The Bourne Supremacy
Cast
N/A
Rater #1
Has Not Seen Movie.
Rater #2
5/10. Ah, the summer action sequel. It's inevitable, isn't it? With few
exceptions, most of them are generic, mindless movies that are
marketed well enough to get at least $100 million. For the most
part, The Bourne Supremacy fits the bill. It's a sequel (to 2002's
The Bourne Identity), it's released in the summer, it's generic but
not exactly mindless, and it's marketed well enough to get a good
amount of money (although it needs to get more than expected with
the flop of Thunderbirds for Universal. Based on the series of books
by Robert Ludlum, Supremacy fails where Identity succeeded.
Direction. Identity's director was Doug Liman, known for such cult
favorites as Go and Swingers, which served the first well with a
balance of action and drama. Supremacy's director is Paul
Greengrass, who last did Bloody Sunday. Why they picked him to
direct this sequel that he ruined, I have no idea.
Jason Bourne (Matt Damon), amnesiac former killer for the CIA, is
being hunted again by the CIA, as he is framed for a crime he did
not commit. He must run to various exotic locations (which sell Lays
potato chips, by the way) to escape nameless bad guys. Chris
Cooper's character, Conklin, has since died and now Brian Cox takes
center stage, showing what a cool actor he is. Joan Allen
(unrecognizable to me) plays a random worker in the CIA (see also
Julia Stiles, Gabriel Mann).
I think Supremacy is the perfect example of how one thing can ruin a
movie. The choice of using handheld cameras is disastrous.
Greengrass (who probably is using cameras left over from Sunday)
seems to think that the less of a picture you can comprehend, the
better it is. During the non-action scenes (much like what annoyed
me about Man on Fire), the camera couldn't keep still for a second,
making it hard to understand what was happening on screen. Why?
Although I understand the want for "authenticity" for the action
scenes, is it really hard to put a camera on a tripod to keep
everything still for a couple seconds? And people thought The Blair
Witch Project was sickening.... Even during the action scenes, I had
no idea what was really happening not only because of the camera
work but also because of the lack of development of any of the non-
important characters. There are a couple random Russians, a couple
random Americans, and they fight. Why? Who knows?
On the other hand, even though the action scenes are indecipherable,
they were fun to watch. They weren't as fun as the ones in Identity,
but they were worthy nonetheless. The car chase scene (completely
thrown in randomly) wasn't as energetic as it could have been, and
considering the aforementioned atrocity of the camera, I guess it
couldn't really have been better. Still, during the fight and action
scenes, it was entertaining. The movie as a whole was tolerable,
partially engaging, and never left you bored, which is good enough,
I suppose. It's not constantly thrilling, but it's not boring.
Damon definitely isn't as into his role as he was in Identity. He's
basically sleepwalking through his role. Franka Potente has a small
role in this one, but she reprises her role as Marie. Personally, I
think she was much better in Run Lola Run. Hell, it could be the
only thing she's great in. But forget those two. The man on the
screen is Brian Cox, as I've said. This man can do anything, act
well, and be completely cool while he's at it. He's one of the
coolest actors out there besides Ving Rhames, Sam Jackson, and R.
Lee Ermey. But Cox can't save The Bourne Supremacy. It may have its
moments, but add up a whole lot of moments and you'll barely get a
second.
Rated PG-13 for violence and intense action, and for brief language.
Running time: ? minutes
Back Home