Panama,” where the MI6 is portrayed as hopelessly corrupt and corner cutting, and the spy little more than a womanizing conman. Bourne doesn’t really reflect the reality of spies so much as the often well founded paranoia surrounding intelligence agencies, the sense that many have that spies are less about protecting our national interests than they are about violating our rights. The scene at Waterloo Station thrives on that paranoia by showing how easy it would be for the state to abuse the ubiquitous security cameras in London for nefarious purposes. Bourne is a center-left superhero, an unstoppable maiming machine that reads the Guardian and sticks it to the man, a much needed antidote to the unquestioning moral simplicity of the James Bond universe where MI6 and the CIA devote their time to taking down evil doers as opposed to, say, foreign governments. We’re certainly living in paranoid times, like those Manchurian days leading into the late 1960s, when we find ourselves rooting for a hero who attacks the US government directly, if only to ask existential questions or exact revenge. But the Bourne movies are far from radical, since it’s never the United States or the government at large that is to blame for Bourne’s misfortunes, but dangerous black ops operating illegally within the darkened corridors of the CIA. Joan Allen’s character represents what Americans want to believe about their national character: “the bad guys are an isolated cadre within the government, and if the good guys can bring their activities to light, things will return to normal,” as if the CIA was ever a normal agency using legal methods. Whether you’re for or against the CIA’s activities, I think we can all agree that they’ve never dealt with conventional threats in conventional ways- they’re not paid for oversight after all, but for the dirty work that makes the vast wealth and power of the United States possible. I have no doubt that if some rogue agent like Bourne uncovered a blackbriar like operation there would be public outrage- well, on the left. But I can also imagine the CIA and our sitting president dismissing the accusations with a wave of their hand and Fox News calling for Bourne’s arrest as a traitor, followed by public amnesia a year later. Ultimately, the films are a left-liberal fantasy, unimpeachably moral but also naively idealistic about the possibility of change within the system or the localized nature of the problem. But this is just a lot of talk. In the end, we watch the Bourne movies for their tough hand to hand combat scenes, technically insane car and foot chases, exotic locales, and for the inward looking Bourne, who covers vast mental as well as physical space as he comes to know and understand himself. They’re a lot of fun. Now we just have to pray that Hollywood black ops close the Bourne file before the enterprise runs aground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2008 08:40
|
|
|
I feel bad for people who, for whatever reason, do not like the camera work in this film. I think it adds tremendously to the pacing and intensity in the film, with just as much suspense and espionage as action. It reminded me of 24, with multiple plot lines parallel edited together, intense action, heart pounding music, lightning fast editing, and almost unbearable suspense at times. The casting is flawless. One of the best spy movies ever made. 5/5 SkoubyDoo fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Jan 23, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2008 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
I've liked the Bourne films as a whole, and this one was a real nice cap to that. The shakycam in this seemed more reasonable than in past films - the standout to me is the hand-to-hand fight in the apartment in Supremacy. What got me about the film was that 45 minutes had passed before I thought about checking the time. The ending just happens - it flows and it entertains and it lets up only so you can catch your breath for a minute. I like how the last scene in Supremacy occurs halfway through Ultimatum. You get the impression that Bourne has been very busy - it wasn't just an escape from the bad guys dovetailed with a call to Landy. There's something about Ultimatum that prevents me from giving it 5 stars, but I did enjoy it very much. Great film. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2008 20:52
|
|
