Eric D. Snider
The Bourne Ultimatum
Movie Review
"The Bourne Ultimatum"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B+
Rating: PG-13
Released: Friday, August 3, 2007
Directed by:
Cast:
It's been three years since we last saw Jason Bourne, but "The Bourne Ultimatum" begins just minutes after the last film left off, with the CIA-trained assassin (again played to steely perfection by Matt Damon) recovering from that now-legendary car chase through Moscow. The event seems to have jarred loose some memories in the back of his mind. Those glimpses of the past, plus his fury over the murder of his girlfriend in the last film, make him more determined than ever to learn who's responsible for all this, and to deliver the appropriate punishments.
That's "Ultimatum" in a nutshell: a sublimely uncomplicated film in which Jason Bourne tries to find the truth and the people who have the truth try to kill Jason Bourne. Directed, as was the last film, by Paul Greengrass ("United 93") and written by Tony Gilroy from Robert Ludlum's novel, "Ultimatum" is as lean, efficient, and ruthless as Bourne himself. Dialogue is used sparingly, but when it's used, it crackles with serious-spy-movie electricity. This movie is not kidding around, and that no-nonsense attitude during all the clever reversals and bruising fight sequences makes it an absolute thrill to watch.
Bourne and the CIA become each other's enemies again when a London newspaper reporter (Paddy Considine) publishes a story about Bourne that mentions a top-secret operation called "Blackbriar." The CIA, represented by the power-mad and slightly paranoid Noah Vosen (David Strathairn), furiously searches within itself to learn who the reporter's source was. Upon learning that Bourne himself may be involved, they bring in Pamela Landy (Joan Allen), the CIA operative who has dealt with the amnesiac killing machine before.
At this point in the story, though, the tide has turned. Some in the CIA have become sympathetic to Bourne and his search for answers about who he was before the CIA trained him. Landy might be among his supporters, and so might Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles), a field agent whom Bourne re-encounters in Spain (one of many corners of the globe to which Bourne trots in this adventure).
Not that Bourne needs a lot of help. What we've learned by now is that, like Jack Bauer, Jason Bourne is more or less indestructible. Killing him only makes him angrier. He has the skills and brains of James Bond, but without that part of Bond's personality that lets him relax. Bourne does not relax. He does not engage in clever repartee with villains. He does not smile.
"Ultimatum" is very much cut from the same breathlessly suspenseful cloth as "Supremacy" (which I believe was better than the first film, "The Bourne Identity"). Greengrass still favors the shaky camera style of photography, and he's fond of staging fight sequences without any music or other adornment. Bourne used a magazine as a lethal weapon last time; this time it's a book and a towel that figure into his hand-to-hand combat, in a fight scene that's brutal and seemingly never-ending. The Russian car-chase sequence was the last film's high point; Greengrass wisely doesn't try to top it this time around, but there is a bone-crushing jaunt through Manhattan that serves as a suitable follow-up.
As the final film in the series, "Ultimatum" is tasked with bringing closure to Bourne's search for answers. It does this satisfactorily, and we realize that despite the scarcity of dialogue and lack of information about Bourne's pre-spy life, he has somehow become a real, flesh-and-blood, fully developed character. Damon's lone-wolf somberness, plus his ability to use just his eyes and face to speak volumes about his character's thoughts, vitalizes Jason Bourne.
Grade: B+
Rated PG-13, a little mild profanity, some very intense action-movie violence
1 hr., 51 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 28 comments
August 3, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Umm, I believe the last scene of the previous movie (Supremacy) was a conversation between Landy and Bourne where Landy tells Bourne a name to help him search for his roots. Maybe it's just been too long since I've seen the movies, but wasn't the Russian car chase in the first movie (Identity)? I thought the last half of Supremacy, other than the last scene, occurs in Berlin and the car chase happened in the first half of the movie in India.
Is there a significant disconnect in continuity between the second and third films? That would be disappointing. I'm already a bit disappointed, though; I thought one of the films should have been titled "Bourne Again".
August 3, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Oh, right, now I remember that the Moscow chase _was_ in Supremacy -- however, there was still the last scene where Bourne talks to Landy while observing her in her CIA office. Do the two movies overlap, or is that scene ignored?
August 3, 2007 at 2:27 pm
That brings up a good question - who would win between Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne (they both even have the same initials)?
