Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

This is topic Bourne Ultimatum (2007) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001303

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 08-03-2007, 08:29 AM:

Out of the three movies I would have to say that this is by far the weakest film. I've read early reviews that said, OMG this is a nonstop thrill ride. It only slows down so you can catch your breath just so it can take it right back away.

This film is a good movie, I really liked it but in the trilogy it is the worst. There really is not car chases to speak of, not like in the other two, and thats what I love about the others. The way the car scenes were shot and the fact that they were real cars and real drivers.

AND YES, the shakey cam is here. Not as much as the last instalment but its there. The fight scenes are hectic and make you feel like your in the cramped little apartment.

I've always loved how Jason Bourne is a no nosense fighter. He'll use what ever he can to fight you and beat you. His use of a random book in the apartment fight is great. The fast paceing of the fights make them look real, with the moves being in a combo flowing smoothly.

Matt Damon turns in another great performace as Bourne, which is expected with this being his third run. He has all the little things down. David Strathairn was a great add on to the cast, to take over being the bad CIA guy. Hes in good company with Chris Cooper and Brian Cox.

This is worth seeing a solid 4/5 but like I said, its the worse of the three.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-04-2007, 06:52 AM:

I really liked this film. Theatre: Corydon (Indiana) Cinemas in Dolby Digital with great (loud) volume. I felt as if I had been beaten about the head by the end. I am certain that this is the effect that was desired.

Please note that the last Bond film (Casino Royale) owes a great debt to the Bourne films sylistically. Louis

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-05-2007, 09:09 PM:

I agree with Loius... Excellent film but the DP(Oliver Wood) should be shot! Way too much jerky camera movement in this one to the point that it distracted me from what was going on. Almost the entire film is this way [puke]

. If you see it on a 70 foot screen take some Dramamine first. I thought it just about the best plot line and story of any film this year. The mix was awsome and this is one to go see in D-Cinema, both the uncompressed digital track and the image are superb.

The presentation I saw at Megaplex Gateway #1 (70 foot screen) was flawless including the rolling titles at the end. Those of you that think D-Cinema is equal to 16mm in resolution need to visit this theater that has a 70 foot wide screen! All I can say is that this 16mm equivelent image looked unbelievable. There were zero image artifacts.

In spite of the jerky camera movement I give it four stars.

Mark

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 08-05-2007, 11:43 PM:

DLP projection has come a long way since it opened - most of that has been on the studio end, as well.

Great flick, camera action = [puke]

Too bad it didn't stick to the books, but those were boring anyway. [Smile]

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 08-06-2007, 02:39 AM:

I wouldn't blame the DP for the Shaky cam, thats a Paul Greengrass thing. The other movies were that way also, as well as Flight 93.

I don't know, but it dosn't bother me in the least, I think it adds to the movie and makes you feel more like your there over his sholder then just watching it. You guys make such a huge deal about it, but I watched it on our 71' by 30 foot and didn't get sick from it.

We have had some people come out after and say they felt sick but that might also be because they were sitting in the first couple of rows.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-08-2007, 12:28 PM:

I went back and watched the first movie on HD-DVD last night and there is not the level of "camera shakiness" that is evedent in the third installment in which they certainly carried it to new heights of annoyance. Hand held camera doesn't bother me if done competantly but this stuff looks like it was left up to a third grade child or a camera operator that held the camera for four hours straight before any takes were actually filmed. The first film is actually photograped extremely well with some hand held camera at the appropriate time and nice sweeping camera moves at other times... many static shots too. I haven't watched the second film again to see what level it was driven to but I suspect it has just gotten worse and worse over the films. The only good aspect of alot of handheld is that it does speed up shooting since many complicated camera setups are eliminated.

Mark

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 08-08-2007, 02:23 PM:

Saw it this past Sunday and really enjoyed it. I especially liked how they tied the ending from the last one to this one.

My theory on the shaky cam in instances like this is that it shows the untrained actors trying to "perform" martial arts in a better light. Matt Damon is not Jet Li. If they where to attempt to do a straight shot fight scene, it would look awful. This way they can do a million different takes, the actors can move is slow motion and it all gets speeded up and hacked together so that it looks "cool". My two cents anyway.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-08-2007, 03:25 PM:

Now you know what it looks like when the Steadicam breaks down during the helicopter shots! Louis

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-08-2007, 04:41 PM:

I suggest that you go back and watch the first Bourne Film and you'll see there is a lack of shakiness. You'll see the same type of fight scenes in that film!!

