"They should have left him alone"

The Bourne Supremacy (2004): 5/10

Poster (c) Universal Studios

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.

Review Date: August 2, 2004