Is this one of the GOAT trilogies?

Oceans Trilogy is at the top.

5 movies, 4 with Damon

In what world is this a trilogy moight?

Literally the worst filmed action scenes I have ever seen in the medium.

I can honestly not think of a more blurry, unfocused, shaky-cam'ed shit than the action scenes in Bourne.

Well since OP didn't explain it thoroughly enough for some I'll help you out.

He didn't include the one without Damon or the most recent which lets be honest they could have replaced the lead with any generic action star and given it a new name and ended up with the same movie.

It worked towards the charm of the first movie. Fit nicely with the story of an amnesiac having no idea what hes doing.

Maybe that was the implied point of it, but if it was then the camera work should improve from fight scene to fight scene. Which it did not.

The first fight in the first movie is just as blurry and unfocused as the last fight in the last movie.

It got to the point where I would see a fight scene begin and then just try to fixate on which of the black unfocused blobs were Bourne and wait for the result of the match to be revealed to me. Because the fight itself told me nothing.

Bourne is like The Raid with worse choreography and camerawork.

I mean I'm not saying it was the superior choice.
They did it that way because good fight scenes are hard and expensive to choreograph, I just feel they got away with it in the first movie.

>Movie with decent story and bad choreography is like movie with no story and good choreography

Uhhhh sure?

Oh, then we're in an agreement.

That being said, wasn't the Bourne movies considered to be pretty high-end movies? Like in terms of budget?

I know it's a common trick in movies to make action hard to follow as to let your imagination fill in some of the blanks, but did they really need it in Bourne?

I don't know, I always thought if you could afford to have Matt Damon as your protagonist, you could afford a good fight choreographer.

The Raid had a story that was on par with Bourne. Bourne was "assassin with amnesia", while The Raid was "muh brother".

Neither was better than the other in that regard, but an ACTION movie's strongest suit is it's action. And Bourne completely fucking ruined itself on that while The Raid was at least smart enough to get that right.

We're talking about making money here, they thought they could get away with it and you could argue that they did.

Absolutely. The Bourne series was a huge financial success and it's just picky autists like myself who complain about stuff like this while normies eat it up and ask for more.

Doesn't make the movies good though.

Any movie's story can be boiled down to a single sentence doesn't mean it represents the story in anyway.

The raid was a movie about hand to hand fighting with the absolute bare minimum story to prop up the action.

Bourne was about government conspiracies and all that bullshit with fighting as part of it.

There is no intelligent comparison to be made.

You can't say that one story is better than another, but you can say that they were both simple stories. Which is why they can be summarized in a single sentence (or on two words in The Raid's case).

The Raid had sub plots about the brother, the family, the rich gangster who owned the building, the police being corrupted, the guy they helped into the building and even Mad Dog (I think his name was?).

Bourne probably had as many (and more, for fucks sake they had 3 movies) subplots and shit going on in them, but there is a difference.

Bourne though it had a good story that could excuse poor action. The Raid knew it had poor story, so compensated through strong action. At least that's the way I see it.

i don't remember seeing any goats in any of the bourne films

>The Raid knew it had poor story, so compensated through strong action.

The raid hardly bothered with story they weren't compensating for it they just didn't care, go back and watch both films and compare how long each spends in fight scenes.

I seriously don't know why you are still trying to compare them, completely different movies.

I strongly disagree about them not being comparable. They both have weak plots, mediocre acting and are heavily action-focused.

The only difference (and the reason I used The Raid as an example) is that The Raid does something right that Bourne does not.

And there's no excuse for it except incompetence.

its up their, yes

It is to me. I highly enjoyed the series.

>heavily action-focused
What are you basing this off? Have you even seen the movie?

Yes. Recently too, actually. Bourne fighting people is literally the highlights of the series.

The entire series can be summed up as "story - fight - story - fight - story - fight". And if you're not in it for the story (which I'm just assuming you aren't) then you're in it for the fighting. And none of it's impressive.

I can recall 3 different fight scenes from The Raid that were cool and memorable, but not one from the Bourne movies and I just fucking watched those last week.

Do you read over what you type at all?
Of course it story fight - story - fight one has to occur for the other to end.
Whats relevant here is the relative screen time and importance.

No shit you didn't like bourne if you were only in it for the fights...

I need you to seriously explain to me what it is you watch these movies for.

I was convinced, up until meeting you, that the reason anyone sat down to watch Bourne, was because they found it fun to watch Bourne do cool stuff.

Operating under this pretense I argue that it's a bad movie because Bourne's cool stuff is all poorly executed and unoriginal.

Yet I'm getting a vibe from you that this is NOT why you watch Bourne films?

The Bourne Identity was the only one that's really good.

The other two are pretty mediocre shaky cam fests.

You're an idiot.

I stand convinced.

Marie

>Implying that cunt holds a light against based Franka.

best hand to hand combat scenes ive ever seen.

>First movie is the only halfway decent one

this entire post