Mark

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-08-2007, 06:28 PM:

Is Bourne Ultimatum the thrill ride of the summer? I refuse to see movies that aren't non-stop roller coaster thrill rides of the summer.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-08-2007, 07:55 PM:

If you don't find it to be I can take you for a ride in the Land Rover!

Mark

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 08-08-2007, 08:34 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I went back and watched the first movie on HD-DVD last night and there is not the level of "camera shakiness"

It's not a Bourne thing, it's a Paul Greengrass thing. The First Bourne was directed by Doug Liman & all three were shot by Oliver Wood.

Handheld camerawork has never affected me negatively ... all the complaints on f-t about Blair Witch, the 2nd & 3rd Bourne films, United 93, The Death of Mr. Lazarescu ... etc (those are the ones I remember complaints about specifically) ... anyway, none of those bothered me. The only time I've been affected was on Haunted Castle (the 3D 15/70 film) but that had more to do with the idiot that "fixed" some damaged frames & inserted the wrong amount of slug film, being off two frames from one eye to the other.

Anyway ... enough of that ... [thumbsup]

I enjoyed this.

Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 08-08-2007, 11:12 PM:

quote:
There really is not car chases to speak of,

I have to strongly disagree with this! I really enjoyed the car chase in this movie through New York. It was really intense for me and I probably enjoyed this movie the best of the three.

I also agree with Louis that Casino Royale is very much in the vein of the Bourne movies. Stripped down, hand to hand combat and better writing and direction.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 08-09-2007, 01:47 AM:

quote: Michael Gonzalez
My theory on the shaky cam in instances like this is that it shows the untrained actors trying to "perform" martial arts in a better light. Matt Damon is not Jet Li. If they where to attempt to do a straight shot fight scene, it would look awful.

To which Mark Responded:

quote:
I suggest that you go back and watch the first Bourne Film and you'll see there is a lack of shakiness. You'll see the same type of fight scenes in that film!!

My words exactly. What made the first film so great is that the fight scenes so great was that the were not sensationalized by slo-mo or stupid camera work. It was all very realistic, and was refreshing to see a change from the normal movie fight scene. To say that seizure cam was used due to lack of acting ability is ignorant.

The perfect example would be the cast of "The Matrix". Hugo Weaving would never have struck me as a talented on-screen fighting actor.

The directors of the past two movies probably selected the seizure cam for one of three reasons:

1 - They are not capable of directing a fight scene that compared to the first installment.

2- They were lazy and wanted to complete the fight scenes in as little takes as possible.

3- The directors honestly believe that people like this style of cinematography, or that it is an artistic "trademark".

For whatever reason, I dislike the style and am very disappointed to hear that "Ultimatum" is done in seizure cam style. "Supremacy" didn't thrill me due to this, but neither did the lack of screen time given to Chris Cooper (yes I know his character was killed).

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 08-09-2007, 05:05 AM:

Paul Greengrass did the last two bourne films. And it is his artistic thing, its in all of his movies.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-09-2007, 11:02 AM:

Paul Greengrass is just a shitty director. Everything he has done sucks and he simply tries to cover up his incompetence with the epileptic cam under the notion that it creates more tension. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-09-2007, 11:23 AM:

quote: Kurt Zupin
Paul Greengrass did the last two bourne films.

No, just "Supremacy" and the current one. Unless you meant, "the two most recent Bourne Films."

Doug Liman directed "The Bourne Identity."

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-09-2007, 02:47 PM:

Time for him to retire. Louis

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 08-09-2007, 03:36 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
No, just "Supremacy" and the current one. Unless you meant, "the two most recent Bourne Films."

Doug Liman directed "The Bourne Identity."

Yeah Mike, that would be the last two films. Ultimatum and Supremacy

Ahh apple to oranges [beer]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-09-2007, 07:26 PM:

You guys go back and watch the forst installment... it's imagery flows far better than number two or three.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 08-10-2007, 05:10 AM:

I agree Mark, the first one is awsome. The 2nd had some great car chases and this one was just a good story.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-11-2007, 11:32 PM:

Saw this today in #3 at Regal 15 in Shelbyville where the presentation was very good except for the bottom 25% or so of the image is out of focus. The rest of the image is very sharp. Someone needs to fix it if possible because subtitles were very fuzzy.

I liked the movie a lot. Very intense without being too overly complicated. I agree there was just a little too much Shaky-Cam but waddaya gonna do.

