Universal Pictures | Release Date: August 3, 2007
7.6
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 772 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
604
Mixed:
51
Negative:
117
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
5
PedroG.Aug 16, 2007
This movie is made by its technical excellence. Action sequences are well choreographed and acting is great. What I'm getting sick of is the propagandizing of these films. I've been watching action thrillers since before Warren This movie is made by its technical excellence. Action sequences are well choreographed and acting is great. What I'm getting sick of is the propagandizing of these films. I've been watching action thrillers since before Warren Beatty's "Paralax View" and Redfords "Three days of the Condor". In every thriller movie it's the U.S. government which is the bad guy and all other third world terrorists are simply victims. I get the message Hollywood is selling. The problem is that it's a message written and produced by people who are on the fringes of paranoia. People still looking for the shooter on the grassy knoll and the real story behind Area 51. Is there anyone normal in Hollywood? You want a good action movie that's not loaded with Hollywood propaganda then go watch "Tears of the Sun" with Bruce Willis or "Casino Royale". Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
5
JamieB.Oct 10, 2007
I agree about the car chases. I personally think it was the most fun of the movie. Over all it did have it's dull moments.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
BJD.Dec 12, 2007
Very boring. One chase after another. And absurd that Bourne could have so many close calls yet never be seriously hurt. This is just a "chase em, bang em up" movie with a little class.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
CraigASAug 20, 2007
A superb film rendered completely unwatchable. Great plot, great dialogue, great acting, great fight choreography, great car chases... all ruined by Greengrass' insistence upon the motion-sickness-inducing haldheld camera work that went A superb film rendered completely unwatchable. Great plot, great dialogue, great acting, great fight choreography, great car chases... all ruined by Greengrass' insistence upon the motion-sickness-inducing haldheld camera work that went out of fashion almost as soon as the Bourne Supremacy was released in 2004... Give it up Greengrass! It's sooooo last season. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
KennthM.Dec 19, 2007
The first Bourne movie to bore me. I actually could not help but glance at my watch from time to time this entire film.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
TokyochuchuAug 5, 2012
Although it could never be seen as a weak movie, there is no doubt that The Bourne Ultimatum is a bit of disappointment when compared to it's thunderous predecessor The Bourne Supremacy. A lot of elements are recycled from that movie albeitAlthough it could never be seen as a weak movie, there is no doubt that The Bourne Ultimatum is a bit of disappointment when compared to it's thunderous predecessor The Bourne Supremacy. A lot of elements are recycled from that movie albeit without the same the sense of furious despair that made Supremacy such a thrilling ride. The Bourne Ultimatum does have it's plus points in the form of some great action scenes; the battle in Morrocco and the London Waterloo escapade are both truly excellent sequences. Overall, The Bourne Ultimatum is a descent movie but it doesn't live up to it's classic prequel. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
BobP.Aug 31, 2007
It really could have been an excellent movie. The camera work, by itself, ruined it for me. I had to spend all my time trying to figure out what was going on instead of appreciating the movie. Some of the shots were just stupid (Over half It really could have been an excellent movie. The camera work, by itself, ruined it for me. I had to spend all my time trying to figure out what was going on instead of appreciating the movie. Some of the shots were just stupid (Over half the screen black from an out-of-focus person, the camera peeking over their shoulder), and the others were so shaky that it really detracted from the action. The action was excellent if you could actually make out what was happening. Overall, an excellent movie absolutely destroyed by the director. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
S.L.Jan 6, 2008
Watching this movie I couldn't tell if I was watching the first movie or the latest. If you have seen the first movie in this series then there really is no need to see the second or third because it is just more of the same and nothing new.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
BobC.Dec 14, 2007
