eh....

great action, but with the 'realization' near end, I felt "enough's enough".

"...but with the 'realization' near end, I felt "enough's enough".

Oh go on.. put it in SPOILER tags. You know you want to.

What really, really irks me about the Bourne films is, he spends the entire films trying to remember something that is totally bleeding obvious to the viewer. So any great 'realisation' at the end is greeted (by me at least) with one giant 'so what'

I loved the first one.

 I recall liking the second one, but oddly, don't remember too much about it.

 So, I'd say it may have been as good as the first, but in my opinion, not nearly as good as #2.

Depends what you're lookin' for tho....

you go needing a fast, violent, smart, no hold barred fight that lasts an hour and change, you win.

you go expecting a love story, you lose.
ditto for any real substantial story.
the ending leaves you saying, " I shaved my legs for this?"

definately hand held cameras, shaking, shucking, jiving...

queasy!

Quasi Spoilers in inviso-text, if you will:

During their talk after Parson's rescue, if you pay close attention to the dialogue, I believe Parsons implies that she and Bourne had a relationship while he was still David Webb during his programming.  While this is certainly open to interpretation, and there's nothing concrete to fully justify this assertion, the looks and the performances given by the actors can certainly allow for this interpretation and give a reason for her her reluctance to follow through on the attraction she obviously feels towards him.  Just my two cents.

Pete, I thought the second film suffered from the same jerky camera moves, which I had not been expecting.  I came out of the theater on the second film not enjoying it nearly as much as the first simply because of that (but liked the story and the acting).  On DVD it didn't seem as bad, and I was prepared for it to be the same way on the third film (which it was). 

Overall, I would rank the movies in the order they came out, with the first being the best.  But I enjoyed all of them immensely, and I would say that The Bourne Ultimatum is one of the better movies I have seen so far this year.

Edit:  Hey, 300 posts!  Finally!

You mean Ron Livingston of "Office Space" fame, dude. :-)

I thought it was about as good as the second one, maybe half a grade less so.

I'm late to chime in, and I guess I don't have much more to say than gripe about the "shaky-cam."

As opposed to the 2nd Bourne movie, in ULTIMATUM the camera moves so much the action scenes lose their punch (pun intended).  It got so bad that I could not tell who was hitting who.  Way too distracting, and if it was toned down some (just some!), I think it would have been a better movie.

By the way, I just found this interesting link on the whole Shaky Cam subject:
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/talking_pictures/200 7/08/greengrass-shak.html

Overall, it was a very fun movie.  If you liked the previous two, you should like this one.

The books completely blow away the films, reducing them to mere shadows in comparison. I finished reading the 1st book of the series right before seeing the first film and absolutely hated the movie. I thought the 2nd film was better and the 3rd was the best of the bunch. Anyone who slightly enjoyed the films would be well served by picking up the first 3 books in the Ludlum series.

The big reveal in the last film was ok, but very cliche.... and laughable when comparing it to the reveal that actually took place for the character in the novel.... something that the film couldn't do because the films never introduced Bourne's arch nemesis from the novels.