So I'm sorely tempted to check out "The Bourne Ultimatum," seeing as how it's getting such rave reviews.  Only problem is, I've yet to see the first two films; any opinions on this series?

With Casino Royale having left such a potent impression on me, I'm looking forward to another spy thriller with supposed similar ferocity.  Does Bourne compare?

I've yet to see Ultimatum, but I really enjoyed the first two.  Sorry that I cannot do a comparison for you with any of the Bond films; I have never seen any of them.

I just saw it a few hours ago, and yes it's able to stand-alone without watching the previous 2.
They do flashbacks and explain enough of the previous backstory for you to get it all, since the purpose of this 3rd was to "close the loop" by going back to the start anyways.

It's an absolutely amazing spy thriller trilogy, nothing has compared to it in a very very long time.

I've seen the first two films in the series and while I didn't exactly fall in love with them, or make it a point to see them of my own free will (I'll go to the theater if someone invites me - I really don't really have the initative to go alone) I will say I felt pretty gradified coming out of the theater after the credits of both. That's saying a lot as I have a pretty negaitve perspective on movies in this day and age.

Still, I wouldn't buy them on DVD; I'm not really a movie/DVD buff in any sense of the word. I have trouble watching the few movies I do have.

The Bourne series was the most surprising book-to-film conversion, for me, in many a year. I think you'll enjoy them all.

Ramza

I'm definitely convinced.  I'll pick up the budget-minded three-disc Bourne Files set, which includes Identity and Supremacy, before hitting theaters for Ultimatum.  Can't wait!

^ Does it not also include a free movie ticket still?

You're in for a treat Angela, the movies are very good I hope to see Ultimatum this week.

Bourne >>>>>>> Bond. Of course, I prefere serious more than cheese. Bourne's some really serious, dark spy/thriller stuff, and the villains are the guys who are supposed to be on his own side.

They would be better if they gave the cameraman time to recover from his epileptic seizures.
I prefer Bond. Better cheese than too much seriousness.

I just watched Identity, and I liked it enough.  It's not nearly as good as Casino Royale, but perhaps Supremacy will pick up the slack.  I'm not exactly a Matt Damon fan, but I admit that his character grew on me as the film steadily went on; the mystery of his identity was kind of predictable before it was revealed, but yeah, it was a riveting watch overall.

I can see room for Jason and Marie's relationship to flourish, so I'm looking forward to that in Supremacy.   And I rather enjoyed John Powell's music score; subtle orchestration, combined with more forefront techno and other bits of neat sounding electronica.  I've already ripped Moby's "Exteme Ways," at the least. ;)

Great, I look forward to your opinions after you watch Supremacy, Angela.

I've enjoyed the last two Bourne movies (mostly the first, although I was greatly annoyed and moved to the tune of being out by sea by the shaky cam chic he loves to use) myself and have not gotten a chance to see this one but have heard allegations that this movie is largely veiled left-wing propaganda (being Damon himself is one of the "Hollywood" types). I know Greengrass has done United 93 (a movie I'd rather not see) but anyway thought I'd mention that. I like to think of movies as a good story but does every American/FBI/CIA agent have to be evil?

I lol'd.

I lol'd.  Those're some pretty stupid allegations there, XISMZERO.  Just watch the movie.

Just brain food, Ryu. No need to snap. O'Reilly of Fox wrote a column about this... http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=21662

^  I just find it ridiculous that partisans find veiled propaganda everywhere.  After you see the movie we can discuss it further, but I don't feel the need to spoil anything for you or anyone else.

So I watched Supremacy today, and I've gotta say I enjoyed it twice as much as Identity.  Chalk this one up to the "sequels can be better" argument, as everything here truly is better.    I was surprised that the car chase sequence served as the finale, but of the hundreds upon hundreds of car chases I've seen in films, this was one of the more impressive ones.  Those collision shots were excitingly brutal.

Yeah, I see that now. -_-;  But in truth, I thought it was a better decision for the story; Bourne acting as a complete lonewolf is a more appropriate Bourne, in my opinion.  It gave him a realistic drive, and made for a meaningful denouement at the end.  The "assassins having morals" concept could've come off as cheesy, but it doesn't.   

I'm definitely prepped for Ultimatum now, which I'll check out next weekend.