Has the majority of the film community turned completely into dross action junkies? In my opinion this film is the least of the Bourne trilogy. This entry provides a barely adequate end to the series. The frenetic action is not an adequate Has the majority of the film community turned completely into dross action junkies? In my opinion this film is the least of the Bourne trilogy. This entry provides a barely adequate end to the series. The frenetic action is not an adequate substitute for the lack of interesting human interactions. Julia Stiles is wooden and her brief interactions with Bourne are bland. Let's not encourage this kind of movie making where crashing cars trumps real human interactions. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
KenGOct 6, 2007
Movie is almost all energy, with too little substance. I would have happily done without some of the action, in exchange for more plot and character development. Actually, I could have done with less action, just to have Matt Damon come off Movie is almost all energy, with too little substance. I would have happily done without some of the action, in exchange for more plot and character development. Actually, I could have done with less action, just to have Matt Damon come off more as a person, rather than some indestructible superman. Damon only does about 5 minutes of actual acting in this movie, and spends the rest of the movie either running around, or beating people up. I am also not a big fan of the jiggerly hand-hold camera technique, which are now so popular in action movies, and which this movie does to an extreme. Also, I am getting tired of the whole Jason Bourne character and concept. It was raw and fresh it the first movie, but has grown kind of stale. It might help if Matt Damon was better in the role. And he 's capable enough in it. I can't say he's bad in it. But I also can't say he's ever been exceptional in it. I can't say the role fits him like a glove, like you could say about Sean Connery/James Bond, Johnny Depp/Captain Jack Sparrow, Harrison Ford/ Indiana Jones, Mel Gibson/Marty Riggs, Bruce Willis/the die hard movies. If Matt Damon were replaced for Bourne Identity 4, I don't know that anyone would be that bothered, except for big Matt Damon fans. Still, if all it takes to entertain you are action movies stuffed with plenty of action, and which are not mind numbingly dumb, this should keep you entertained. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
PerspicaciousCriticOct 9, 2007
The problem with The Bourne Ultimatum -- and the other Bourne films for that matter -- are not in the films themselves, but in their PG-13 ratings (or 12A, in my British case). What this family-friendly rating implies is that there The problem with The Bourne Ultimatum -- and the other Bourne films for that matter -- are not in the films themselves, but in their PG-13 ratings (or 12A, in my British case). What this family-friendly rating implies is that there won't be any scene so intense as to frighten or jolt you out of your seat. For example, if Jason Bourne points a gun directly into a man's face, the cynic in me says, "well, of course he Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RickF.Aug 13, 2007
I enjoyed the story, but the direction really got in the way. I should have looked up the director before going. This third part was directed by Paul Greengrass, who also directed The Supremacy. My only real complaint with Supremacy was the I enjoyed the story, but the direction really got in the way. I should have looked up the director before going. This third part was directed by Paul Greengrass, who also directed The Supremacy. My only real complaint with Supremacy was the shaky-camera style which made it nearly impossible to see what was happening during fight scenes. Unfortunately, Greengrass has employed this style throughout The Ultimatum. From now on I'll make it a point to monitor his upcoming movies on imdb, so that I might never again make the mistake of seeing one. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
VicT.Aug 20, 2007
After all the accolades heaped on this film by the critics, I could not have been more disappointed. What a waste of potentially intelligent and interesting plot material. Critics were obviously impressed by all the shaky handheld camera After all the accolades heaped on this film by the critics, I could not have been more disappointed. What a waste of potentially intelligent and interesting plot material. Critics were obviously impressed by all the shaky handheld camera work, the grainy desaturated cinematography and the half-second cuts. For me, these elements just served to cover up the thin plot. And the nonstop running just bored me ( as opposed to the running in The Fugitive, a far better film). If this is as good as an action thriller gets, then maybe it's time we stopped dumming ourselves down and began demanding intelligent plots with deep characerisations even in our action films instead of letting action thrillers become nothing more than a theme park ride. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
CydneyB.Aug 4, 2007
Fast moving.. that's all I can say for this film. Snore. For fast paced and a story.. check out Live Free and Die Hard, a far superior film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JaneAug 6, 2007