August 3, 2007 at 4:01 pm
It is a shame that they have strayed so completely from Ludlum's work - I have read the trilogy and the 2nd movie has absolutely jack to do with the book. I can only assume the trend has continued - I mean, Bourne's wife remains alive and vital to the story throughout the trilogy, so... Good and all that entertaining action scenes "make" movies these days, but, please, a little more attention to source material next time you make a movie, any hollywood types that frequent (as they should) this site!
August 3, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I have read the books as well, but not until after I had seen the first movie. At first I was disappointed that the movies were so completely different, but I guess I got over it at some point. You can look at the movies as kind of an alternate reality or sequel to the written trilogy. Bourne just makes such an interesting character to base this kind of movie around.
Also, I submit that Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne are the same person. After witness protection, Bourne gets the itch to fight the bad guys again and moves to LA to join CTU. He keeps his initials and goes by the name of Jack Bauer.
August 3, 2007 at 7:16 pm
James Bond also has the same initials. I sense a conspiracy.
August 3, 2007 at 7:41 pm
I refuse to see this movie simply because I find migraine headaches to be less than pleasant sensations. Thanks to Paul Greengr(what an)ass, who employed Shakes the Cameraman to film Supremacy, that film ended up being nothing more than a frustration for me. Why would a director intentionally setout to ruin a fine script, excellent acting, and intelligent and exciting scenarios by duct taping a camera to a goat’s head and then force feeding said goat with a wheelbarrow of beer before shooting the whole thing? Yes, I asked myself that type of question after walking out of Supremacy. I appreciate Eric telling us that this same type of convulsive, frenetic handheld camera work was employed to film this latest Bourne movie. Eric just saved me nearly $10. Thanks, former Daily Herald friend.
August 3, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I gotta agree with Bobbledeebeebump. The shaky-camera action really ruined the second movie for me. I came out of it with a huge headache, vowing not to see any more sequels if they were filmed in the same manner, at least not on the big screen. I realize some people are a fan of that style, but I like to actually see the fight choreography in fight scenes. With that shaky-camera stuff you can't see a thing. Their choreography could be great or it could utterly suck and you wouldn't know the difference.
I'm not dissing these movies as a whole, the second one still had a lot of strengths. But no strengths are worth a migraine for the rest of the night.
August 3, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Sideshow - regarding the "overlap" scene - consider the information Landy gives to Bourne.
August 4, 2007 at 11:46 am
I just saw this and thought it was a really great movie. I personally would give it a solid 'A'. I am surprised, on rereading Eric's review, to see it described as 'uncomplicated', though. This film was MUCH more complicated than the previous two, which basically boiled down to 'people try to kill Bourne, Bourne escapes'. There are numerous key characters in this one, lots of interlacing plotlines, double-crosses, locations, etc. Yeah, the dialogue is sparse but that doesn't mean that nothing is going on.
For those concerned about continuity with movie #2, this film definitely does maintain it, and does so rather cleverly.
August 4, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Excuse me, but why is this movie getting such good reviews? The first two films had heart -- they were fundamentally opposed to violence and concerned with showing the consequences of violence. This film is, apparently, a revenge flick -- in which Bourne sells his soul to satisfy the Hollywood machiner's need for a morally uncomplicated "vigilante" flick. Not to mention throwing out what was, by all accounts, a perfectly good plot from the book that, unlike this, HASN'T been done to death, namely, a movie-long duel between Bourne and a Carlos the Jackal character. Instead, Bourne sells the memories of his wife and the theme of the first two films down the toilet by becoming a revenge-obsessed character who believes in killing as a means to personal redemption. Why do Americans love this [poop]?
August 4, 2007 at 3:01 pm
I also love how folks are comparing Jason Bourne lovingly to Jack Bauer, another revenge-obsessed character who is a fan of torture and, generally speaking, apparently, another instance of the New American Hero prototype.
August 4, 2007 at 8:51 pm
First of all, to those of you who are complaining that the films stray from Ludlum's books, open your eyes. There's no possible way they could have done a film adaptation of The Bourne Identity that was faithful to the book's plot and characters and made the film less than 8 hours in length. The Zurich scenes alone would have taken an hour to an hour and a half. So, instead of making people really angry by taking stuff out and changing elements of the story, they did the incredibly brilliant thing and completely brought in a new story that bears only a passing resemblance to Ludlum's work. From there, the next two movies couldn't resemble the books closely, either.