After the movie's huge opening, you know they'll have to do #4 but I read somewhere that Matt Damon wants out. Well he should offer to keep going but only at his price. He has a lock on the role. Stick it to the man! [Razz]

Just don't get TOO greedy or they might find someone even better than you like the Bond series did with Daniel Craig.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 08-11-2007, 11:41 PM:

Saw this one today, I liked it. Didn't have any problems with the shaky cam, neither did my folks who were with me.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-12-2007, 01:07 AM:

I liked it, the hectic camera thing did not bother me too much except that you can't really see much of the fight scenes. It's just arms and legs all over the place, or rather all over the frame.

Paul Greengrass is just a shitty director. Everything he has done sucks and he simply tries to cover up his incompetence with the epileptic cam under the notion that it creates more tension.

Tell us how you really feel about Greengrass, Brad.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-12-2007, 08:59 AM:

Michael, can you remember who you are [uhoh]

?????

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-12-2007, 01:06 PM:

I don't think shaky-cam has anything to do with someone being a good director or not -- it's either: (1) The actors can't pull off a believeable action scene or (2) the action scene is choreographed so ridiculously that no humans could ever act it out.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-12-2007, 01:29 PM:

I strongly disagree. When a director ALWAYS uses the shaky cam, it is quite clear to me that he does not know how to properly direct an action scene. If you can't tell what's going on half of the time...it's shitty directing.

Paul Greengrass is stupid. (That was for David)

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-12-2007, 06:48 PM:

I agree with Brad on this one. Its sad too that with the grosses this film is doing that we will obviously have to put up with more ineptness from the same director down the line.

Mark

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-12-2007, 11:15 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Michael, can you remember who you are?????

Funny, now that you mention it, I can only remember stuff 8 years back or so, before that, I remember bits and pieces, but no coherent stories. Hmmm...maybe those bits and pieces are residue of my earlier identity, or maybe they are part of the new identity I received back then? Who knows...

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-13-2007, 04:18 AM:

Michael Shaffer, your response of "tell us how you really feel" was well thought out and right on target! It was also extremely witty and added much to the thread. You sure put Brad in his place. How dare he get directly to the point with words that may frighten the timid! That deserved the appropriate comment which you thoughtfully provided. In all my years of reading text on the internet and listening to people converse in real life, I have never heard such an original response. Keep 'em comin' Mike!

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-13-2007, 04:30 AM:

How dare Michael make a harmless joke.

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 08-16-2007, 03:13 PM:

Cinema: Vue Sheffield screen 11
Presentation problems: Badly out of focus during the first 5 minutes; corrected after that

I just saw it today (just been released in UK), and I have only one thing to say. Good movie, ruined by shaky-cam [Mad]

Would have given it 4 out of 5, but the camerawork takes it down a bit - 3 out of 5.

Seriously, if it wasn't for the fact that the entire movie was shot using the hand-held camera effect, I would have enjoyed it a lot more. Action, chases, suspense - and a good storyline to hold it together. I found myself having to look away from the screen on several occasions to stop myself getting motion sick...

I also agree, the fight scenes were extremely hard to follow. It's just shots of arms and legs cut together in rapid succession; I really couldn't tell who was fighting who most of the time. Someone should go through the movie with a digital image stabilizer (like you get on some camcorders) and produce a version of the movie without shaky-cam [Big Grin]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-16-2007, 05:30 PM:

quote: Thomas Pitt

I also agree, the fight scenes were extremely hard to follow. It's just shots of arms and legs cut together in rapid succession; I really couldn't tell who was fighting who most of the time.

and that right there is what makes Paul Greengrass such a shitty director. He isn't directing anything. He is just cutting together random blurry clips of nothing and relying on the audio guys to give the impression of a fight.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 08-16-2007, 05:35 PM:

I remember almost laughing during the part where Bourne and the other guy were fighting in the room/bathroom and they were basically punching each other, and the foley sound effects of the punches seemed really forced.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-16-2007, 09:18 PM:

and that right there is what makes Paul Greengrass such a shitty director. He isn't directing anything. He is just cutting together random blurry clips of nothing and relying on the audio guys to give the impression of a fight.

Tell us how you really feel about Greengrass, Brad.

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 08-17-2007, 09:47 AM:

What a disappointment!

"Indentity" was a solid non-pretentious thriller that managed to capture the 60's cold war espionage feel. "Supremacy" still managed that feeling but added some modern styling. "Ultimatum" is all style and no substance.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 08-20-2007, 12:49 PM:

As someone who hated the shaky cam in Bourne Supremacy, let me say I had no major problems with it in Ultimatum. The only time it really annoys, is in the very beginning. But I thought the London train station sequence was shot, for the most part, very well. I loved the Desh chase.

