This is topic Bourne Supremacy in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000806

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-22-2004, 05:10 AM:
 
I would like to take this time to point out that the director of this film, Paul Greengrass is perhaps the worst director of all time. It's ashamed Jason Bourne didn't kill the director in the first scene.

Pay attention (not like you couldn't) to the "style" of filmmaking in this movie. Yes indeed, I am speaking of that whole "what, you forgot the tripod again???" style. The camera is CONSTANTLY shaking and zooming and focusing for no damned good reason. I'm sure the director thinks that it is cutting edge or some such lameness, and he probably also thinks that this MTVish style will increase tension in the scenes...but don't be fooled, you will be watching the action scenes saying to yourself "gee I know those two guys are fighting, but it sure would be nice to be able to follow the action." This director is a fucktard plain and simple. I've seen kids put together video movies that were far superior to this clusterfuck of camera shots and "editing".

As far as the story goes, it's pretty lame and has all been done to nauseum before. I found myself saying "hey Matt Damon, just kill that guy so you can leave the room and go do something at least mildly interesting".

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. This movie gave me a splitting headache and is worse than Anchorman. Yes that's right, that officially makes this movie the worst movie ever made. Avoid it and all of this director's work like herpes.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-22-2004, 02:20 PM:
 
This type of filmmaking is SUPPOSED to make you feel like you are watching it with your own head. Apparently our heads continuosly move around so much that we cannot distinguish what we are looking at. Personally if I moved my head that much I would have an annurism.

The style was either introduced or made popular on the TV show NYPD blue. Since then directors have made it so bad that you truly cannot distinguish between a fight scene and someone eating a bagel.

It also allows for poor fight choreography. The super shaky scene works make it easy to slap together any 15 pieces of film and call it a fight sequence.

At least on crappy films like the matrix sequels, they at least kept the camera STILL long enough to realize that the movie sucked on its own merits.

It is the reason I could not watch films like SWAT, besides that it sucked too. I get dizzy and puke.

Thanks for the heads up on this one brad. We should have a forum specifically for films that are made inside a paint can mixer.

Ciao

Dave
 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 07-22-2004, 03:29 PM:
 
I didn't think it was anything close to Anchorman, as Brad stated. It was a decent film, with lots of action, which, at times, was very hard to follow.

I just watched teh Bourne Identity a few days ago, so the film made sense, yet the shaky/blurry camera action did rattle my head a little.

All in all I found this to be an entertaining film.

3.5/5
 

---

Posted by Nate Lehrke (Member # 1460) on 07-23-2004, 05:11 AM:
 
The car chase made the movie for me. I just simply like car chases!

Even with the weak plot line and horrible vomit invoking camera work, I was entertained.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-23-2004, 08:19 AM:
 
Yes, the handheld camera was over the top. But all in all the photography was athmospheric. I liked that a great portion of the movie was shot in Berlin, and they captured the athmosphere of the city, especially during the night scenes, very nicely.
Storywise this was really good. It is very hard to write a good sequel, and they did that very well I think. The story was interesting and well told.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Luby (Member # 2520) on 07-23-2004, 03:44 PM:
 
I figured that the camera work was just a result of me having a headache before seeing the movie and that it was magnified because of. Guess not..

Oh well, I still enjoyed it. Nothing spectacular but I was entertained.

Btw, Brad, you forgot the "the" on the title..better add that in before Greco chews you out. Without that "the" we might not be sure which movie you are talking about.
 

---

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 07-23-2004, 08:37 PM:
 
Some spoilers ahead for both Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy

I'm quite surprised that no one has caught on to the genius that is Paul Greengrass' hectic storytelling. Quite simply, it is an exercise in audience participation (i.e. the ability of the audience to identify with the main character.) Obviously, very few people watching this film will be superspy assassins like Bourne, so the next best thing, for parallelism's sake, is to pick one trait that both Bourne and the audience can share - Bourne's constant headaches. By subjecting the viewers to shaky camera shots, constant close ups, and jumpy editing, Greengrass has essentially put us in the head of Bourne, and I must say I really feel sorry for Bourne. He has my complete sympathies. Unfortunately, any way you look at it, this is an asinine method of storytelling.