Saw Ultimatum tonight, and I was pretty much blown away; it trumps even Supremacy, making it the best of the three films.  It's leaner, meaner and brimming with amazing thrills.  I loved the progression and the edited continuity of the story from the end of Supremacy, as well as the bit-by-bit feeding of flashback fragments the series is now known for.  The action sequences are again sublime; the hand to hand battle was particularly fierce and the bike chase sequence and the massively impacting car chase through NYC is right on par with Supremacy's.  (There's just something doubly awesome when you see filming like this in your own area.)

Maybe it's because this is the first Bourne movie I've seen on the big screen, but the shaky-cam work and documentary-like zoom ins come off being a LOT more noticeable here than it did on the more compact home TV setting.  They still work well for the action sequences but are serious distractions during the quiet one-on-one conversations.   And I'm glad Stiles' Parsons character gets a bit more screen time, though they don't exactly resolve the question of her past ties with Bourne, do they?

And have I mentioned that I love these scores?  Supremacy and Ultimatum more than Identity, they're like slick hybrids of Metal Gear Solid's progressive orchestral techno styling, and the fast, industrial/ethnic percussive cues of David Arnold's best Bond work.  I can never get enough of that persistent string ostinato, though I wish we saw more variations of the beautiful Goa/Marie theme.

As for the whole left-wing propaganda argument, I suppose there could be glimpses of truth there, given Greengrass's filmtography reputation and the source material being utilized.  (To that end, Robert Ludlum deserves to share some of the "credit.")  Still, most people should reasonably be able to view it for what it is; a work of fiction.

Referencing Bill O'Reilly for *anything* is akin to citing Wikipedia for a research paper - difference being that at least Wikipedia isn't a far-right-wing, lying sack of shit.

I finally watched Ultimatum tonight, and I've got to agree with pretty much everything Angela said.  It's the best in the trilogy, I loved it!

Powell's work in Bourne-series has made me a big fan of his work. Damn good stuff. Althought, being a fan means that I need to buy the score for Gigli. :D

And Ultimatum was one damn good finish for the trilogy, really loved the movie and can't wait to buy it, so I can start doing small Bournethons.

Yeah because you're one objective person. Tell me, do you ever consider points of view beyond your own ideological constipation allows you? Go take your meds already.

Because god forbid I call out someone that makes a career out of lying to his undereducated audience.  I have no problem discussing political viewpoints that differ from my own, provided the other person doesn't take every available opportunity to misrepresent the facts.  Seriously now, you consider Bill O'Reilly and Fox News to be credible sources?  I figured that at least *intelligent* Republicans knew better - perhaps you're just not one of them.

First of all I don't want to bogart this topic with any kind of political talk beyond this response but you've made some assumptions about me regardless of our past clashes elsewhere. I have not seen the movie yet but still want to (but will probably await the DVD release) because I myself enjoyed the last two (despite the camera shakiness I mentioned before).

I am not Republican (even if I were, what does that have to do with the discussion?). I am a person who makes up his mind based on varying points of view instead of simply repeating what others tell me what to think. You can choose to dislike some figures who've you've labeled yourself or someone has labeled for you a 'liar.' Further, I doubt you watch his program and avoid Fox News because it makes you foam at the mouth, listen to his commentaries or read any of his material. You listen to your own brand of propaganda and likely those in lock-step with your own views, and that's ok but I can see it clearly and I don't think it will do your intellectual capacity any good at all.

It's simple: you are told who the enemies are and you make them your own without keeping an open mind.

The article I posted presented what I believed to be relevant within the topic and a subject matter about the film and questions if the movie had a political agenda seeing as it's an overtly political movie. Based on the facts; the main actors are indeed left-wing supporters who've not made it a secret apart from the overall arch of Hollywood politics which tend to bleed, often subvertly into the productions themselves.

What are some "lies" Mr. O'Reilly has told? How can you paint his entire audience undereducated? Seems irresponsible to me to do so - to think 100% of his audience is a clone army. If you are a liberal person, it seems very stubborn of you to make these unsubstantiated claims without citing specific examples or even giving the article any thought. Maybe you don't agree with O'Reilly but I fear it's more than that - your response was overtly venomous and it raises a flag to me.

Lastly, you in fact cannot put up with people who disagree with you. No more than three years ago, we had a civil discussion in a DC++ hub to which you were an OP and you kicked me for saying something you didn't want to hear. You might know this, or maybe you forgot.