Also, it could be the film print or maybe better projection(I saw Bourne 2 at Regal Perimeter Pointe and this one at the recently built Regal Atlantic Station), but the pic seemed less grainier than Bourne 2.

THe main thing is the movie never bored me. It had three great action sequences.

NOT REALLY A SPOILER , BUT WHO KNOWS:
Not a big detailed plot. Pretty much revisits the ending of Bourne Supremacy which is recreated for his movie.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-26-2007, 07:10 PM:

Dear Paul Greengrass,

PLEASE RENT A STEADICAM! Holy shit. I don't think there was one scene in the entire movie that had the camera held still. Even the location establishing shots were filled with rapid side to side motion and zooms. Supremecy wasn't THIS bad.

On to the movie. I was pretty disappointed. The chase scenes were pretty repetative, the CIA bad guys were like a parody from Austin Powers and I thought for a moment I was watching Wolverine's flashbacks from X-Men. The fight scenes were terrible thanks to Paul "Shaky Cam" Greengrass. He is camera men must be injected with something to give them a siezure before he says "action". The CIA command center scenes also felt like they were done from the exact same angles and with the exact same editing sequence as the Air Traffic Control scenes from United 93.

The Bourne Identity was a great spy thriller with a mysterious twist. The Bourne Supremecy was a decent action movie follow up. The Bourne Ultimatum was a huge disappointment to end the trilogy.

At least they could have flashed back to the endurance training where they teach agents to be able to run for miles on end at top speed and then engage in hand to hand combat without losing steam.

2 out of 5 stars (it would have been 2 1/2 if not for the vomit cam)

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-26-2007, 09:14 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
The Bourne Identity was a great spy thriller with a mysterious twist. The Bourne Supremecy was a decent action movie follow up. The Bourne Ultimatum was a huge disappointment to end the trilogy.

I think you meant to say that....

The Bourne Identity had great camera work with just a tad bit of shaky cam thrown in to make it seem more realisitc. The Bourne Supremecy has alot worse camera work than the Bourne Identity did... The Bourne Ultimatum had the lousiest camera work of the trilogy.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-27-2007, 04:16 PM:

Location: Carmike 8
Auditorium: #5, 9:50pm show (Aug. 6)
Format: Christie DLP/Doremi Server, 2048 X 852 pixels
Rating: 3 stars out of 4

I watched The Bourne Ultimatum three weeks ago, but am only just now getting around to writing a review on it.

Overall, I thought the movie was pretty good. However, I still did not enjoy it as much as The Bourne Identity. This was a definitely step upward from The Bourne Supremacy. It was interesting how this movie made certain call backs and flash backs to the first film to reinforce where Jason Bourne was going with his character. "Look at what they make you give."

This was a pretty loud movie.

The fight scenes and car chases were interesting, especially the one set in Manhattan (I'll bet they had to shoot that on a number of Sundays). Unfortunately, those action sequences could have been quite a bit more effective with at least some tripod-mounted camera shots.

I'll at least acknowledge the extra effort Paul Greengrass put into nearly every sequence in this movie, even the mundane ones. It's not often that you can spot any lazy back and forth camera A to camera B edits making up entire scenes. Many of the scenes have a progression of several different camera setups which makes the scene more alive. Unfortunately, nearly all of the shots are deliberately shaky hand held.

Now I wasn't quite as put off by the shaky cam as I was in The Bourne Supremacy, but that's only because The Bourne Supremacy had dreary, dim lighting throughout much of the show. Shaky cam plus low lighting equals 100% shit image quality. At least someone had some lights and light meter this time!

I also went back and watched The Bourne Identity again on DVD and listened to Director Doug Liman's commentary track to see more of the obvious differences between his nature of directing and that of Paul Greengrass. Liman says he did a lot of the camera work himself, with some of it being hand held to introduce "energy" into shots and give certain scenes a more documentary feel. Still, he varied shot types up between shaky hand held angles to fixed, tripod-mounted angles, dolly shots, crane shots and more. The important thing is many of Liman's scenes had critical "coverage" where the viewers could get their bearings on the sense of space and surroundings in the scene and what was happening. If you comprise a scene with almost nothing but blurry, shaky chaos the audience is just not going to be as involved in the events that are unfolding.

