Bourne Ultimatum


PDA






Spider Pig
August 5, 2007, 07:30 PM
i saw it last night and i really enjoyed it. very entertaining. many guns shown in the movie but i noticed the people in the movie just held their guns in their hands and never really fired their weapons much. not what you would expect when a movie shows so many guns.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bourne Ultimatum" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
XD Fan
August 5, 2007, 07:37 PM
I really had fun watching the first two of the Bourne Trilogy. However, I found myself so annoyed in the first film at the idea that a trained warrior that had multiple unknown threats would discard every gun (for the first 2/3 of the movie) he came across except an old double barrel shotgun.

slewfoot
August 5, 2007, 07:39 PM
What do you expect from Hollywood? Entertainment for the masses.

boredelmo
August 5, 2007, 07:40 PM
Spider Pig, Spider Pig, does whatever a Spider pig does.

Chupacabra
August 5, 2007, 08:02 PM
I saw this today. It was good. Better than the second film, but not as good as the first. There wasn't much gun play, but the chase scenes are really well done.

There was a huge continuity error at the end. Bourne's Glock magically transforms into a Sig half-way through a scene. :uhoh:

Autolycus
August 5, 2007, 08:17 PM
Well a Glock-Sig is interesting. Any HK pistols? And please no spoilers!!!

Rotty
August 5, 2007, 08:28 PM
anyone notice in different scenes especially at the end, when he had the gun to the head of the bad guy, it kept switching from one scene to the other between a glock and a sig pro?

Winter Borne
August 5, 2007, 08:32 PM
XD, He was a traind warrior, but he forgot, and had no idea that we was trained. He had no idea what he was facing when he left the gun in the safety deposit box, or discarded the police officers weapon. NO I am not a Bourne freak either, I just happened to see the first two this weekend in prep for the third.

mk

Chupacabra
August 5, 2007, 09:42 PM
Any HK pistols?

Yes! One of the "Assets" uses a suppressed USP. :evil:

Sage of Seattle
August 5, 2007, 09:48 PM
anyone notice in different scenes especially at the end, when he had the gun to the head of the bad guy, it kept switching from one scene to the other between a glock and a sig pro?

The end scene was when he was having a flashback of when he first became Jason Bourne -- hence the two different handguns.

I really enjoyed the first two movies and I'm glad they produced the third and "final" one, though it was just too darn trite for me. Everything was resolved too nicely.

I still liked the overall level of "thinking man's spycraft" as opposed to the standard James Bondian gadget for everything kind of spycraft. What can I say -- I love the idea of outwitting all these badguys instead of relying solely on a supercar to get out of trouble.

Ithaca37
August 5, 2007, 09:55 PM
trained warrior that had multiple unknown threats would discard every gun (for the first 2/3 of the movie) he came across except an old double barrel shotgun.

He is not a warrior, but an assassin (big difference between the two: one operates in a team environment to fight wars while the others silently eliminates a specific target with precision). Also, he discarded his guns because he was not looking to fight and kill people, he just wanted to be left alone since he didn't know who he was or what he was.

Remander
August 5, 2007, 09:58 PM
I enjoyed the "spider pig" movie on Saturday and Bourne on Sunday.

Both were very enjoyable.

Bourne starts fast and never slows down. I did get annoyed, however, with that "jerky" camera style that is so popular now. Many fights and car or motorcycle stunts were wasted because the "moving around" camera prevented me from really being able to view them clearly.

Spider Pig kicks ass.

vis--vis
August 6, 2007, 12:12 AM
Saw it tonight and really enjoyed it.

Xenia
August 6, 2007, 12:23 AM
I want to see "Die Hard" before I see this one but can't wait. I really enjoyed the first two movies.

psyopspec
August 6, 2007, 12:46 AM
The end scene was when he was having a flashback of when he first became Jason Bourne -- hence the two different handguns.

That's seperate. In the scene that takes place in the present, the gun does change between shots.

Glad I'm not the only one who thought a good script with decent actors and action was completely wasted by the shaky direction/cinematography.

Texshooter
August 6, 2007, 12:50 AM
Without apology, I can say Joan Allen does it for me:)

For sure saw an XD, SigPro (big time) just like in the previous movies, Glock, HK.

Fun movie, but this directors style can get to the eyeballs of us mature folks, especially 10 rows from the screen.

camslam
August 6, 2007, 01:24 AM
The movie absolutely rocked. Especially the tie in to the 2nd movie without giving anything away.

I need to get my hands on that sniper rifle the "asset" was using. Pretty sweet!