As for Brian, it sounds like you should avoid this type of movie or TV show altogether. It seems like you should have learned this by now.
I love these films - they make it possible to love the movies and the books without any feeling that one ruined the other.
August 4, 2007 at 11:39 pm
I saw this today, and I really enjoyed it. I liked how they tied the two movies together, though it was not that difficult to see coming (especially since I just recently had rewatched "Supremacy"). I also thought that the "shaky camera" wasn't as bad in this movie, but that could also be because I was sitting in the back row. I distinctly remember the headache I had after the second one, and I didn't have that at all this time.
===
Brian (#11 & #12): I doubt you'll ever read this but you say that this is "apparently[] a revenge flick" - are you saying that you haven't even seen it and are complaining about it? Now THAT is the new American pasttime.
Regarding the movie, I think that Bourne shows an even bigger aversion to violence in this movie than he did in the first two. Does he ever even so much as injure anybody in this movie that's not trying to kill him first? I can only think of one person that he kills (and in exactly such a situation).
Bourne is definitely not "morally uncomplicated" and he doesn't sell his memories of Marie. He is not really revenge-obsessed either. His primary motivation is to find out what happened to him and to mourn the nameless people that he has killed.
August 5, 2007 at 6:23 pm
I may be too much a fan of this movie series to have an objective opinion, But I think a B+ is way too low. Just my opinion though. I loved it, and in no way was it a "revenge flick", nor does Jason Bourne indulge any blood lust. I really don't understand how anyone who has seen this movie could complain about it.
August 6, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I thought that the camera was shakier in "Ultimatum" than in "Supremacy." I sat in essentially the same spot in the same theatre for both of them. They were both WAY too shaky for me. I was on the 3rd row for both and had to look away from the screen. I believe that the headaches can be avoided if you sit farther back from the screen. If it bothers you, try the back row or just watch it on DVD because it doesn't bother me at all on the DVDs.
I thought that this movie was less of Bourne randomly killing people who were after him than either of the first two. In this one, he just seems to want to maim them, unless they were trying to kill him and there appeared to be no other alternative. There seemed to be fewer officers or CIA agents that died in this one to me.
August 7, 2007 at 3:37 pm
This is a super ACTION film that is incredibly entertaining IF you liked the new Casino Royal, the "Die Hard" series or the previous Bourne flicks. If you did NOT like any of those, save your time and money. If you did however, like those, stop reading and see this now. Forget all this self serving crap about Jack Bauer and shaky cameras and whatever-go be entertained.
And I'm willing to bet a couple of extra fake passports, this was/is not the FINAL Bourne film.
August 7, 2007 at 11:06 pm
#3: No, no no no no no no no no no. Jack Bauer vs. Jason Bourne vs. Jason Voorhees. THAT would be awesome.
August 8, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I agree with the B+ mostly because of the shaky camera. What the crap is the director thinking, especially during the fight scene? I was like "who hit who? Did he break something? Who is on the ground now? Oh, I think it's over, what happened?"
It was good and well done, but I felt the shaky camera was worse this time than before. Not headache inducing, but annoying.
August 8, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Oh, and does anyone know why they put Julia Stiles in this movie? She just kinda appeared and then didn't add anything. I was wondering if something got cut because I don't think she added to the plot or characterization at all.
August 8, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Probably for continuity's sake. People saw her in the first two and she managed to not die. Why not bring her back?
And I could have sworn that Landy was more than an operative. Wasn't she described as a Deputy Director? That's more than a few paygrades above "operative."
August 9, 2007 at 12:47 pm
This is for 'Doggin': in Ludlum's books, Bourne's arch enemy was Carlos the Jackal. Since the man is lounging in prison, every book on the fella has lost some lustre. In my opinion, the movies would have been a disaster if they stuck to the orig. material
August 9, 2007 at 6:32 pm
First of all, good movie, best of the series. Second, if you want to watch a movie and not have a headache. Do not sit in a third row. First 12 rows headache guaranteed for almost any movie. Action or not. It's just too much direct light and strain for the eyes, not to mention the head at an awkward angle for 151 minutes.
