[crimsonfire]

Anyone read the Bourne saga? I've just completed the Identity and I've started the Supremacy. Ludlum is an excellent author. Bournes improv and initiative in the books is just so....cool. Matt Damon was a terrible choice for the movies. Anyone else agree that Jason Bourne is better than ten James Bonds? Bourne is just so more raw and tortured and has this instinct that seems to be useful in almost any situation.

[Lifino]

I agree, the Bourne books were fantastic. Ludlum was a bit of a surprise, but after his Bourne books I read a few others and he got to be repetitive.

Personally, I disagree, Damon made the perfect Bourne for me. BUT the Bourne of the movies had little in relation to the character in the books, aside from the name... The movies were great, but the books are much better.

[Monty Mike]

[was deleted for being a redundant question]

[Sammie]

CrimsonFire rates the author as 'excellent' and the books as 'cool'. Lifino rates the books as 'fantastic'.

Monty would you please stop asking redundant questions!!!

Thanks

Sammie.

[AuntiePam]

I was nuts for these books years ago, loved Ludlum and the Bourne books. I wish I remembered more about them, but all I recall is that they were real page-turners, very entertaining.

If you like Ludlum, you might also like Ken Follett's early stuff, also Robert Littell (especially The Amateur) and John LeCarre (the Smiley novels).

[Lifino]

I'll back up the Follett recomendation... haven't read the others...

[J.M. Martin]

Anyone else agree that Jason Bourne is better than ten James Bonds? Bourne is just so more raw and tortured and has this instinct that seems to be useful in almost any situation.
If you were to compare the two then, yes, I do agree. I have never, try as I might, been able to get into Fleming's Bond character -- maybe because of the whole 'ladies' man' angle, but I can also appreciate that James Bond is much more fantastical, and Bourne more, dare I say, 'believeable?" I mean, not really, but I'd say it's more or less a reflection of the times. James Bond is a creation of, what, the '60s maybe (please forgive me if I'm wrong... not taking the time to do my research)? Whereas Bourne has a much more action-packed, intense, grounded feel. There are no comical villains or insane super gadgetry. Jason Bourne's saga feels like it could actually be happening somewhere.

And, as far as the movies, I like Damon in the role. I hope he sticks with it. Anyone know if he signed on for X number of them?

--
JM

[cyrusd1]

Seen the films, and thought they were awesome. How much better are the books??
Anything else by Ludlum any good??

[Wulfa_Jones]

I enjoyed the films and a friend of mine gave me the first book. How totally different from the book is the film? I'll be honest and say I didn't finish the book - not really my type of thing.

As for the film... I think Matt Damon was quite a good choice, he looks pretty normal.

Bourne and Bond are very different... Bourne seems to be more special forces, brain washed into be a ruthless killer as where Bond is a spy. But I'd say Bond over Bourne!

[homosap]

Seen the films, and thought they were awesome. How much better are the books??
Anything else by Ludlum any good??

The films are ok, the've been through the usual Hollywood treatment and do what they are meant to. I read a few Ludlums when I was younger and found the best was the Matarese Circle until I read the Bourne Identity. Totaly blew me away and I was young enough to expect great things from the follow up, Supremacy?, amazingly I wasn't disappointed. Then he did a third and I can honestly say I only finished it through effort of will, not a good book IMO.