It's something of a shame that Liman didn't direct these last two Bourne movies. According to his commentary track he convinced the late Robert Ludlum to allow a new movie to be adapted from The Bourne Identity. I think Liman faltered a bit with his Mr. & Mrs. Smith spy movie (the story just seems even more preposterous every time I find it playing on HBO). I can't help but wonder how much better the last two Bourne movies might have been if Liman had directed them.

I think "shaky cam" is a lot like profanity in movies. It should be used with economy. The novelty wears off quickly and loses all impact after awhile. Shaky cam should be used as an accent to certain action scenes. It shouldn't make up most of the camera shots in the movie. When it is over-used to the level as seen in Greengrass' work, the shtick turns into something the audience has to endure. Watching the movie begins to feel like a chore. It's like trying to watch a 2 hour movie through the eyes of a cerebral palsy victim.

For any TV or feature film spoofing movie production, I'd really love to see a scene where you have a camera guy shooting something and shaking the camera around. Have a producer come up behind the guy, slap him upside the head and shout, "stop it!"

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-27-2007, 06:21 PM:

Watched this over the weekend. I didn't find the shaky cam thing all that bothersome except when the picture SHOULD have been steady, like when showing a sign, or two people just talking. But even then, weaving and bobbing all over the place.

That said, it didn't detract too much from the story once I got used to it. My wife liked it more than I did, which is surprising because I ususally like this kind of movie the best.

The car chase scene was my favorite part of the movie. The end title song was good too, it is really good exit music.

Overall, I was entertained and the flick went by fast, but I don't reallly have any desire to watch it again, except maybe that chase scene. Three out of five for me; Lynn would give it four, I think.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-27-2007, 06:41 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
The end title song was good too, it is really good exit music.

I think it was kind of odd how that Moby song was used in the end credits of all three films. It's a good tune, but it isn't the theme to Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark either. Just a pop tune really.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-27-2007, 11:31 PM:

I knew that thing was familiar. Didn't realize it was on all the Bournes. Well, I guess that means the first two didn't make much of an impression on me. Forgettable but enjoyable.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-03-2007, 07:48 AM:

Well I just saw it last night at the Muvico Egyptian at Arundel Mills Mall.

Presentation was 35mm w/Dolby Digital sound.

First off, the print condition was still in excellent shape...a few flecks around reel changes but no visible scratches.

The theatre needs to be retuned...the channel levels were well balanced but the sound was bass heavy or should I say tubby. The light level was too low (everything had an overcast appearence to it...probably no higher than 8 or 9fL. The image was also shifted to the right (shadow on the left, too much spill on the masking on the right).

Focus could have been better and should have been checked during the film as it drifted a little. Then again, Super-35 with the 2K DI was a limiting factor on the potential image combined with siezure-cam.

But on to the film. My experience echos what most have said. I thought the film was quite entertaining but the camera work was incompetent. The "fight scene" towards the end was so bad it would have been better to cut it out and just imply the result. It was totally unwatchable.

Soundwise, I thought the mix on this film was quite good and probably added to the film far more than the visuals!

I certainly fell that "Identity" was the best...both storywise and quality of filming. This film felt like just "more of the same" but with the 2nd string team at work. 3 out of 5 for me.

Steve

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 09-05-2007, 02:42 PM:

quote: Kurt Zupin
I think it adds to the movie and makes you feel more like your there

My head doesn't bob around like that, but I'm not sure about anyone else's.

Holy freaking seizure-cam, Batman! What the hell was up with that? You guys are talking about the fight scenes being all seizure-cammed to hell, but what about the soft mellow scene of Jason Bourne talking to his girlfriend's brother or whoever it was? What should have been a sad calm scene was broken apart by Shakes that Camera Man. I couldn't concentrate on anything they said. I was too fascinated by how their heads were bouncing all over the screen.

The fight scenes were also shot way too "claustrophobicly." I'm sure the actors spent a lot of time choreographing some cool moves, but I couldn't make any of them out.

A cool movie, and I spent the last week watching all three of them for the first time. I like the series. It's a shame bone heads are screwing up what should otherwise be a great show.

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 11-15-2007, 12:27 AM:

I am dragging the chain on this one, finally got to watch it today, and well...... I can only mirror what others have said here already.

The film was quite good I was entertained but that camera work was terrible.

quote: Michael Schaffer was the last to post
Paul Greengrass is just a shitty director.

I think Brad is very correct , John Mc Tiernan he is not.

3 out of 5 stars from me on the film and -1 for camera work