Extreme in so many different ways

Rating: 8/10 (4 January 2008)

The best trilogy of all time? Let us compare Bourne to other prolific movie threesomes. Star Wars? Nope, Bourne triumphs because it doesn't slap the audience in the face with a homosexual teddy dance to the strains of a John William's reject dance number at the end. The Godfather? I guess if Sofia Coppola hadn't stuck her giant nose into the third part then maybe, though even then the final instalment was not consistent with the other two. Die Hard? I always feel let down that 'Vengeance had to lower itself to join the ranks of the at-the-time burgeoning Buddy Cop genre in order for it to succeed. Indiana Jones? You've got to admit, Temple of Doom was crap. The Lord of the Rings? It is far too long. Leone's Man with no Name trilogy? No, simply due to the ridiculous, overdubbed prospector in the second part, who takes it upon himself to attempt to single-handedly destroy the bad-ass Western genre with a five minute Benny Hill routine. So, in conclusion, does Bourne represent the best trilogy of all time? No. The other films NOT mentioned in the trilogies above more than make up for their lacklustre cousins and stand head and shoulders above anything a buffed-up Matt Damon can offer. However, Bourne is indeed the most consistently rewarding. Ultimatum does not disappoint and in fact is probably the most entertaining of the three. Whereas audiences for 2002's Identity had to tolerate Franka Potente throughout and 2004's Supremacy was so up its own ass it would never see daylight again, 2007 seems to be the perfect year for Robert Ludlum's amnesiac assassin.
The strengths are numerous: a strong performance by Damon (as usual), a good supporting cast (chameleon actor Paddy Considine appears as an unfortunate Guardian newspaper journalist), realistic feeling action scenes and stunts (Bourne versus Desh), non-trite dialogue (Supremacy was full of it) and a bass-heavy soundtrack by John Powell which fits the film perfectly. A particular asset of Ultimatum is its total attention to detail; it feels as though Bourne is a real person living in the world and director Paul Greengrass just happened to be fortunate enough to capture all his movements on film (which would account for the overabundance of the shaky-cam technique...if it was real.) The use of different languages adds to this effect. The product placement does not feel forced, nor does it repeatedly smash the audience round the head with "Look at ME! I'm Staples, the superstore! Come to Staples! Staples rocks!"
In terms of weaknesses there are a couple of points that stand out. Why does Bourne feel as though he has to reveal to the CIA head that he is in his office, thereby making it several times more difficult for him to escape the premises than it would have been had he just said "Oh you're in your office? I'm in McDonalds. Yeah I know, the burger never looks like it does in the picture." Is it some sort of ego trip? "Yeah, I'm in your office, I outwitted you once again. Come and get me." He's like Macauley Culkin in Home Alone. The other problem is that some of the film feels like a retread of the first two instalments. I realise that this is intentional in places, but the cracks are beginning to appear in Bourne's otherwise perfect facade.
In conclusion, please do not destroy the trilogy and make a fourth film, you money-hungry Hollywood producers. Because I know you're definitely reading this. A 'Bourne Legacy' or 'Bourne Betrayal' is simply unnecessary. As Bourne rightly points out near the end of the film, "This is where it started for me. This is where it ends." Besides, who wants to hear yet another revamped version of Moby's 'Extreme Ways' over the credits in a couple of years time?