By each film:
- The Bourne Identity: decent, could have been worse (the film tested horribly and spent a year in reshoots).
- The Bourne Supremacy: major improvement (due to the change in directors), the best of the series.
- The Bourne Ultimatum: a worthy follow-up to Supremacy, the second best in the series.
As for The Bourne Legacy, Tony Gilroy made a good first movie but struck out with his second. Matt Damon isn't coming back but Jeremy Renner is an interesting replacement. It should look nice though (since Robert Elswit is shooting it).
More Buscemi at http://forum.reelsociety.com/It's the only trilogy where people put all three films on equal footing, rather than First Installment Wins. My personal favorite film was Ultimatum for having the most clear-cut plot and a very clever retcon to the first film's ending. It also boasts the two most impressive action sequences in the series with the Waterloo Train Station and the Tangier Roof Hopping.
The only thing that knocks the series down is the excessive Jitter Cam with Greengrass' installments, as it didn't try to give us a clear image even when the camera is stationary.
I LOVED Jitter Cam, but can understand how some people wouldn't like it.
I don't understand how some people can't get past the Jitter Cam when talking about the sequels. They are much better movies than the first one.
And from watching Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Jumper, Doug Liman would have made some terrible sequels. Be thankful he was replaced.
More Buscemi at http://forum.reelsociety.com/First two movies were good, but I was disappointed at the second film's application of Sudden Sequel Death Syndrome to the love interest. That said, it was nice that Bourne's chemistry with a possible new love interest was built slowly—too many heroes immediately forget about the old love for a new one.
The third film was okay, but it didn't really seem necessary given the first two. I did like the ending.
All in all, I prefer Bourne to Bond (though the fairer comparison would probably be to Jason Statham, whose movies I've never seen.)
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulNecro after a LONG time because the trailer for the new Bourne movie is out.
Am I the only one who is worried that this trailer looks like a generic action blockbuster? I really hope it isn't one.
Also, holy shit, the music is absolutely epic.
Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.Thank you kindly.
I like how one of the You Tube comments said that "Watney is back from Mars and he's pissed."
Seen the newest and while it's very much a Bourne film (plenty of Jitter cam, paranoia about The Man, epic beatdowns, etc.), it feels really unnecessary, serving as a borderline Cerebus Retcon to the original 3 which given the level they were operating at is verging on grimdark. And yet again, even popular and established characters who aren't Bourne get no plot armour at all, which is both refreshing and aggravating at once.
"These 'no-nonsense' solutions of yours just don't hold water in a complex world of jet-powered apes and time travel."The only thing I know about Bourne is that Dewey and the Asset are complete monsters. When I first looked up the YMMV it was just Dewey, and then I was surprised when the Asset was added too (I didn't watch the movie).
I feel like I'm the unhealthy one here, if I only care about a character if they are a Complete Monster, and in turn start thinking about how to break or challenge them too.
edited 13th Oct '17 8:57:23 AM by manhandled

Talk about the Bourne Trilogy here.
Look there's three movies and whatever comes next does not count, OKAY?!
I really, REALLY, loved this movie, especially the third one. What do you guys think?
Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.