Comments on: DVD Review: The Bourne Ultimatum

By: NeverWanderer

NeverWanderer — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:55:19 +0000

Ah! See, I didn’t know that about the first flick… but yeah! Her only scene with Bourne is actually a cut-away to her. Hunh! Interesting. I wonder why they decided to do that…

In either case, though, while I do see how the second and third movies validated her presence in the franchise, it kinda felt like a “Look, kids! It’s Julia Styles! Aaaaaaannnd now she’s gone.” with no real impact made by her in the end. Except for showing just how much he still loves Marie…

I guess it’s just as easy to criticize as it is to accept, as she definitely has reasons to be there and she certainly didn’t hurt the flick.

Either way, I agree with your overall opinion of the movie! And Jerry’s. Definitely one of the best of the year.

By: Slayve

Slayve — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:21:59 +0000

NeverWanderer: I say that about Julia Stiles in the first movie because she actually was edited in. She’s in a tiny office for most of the film, she has no scenes with the other actors other than Bourne himself, and although in the later films they hint that she had some connection to the pre-amnesiac Bourne, she had no connection to Bourne or really even the movie itself in the first film. But based on what happens to her character in the second movie, her larger presence in the third movie makes perfect sense, and the hint that she and Bourne were possibly involved at some point solidifies her relevance to the story.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:24:03 +0000

I will say this– this was the best film of the summer, if not one of the best of the year. Also a very fitting third film for a change. Greengrass has proven himself to be an excellent director.
Excellent review!!

By: NeverWanderer

NeverWanderer — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:07:41 +0000

I really, really enjoyed this flick. That said, I did have issues with the story. Mainly, that what story was there, was the exact same story from the last movie, with no new details thrown in. The big revelation at the end (which I wont reveal here cuz I hate spoilers) wasn’t really anything that we couldn’t have figured out from the last two movies. It offered no new dimension. Pretty much just more of same.

Granted, when “same” is as brilliantly made as these films have been, more of same isn’t necessarily a mark against it. I just wanted more story. It left me a little unfulfilled.

Also, it’s ironic that you described Julia Styles’s role in the first film as awkwardly edited-in, because that’s how I felt about her role in this one. It seemed more like an excuse to cash in on having such a talented actress on the bankrole. Her role in the story, had the potential to be interesting, but it just ended up being filler.

Of course, THAT said, she does an excellent job in it, and I always wanted to see more of her in the series, so tossing her into this flick wasn’t all bad either. I just wanted it to be more pivotal than the “token damsel in distress” role.

Basically, this flick was a prime example of lazy story-telling overshadowed by brilliant film-making.