Spider Pig
August 6, 2007, 02:00 AM
was the sig at the very beginning of the movie when he broke into a clinic? i saw the "bad guys" use a USP or HK.

alex_trebek
August 6, 2007, 12:02 PM
There was a huge continuity error at the end. Bourne's Glock magically transforms into a Sig half-way through a scene.

I noticed this as well, although since i couldnt identify the sig for sure, i thought my mind might of been playing tricks on me.

Whatsit
August 6, 2007, 12:12 PM
>> Spider Pig, Spider Pig, does whatever a Spider pig does.

he's not spider pig anymore; he's Harry Plopper!

Lightsped
August 7, 2007, 05:09 PM
The Glock changing into a Sig at the end kind of messed the movie up for me. I mean, that is an error that there is no excuse for.

Was the suppressed gun that the "asset" used a H&K? It kind of looked like a CZ to me.....

How about the suppressed rifle that the sniper used in the beginning in the Waterloo Underground station in London. What kind of rifle was that?

cmidkiff
August 7, 2007, 06:21 PM
Ugghh Fair warning, you poked a hornet's nest with this one... Rant coming...

Has anyone read Robert Ludlum's books? I'm not sure where they got the story for these movies, but it's sure as heck wasn't from the books!

The only commonality between the two story lines is that there is a guy who lost his memory, and has skills that would make James Bond jealous.

Marie is supposed to be a well respected, middle aged Canadian banker, Bourne marries her, and, oh yeah... SHE DOESN'T DIE! Jason Bourne lost a wife and kids during the Viet-nam war... it's a tough sell that he's only 30 years old. Conklin and Abbot are _not_ the bad guys. Bourne isn't really an assassin, he's an undercover agent posing as an assassin in order to draw out Carlos the Jackal, who is the real bad guy from all three novels, and ISN'T EVEN MENTIONED! The movie line that the US is deploying dedicated assassins across the globe is _not_ in the books. Most of the second book takes place in Hong Kong, the third nearly all happens in Paris... It's just not the same story!:cuss:

It's not possible at this point that 'Ultimatum' follows the story at all, since they've already killed off most of the main characters!:banghead:

While the first two movies were kinda fun to watch (I haven't seen the 3rd one yet), they shouldn't have used those titles. If they had changed a few of the characters names, and removed the vague references to 'treadstone', nobody would have recognized the story, and the Bourne series of books could perhaps have one day come to the screen in some sort of coherent fashion. It's a travesty, what they have done to this wonderful series of novels. :(

MaterDei
August 7, 2007, 06:30 PM
Since when are the movies EVER exactly like the book?

I've read the Bourne trilogy and agree that the book story line is more interesting than the movie, but isn't that always the case? Carlos the Jackal, the Monsignor from Paris!, was awesome when he totally lost his cool at the end of Ultimatum.

I'm glad to hear the the 3rd movie is better than the second because I thought the third book was by far the worst.

yhtomit
August 7, 2007, 06:43 PM
I really like the movies, though the connection to the books makes the Ian Fleming connection to Timothy Dalton seem like a really close one :)

And Matt Damon is well-cast as the lead *in the films* -- since the films aren't trying for much connection to the books ;)

timothy

Eyesac
August 7, 2007, 06:59 PM
crap I better watch these...

MaterDei
August 7, 2007, 07:21 PM
In the book, Bourne is 50 years old!

Bazooka Joe71
August 7, 2007, 07:31 PM
Just had a quick question. I am going to see ultimatum tonight, and I watched Identity, but I can't find my copy of supremacy...Identity was awesome and supremacy was a little better than mediocre...Do I need to watch supremacy again before I see ultimatum? Or does it even matter.

Brian Williams
August 7, 2007, 07:36 PM
Movies 1 and 2 sucked. I liked the books enough to have read them each 3 or 4 times. Since the movies do not follow the story line I do not watch them, like Starship Troopers

nomadboi
August 7, 2007, 08:19 PM
cmidkiff I feel your pain- I felt the same way about John Carpenter's "Vampire$", which only stayed remotely true to John Steakly's book for about the first five minutes, then had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Also agreed about the shakey editing- hated it in the second movie, although it was less annoying on DVD than it was on the big screen.

Might be of interest, ganked from an indie film board I'm on:
Interview with Damon (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20049809,00.html)

"...the script was being written on the fly (when there even was a script) while the crew was hopscotching across three continents. ''There was an aimlessness to the process,'' says Damon. ''It was miserable.'' Then, there's the fact that all of this aimless misery lasted for nearly a year, an eternity in moviemaking time nowadays. And the fact that they didn't wrap until weeks before Ultimatum was due to open."