Either way, for the record, I'd say you're not an objective person but you might do yourself some good and do some of your own non-idealogical "thinking."

Not getting any US TV channel here (and not interested in it besides some initial curiosity) I just searched for "O'Reilly lies" on Google for a couple possibilities...

I urge you see both sides of the coin and avoid much of the poison on the internet. Bill O'Reilly is a huge target of those who disagree with him and if you believed much of the flimsy "lies" reported on internet sites (check the credibility and biases of those sources from an objective view), you'd be ill-served. That being said, there are many lies and out-of-contextual misquotations written about him by his enemies to discredit him - which he admittedly has many of but also many who don't see him as a liar. Unfortunately, since you cannot watch his program consistently, it's not going to be easy to formulate your own impression of him.

You can go to the source: skim some of his columns (apparent in some U.S. newspapers, and on his site) and just decide for yourself.

I'm honestly not eager at all to look into Murdoch's lobby pool in any way. He has a flawless track record of twisting his media empire's output to his use, so he isn't my cup of tea at all. I personally don't care who O'Reilly is or what he does, and he isn't related to the Bourne trilogy anyway.

Both sides of the coin are (1) those with legitimate criticism of O'Reilly and (2) those who refuse to see O'Reilly for what he really is.  There is nothing to see there, XISMZERO.  O'Reilly attempts to do nothing more than entertain, not to inform, while catering to Fox's intended demographic for the sole purpose of ratings.  Similar to how Stewart went on Crossfire to point out how that show was lacking, the same how Colbert's parody does to the Factor.  You can watch it all you want.  At least I get more entertainment and information from the Comedy Central 'news hour' than I ever can from watching O'Reilly's show.

I find it ironic and telling that a rating-whore partisan entertainer attacks a movie meant to entertain that is not in competition with his ratings, claiming it to be subversive.

Speaking of rightwing hosts, I think CNN actually has one late at night.  It was on while I was cleaning the kitchen one night and found it an interesting listen, even though he sadly thought Tommy Thompson was a good presidential candidate.

I don't even see why Datschge would care about a Fox mouthpiece's selection of and spin on the news as opposed to being more concerned with actual facts and news that matter to him in Germany.

I think you, Ryu, like Lemon are looking at this too much within your own set prisms.

Last time I checked, Rupert Murdoch supports a Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Colbert and Stewart are entertainers who feed off the establishment media and often times do a fun job at it. But please don't tell me seriously that's where your 'hard news' comes from. O'Reilly is a commentator who you probably think all their fans or followers are just in line with him. Have you watched his show? Is he entertaining? Yes! Television is about entertainment but don't stop there - does news have to be dispassionate, shallow, robotic, etc.? O'Reilly is largely targeted because he has passion, he challenges all his guests, and prides himself on presenting accuracy to his audience.

In any instance, they (Stewarts/Colberts and O'Reilly) are not relative; Stewart makes a living being a heckler and a joker, O'Reilly has been a reporter and commentator for decades. But you don't see it that way and I can't make you. As it stands, you're not going to give him a fair chance because, in line with your past posts (Ryu), you don't care to give any benefit to anyone who is deemed "rightwing" or doesn't agree with your views.

Colbert (a man who I find very difficult to understand since he plays another persona all the time) mocks The Factor (and has been on the show various times) because he knows there's an audience who, regardless of whatever O'Reilly says, is going to please those who believes he's a 'bad guy' or one whose just open to be mocked. That's a shallow and narrow outlook; to view everything as one big joke and that nothing nor any information is valid and that everything is just relative. I would even argue is much of Colbert's and Stewart's mostly ignorant, cynical audience believe Fox News is bad, even before they've watched a program on it!

I would permit that, yes, Fox News is a conservative-leaning news media outfit. But I accept it being there to have as something of a contrast to a without question left-leaning media dominance not only on TV but in print. And it's not only American media but much of the greater world press. You know what? I don't think I've ever seen more of an attempt at presentation of both sides in any news venue. I think Fox tries the most and since the norm is decidedly "liberalism" dominated by 10 to 1 (in print and TV), Fox is seen as an unwelcomed invader who, uh oh, maintains #1 ratings to a once almost exclusively monopolized media.

It's not about "fact" as you claim, it's about ideology and those who often don't formulate opinions objectively.

I guess by now this thread's topic rails are already out of sight.

