Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Bourne Ultimatum

expecting a DVD SCR TS any hour soon. :D

*suspects firkles raped my RS so no Sunshine fer me this evenin'. :mad:

I watched The Fast and the Furious for the first time last night...will watch the other this eve...you people really want to pay for this shit?! :(

Give me Gingersnaps(any of them) any days.:cool:



e2a in answer to the OP proper ::: the first was intense and felt original...the second held so much promise but became tired and predictable within minutes(well seconds after a couple of events)...here's hoping the 3rd doesn't leave as much of a bad taste and feelings of sympathy for those involved in the production.
 
kyser_soze said:
Exactly. Even those deeply tedious/moving arthouse character studies that have a depressed man, his depressed wife and extremey depressed mother in law, shot using a single mobile phone camera in a kitchen in a Stalinist East Berlin tower block having some appalling tragedy (i dunno - m-i-l threw their newborn off the balcony and because he loves his wife they've pretended it hasn't happened and are sat in the kitchen waiting for the police to arrive)...even those films should be seen on a cinema screen cos altho there isn't the action/adventure/fx part of the art of cinema is projecting onto a giant screen so as to make WSoD a lot easier because your visual (and lately audio) senses are overwhelmed by what's on screen that you accept what's in front of you as real life.

Which is also why someone who tells me a film's shit who'd only watched it on a laptop, downloaded from some poorly recorded camcorder in a cinema, I asy to them 'pshaw'
Do you not feel, though, that maybe great storytelling doesn't need to be supported by enormous screens and loud soundtracks?
Is there not even a little bit of you that would be content to read a book, say?
Where what overwhelms one is not the sensory experience but the emotional, internal experience generated by the characters, their interactions and the events depicted?
Is there no room for flexibility?
And also, does not having an overwhelming sensory experience allow films that are absolute shite (e.g. Independence Day, new Star Wars, Matrices 2 & 3) to misleadingly impress audiences, even though they deserve nothing more than to be buried forever?
If a film is only "good" because it's loud and bright and fast, then what role does plot play?
It's the fallacy of the summer blockbuster, make it attention-grabbing and you'll make money, it doesn't necessarily make a good film.

I'd agree that watching low-quality rips of films on a tiny screen with tinny speakers is a lesser experience. But I feel your over-rating the cinematic experience itself to the detriment of all else that is important.
</off topic rantage>
 
llantwit said:
What the fuck for?

because at the moment you can't g et a tv screen as big as a cinema screen and these sort of films cry out to be seen on the big screen
 
Do you not feel, though, that maybe great storytelling doesn't need to be supported by enormous screens and loud soundtracks?
...

Course I do - it's called 'The Wire', and of course I read books. Even the greatest cinematic stories, with the greatest characterisation and plotting are artistically better when seen on the big screen because that's the medium they are created in and for. Take 2001 - great film generally but watched in a cinema on 70mm it becomes far more. Ever seen Hitchcock on a big screen, or Citizen Kane? Seeing the latter on a private 50ft screen utterly altered my perception of the film.

So what you said is correct...to an extent. What you say about Independence Day and it's ilk...so what? They're the cinematic equivalent of getting on the Nemesis ride at Alton Towers and taking your brain out of gear. Do I prefer action adventure movies with a little bit of brain? Of course - which is why the Die Hard, Bourne and Terminator films stand out so much - but I don't have some inbuilt aversion to popcorn cinema, anymore that I have an aversion to other forms of low culture.
 
Orang Utan said:
How about going to the cinema to see it and paying for it?
:mad:

Love to, but..........
Primary carer.
Full time job.
MS.

Would willingly pay.
I remember record companies screaming about cassettes in the 70's. Killing music!!!!!!!!!!
The suits are not and never have been up to speed on technology .
If they would get off their asses and realise that they really need to provide the product delivered in the way that the customer requires.
I want to pay, but I don't want to wait.