[Damon] "There were days when we would find ourselves in the middle of a scene and realize ''This isn't in the movie!'' The great thing is, when Bourne scenes don't work, they really don't work. I did so many awful scenes that never made it into the film ... it was harder work than I've ever done because it was so unrewarding. There's a buzz you get when it's working, and we didn't really have that ... There were days of fun on Bourne, but a lot of it was gallows humor ... In any given scene I didn't know where I'd just come from or where I was going. Which, as an actor, you kind of need! And Paul's only direction was ''Butch-er and more intense!'' Finally I was like, ''If you give me the f---ing 'butch-er and more intense' note one more time, I'm gonna kick your ass!'' It's incredible that we've been able to pull the rabbit out of the hat three times."

LiquidTension
August 7, 2007, 08:33 PM
I can live with the fact that they didn't follow the book story lines. It was a good movie regardless. The fight scenes were more coherent than in the second movie as well. And Julia Stiles is hot.

NeoSpud
August 7, 2007, 09:19 PM
Bourne starts fast and never slows down. I did get annoyed, however, with that "jerky" camera style that is so popular now. Many fights and car or motorcycle stunts were wasted because the "moving around" camera prevented me from really being able to view them clearly.

YES! That annoys the heck outta me! I thought that Transformers suffered as well (the best shots were almost all right before a fight started... once it became close quarters, it was just a CGI blur). I really wish that we'd get fewer epileptic cameramen/directors in Hollywood.

After the latest die hard (which was so awful it made Ewe Boll's House of the Dead look like Saving Private Ryan in comparison), I was so glad to see this movie. I loved the first one, thought the second was OK, and this was a good finale. It's still too soon for me to really judge it as a movie (I'll need to see it one or two more times, I suppose), but I did walk out of the theater happy. And isn't that what's most important, from the consumer angle?

10-Ring
August 7, 2007, 09:22 PM
I liked the movie, but I didn't care much for the 'blair witch' camera technique :scrutiny:

MillerTimeLV
August 7, 2007, 09:26 PM
I haven't seen it yet, but keep hearing how good it was. I have to agree on the nuisance of the new camera filming style though! It's like I want to keep pressing rewind or pausing fight scenes and what not to actually take it all in!!

jad0110
August 7, 2007, 09:38 PM
Saw the first two, haven't seen the 3rd.

Was the herky/jerky camera crap in the third movie as bad as the second?

I ask because the incessant camera movement in Bourne Supremacy literally made me hurl ... and not a day earlier I was feeling proud of myself for not puking in so long. Gawd that PISSED ME OFF :fire: !!!

Not to mention I couldn't eat Papa Johns pizza for months :banghead:.

Kentucky
August 7, 2007, 09:57 PM
I thought the movie was great, I am a big fan of the Bourne series. I too own the books, but IMO it is a very good thing that the movie doesnt follow the books that closely. The books were too wrapped up in Bournes head, the movies would have been tear-jerkers if they had stuck with that. I too like the "thinking mans" spy, the movie Bourne is very resourceful instead of depending on gadgets.

For those with an interest and background in hand-to-hand I think there was a lot more be interested in that for gun nuts. The bathroom fight scene was one of the best movie fights I have ever seen.

hrgrisso
August 7, 2007, 10:03 PM
I liked the movies as seperate entities from the books. Liked the books too.

Now my biggest complaint about the first was his dropping every gun he came across! The excuse that he's an Assassin and not a warrior is crap. The excuse that he's got amnesia is CRAP! He got shot in the back repeatedly, and the scene in the Cafe where he talks about how he knows where to find guns etc. BUT DOESN'T ACTUALLY GET ONE?!?!

As to the killing of Marie, you don't kill Franke Potente! GRRR. But that's a hollyweird cliche of filmaking. You can't have an interesting cool killer/action dude if he's got a loving wife at home. Robert Ludlum's Bourne was conflicted but hardly the strained, melancholy of the film version.

As to those of you so upset about the movies, don't sweat it, there was already a movie version (made for TV) a few decades ago. Give it time and someone may revisit the books. In fact upgrading them to Iraq instead of Vietname without being political the way the books were would be pretty cool. But what are the odds of that happening. :cuss:

XD Fan
August 7, 2007, 10:07 PM
hrgrisso, I am glad that I am not alone in the dropping-the-gun criticism.

db_tanker
August 7, 2007, 10:11 PM
Back on to the book topic...


in the Bourne Supremacy, when he is I am guessing in the arms dealers warehouse in Kowloon, he gets an auto pistol with the same power as a .357 Mag but is never specific in the caliber/weapon that I know of...has anyone figured out the pistol/caliber?

I was thinking perhaps a 10mm...but it could also be a 9x25 perhaps...


