Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
First one was. After that they were complete crap because of the ass photography they used. Unwatchable in the extreme. Complete waste of some of the best books I've read.
Originally posted by: DP
Shooter was better.
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
First one was. After that they were complete crap because of the ass photography they used. Unwatchable in the extreme. Complete waste of some of the best books I've read.
Originally posted by: DP
Shooter was better.
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
First one was. After that they were complete crap because of the ass photography they used. Unwatchable in the extreme. Complete waste of some of the best books I've read.
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Actually, I haven't seen any of the Bourne movies.
Originally posted by: LoKe
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
First one was. After that they were complete crap because of the ass photography they used. Unwatchable in the extreme. Complete waste of some of the best books I've read.
They're only loosely based on the books.
As for the movies themselves, I thought they were great, assuming you have an attention span greater than that of a 10 year old.
Originally posted by: LoKe
Originally posted by: DP
Shooter was better.
I enjoyed Shooter but I wouldn't compare it to the Bourne series.
Originally posted by: NFS4
The quick shot fast camera switching fight scenes give me a fucking headache.
Originally posted by: NFS4
The quick shot fast camera switching fight scenes give me a fucking headache.