Felt that I needed to justify myself.
sorry ;)
 
perplexis said:
Do you not feel, though, that maybe great storytelling doesn't need to be supported by enormous screens and loud soundtracks?
Is there not even a little bit of you that would be content to read a book, say?
Where what overwhelms one is not the sensory experience but the emotional, internal experience generated by the characters, their interactions and the events depicted?
Is there no room for flexibility?
And also, does not having an overwhelming sensory experience allow films that are absolute shite (e.g. Independence Day, new Star Wars, Matrices 2 & 3) to misleadingly impress audiences, even though they deserve nothing more than to be buried forever?
If a film is only "good" because it's loud and bright and fast, then what role does plot play?
It's the fallacy of the summer blockbuster, make it attention-grabbing and you'll make money, it doesn't necessarily make a good film.

I'd agree that watching low-quality rips of films on a tiny screen with tinny speakers is a lesser experience. But I feel your over-rating the cinematic experience itself to the detriment of all else that is important.
</off topic rantage>

For me film isn't a literary medium, but a visual one and all the best films tell their story in visual terms, so a bad presentation doesn't do a good film justice. This also doesn't mean "loud, bright, fast" it means great cinematography, compostion, design and editing. I'm talking Alfred Hitchcock, Michelangelo Antonioni, Terrence Malick, David Lynch, Orson Welles, Martin Scorsese and Stanley Kubrick. The meaning of all of their films is lost by poor visual presentation and that's true for the work of all great filmmakers.
 
i thought the first one was good and the second one was ordinary.

i wonder if this is correlated with the fact that i saw the first in the cinema and the second on my laptop ;)

possibly but there is the confounding variable that the first film introduced the character and the concept and so was original and you didn't know what to expect whilst the second was basically just more of the same with less tension or story :p

still leaves open the question of whether i should watch the third on the silver screen, on my apple or not at all :confused:
 
I just don't get how anyone would wish to watch anything on a laptop, let alone a film. I've always had a big telly though
 
yep. Saw the poster some time last week and I'm defo gonna see it. Like Transformers and DH4 too. Good year for blockbusters, methinks.
 
nosos said:
They were stupid and silly?
Fair enough you didnt like it, but the films were neither stupid nor silly. Find another criticism!

Die Hard 4.0 and Transformers were stupid and silly and were also great fun.

The Bourne films are leagues above those films for character and plot development.
 
Orang Utan said:
They're fucking idiots if they prefer to watch a film on a 18" screen with tinny speakers. No, I don't feel sorry for them at all actually

Word.

Fucking looking forward to this film too. Loved the other two.
:cool:
 
Orang Utan said:
I don't feel sorry for the studios, but I feel sorry for the independent film-makers who are suffering from people getting in the habit of downloading films and I feel sorry for the viewers who are getting used to only seeing films on shitty laptops
I wouldn't watch an indy on my laptop, though. I usually only watch big-budget stuff that I don't feel like shelling out the masive ticket price for.
Reasons I watch on a laptop in order of importance:
1. Don't wanna pay for overpriced Hollywood shite I don't really care about but which is entertaining enough
2. Don't like being multiplexes very much
3. I'm not that bothered about the visual/audio quality for films I don't really care that much about
 
marty21 said:
because at the moment you can't g et a tv screen as big as a cinema screen and these sort of films cry out to be seen on the big screen
Do you work for MGM or something?;)
 
kyser_soze said:
Course I do - it's called 'The Wire', and of course I read books. Even the greatest cinematic stories, with the greatest characterisation and plotting are artistically better when seen on the big screen because that's the medium they are created in and for. Take 2001 - great film generally but watched in a cinema on 70mm it becomes far more. Ever seen Hitchcock on a big screen, or Citizen Kane? Seeing the latter on a private 50ft screen utterly altered my perception of the film.

