my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Bourne Supremacy (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Bourne Supremacy Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 07-26-2004 05:21 PM                        quote: Mark J. Marshall Does Berlin always shake like that? Yes. Berlin is the party capital of Europe.  |  IP: Logged Pravin Ratnam Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 844 From: Atlanta, GA,USA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 07-28-2004 09:57 PM                     Theater: Regal Perimeter Pointe: I complained earlier of a gap between the left side of the frame and the screen border. Now for this movie, another problem. NOw the image bleeds on all 4 edges. I asked the manager about this(I was auditing) and he said they didn't want a gap, so they just projected it that way on purpose !!!! Watchable movie. I didn't hate it like some of you guys did, but didn't like it either. One thing that is obvious- this is one of the worst directing jobs of 2004. This is worse than Tony Scott's direction in Man on Fire by a big margin. Almost as bad as Stephen Sommers direction of Van Helsing. Oh by the way, warn us of freaking spoilers guys. Thanks to no warnings, I already knew about what happens in Goa. The cinematography was ugly even if you ignore the shakycam shit. Colors looked like something out of DVCam for some scenes. And I agree about the editing. The final car chase obviously took a lot of effort, but it wasn't as great as it could have been thanks to the editing giving us a headache the whole movie. It's like Van Helsing. When you inundate us with loud sounds throughout, a sudden thud has no meaning. Same with the editing style. How can you convey a certain urgency and intensity in a scene with a certain type of editing style if you used it for most of the movie? As far as the movie itself, it seemed like there was no flow. No buildup to a certain climax. Just a series of scenes that are connected somehow. I still don't care about the whole Berlin fiasco. It is just not that compelling. JOan Allen character was all setup with no real addition to the story arc.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 07-29-2004 01:30 AM                        quote: Pravin Ratnam The final car chase obviously took a lot of effort, but it wasn't as great as it could have been thanks to the editing giving us a headache the whole movie. I wonder if they edited the car chase together from all these mega-shaky quick shots because they didn't actually have enough material for it. Clearly they were able to do some shooting in Moscow, but maybe they couldn't film as much as would have ben needed for a "proper", consistent sequence?  |  IP: Logged Pravin Ratnam Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 844 From: Atlanta, GA,USA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 07-30-2004 10:40 AM                     You know, I went to imdb to check out the cinematographer. Was it Janet Reno? Or did Michael J Fox consider a career change? No, it's some guy named Oliver Wood. Guess what. He did Bourne Identity too. So i guess it's the director singlehandedly responsible for the bad camerawork because I remember the cinematography to be decent for Bourne Identity. I am surprised by some of the critics. Charles Taylor of salon has called this one of the best movies of the summer and actually thought the director's great efforts were slightly letdown by the script. Ebert even praised the director's style. And one guy who always seemed grounded, David Edelstein of slate, praised the work of the director.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 07-30-2004 04:10 PM                     Those reviewers are either idiots or they got paid off. Now other directors will read those comments and say "hey this latest crappy movie of mine will get great reviews for my 'style' if I shoot the thing like I am having a seizure." Great. Here come more! Hey Steve Kraus, be sure and ask ol' Roger if he got paid for saying that or if he secretly fell asleep during the movie.  |  IP: Logged Jason Black Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1723 From: Myrtle Beach, SC, USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 07-30-2004 09:57 PM                        Brad, What, you don't think good ol' Roger could just have taste in general? Remember, it doesn't take brains to be a critic.. it only takes a MOUTH.  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 07-30-2004 11:03 PM                     Roger Ebert is a highly respected critic who won a Pulitzer Prize for film criticism. He truly loves film. Having said that, I have found him liking more films in the past couple of years then he used to. But film is subjective, and many things can influence how we see a particular one. He is certainly not alone among the "legit" critics (as opposed to "quote whores") for liking this movie.  |  IP: Logged Dennis M Dow Jr Expert Film Handler Posts: 141 From: Bloomfield NJ USA Registered: Oct 2003 posted 08-07-2004 09:07 PM                       I liked this movie..... would have liked it better if they stuck to the original story as written by Ludlum  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 08-23-2004 11:46 AM                     I was disappointed with "The Bourne Supremacy." This one wasn't anywhere near as good as "The Bourne Identity," which I really liked. The movie just couldn't get off the ground and go anyplace. The events that happen early in the film, in Goa, India, you have the setup for a merciless revenge movie where one would figure Bourne would be seething to get even. But, no, the whole thing just kind of goes blah even throughout all of the action sequences. The screenplay for this film was very weak. I have not read any of the "Bourne" books, so I don't know how well this one sticks to the novel (but my understanding is this film makes some noticeable deviations). I say the screenplay was weak because there's next to nothing in terms of character development here. And then the movie kills off one of the main charaters that keeps the show feeling a little more human. Brian Cox was wasted this time in having his role turned into a more cartoony bad guy than the more complex fellow he represented in the previous film. Even the main character, Bourne, had major problems this time. The first movie was driven largely by his goal to find out his real identity. That sense of progression was totally absent this time around. So when Joan Allen drops some big information to the guy, we don't really care. It just seems tacked onto the show. quote: Brad Miller I am going to have to find this director and clamp his head in a paint shaking machine for two hours so he can see the kind of shit he is making. I laughed from visualizing that. Greenglass definitely needs some kind of punishment for this "style." The camera work on this movie was just gawd-awful. The fight scene with the other Treadstone assassin was made totally incomprehensible for all the camera swish shake shit, not to mention shots composed too tight and the overall scene just being dark. Normally with this kind seizure style of directing (like what you see with Tony Scott or Michael Bay) you have some color and contrast in the shots to pick up at least some recognizeable detail. Another sequence that had me even more pissed off from the efforts being wasted was the car chase near the movie's end. Some CNN reviewer called it "the best car chase ever filmed." Bullshit. I saw much better work in "Ronin." And in "Ronin" you could actually SEE the damned chases happen. All of the shaking, swish pan and over editing obscured all of the dramatics in this car chase. Normally you have multiple angles and well placed edits put there to punctuate each action point and strengthen it. I have a suspicion about the seizure cam style, particularly with this movie. I think it was used to hide location problems, logistical mistakes and likely a rushed shooting schedule. Many of the shot placements in this film sucked. How about that weak, loose, distant profile shot of the house blowing up? You barely see the bad guys flying from it. A better director, or one with more time and budget, would have had a more dynamic shot placement. Anyway, my suspicion is a large amount of the budget just went into the pockets of a few key people and not very much wound up on the screen at all. Also, what's with the filmmakers using the same Moby song in the end titles as was done with the first film? More budget cuts?  |  IP: Logged Mike Heenan Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1896 From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 10-31-2004 06:18 PM                     Just watched this one and the seizure cam style wasn't as bad as I was expecting but it was bad in some parts. The kind of shots I hate are the strobe like shots, like in Private Ryan and other movies. I was surprised at who they "offed" in this film because of their importance in the book versions.  |  IP: Logged Jennifer Pan THE JEN! Posts: 1219 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: Nov 2003 posted 11-04-2004 12:03 PM                        This movie would have been a lot shorter if... spoiler .... they just killed everyone from the first movie in the first 30 minutes. The last car chase scene was way too LONG!! OMG!! Can people not shoot through windows like in the beginning of the movie! Also, every time "Matt" had a moment and looked at himself in the mirror I kept expecting him to change into a zombie or something. The way the scenes were done looked like it was in "horror flick" mode. Yes, he's supposed to avenge his girlfriend or whatever and find that other chick but dang, he should have just shot himself in the end. Or at least the other chick should have kicked him in the balls for killing her parents.  |  IP: Logged Mike Heenan Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1896 From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 11-07-2004 01:24 PM                     I'm sure in part 3 she will come back and avenge them, who knows?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.