MovieChat Forums > The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) Discussion > Did we really need the third film? Weake...

Did we really need the third film? Weakest of the trilogy...


SPOILERS!

The BI and BS are both excellent films. I felt the continuity of the story really flowed between both movies. We have Marie in both (what an awesome girl, great chemistry between her and Bourne) and great character depth portrayed through raw emotion from the actors. I found the scene in BI when Marie finds Bourne at night watching the children silently at her step-brothers house and he says "I don't want to know who I am anymore," really powerful. Also in the BS when he confesses to Neski's daughter that he murdered her parents and that they didn't commit suicide and he says "I would want to know." It was scenes like these that made the first two movies blend really well. Both films had great substance.

Although BU was still a good film, I felt it was just a cash in from hollywood. I think it was an unnecessary sequel. And here's why;

1) Matt Damon had aged too much. He looked significantly younger in the first two films. Having flashback scenes at the lab "where it all began", that were supposed to have taken place before BI, and yet showing Damon who looked undeniably older than what he looks like in BI, irritated me because it ruined that seamless continuity of the first two films.

2) The Bourne story was wrapped up nicely at the end of BS. Bourne had cleared his name, he knew who he was, and all those behind Treadstone and the stolen CIA funds had been dealt with; Conklin, Abbott, and the corrupt Russian oil baron. Just for the purpose of cashing in; new characters like Vosen and Hirsch had to be made up because all the main villains were already dead or arrested. It seems to me strange that Vosen would never have made an appearance in BI and BS, he seemed to have just been a character written in to replace Abbott, seeing as the writers had killed him off in the second film not anticipating a third to be made.

3) The Nikki and Bourne romance. Again this hinting at Nikki having romantic feelings toward Bourne ruined the continuity of the previous films. She shows no signs of affection toward him in BI and BS.

4) The absence of Marie. I think Marie is possibly one of the best love interests ever written in film. She is such an awesome girl, down to earth, sexy, and she really looks after Bourne. You can really see how close they are from that BS scene in Goa when Bourne is complaining about his memories and Marie reassures him by saying "That is why we write them down." It was so powerful when she was murdered, you could see how broken Bourne was. I think it is sad that they try and fill the void her character's death left in BU with Nikki. Marie and Bourne were such a kick ass team. You always rooted for them.

5) The BU plot is too similar to BS; Bourne hunts corrupt CIA guys and reveals their dirty secrets. Only with new characters written in.

BU was still a good movie. I enjoyed it. But it lacked the substance and continuity of the first two films. It seemed to just be a cash cow, an unnecessary added ending to a story that was told perfectly within the first two films.

reply

Yes I think there was call for one.

Supremacy is so 100mph from start to finish and ends with just one big bang that has you really leaves you with a thurst for more (Ultimatum satisfied this, and was happy for the series to end there).

Regarding your questions,

1) I actually think Damon aged A LOT more between Identity and Supremacy..... between the two he piled on the weight for Stuck on You, then got training for Supremacy which bulked him up..... only noticeable difference between the two is how bloated he looks (he looked chubby in Syriana, but not fat, and looks like he really struggled to get rid of that weight for Ultimatum) and how drained he seems (his wife had their first kid round about the same time, and my wife and me had ours just about a year ago, so know exactly how he is feeling in lol).

Saying that, feel it add's to Ultimatum.... guy has been running non-stop for 2 years with amnesia (all the time having no proper medical care or counseling) so will take its toll on him by this stage.....

2) I do not think so..... yes it answered a lot of questions, but saying that, they were able to find enough to continue the story (Identity is about finding out who he is.... Supremacy about why he did what he did and forgiveness...Ultimatum is to see why he started all this in the first place and who is responsible)

Re Vosen.... Blackbryer was only set up at the end of Identity, so he would not appear in that.......

Fast forward to Supremacy.... if we take the events of Ultimatum, and what we know, it looks like Abbot set up the Blackbryer project.... after Identity there is a investigation into Treadstone.... Abbot just points the finger at the dead Conklin.... CIA buy/accept it, but Kramer liked the principle of the Treadstone idea and the Blackbryer project, so Abbot is pushed to the side in a office job (given he only has a year or two to retirement) and whole project is handed over to Vosen..... so Abbot can not use Blackbryer in the same way he used Treadstone for his own use... so no reason for Vosen in Supremacy.

3) Agree.... it seems so forced, but works in a kind of way (I suspect it is hard for people to accept it because Bourne is with Marie).

4)TBH the loss of Marie was a kick in the mouth at first, but over time I have come to accept that it was a great idea.

Marie is not a trained agent.... having her tag along just would not seem right, and having her wait in India for Bournes return would just seem a bit to "teen-romance flick".... also they ended the previous movie with that scene.

Supremacy Bourne accepts that he has to run, and until Marie was taken from him, would have continued to run.... her death kicks starts the movie! Supremacy is a VERY slow starting movie, yet as soon as Marie is killed, the movie doesn't stop.

5) True it is similar, but it should not be viewed as a sequel, but more as a continuation of the Supremacy story.... there is no real start to the movie, and if you went into it without watching Supremacy, you would have no clue over anything that is happening.

reply

I actually think the second one was the weakest.

reply

You do realize the movies are based off of a book trilogy, right? They didn't just make up the Bourne Ultimatum to cash in. I understand that the movies are far different than the novels, but that doesn't mean they should only make 2 movies. Of course they would make a third movie.

reply

I don't agree at all. Supremacy gives closure to itself, Ultimatum gives closure to the saga. It has Bourne coming home to confront his creator. Nothing in Supremacy is as conclusive as that.

reply

You can definitely take or leave the third movie. It's kind of a clunky add on. There's plenty of closure with the second film. There was no pay off for me with the twist either cause I always assumed Jason volunteered for the program anyhow. I've seen the first two movies like 100 times but i've only watched this third one 3 times.

"I said no camels, that's five camels, can't you count?"

reply

I'm the same way. I've watched the first two many, many times, and I think Supremacy is an excellent sequel. It just skyrockets everything that the first movie established. Ultimatum I've only watched a couple of times. It's more of a straight chase movie, and less mystery overall. It certainly doesn't have those heavy substantive scenes that push the character as far forward as the previous two. There's also no major personal stakes. Supremacy had a real revenge aspect with Kirill over Marie's murder, which made the climax so heart-pounding with a powerful scene of remorse with Kreske's daughter. It was a real emotional rollercoaster ride. Ultimatum is still a very good film, but feels a little less emotional and intense overall.

I've also always had a distaste for how they re-purposed the final scene of Supremacy. It goes from being a real uplifting moment of honest connection to a scene of subversion. Landy no longer divulges the information about Jason's real identity out of a genuine feeling of compassion, but to further along an agenda of exposure. It really shows that the ending of Supremacy was written without any thought towards a third film, and when they made a third, they had to re-purpose that scene to suit the storyline instead of allowing that scene to be a jumping off point for a different story. That's just me, though.

reply

You should listen to the commentary in that scene. It was written specifically for the sequel. Originally the film ended with him admitting what he had done to the girl and then him walking of but it was considered to much of a downer.


Film Reverie: http://filmreverie.blogspot.com.au/
My film diary: http://letterboxd.com/filmreverie/

reply

It wasn't weak to me.I think they did a good job with Ultimatum.

reply