I absolutely hate the Bourne movies

Jarvio

So I sat down and watched all 5 bourne films for the first time.

As a bond fan, I thought I might like these, but after watching them, I was highly disappointed. The first one (Identity) was ok, but the other 4 were some of the worst films I have ever seen. This is mainly because I had so much trouble following them.

Overall, the plots were incoherent, unclear, and downright confusing. Ok, I sometimes have trouble understanding what's going on in films in general, but with the bourne films magnify this by 10. It's like everyone's speaking in code or a different language, and it's bloody frustrating to watch. The plots are confusing as hell, but that's not necessarily because they're complex in nature, it is because they are so poorly executed and scripted. They are completely overloaded with jargon, and lack clarity. They also never slow down and give you a break. On top of this, the camera work is also confusing, just way too fast and switching between people too rapidly. For example, at the begining of the second film, they were rapidly switching shots between the 'good' guys (uncovering the files) to the 'bad' guys (causing the black-out), making it seem like they were the same people - absolutely no need for this. Just confusing for no decent reason.

Surely I cannot be the only one that hates these movies? Surely I cannot be the only one that was confused by these movies?

In conclusion, WHY THE HELL are these films compared to bond films? They are nothing alike!

welshboy78

I watch them every few years.

Its kind of rinse and repeat so after the first one it can get a bit meh. I guess a Bourne fan could say the same about Bond but at least more variation in plot, villains, ladies etc rather then simply “being on the run”

The last installment was crap and really proved Bourne has run its course. I actually thought the Supremacy one without Damon was more interesting (though believe it got slated a lot)

0073

Jarvio, I'm pretty much there with you. I don't mind the plot that much, having read the Original and some of the later Bourne thrillers, the style is quite similar in it's confusion.
What I absolutely hate of the Bourne movies, is the closed up shots and fast editing, it's just lazy way of making Wonderful Mr. Ripley into something he isn't. Compare Bourne movies with John Wick movies, which have wide shots and long single shot scenes, and you see startling difference in actors physical ability! Also the action sequences are more entertaining when you're not left wondering what was it that you just saw.

Napoleon Plural

Why would you watch all 5 Bournes in a row? ?:)

I couldn't watch 5 Bonds in a row.

For me, they're diminishing returns. The third one is a bit like a Bond film in that Bourne is indestructible by now and knows what's what. Also, Damon had put on weight, even though the film is meant to go straight on from the last in the timeline, indeed one scene from the end of Bourne 2 gets inserted into middle of Bourne 3, oddly.
It also means the flashbacks to show how Bourne got recruited show a really overweight Damon, cos he hadn't lost weight for the this one, so a big fail imo.

welshboy78

I didnt like how Bournes main squeeze got bumped off in the intro of the second film.

Seemed a but too early in the film and therefore didnt have the impact it maybe should of

Number24

I think the series will redeem itself in the upcoming The Bourne Redundancy )

Jarvio

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Why would you watch all 5 Bournes in a row? ?:)

I couldn't watch 5 Bonds in a row.

I binge on films quite a lot I guess. Having said that, I watched 1 and 2 the day before I watched the other 3, so they were split across 2 days. But even so, I've done days before where I've watched 5 films in a row. I could definitely watch 5 bonds in a row, and probably have lol.

Honestly, I really wanted to like these Bourne movies. But I just couldn't. If they weren't compared to bond so often, adding to my confusion, then I'd let it slide, but the fact that they are compared to bond, and I love bond and hate bourne.... just bothers me, confuses the mind.

welshboy78

Might be wrong but I reckon the main reason it is compared to Bond is the QoS fight scene with the knife in Haiti which is very similar to Bourne 1 in his apartment

Not just the fast editing but the knife fight itself and combat - particularly all the block moves

Matt S

I only watched the first three. I did not like them at all. They are some of the blandest action films I've ever seen.

Thunderpussy

I don't hate them ,I just find them hard to tell apart.
As they all seem to have the Same story. Jason gets
Pulled back in by a senior officer and uncovers some
Corruption in the CIA.

Number24

I don't hate the Bourne movies. I never hate movies, if I don't like a movie I simply don't spend time on them.
The Bourne Identity was very good and in some ways groundbreaking. After that it goes downhill.

Enjoying Death

0073 wrote:

Jarvio, I'm pretty much there with you. I don't mind the plot that much, having read the Original and some of the later Bourne thrillers, the style is quite similar in it's confusion.
What I absolutely hate of the Bourne movies, is the closed up shots and fast editing, it's just lazy way of making Wonderful Mr. Ripley into something he isn't. Compare Bourne movies with John Wick movies, which have wide shots and long single shot scenes, and you see startling difference in actors physical ability! Also the action sequences are more entertaining when you're not left wondering what was it that you just saw.

The John Wick films are completely underrated. I enjoy both immensely and can hardly wait for the 3rd film. -{

Jarvio

Number24 wrote:

I never hate movies, if I don't like a movie I simply don't spend time on them.

I always see a movie through to the end, sometimes I can be hating a movie but then it gets better and redeems itself near the end. Sometimes the opposite happens. With Bourne, the only remote enjoyment I got was from the 1st movie, but I had bought the box set so gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Jarvio

Matt S wrote:

I only watched the first three. I did not like them at all. They are some of the blandest action films I've ever seen.

Agreed. So very bland. So dull.

