I think the second one is just a bit better than the first. Argyle Wallace (Braveheart) plays the bad guy. Although none do justice to the books.

I agree with Basil - the 2nd one is better, but neither do justice to the books. I guess in their defense, it's hard to do cold war movies anymore so they were trying to update it for the times. BUT - if they were going to do that I kinda think they should've just redone them completely as original works instead of trying to leech off the books. Still, they're entertaining and worth a rental.

I would agree with the fact that the sequel is better, because it ties up a lot of loose ends regarding the history of Jason Bourne. Chris Cooper's character appears in Jason's memory. The ending is quite surprising.

What's the point of telling you our opinion of the second movie? You hate EVERY movie.

I thought the first one had kind of a low-tech, Eurotrash charm to it. I liked it, and I'll tell you -- Damon impressed me far more as Bourne then he ever did as the implausible janitor/genius of Good Will Hunting. Not to mention they replaced Minnie Driver with some cool chick from German TV, who was pretty good. You wonder at the number of stars who passed on the Bourne Identity for Damon and a German TV chick to get the parts. Clearly there's a hierarchy for these things, and Damon -- who must have been the eighth or ninth guy to read the script -- was the only one to see the potential in it.

I thought the second one was just OK -- clearly a much bigger budget, so not as much need to be as clever, and the plot suffers accordingly. It is probably, technically, a better film, but it wasn't as much fun. And I thought Julia Stiles was underused in it; and the old bad guy was overused.

I enjoyed both of them thoroughly, and yeah, I thought the second one was slightly better.

I loved them both.