Who's writing all those glowing reviews?! Don't believe them! This movie is below-average fare, not remotely worth a Metacritic 85. It revolves around 3 or 4 long chase scenes (one okay, two maybe, but after a while you start to Who's writing all those glowing reviews?! Don't believe them! This movie is below-average fare, not remotely worth a Metacritic 85. It revolves around 3 or 4 long chase scenes (one okay, two maybe, but after a while you start to tune out the mayhem). Plus, Jason is just a thinly veiled version of Jack Bauer - he has more lives than a cat. And his love interest/fellow agent? She's briefly in the action then.... She's not at all convincing as a high-end CIA agent. The whole thing is like a 24 ripoff - plan your washroom breaks around the chase scenes. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
EricSAug 9, 2007
Quite exciting until the last quarter. The ending was a huge let down after the all the prior suspense. I won't spoil anything, but the "twist" is something that has been done in countless other stories and I expected better from an Quite exciting until the last quarter. The ending was a huge let down after the all the prior suspense. I won't spoil anything, but the "twist" is something that has been done in countless other stories and I expected better from an otherwise excellent series. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ChachiM.Oct 17, 2007
Utterly forgettable. Julia styles is also talentless.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
EvanS.Aug 12, 2007
As accomplished as this flight of action feels, the jumble of dizzying cuts reminds you that movies like "The French Connection" are the real deal. Here the direction is "faster, faster" and while it does a decent job of covering the holes As accomplished as this flight of action feels, the jumble of dizzying cuts reminds you that movies like "The French Connection" are the real deal. Here the direction is "faster, faster" and while it does a decent job of covering the holes of the script, this speed movie will make you too nauseous in the end to care. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JasonJ.Aug 15, 2007
It wasn't bad, but it also wasn't great. I can't remember the majority of scenes from the movie off-hand, but, in general, there were a few really interesting action scenes interspersed with a mediocre plot and ending. The It wasn't bad, but it also wasn't great. I can't remember the majority of scenes from the movie off-hand, but, in general, there were a few really interesting action scenes interspersed with a mediocre plot and ending. The movie really required one to remember a lot from the other Bourne movies (which I only saw once each, and, for both, a while ago), which caused me to vaguely follow some of the plot: OK, such and such was shot in India and fell off the bridge, bla bla bla. Paul Greengrass kicked butt as a director in United 93, but most don't have the stomach for the subject matter in that film. Oddly enough, most of America would rather watch a 6/10 movie like BU than a real piece of art like United 93. That is what is driving movies in the direction they have been going for a while now. People can't recognize art anymore or they're too afraid or not deep enough to pursue it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DWillyAug 2, 2007
Nope, nope, nope. The first one was art, the second one average entertainment, this third one gives Bourne all the ridiculous luck and supernatural indestructibleness of Willis in a Die Hard movie, but without the tongue-in-cheek style to Nope, nope, nope. The first one was art, the second one average entertainment, this third one gives Bourne all the ridiculous luck and supernatural indestructibleness of Willis in a Die Hard movie, but without the tongue-in-cheek style to forgive it. Everyone is just grim as hell as they go about doing one idiotic thing after another. You can see in the trailer where he tells the bad guy that he's in his office, which makes for a nice quip I suppose, but only serves to throw him into yet another desperate situation. And, even if they are being manipulated by an evil superior, are we really suppose to find it so thrilling and wonderful to watch our hero destroy so many United State's intelligence agents. Loud junk. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
HayesL.Aug 4, 2007
Not my favorite of the three....in fact my least favorite. Hardest of the three to watch....barely a scene where the camera is not being jostled or bouncing wildliy. every action scene cobbled together with 2 second cut away shots...the Not my favorite of the three....in fact my least favorite. Hardest of the three to watch....barely a scene where the camera is not being jostled or bouncing wildliy. every action scene cobbled together with 2 second cut away shots...the fight scenes almost unwatchable. i for one am tired of this camera style. just shoot a better scene and stop moving the camera! and all tied up with a neat little bow at the end. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JamesB.Aug 6, 2007
This might have been the best movie of the year if the camera had stopped long enough to actually see the action. Constant/non-stop back & forth motion. I left with a headache. This might be considered "artistic", but, I'd rather watch a movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RogerBAug 9, 2007