The villains were extremely unmemorable. Just corrupt CIA people. Just not interesting. The weakest main bond villain is still a million times better than any bourne villain.

Mr Snow

Jarvio wrote:

Matt S wrote:

I only watched the first three. I did not like them at all. They are some of the blandest action films I've ever seen.

Agreed. So very bland. So dull.

The villains were extremely unmemorable. Just corrupt CIA people. Just not interesting. The weakest main bond villain is still a million times better than any bourne villain.

Really? Here's a few of your heroic Bond villains to give some thought to: Bambi, Thumper, Wint, Kidd, Quist, Dent, Nick Nack, Franks, Saxby and Vargas just to name a few of whom none would be out of place in a cartoon show.

Each to their own re: the Bourne films. Personally I thought they were brilliant with a great cast and intelligent writing. If you can't follow them, maybe give them another go. The only thing I dislike about the Bourne films are the car chases that are way over the top and go on for twice as long as they need to.

0073

When 1st Bourne movie came out, it was hailed as the beginning of the end of Bond.

Now it's just another franchise.

IMHO Bond is still THE Bond, but if I want to watch a good spy flick, I'll watch something like "A Most Wanted Man" or "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"

Jarvio

OGG007 wrote:

Jarvio wrote:

Matt S wrote:

I only watched the first three. I did not like them at all. They are some of the blandest action films I've ever seen.

Agreed. So very bland. So dull.

The villains were extremely unmemorable. Just corrupt CIA people. Just not interesting. The weakest main bond villain is still a million times better than any bourne villain.

Really? Here's a few of your heroic Bond villains to give some thought to: Bambi, Thumper, Wint, Kidd, Quist, Dent, Nick Nack, Franks, Saxby and Vargas just to name a few of whom none would be out of place in a cartoon show.

Each to their own re: the Bourne films. Personally I thought they were brilliant with a great cast and intelligent writing. If you can't follow them, maybe give them another go. The only thing I dislike about the Bourne films are the car chases that are way over the top and go on for twice as long as they need to.

I meant main villains, but even so, the majority of villains you listed I prefer to the bourne ones, but the majority of those are very different kind of villains anyway, like you said, cartoony - but I don't mind that, I'd have it over a boring corrupt CIA worker any day. (I had to think twice about who Quist even was though I admit lol).

Regarding not following them, I got bits and pieces, but I then went back and re-watched the bits I didn't get, so I can follow them now, but the problem is, I couldn't follow them at the time I first viewed them. As I said, I do sometimes have trouble following films, I have aspergers too, but even so, I follow them mostly, but bourne was different for some reason. Except for the first film which I followed fine.

Golrush007

I loved The Bourne Identity, because of the journey that Bourne goes on in that film. He goes from complete amnesia to slowly putting the pieces together and figuring out who he is, with some excellent action scenes along the way. I also liked Supremacy and Ultimatum quite a bit, but mainly just for the good action scenes and not really for the story. Bourne on the run gets a bit tiring after a while, but I do rewatch the original trilogy from time to time.

As for The Bourne Legacy, I haven't seen it since I saw it in the theatre and I was totally bored by it. No desire to see it again, and I've never got round to seeing Jason Bourne so can't comment on that one.

caractacus potts

I thought the first one was great, very original concept, stylish execution.

A spy isn't who he says he is anyway, that's innate in the spy concept.
What happens when the spy can't remember who he really is?
Some of those scenes are already iconic images, like when he opens his safety deposit box and finds all those passports.

Unfortunately for us, the success of the first film means EON can never properly film the opening chapter of Fleming's tMwtGG without general audiences thinking Bond is now ripping off Bourne.

The sequels were more of the same, without the big amnesia hook. A distinct action style but very generic plots, so much as plots are discernible. And the various corrupt CIA chiefs are all interchangeable, no way do they compare to a Bond villain. And yes Wint and Kidd were better than any Bourne villain.

I think the Bond/Bourne comparison actually goes the other way: people compare the two franchises because the Craig films stole so much from the Bourne action style. I really wish the modern Bond films were less desperate to mimick some other franchises' successful formula, and took confidence in their own time honoured style.

Firemass

caractacus potts wrote:

What happens when the spy can't remember who he really is?
Some of those scenes are already iconic images, like when he opens his safety deposit box and finds all those passports.

You should check out The Long Kiss Goodnight from 1996. Had a similar amnesia concept with Geena Davis trying to figure out her past. The scene with her chopping vegetables is priceless. "I used to be a cook!"

caractacus potts wrote:

desperate to mimick some other franchises' successful formula, and took confidence in their own time honoured style.

I did take note that QoS seemed to copy the style of the Bourne movies with fast editing and generic action. *sigh*

Number24

Tried to copy Bourne, you mean.

caractacus potts

I've been thinking: the controversial shaky-cam style is really appropriate to the first film.
The classical smooth tracking shots perfected by directors like Hitchcock or Kubrick imply an omniscient point of view. As if that mathematical perfection could be extended to reveal the entire universe, except the director has chosen to edit all that potential data down to just one story, with an elegantly formed beginning middle and end.

Bourne however literally knows nothing at the beginning of his story, and everything he experiences is random arbitrary and highly subjective. He has no sense of his place in the larger world, the entire film is him discovering what that larger world is and therefor who he probably must be. The shaky cam, with its perpetually twitching motion and lack of peripheral vision, delivers a sense of that extreme subjective point of view better than a more conventional camera technique would.