The Bourne Ultimatum Mini-Review

The Bourne Ultimatum is the third film about Jason Bourne, secret agent extraordinnaire. It immediately picks up the events of the first two movies and further explains Bournes background, memory loss and role in a secret training program.

For people who haven’t seen the first two, there are flashbacks to fill in the gaps. For people who have seen them, there’s a slightly odd chronology, as Ultimatum begins right at the end of the car chase in that Russian tunnel (which is not where Supremacy ended).

Jason Bourne is a modern James Bond. They share initials, great film score and rad car chases. That’s where the similarities end and the road forks. If I had to pick one road to follow, I’d go with Bourne.

Ultimatum brilliantly succeeds where Supremacy (which was a great movie, make no mistake) fell slightly short. It has (almost) the same mystical feeling the first one had, and it certainly has the action and pace of both movies.

Ultimatum is eminently watchable and very worth your cinema bucks.


12 thoughts on “The Bourne Ultimatum Mini-Review

  1. First poster!

    For every praise you throw at this movie my feelings to express the opposite grows. It doesn’t deserve this level of glorification. Why? Firstly, I cannot separate this episode from the prior, isn’t it just a repeat of the first two!? Secondly, how dumb can the bad guys be! Ohh, I will leave my office and go catch him myself and my office safe is controlled by voice access which can be copied from any electronic device, and its my name!!!

    As a result, I left the cinema with an empty feeling of nothing. Luckily a poster of Rush Hour 3 was on the wall on the way out, that made me giggle 🙂

  2. Sorry I didn’t respond sooner, but I’ve just been buried in paperwork for the last 48 hours. I dropped the ball on this one.

    No but seriously, I really enjoyed the first one. I enjoyed the second one, and the third one I liked more than 2 and a little bit less than the first one.

    All three movies are stories about an almost superhuman agent with violent amnesia and a fierce skill to survive deadly car crashes.

    We’re not talking art here, we’re talking action movies.

    Judged as such, they’re all the best of the crop.

  3. Not really into the Bourne series, but Bourne doesn’t compare to Bond. Did he ever score Halle Berry? I think not.

  4. Good movie — I’d give it a 4 (out of 6), Best part was of course to see my old neighborhood again and this time it’s even mentioned in the movie (Tudor City that is, on the east side of Manhattan just by the UN building).

  5. Yeah, sorry, let me try and elaborate on that.

    I just found it hard to believe. I’m probably in the same camp as Vindberg. I think it started out being quite cool, but the more “mistakes” was made I found it harder and harder to really get get into it. First of I think the article in the newspaper was stupid. The headline (as far as I remember) was “Who is Jason Bourne”. That’s stupid, cause that would only be relevant in the context of the movie. A more realistic headline would be “US intelligence behind illegal assassination program”. And it just amounts to incredible stupidity when the CIA kills the British reporter in the middle of a crowded station. And they make it worse by moving ALL the cameras away from the shooter in one direction, thus quite strongly implying that some sort of super-strong government agency is behind it … and that’s on the same day this journalist had published his CIA story. It also strikes me when Bourne delivers the mobile phone to the reporter he is essentially in clear sight of the agents he knows is watching the reporter. Those agents don’t know what Bourne looks like, but Bourne can’t know that. In reality those agents SHOULD know what Bourne looks like, because the head of the operation immediately suspected that Bourne WAS the reporter’s source. And Bourne somehow seems to know the exact point in time when the operatives know what he looks like. I could go on like this. One thing that really irritates me in the end is that Bourne hands over the papers that are so important to him to this lady CIA executive. All of us watching knows that she’s good, but Bourne can’t know that. He has spoken with her only briefly, and she appeared to help him in the right direction, but for a paranoid super agent that would only look like she’s trying to manipulate him, gain his trust in order to get something from him. And the super villain seem to realise that his game is lost when the last page of the documents goes through the fax. HELLO! A fax document is about the poorest quality you can get of anything and would be easily faked. Yes, it could be considered as incriminating, but the super villain shouldn’t give up at that point in time – especially as him and his boss seem to think they’ve got something on the lady so that they can pin everything on her. And, without really being able to say why, I was just so irritated that the CIA kept referring to their shooters as “The Asset”. I thought it sounded stupid.

  6. I see what you mean.

    Now that I think about it, such things annoy me too.

    Interestingly, some movies can “take me away” from caring about those inconsistencies, while other movies fail miserably. In Spiderman 2 I ignored all the really stupid things, not so with Spiderman 3.

    Bottomline, if the movie is made (pretty) well, I’m forgiving of stupid things. Does that make sense?

  7. Yes certainly; I know what you mean. I guess if you also fell in love with the two first Bourne instalments you’d automatically be more forgiving. Personally I can watch “Star Trek: Next Generation” and just love it 😀

Comments are closed.