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.