I checked out Bourne Identity a week ago because I'd missed it at the theatres. I really enjoyed it. So I was looking forward to this one. But when I found out Doug Lyman wasn't the director, I was a little worried. My worry increased slightly at the first scene when the camera was shifting and zooming about as pandemonium broke because of Kirill's (Karl Urban) assassinations of a Chinese politician and some guy that works for Pamela Landy (Joan Allen). Then the chase scene in India amplified my concern. By the end of the first fight scene (the one with the other remaining Treadstone assassin [the one that killed Conklin (Chris Cooper) at the end of the first movie]) I was royally pissed. I couldn't help thinking that Matt and the other actor (whose entry I can’t seem to find on either movie in the Imdb) had worked their asses off for many weeks with the fight choreographer, and that the sequence was amazing (because the fights in the first one were amazing) but we never got to see it. Paul was too busy tightening the shots up to their hands, stomachs and faces, and cutting the shit out of the scene to make it more frenetic. It was pathetic to say the least. I use no exaggeration when I say it was the worst fight scene I’ve ever seen.

If someone with cerebral palsy had operated the camera, the images would have been steadier. It was that bad. The director wanted to increase tension and suspense and instead promoted a sense of annoyance and motion sickness. I actually had a hard time following the plot not because it was so intricate but because of these highly detractive shots. And there were a lot of unnecessary zooms. I guess the director wanted to achieve a sense of realism by making it look like a documentary. He failed. Miserably. I tried to tune it all out. Like the lyrics in the Moby song Extreme Ways used in the end credits, “I had to close down my mind.” Which is funny now that I think about it because the chorus of that song could relate to the experience of hiring the director. I mean you have the same writer, the same d.p., the same actors, and producers, the possibility of making this a great franchise, and when they get this Greengrass guy onboard, “Then it fell apart. Fell apart.” It’s a real shame because The Bourne Identity pulled it off in terms of excitement and suspense and it did so with such style. This movie should have been every bit as entertaining and exciting, but in the end, it’s just an exercise in incompetence. Tylenol and Dramamine sales should do well.
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 07-25-2004, 08:23 AM:
 
This SUCKED!!!

Not even 3 mugs of beer could help this one. I was bored through the whole damn thing.

1/5
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 07-25-2004, 03:33 PM:
 
I think this film is better than you give it credit for. I agree, especially at the start, the camera's unsteadiness is obvious and too much. Later on, I didn't care because the editing was so much of this and that, slapped together as you might say. But I actually thought it worked. The chase sequence through the tunnel was suspenseful, as were all the chase sequences. I think we have a successful franchise here. I'd give it *** 1/2 stars out of ****. My biggest problem, the story overall was less than I would expect out of a normal TV show. Complicated yes, deep no. The franchise has potential with the actors and actresses they're pulling in, but give us more introspection into what Jason Bourne is really feeling. Spiderman 2 is almost like Shakespeare in this respect. *** 1/2 stars, yes, I was generous.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-25-2004, 05:09 PM:
 

quote: Mitchell Cope

---

Complicated yes, deep no.

---

quote:

---

Jack, are you referring to the scene where... sink.. struggles... blows... struggles... bubbles... struggles... blows... bubbles... struggles... bubbles... stares... bubbles... bubbles... makes his way to the surface?

---

Yah... that's the one, Brad!
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-26-2004, 01:11 AM:
 

quote:

---

...a great portion of the movie was shot in Berlin, and they captured the (atmosphere) of the city...

---

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

Does Berlin always shake like that?

---

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?
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Dennis M Dow Jr (Member # 1970) on 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
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

---