OK! Back to netflix it goes.

Okay, this explains a lot about Bourne Ultimatum, yet not enough.

Upthread I said:

Oddly enough parts of the movie felt very familiar--other than the obvious following on from #2--the scene where he talks to her while looking at her from the building across the street seemed so familiar to me that I was confused whether there'd been a similar scene in the previous movies, or if I had recast that bit of the book so strongly.

I need it spelled out more clearly for me, though. Maybe imdb.com can help.

I just watched Dancer in the Dark.

It was very haunting. Very good. But when Björk says "I like to pretend I'm in a musical, because nothing dreadful ever happens in musicals" I was forced to scream at the screen "EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE!"

I need something silly now.

ita, it's the same scene in both movies-- Joan Allen is wearing the same shirt (though there are some differences; I think in the prior movie Bourne was using a scope. But that was a continuity error.). This means parts of Ultimatum take place before the end of Supremacy, basically.

Yeah--a commenter on John's blog said:

The first... say... 2/3? of The Bourne Ultimatum actually takes place - temporally speaking - during the last (rough guess) 15 minutes of The Bourne Supremacy.

I just need a more granular breakdown.

I fell asleep watching Buffalo '66. I wasn't digging it. Is there any reason why I should go back and watch the ending?

Well, there's always the chance that watching it means you'll be the one to snap and put an end to Vincent Gallo's filmmaking career...

I'm not sure the Bourne thing gets one anywhere. It's a neat trick, but then what? I'm going to see the movie again in a few weeks when Bob comes home, maybe I'll figure it out then.

For some reason I thought Buffalo '66 originated as a Steppenwolf play. If this is typical of Gallo's work I guess I can knock Brown Bunny off the queue too.

I guess what I want to know is if it's a trick, or if it is solid through and through. For which I'd need to watch #2 again, and actually have been looking at the screen at the relevant points of #3. Which, NSM.

if it's a trick, or if it is solid through and through.

I think it's an unhappily-mashed timeline, i.e. you had WHAT happen all in six weeks? but the timeline is consistent. The scenes are verbatim the same, although shot differently. (The thing I was noticing was that, in #2, it's winter in Russia, but the coda in #2 was shot on a sunny/no-snow day in New York. The same scene in #3 reveals that it is, in fact, also winter in New York, as it would be only six weeks later than #2.)

Is there something specific you're looking for that would reveal it as a trick? To my eye, it appeared solid, or moreso than I expected out of a major motion picture.