So what you said is correct...to an extent. What you say about Independence Day and it's ilk...so what? They're the cinematic equivalent of getting on the Nemesis ride at Alton Towers and taking your brain out of gear. Do I prefer action adventure movies with a little bit of brain? Of course - which is why the Die Hard, Bourne and Terminator films stand out so much - but I don't have some inbuilt aversion to popcorn cinema, anymore that I have an aversion to other forms of low culture.
Cool, I kind of figured this was the case.
I'm totally with you in principle- I remember rewatching loads of Orson Welles films in the cinema a few years ago and it does remind you why he's a great director.

@Reno: yeah, of course, but there are films where are "base" (can't think of a better word it's too early in the a.m.) visual spectacle seems to be the main thrust of the "work". This isn't the case for those directors whom you cite, all of whom, IMO, make films that are deeply concerned with narrative (albeit maybe in an abstracted manner) where what keeps me watching isn't the thrill of the next image, rather the desire to know what happens next and how things hang together....

I think I'm fundamentally not a very visual person and this skews my perception a little (or a lot).
I'm not really debating the value of a proper screen and proper sound, more the argument that these should be of overarching importance.
 
onemonkey said:
i thought the first one was good and the second one was ordinary.

i wonder if this is correlated with the fact that i saw the first in the cinema and the second on my laptop ;)

possibly but there is the confounding variable that the first film introduced the character and the concept and so was original and you didn't know what to expect whilst the second was basically just more of the same with less tension or story :p
Agreed. I don't think it had anything to do with watching it on your laptop - I saw the 2nd one on a big screen and I had the same feeling. The first Bourne was gripping and almost believeable, but I thought the second was really 'meh'. Getting rid of Marie (the lovely Franka Potente) so soon in the film didn't help - the relationship between Damon and her in the first film was one of its strengths - but the worst thing was the hand-held filming and editing style which were SO irritating and made it incomprehensible at times. I could also have done without hoary old Brian Cox doing his arrogant asshole routine for the nth time - but thankfully he doesn't seem to be in the latest one. I shall go and see Ultimatum, but as its again directed by Paul Greengrass I'm not expecting too much from it, but hope its an improvement on Supremacy.
 
Dr. Furface said:
but the worst thing was the hand-held filming and editing style which were SO irritating and made it incomprehensible at times.

NOOOOOO! The handheld thing is what makes it great - it brings an immediacy and an intimacy to the fight scenes
 
Orang Utan said:
NOOOOOO! The handheld thing is what makes it great - it brings an immediacy and an intimacy to the fight scenes
The fight and chase scenes in the first one were excellent and didn't need flashy gimmicky camerawork. It's a matter of taste but for me the second film suffered from using this technique.
 
There is one department in which The Bourne Supremacy is outstanding.

Not only

2435_735892891_franka_potente_26_H171652_L.jpg




and

244.stiles.julia.032607.jpg




but also the delicious

die-bourne-verschwoerung-2.jpg
 
I hated the hand-held sequences in Supremacy the first time I saw it, but the second time around it worked really well.

To contrast, the first movie's major flaw (complete and utter lack of chemistry between Franke Potente and Matt Damon) jars more every time I see it.
 
Chz said:
To contrast, the first movie's major flaw (complete and utter lack of chemistry between Franke Potente and Matt Damon) jars more every time I see it.
Eh?!
Lack of chemistry?! I love the scene when he washed and dyed her hair. Coooor! It was proper erotic!
 
T & P said:
Anyone else looking forward to this? Really enjoyed the first two films. Anything that becomes a big influence in the James Bond franchise deserves a second look.

I see that it has done very well in its opening weekend in the US (highest ever August premiere apparently) though that doesn't mean much in terms of quality.

Anyone seen it already?

Can't wait for this! There is one reservation I have, I really hope they leave it as a trilogy (I know this aint going to happen given its $70 million opening weekend and apparently the biggest opening weekend for an August film release) because it works quite like a set of chapters in a book.

