The Bourne Identity is a very good film. Its realistic action was given depth by the relationship of Jason and Marie.
This vitality is missing from the mediocre sequel, The Bourne Supremacy, in large part because Marie's appearance in this sequel is just a brief cameo with no depth, and which would have no meaning apart from her central role in the first Bourne movie. Franka Potente still gets top billing in the credits, even though her screen time in Supremacy is barely a couple of minutes.
Moreover, the conflict of Bourne vs Conklin vs Ward Abbott in the first movie gives both energy and plausibility to the action. Ward Abbott alone is not an interesting or energetic enough adversary to build this sequel upon, and the addition of Kirill does not add much, since he has no more depth than the disposable Treadstoners of the first film -- just more screen time than they had. Pamela Landy might have been an interesting antagonist turned protagonist, but her character does not evolve over the course of the movie, even when she changes her mind about Bourne, and neither for that matter does Bourne's character, nor anyone else's.
Many reviewers, even some halfway intelligent ones, rated this Bourne sequel higher than the first film. Are their standards really that low?
I've tried to apportion the blame for the sequelitis suffered by this film, but with limited success.
Maybe it's fault of the original novels, but I haven't read them. The story of Bourne Supremacy is certainly weaker than that of Bourne Identity. It is merely episodic, rather than following a true story arc. Its arc is so low that even a really talented director would have trouble Limbo-ing under it. Various things happen in sequence, but none of them really matters, or changes anything. The movie ends with yet another sequel hook. Sigh...
Doug Liman did a much better job directing Identity than Paul Greengrass did with Supremacy. Even though I detest Liman's movie, Swingers, he does have what it takes for cinematic greatness. Greengrass, on the other hand, seems to be a journeyman second-unit director who has over-reached himself. Greengrass's disjointed car chase in Moscow is a weak shadow of Liman's brilliantly choreographed turn in Paris.
The cinematography of The Bourne Supremacy is downright bad. Greengrass's odd trick of constantly jerking the camera to agitate the action is annoying after the first 10 seconds, and painful to watch thereafter. It was a bad idea, badly executed -- or maybe it was merely the vacuum resulting from a lack of good ideas.
Bourne Identity: 8+/10
Bourne Supremacy: 6-/10
I wish I had never seen Bourne Supremacy, because it has cheapened Bourne Identity for me. But I guess I couldn't resist.
This vitality is missing from the mediocre sequel, The Bourne Supremacy, in large part because Marie's appearance in this sequel is just a brief cameo with no depth, and which would have no meaning apart from her central role in the first Bourne movie. Franka Potente still gets top billing in the credits, even though her screen time in Supremacy is barely a couple of minutes.
Moreover, the conflict of Bourne vs Conklin vs Ward Abbott in the first movie gives both energy and plausibility to the action. Ward Abbott alone is not an interesting or energetic enough adversary to build this sequel upon, and the addition of Kirill does not add much, since he has no more depth than the disposable Treadstoners of the first film -- just more screen time than they had. Pamela Landy might have been an interesting antagonist turned protagonist, but her character does not evolve over the course of the movie, even when she changes her mind about Bourne, and neither for that matter does Bourne's character, nor anyone else's.
Many reviewers, even some halfway intelligent ones, rated this Bourne sequel higher than the first film. Are their standards really that low?
I've tried to apportion the blame for the sequelitis suffered by this film, but with limited success.
Maybe it's fault of the original novels, but I haven't read them. The story of Bourne Supremacy is certainly weaker than that of Bourne Identity. It is merely episodic, rather than following a true story arc. Its arc is so low that even a really talented director would have trouble Limbo-ing under it. Various things happen in sequence, but none of them really matters, or changes anything. The movie ends with yet another sequel hook. Sigh...
Doug Liman did a much better job directing Identity than Paul Greengrass did with Supremacy. Even though I detest Liman's movie, Swingers, he does have what it takes for cinematic greatness. Greengrass, on the other hand, seems to be a journeyman second-unit director who has over-reached himself. Greengrass's disjointed car chase in Moscow is a weak shadow of Liman's brilliantly choreographed turn in Paris.
The cinematography of The Bourne Supremacy is downright bad. Greengrass's odd trick of constantly jerking the camera to agitate the action is annoying after the first 10 seconds, and painful to watch thereafter. It was a bad idea, badly executed -- or maybe it was merely the vacuum resulting from a lack of good ideas.
Bourne Identity: 8+/10
Bourne Supremacy: 6-/10
I wish I had never seen Bourne Supremacy, because it has cheapened Bourne Identity for me. But I guess I couldn't resist.