Bourne for me, all the way. Bond franchise was getting very very stale and they have had to up the game with the last two to compete.
Bourne, three great films.

Matt Helm every time.

Recentley watched 'Taken' with Liam Neeson, and he made Bond and Bourne look like Pussycats.

Between Bourne and Bond, has to be Bourne.

The Empire review of that film was the most scathing I've ever seen in that magazine.

Depends how you look at it.

If you look at the noughties films, Bourne wins it quite easily. The three Bournes make a great set and I don't have a firm favourite or dislike any of them. They are a soid piece of work. Whilst Bond has the history, numerous memorable Bonds and villans (not so much in recent times). And the last Bond was a disappointing follow-up to the excellent Casino Royale. So its a tricky one. And what's the future for the Bourne series? Because Robert Ludlum who wrote the novels only did 3, didn't he?? So does that mean the end of the films? Or will they make an original Bourne? I'd plump for Bourne just for the superb hand combat fights, yet if it wasn't for films like Bond and franchises like Bond, would it have been received in the same way?

I've learned that Empire regularly gives films 5 stars, yet I have turned off. Pineapple express springs to mind. I thought it utter crap, yet Empire gave it 4 stars. I watched 20 mins!!!

I've stopped reading Empire reviews. Film critics know feck all.

Bourne, because it's fun doing the 'Team America' impressions whenever Matt appears on screen.

Cant stand Bond. Read one of the Bourne books and enjoyed it. However I agree about Taken.......fantastic film, loved every minute.

I really enjoyed it, surprisingly brutal in places.

I would agree that after the 5 stars for Phantom Menace they lost a lot of credibility (they later actually apologised and re-reviewed it - although they only took off one star when really they should have taken all of them away). For personal taste reasons they may indeed give a film 4-5 stars that some people find un-watchable, me included. But when they give something a $h!t review it's invariably $h!t. Out of curiosity I have watched many one star films and I have always regretted it. "Taken" had the worst review of a film I've seen in the 20 odd years I've been reading the mag. But if you liked it, then you liked it. Fair enough.

I did that the other night

My wife actually asks me to do it randomly when it pops into her head. I'd much rather she asked me to re-enact the puppet sex scene, but I can dream on I suppose.

Including the cut scenes, included on the DVD?????

You'll have to watch 'Taken' just out of curiosity now, and see if you agree.

I watched 'Day the Earth stood still' last night, which Empire gives 3 stars, and it was total 5hite. 'Taken' was miles better

Highly subjective I suppose.

I have a feeling that The day the Earth stood still will be as bad as you say. I'm constantly dissapointed by SF films since the CGI "revolution".

Unless a puppet donkey walks in I can't imagine what they "cut"?

I really want to see Taken and the Empire review won't put me off.

As for Bond or Bourne its' difficult because Bond is a genre that spans such a massive time frame in so many different styles whereas Bourne is a 3 mobie gig in quick succession from a quick period of time.

I liked both though by the 3rd Bourne it was all becoming a bit same same.

The latest Bond did, however, borrow an awful lot from Bourne.

The bourne series are great action movies.
On the other hand bond is a national treasure that has entertained generations of film goers and will continue to do so imo.

It's hard to say it without offending people, but it involved the parking of lunches.

Seen around half the Bond films and haven't seen any Bourne films so I'll have to say Bond until I've seen both

Agree about Taken though, one of the best films I've seen in a while!

Bourne.

I have yet to see a Bond film (and I think I've seen most of them) that even half grabs my attention - I went to see "You only live twice" at the cinema when I was 11 and even at that tender age knew that they were taking the p[iiss[/i with my dads admission money.

Never seen Bourne but have seen Bond and I like Bond. I think it's because he reminds me of me. Suave, sophisticated, a devil with the ladies, and brave to boot.

We watched Benjamin Button the other night. Enjoyed it.

I like both. Both are different takes on the same genre.

Borne is gritty and action packed, where as Bond is simply fantasy escapism.

I suppose it depends on what you want at any given time.

By the same token, why not read one of the Fleming Bonds, John Gardner's 80s reworking (Why not License Renewed, some of the action takes place in some familiar streets in Perpignan) or even the Raymond Benson outings.

They're a world away from the safari suited Roger Moore outings.

I beg your pardon.

What's wrong with safari suits?

TBH they dont interest me in the slightest. A bit like star wars.