That said, two more books were written (The Bourne Legacy and Betrayel) and a rather crappy looking computer game, The Bourne Conspiracy, has been released so I expect to see a word stuck at the end of 'The Bourne...' for sometime to come...
 
what there are more bourne books????? No fucking way!

any good?

umm they aint written by ludlum how does that work?


dave
 
elevendayempire said:
Apparently it really helps if you've watched the first two films immediately beforehand.

SG

I'd say so, watched the second one first and while I liked it it made more sense and liked it a great deal more when I saw it again after watching the first film.
 
T & P said:
Anyone else looking forward to this? Really enjoyed the first two films. Anything that becomes a big influence in the James Bond franchise deserves a second look.

I see that it has done very well in its opening weekend in the US (highest ever August premiere apparently) though that doesn't mean much in terms of quality.

Anyone seen it already?

Definitely looking forward to seeing this film, even though the luscious Franka Potente will presumably not be in it. :(

That scene from the first film where Matt Damon cuts and dyes her hair in the bathroom and they start kissing is incredibly erotic .... demonstrating that Hollywood doesn't have to resort to crass designer shagging in an attempt to stir the loins.

I just watched the first two films on DVD last weekend to prepare for the third one. :D
 
kained&able said:
what there are more bourne books????? No fucking way!

any good?

umm they aint written by ludlum how does that work?


dave

The Ludlum identity: how a bestselling author was Bourne again
New York, July 2006. The dark, furious sky swelled overhead. Beneath its foreboding gloom, a man walked anxiously, clutching to his chest a crisp manila envelope. He crossed the sidewalk, and entered the five-storey brownstone. It was freezing, and the icy air caused his fingers to throb. He lurched nervously across the deserted lobby to the elevator, and, emerging three floors later from the dimly lit metal box, entered the party in full swing across the hall.

He had committed the description of the agent to memory and looked around discreetly, avoiding any direct eye contact, before making his move. Picking up a cocktail from a silver tray on a low, smoked-glass coffee table, he could just make out the faces of the guests through the haze of paranoia that had descended like a thick fog.

He caught sight of a broad-shouldered man in the corner. He moved towards him. It was too late to abort his mission. There could be no turning back now. "Have you got the manuscript?" the second man asked, eyebrows knitting tightly together in concentration. He nodded, handing over the manila envelope. "I've written it exactly as you requested." The agent tore open the flap and peered at the first page: it was headed with the words "The Arctic Event"... and there, printed beneath, was a single name: "Robert Ludlum".

"Perfect," said the agent, his brows visibly loosening. All the pieces of the plan were falling into place. Ludlum had been dead for five years, but the pact between the two men would protect the power and potency of his legacy. It must – for tens of millions of dollars were at stake...

Mystery. Conspiracy. Identity. If a book were to tell the story of Robert Ludlum, these would be its themes. A successful actor and theatre producer who turned his hand to popular fiction, Ludlum practically cornered the market in dense, paranoid, meticulously researched thrillers for 30 years. By the time of his death in 2001, he had sold 210 million books – a figure only exceeded by JK Rowling. This summer, the hottest property at the cinema box office is likely to be The Bourne Ultimatum, the third instalment of a $500m-grossing movie franchise based on Ludlum's best-known character, directed by United 93's Paul Greengrass and starring Matt Damon as an amnesiac spy.

Yet for all the sales figures and superlatives, it is somehow fitting that a novelist who specialised in complex conspiracy theories and international espionage should have left behind a conundrum to baffle even Bourne himself. In the years since his death, 12 new works bearing his name have hit the bookshelves and beach-towels of the world. None was penned by Ludlum himself – and at least three have not been credited to any other writer. These include The Bancroft Strategy, published last year, which sold 102,000 copies in hardback alone. Like Bourne, whose life after death underscores the basis of the film trilogy, so too has his creator found a new identity in his afterlife..........
 
Back
Top Bottom