(trying to keep it on guns here....)


Also, on topic with the movie....what specifically WAS the rifle used by the "asset" in the hit on the reporter-man? Anyone know?


D

helpless
August 12, 2007, 03:40 AM
anyone notice in different scenes especially at the end, when he had the gun to the head of the bad guy, it kept switching from one scene to the other between a glock and a sig pro?

Saw this tonight and Laughed out loud at this switch o change o.

It was not the flash back it was a total mistake.

REst of the movie was ok. Better then the second not as good as the first, imo

psyopspec
August 12, 2007, 03:38 PM
Was the herky/jerky camera crap in the third movie as bad as the second?

Worse. Had I not made two visits to the popcorn stand, I likely would have become physically ill.

Also, on topic with the movie....what specifically WAS the rifle used by the "asset" in the hit on the reporter-man? Anyone know?

In my estimation, scoped Sig 556.

ConfuseUs
August 12, 2007, 04:22 PM
As far as Bourne discarding guns all the time, if you look at it from the perspective that Bourne is a covert assassin who operates deep undercover it makes some sense that he doesn't routinely carry a weapon. Getting caught with a weapon by the police forces in a foreign country could establish a chain of evidence that would eventually blow his cover and then blow the cover of the operation. So I wasn't too surprised by that.

And I really do wish that the Hollywood directors would put camera tripods back in the budgets. That jerky motion doesn't scream "edgy technique" it screams "I am not a professional!" :barf:

RPCVYemen
August 12, 2007, 04:26 PM
I may be in the minority on THR - but I really thought that the hand camera added quite a bit to the edgy intensity of the film. I liked that effect pretty much in the 2nd, and I really, really liked it in the 3rd.

Matt Damon joked about the camera on Jon Stewart,. He said, "Yeah of the critics said, 'Can someone buy Greengrass [the director] a f***ing Steady-Cam?"

Mike

redneck2
August 12, 2007, 04:40 PM
I guess the jerky camera thing started big time with Hill Street Blues. Made it look realistic. In this one, the camera jerks around so bad that it's about impossible to follow the action at times. One guy trying to out do the the other, but IMO they took it too far.

In any event, my wife and I will have all three on DVD when they come out.

If you haven't seen it yet, I'd suggest sitting toward the back of the theater. During the "jerky" scenes I suspect it would lessen the effect.

Tman
August 12, 2007, 05:04 PM
I've enjoyed all three Bourne movies. However, that Shaky-cam technique made me nauseated during the second movie, didn't realize why until I got the DVD and saw how much shaking was going on. For the Bourne Ultimatum, I was on the look out for it and was mentally prepared for it, didn't get quesy and was able to enjoy the movie. Wish they would use less of that shaky cam stuff.:barf:

Geronimo45
August 12, 2007, 05:10 PM
in the Bourne Supremacy, when he is I am guessing in the arms dealers warehouse in Kowloon, he gets an auto pistol with the same power as a .357 Mag but is never specific in the caliber/weapon that I know of...has anyone figured out the pistol/caliber?

I was thinking perhaps a 10mm...but it could also be a 9x25 perhaps...
Possibly .357 Sig.

another okie
August 12, 2007, 05:35 PM
I agree the third novel is the worst - I couldn't finish it. I haven't seen the third movie yet.

As far as not much shooting and Bourne discarding weapons - that's the plot. He doesn't want to kill anyone anymore. He's a different person after waking up.

Radjxf
August 16, 2007, 12:23 PM
I'll assume the "jerky camera" is to make the fight scenes look more "sped up", since in real life you know this little dude can't fight his way out of a wet paper sack with a big hole in it.
Saw some Sigs--liked that!
Last decent (and that's a stretch) "gunplay" movie I recall was Collateral with Tom Cruise.
Not to go off on a tangent, but does anyone know if Matt Damon is anti-gun as are most hollywood actors?

ConfuseUs
August 16, 2007, 01:24 PM
I agree the third novel is the worst - I couldn't finish it. I haven't seen the third movie yet.


The Bourne series is the only instance I know of where the movie is better than the book. Even when they basically threw the book out the window (good riddance) and went off into the wild blue yonder.

silverlance
August 16, 2007, 01:31 PM
you guys do know that robert ludlum is the same guy who writes all those necrospeaker vampire novels, right? he's in the same circles as (ugh) anne rice, but with (thankfully) no homoerotic cannabalistic incestous undertones.

ConfuseUs
August 16, 2007, 02:37 PM
I don't read vampire novels. Keeps me safe from Anne Rice's demons. :barf:

If you enjoyed reading about "Bourne Ultimatum" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!