Comments on: Bourne vs. Bond: Who ya got?

By: dharmendra sharma

dharmendra sharma — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 06:27:36 +0000

bourne ..because he do best from whatever he has …

By: Polprav

Polprav — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:05:53 +0000

Hello from Russia)

By: Adam Richards

Adam Richards — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 02:19:45 +0000

I love the bond books, haven’t read the Ludlum Bourne books yet, but what i must say is since day dot, the bond films have had a totally different humour to the humerous side of bond that Fleming gave him. None of the Bond films have made me think, wow, he is exactly how i imagined him. none of them have shown the really gritty side to bond, until casino royale. That said, if they’d have stayed true to the book, it would have won me over against Bourne, but the whole blood instead of tears thing? what the hell is that all about? And the Venice scene was as if they had forgotten they were trying to get back to the original bond, HENCE THE TITLE. Bourne hasn’t got the die hard following that bond has, but the movies were fantastic, believable and the whole fast camera fight scenes are great. you can only here them breathing, So realistic. Brilliant. Matt damon is wicked, but anyone else who could have played him would have done just as good a job if they had the same script. Bourne wins.

By: boolelani

boolelani — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:41:58 +0000

what bond lack in depth makes up for it in length

By: Arie

Arie — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:20:43 +0000

Bourne of course.
Daniel’s Royale, i love it, but gotta admit it, Casino Royale reboots the whole Bond license *because of* and mimicking the sleeper hit Bourne films.
Bourne sets the standard for all spy movies to come, Bond’s included. So that’s basically saying Bourne just gave Bond a proper lesson how to be a ruthless spy with heart (Royale) than the previous BOnd “guilty pleasure” films.

By: Janet

Janet — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:59:38 +0000

I just watched the first two Bourne films in preparation for the third but I still don’t like those films as much as I instantly liked Casino Royale. The first film was good but the second one lost my interest near the 2 hour mark. Casino Royale is regularly in my DVD player so I vote Bond.

By: GeeMoney

GeeMoney — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:27:09 +0000

It would have been better to post this question AFTER Bourne Ultimatum came out, because after seeing that film, I may have to change my vote to Bourne. The movie was awesome!

By: Brenda

Brenda — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:47:39 +0000

I can’t even put into words how incredible Matt Damon’s Bourne is. Before Daniel Craig, I had never even seen a Bond movie. I never had an interest. The only reason I gave Craig’s Bond a chance is because it seems to resemble/model more of the action and intensity of Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne movies. And, I think Damon’s performance is incredible with how Jason Bourne. It is very angsty. I mean he is constantly at war with himself needing to be this assassin, but then hating those same characteristics a second later.

By: Heleno

Heleno — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:42:41 +0000

Easy – Bourne. Get Paul Greengrass on the subject sometime if you’ve got an hour to spare and he’ll back me up. Bourne’s anti-authority; Bond’s in the establishment’s pocket. Bourne just wants to live a quiet life and atone for his sins; Bond gets off on killing people, or at least is sociopathic enough not to care. Bourne’s a one-woman kinda guy; Bond beds ‘em and barely blinks when they’re killed 5 minutes later – or kills them himself. Not even a contest.

By: Letterdavidman

Letterdavidman — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:45:04 +0000

Bond, of course. Unless it’s the Brosnan Bond films. God, Brosnan was the bane of that franchise, wasn’t he?
But if we’re talking about anyone else as Bond (yes, even George Lazenby), ESPECIALLY Connery or Craig, then Bourne will ALWAYS pale in comparison to Bond.
And to the 23 year old who assessed the older Bond movies as “boring”, call me in a few years when you’ve developed some actual taste (and maybe a few more pubes).