Gave it a 7, would rank Bourne Identity as an 8. Shakycam didn't bother me as much as I thought but did detract from a few scenes. The plot was a little murky; I didn't quite put it all together until the ride home when I realized it wasn't as confusing as I had thought.
What else? Joan Allen was good, but no replacement for Chris Cooper. Very bummed about what happened to
Abbott and Marie, as they were awesome characters in the first movie. And Joan Allen just dropping Bourne's true(?) identity on him like that felt kinda fake; this is the CIA, they'd want a quid pro quo, they don't do any favors for rogue agents.
Overall, I just felt like the direction wasn't quite as competent as Doug Liman's in the first film, nor the script as snappy.
7/10. Good fights, action, etc. which is really what earns it the "high" rating I've given it. I didn't much care for the beginning of the movie. For one thing I like Franka Potente and her inclusion there was all but a waste. >
I even wonder if it would have played better to simply off her in the VERY FIRST scene and get the movie rolling. Because really, I didn't care much for anything that was happening until after the location moved out of India.
< Chris Cooper also really deserved more than just a few brief hallucinogenic flashback glimpses. He's too good for it. Even just one actual full scene done in a proper flashback would have made me happy.
Secondly, it was too much a departure from the style of a the first movie. That first movie I REALLY liked. Everything about it just clicked.
Thirdly, the style they did use is one I just abhor. IT SUCKS! Shaky-Cam indeed. All that hand-held camera work and epilepsy-inducing editing just chaps my arse and for the life of me I can't understand why it keeps getting used. Does anyone actually LIKE that - and if so are you taking your meds? I think it CAN be used effectively in limited quantity and for GOOD reason, but to use it consistently over an entire film just gives me headaches and destroys my enjoyment of the movie. Even if used sparingly there has to be a DANG good reason for it being used at all. For example, using it in just one fight makes that fight scene inconsistent with the entire remainder of the movie, but using it in every fight is clearly unacceptable. I see that at best people tolerate it, but they never actually like it.
I was not terribly impressed by Joan Allen's character as well but I'm not sure yet why; whether it was her acting or the part as written. Something there just didn't do it for me. It might be because they seemed to be trying to play up the "Who's the REAL bad guy?" angle, but it was just so unnecessary. It wasn't the focus of the movie as it was in "Bourne Identity" and not at all well handled here in any case.
Yet on the other hand Julia Stiles did do very well with the small part she was given and was VERY consistent with her performance from the first movie. Something of an accomplishment that given that her appearance in the first was so superficial.
All in all the movie manages to rise above its limitations. I'd be willing to pay full price to see it again - but I won't see it again in theaters. It'll be a DVD purchase though.
When/if they do "Ultimatum" I hope they drop that craptastic shaky-cam style. From now on there will be TWO things that automatically earn a full-point demerit when I see them in movies. Used to be the only thing I gave that kind of weight was when the villain/monster gets up AGAIN at the end of the movie in one ULTRA-pathetic attempt at a final scare. Now I add to that the Shaky-cam style. Yes, it's THAT annoying and anyone in the movie biz with a brain should understand that.
The fight scenes were hard to follow and I almost got sick watching the car chase. I really liked the first one and have hope for the third (if they make it).
They had all the points and makes of a good movie just didn't blow me away with anything.
I gave it a six -- I liked it slightly more than I disliked it, I'd say. Wouldn't see it again, though.
Do not let this film turn you off the director's previous picture -- Bloody Sunday -- which is a tremendous documentary-style movie about a massacre in Ireland in 1972. In that film his techniques work very well, but I didn't think they fit here.
Good performances all around, but the story was sadly lacking in tension. Too many bad guys -- who don't spend very much time doing bad stuff, I have to say. Bad guys should be bad. I should hate them. And maybe be slightly worried that they're tougher than the good guy.
Good car chase, though.
And hooray for the Xena: Warrior Princess alumni -- Karl Urban used to play both Caesar and Cupid on that show, and Martin Csokas (who plays the other Treadstone agent in Berlin) used to play Boraius, Xena's old partner/lover -- and also played Celeborn in LotR.
Did Martin Csokas play the assassin in the first film also? I take it he was the guy that shot Conklin at the end of the Bourne Identity? I don't remember it looking like the same guy...he had a longer face than Csokas does..
Some of the fight scenes? How about every single scene in the movie? When he's walking down the street it's hand-held close ups. When he's standing up, getting out of the car. When he's talking on the phone.
The hand held "shaky cam" came very close to making the movie utterly unwatchable. As it is, it severely distracted from a story and acting performance that was better than the first time around, IMO.
Bleh. What a disappointment, though. That camera work was horrible.