Third, plot is consistant. Fighting scenes are great. Camera work is great. For those unfamiliar with martial arts or freestyle wrestling or judo or jiu jitsu, yes action is hard to follow, as a normal person's reactions are not adopted to follow that kind of a fight... Very realistic and brutal fight for survival, nothing flashy about it, camera movement, takes the viewer and makes him feel as if his is either in the fight, or observing it closely like a ref in UFC or something. Fighting scenes are very well tied into the plot so the user does not have to wonder what that was about.
Jason Bourne is depicted as both master assassin and a master spy. Well, the rest of the CIA is depicted as an assassination agency, with a few good guys, but fairly incompetent in both assassination and spy field craft. Not to mention the little fact analysts or deputy directors would not be inherently taking part in field operations, for reasons of plausible deniability, etc. Thus there is a fine line between a spy, a handler and a special ops operative, as can clearly be seen from all the spy memoirs and literature published, by soviet defectors and former US operatives as well.
Movie is great, it does not reflect the reality, but that's not what the audiences came to see. They came to see an action flick, which is believable and is potentially realistic. Or at least not farfetched and has clear aspects of reality, not forcing the viewers to suspend their disbelief. And it's not that farfetched, as this is the kind of hunts (not as high tech.) Soviets organized, when their agents defected, after many were recalled, by Stalin's and later regimes in order to be eliminated.
As for CIA, as Fidel Castro assasination attempts have shown CIA tries to be much more subtle than the brute all out force, as for brute all out force they can use Special Forces or Delta Force or Navy Seals. Given his fighting skills, ability to orient against sniper fire, that's the assumed pre CIA occupation of Jason Bourne, although he is also very well versed in field craft, and is shown to know and utilize the art of an illegal covert operative. He also is familiar with tenets psychological warfare, which makes him a believable, albeit unrealistic, renaissance/superman of the profession.
August 11, 2007 at 5:41 pm
"there is a fine line between a spy, a handler and a special ops operative."
In the CIA there is no such thing as a good spy. "Spy" is a four-letter word in the Agency; the word is used to describe disloyal citizens who are voluntarily aiding and abetting the enemy, not individuals working for the CIA.
August 12, 2007 at 4:49 pm
A friend told me that the camera was too shaky for her, and I didn't really process her assessment before going to see the movie. Indeed she was right, it was so horrible I was unable to make it through to the end, despite really enjoying the story.
This was the first time I'd ever been made sick by a shaky camera. I really think the directors are out of control. Happily, I got a refund from the theatre.
August 17, 2007 at 2:36 am
James bond, jack bauer, jason bourne JEREMY BEADLE
it is a conspiricy!!!
September 4, 2007 at 11:26 am
I thought this movie deserved much better then a B+.
I think the shaky camera adds a lot to the film, makes you feel like you're actually there. It adds to the realism of the movie. I agree with Ski, you just can't sit too close to the screen.
The continuity is excellent, and yes, the two films overlap. But it's not annoying and actually makes a lot more sense.
I have also read the books, and this film has absolutely nothing to do with the book. But that's ok, they've hardly been close to the books in any of the movies, and I'd rather them create their own story then ruin Ludlum's. That's why I like movies like The Count of Monte Cristo - I just have to completely dissociate them from the source, which isn't hard when they're so different, and I can enjoy them without thinking about how certain details don't match up the book or my favorite characters.
Anyway, Matt Damon was excellent in this film, which was not a revenge film as someone mentioned. if it had been there would be a much higher body count, as Bourne is just able to kill as he is disable - and he still chooses to disable whenever possible. The action was excellent and it kept me on the edge of my seat until the very end
October 7, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Having produced 3D computer animation for TV and film for years, I thought I had a high tolerance for fast action jerky movement but I hated this film's camera work. I know it's supposed to increase the sense of action and put the viewer right in the middle of the scene but all it really did was nauseate me and I finally walked out before the film was over. I'll wait till I can see it from a distance on a small TV screen because I had no desire to barf in the theater.
It's a real shame too, I love the plot, the action, Matt Damon's acting, it's an excellent film and story in all ways EXCEPT for the camera. It made the film look cheap, shoddy and added NOTHING to many, many scenes, but rather detracted so badly that I literally could not watch it.