Except that there have been no study to prove the 'left-leaning mass media' claim, which goes to show that Fox is not a 'counter' as much as it is just a cater.  I have not found any reputable study to prove that assertion, and it is often studied, although viewers of Fox News have faith that it is true.  As for its top ratings, FAIR suggests its a mirage:  http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005  The claim that TDS viewers are 'ignorant' has been challenged through a study too:  http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/2 … .politics/

I'm aware of O'Reilly, so I don't get how he, who has been around for years, has yet to get a "fair chance" by me.  I'm unaware of what past posts of mine you are using to make the attack against me either, that I am somehow incapable of allowing O'Reilly a fair shot, even though I admit to 'tolerating' whoever that guy was on CNN in my post.  It doesn't surprise me, by your posts on this topic (the topic being a rampant defense of O'Reilly that has me questioning your objectivity), that you don't get Colbert at all.  That's quite telling.  O'Reilly's accuracy is nothing in which I'd have pride if I were him (WMD promises), excessive pride being one of his many faults, his 'challenge' is laughable (ie Jeremy Glick), and his passion is unprofessional.

And it is about fact.  I lack an ideology and a party.

Wait a minute, you're criticizing Fox and O'Reilly and you're using FAIR as your critical "unbiased" source? Go take a look at that site's other content and the man, Steve Rendall, who composed the study; a left-wing ideologue! His thesis *is* Hate Fox and The Right! They are far from "Fair" (more like Fair but only in favor of left-wing favoring subject). Try again, and this time go to an unbiased source of criticism before doing some objective research.

And that second piece, how much faith do you put to that? There seem to be many holes in that article. For instance, the quiz is quite brief and really doesn't prove you're smart other than you listen and can comprehend a few trivial bits. Also, just because you complete "4 years of college" doesn't mean you're smart. Many of our parents born in the 50s and 60s (both of mine) didn't go to college compared to later generations but they're still smart, apt people who made it. Furthermore, completing college really means you can pass deadlines - doesn't really demonstrate "smart" especially since there are many professors who don't give a damn about objectivity. I mean god, if all my teachers were as smart as college taught them, I might question why college is important!

So O'Reilly calls his [Stewart's] audience "stoned slackers"; well it's just a joke. He went on The Daily Show shortly after that affair and actually got along with Jon Stewart. I mean even Stewart himself pokes fun at his own past (and questionably current) pot use. I mean, come on, how many college kids are well-developed thinkers?

The Jeremy Glick ordeal was done many, many years ago (back in 2001) and is a usual punching bag for people who dislike O'Reilly's often loud mannerisms. Mind you this was days after 9/11 when emotions, on both of their behalfs, were over-the-top in hindsight. If you read the transcript, it's clear that Glick was an emotionally unstable mess and far out of line for some of the wild views he had. But my god, move on! It's 2007! You're citing one incident that has admittedly made O'Reilly a target to enemies.

In any event, I have caused a derailment of this topic I didn't want to do. I would gladly migrate to the "Open" topic and get some more diverse points of view. My only defense of O'Reilly is that he's a rarity, that too much medium bolsters and supports left-leaning interests. When 90% of your newsroom not only promotes but gives large campaign contributions to Democrats, that's also something to take into account about American media. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/) and (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455)

No, I used FAIR as a source regarding the statistics about ratings.  If you can prove that the article is wrong, then I'd like to see it.  As for criticizing Fox and O'Reilly for being rightwing, you already consented that fact.  You're the one that called the viewers of TDS and CR 'ignorant'; you passed judgment, not me.  Your spin regarding that matter hasn't changed---O'Reilly made the comment and was responsible for his having been wrong.  As for Glick, if you read the transcript you miss out on everything---I recommend actually watching it.  Glick isn't the only thing, but it is all that is needed.  The "9/11" defense is not enough.

What people behind the news support with their money is not to be taken into account.  What does count is their objectivity.  Just because you believe in the liberal media bias myth doesn't make it true, even if you hear it repeated often.  If there was such a thing, then they'd have not pandered to the administration and we'd not be in the Iraq quagmire.

You people with your false political dichotomy... you'd dig up anything to support your cause, but will spin away, if not completely ignore, everything that threatens your worldview as "that's been years ago!"  O'Reilly isn't a rarity.  He's quite common.  A shill doing what he can for his next paycheck.

Too many big words and ideas... head spinning