Cinematography was awful - it was like watching the Blair Witch Project on steroids!!!I It also interfered with the story line. Worst movie I have seen this year!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RobinS.Sep 8, 2007
Big Headache - I did have to close my eyes to "watch" much of this film in the theater. The bumpy camera work continued even during what should have been still close-ups. The sheer white burnout area of so many of the camera shots was like Big Headache - I did have to close my eyes to "watch" much of this film in the theater. The bumpy camera work continued even during what should have been still close-ups. The sheer white burnout area of so many of the camera shots was like having a flashlight shine in my eyes every couple of milliseconds. The focus was horrible - and all over the place. Yes, I enjoy Jason Bourne, and maybe this film would be more effective on TV - but it was a very trying experience at the movies. Do the stars of this picture look so bad that we should not be able to focus on them? I left the movie having a better idea of what the characters Landy and Daniels looked like than Bourne or the Stiles character. Hopefully this style of camera-work it will be out of style soon. So - the emperor has no clothes - this style of filming is flashy and unrelenting and makes for a painful viewing experience. Enjoy the story with your eyes closed. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
StevePAug 13, 2007
Great Action scenes are negatively impacted due to the frantic camera action. This severely inhibits a person being able to actually watch and enjoy the scenes. Too Bad
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
BenB.Aug 13, 2007
After hearing all the hype and getting great reviews from my hard-to-please dad and sister, I went to the movie excited for a great action flick that far outstripped the good first two. What I got was a seemingly by-the-numbers sequel. In After hearing all the hype and getting great reviews from my hard-to-please dad and sister, I went to the movie excited for a great action flick that far outstripped the good first two. What I got was a seemingly by-the-numbers sequel. In fact, I thought that it was pretty poor. I mean, forget that it was completely unbelievable - it was barely entertaining! Worth seeing if you've seen the first two, but nothing brilliant or exceptional - your disappointingly typical summer popcorn flick. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
CL.Aug 25, 2007
A previous commenter (anti-hollywood ranter Pedro G.) mentioned Redford's thriller "3 Days of the Condor." A contrast between the two movies helps explain something about the "Bourne Ultimatum": the later one is a very enjoyable roller A previous commenter (anti-hollywood ranter Pedro G.) mentioned Redford's thriller "3 Days of the Condor." A contrast between the two movies helps explain something about the "Bourne Ultimatum": the later one is a very enjoyable roller coaster ride about the amnesiac scarecrow in search of his heart, who happens to be a perfectly conflicted killing machine. The earlier movie is a 70s tour de force about the tin man, the lion, the scarecrow and Dorothy all rolled into one disoriented, reluctant killer, and Redford's quest reflects four times the character depth because of it. as a total package I would give Condor the edge, but then again I don't expect a less thoughtful movie to reveal the workings of the wizard--perhaps that is a thrill for a previous or a future decade, and for their more thoughtful audiences. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ERG1008Oct 5, 2010
British reporter trying to uncover CIA dodgy operation, Bourne comes out of hiding to help, CIA want him dead again.
A lot more fast-paced than the first two but also a lot more brainless with smart & clever plots replaced by stupid OTT
British reporter trying to uncover CIA dodgy operation, Bourne comes out of hiding to help, CIA want him dead again.
A lot more fast-paced than the first two but also a lot more brainless with smart & clever plots replaced by stupid OTT action.
Most of the action scenes are edited in short bursts that you can't tell what's going on the half the time & you're glad when they're over.
The ending is pretty good but a bit of a let down after the first two decent films.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
HotelCentralOct 26, 2015
"Who Framed Roger Rabbit" was a very entertaining film. "The Bourne Ultimatum" was entertaining too. Both were full of cartoon characters and the plot, in both cases, was strictly for laughs.

If you like non-stop action, no matter
"Who Framed Roger Rabbit" was a very entertaining film. "The Bourne Ultimatum" was entertaining too. Both were full of cartoon characters and the plot, in both cases, was strictly for laughs.

If you like non-stop action, no matter ridiculous it may get, you will like Bourne #3.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews