my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Bourne Supremacy (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Bourne Supremacy Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Dave Williams Wet nipple scene Posts: 1836 From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 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  |  IP: Logged Jason Black Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1723 From: Myrtle Beach, SC, USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 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  |  IP: Logged Nate Lehrke Master Film Handler Posts: 396 From: Denver, CO Registered: Oct 2002 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Ryan Luby Film Handler Posts: 70 From: Minneapolis, Minnesota Registered: Jun 2004 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Dwayne Caldwell Master Film Handler Posts: 323 From: Rockwall, TX, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Richard Greco Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1180 From: Plant City, FL Registered: Nov 2003 posted 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  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Cope Master Film Handler Posts: 256 From: Overland Park, KS, United States Registered: Jun 99 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 07-25-2004 05:09 PM                        quote: Mitchell Cope Complicated yes, deep no. Well said. The film seems fine... for people who can throttle their expectations. It's been well-received at both of my places. The underwater "attempt to revive my girlfriend" shot was kindof a stretch though.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 07-25-2004 07:02 PM                     *Spoilers* Jack, are you referring to the scene where the car crashes into a large body of water, they sink to the bottom, Damon struggles for some time to get the girl out of the car, then blows air into her mouth trying to resuscitate her, then struggles some more, then lets air bubbles out of his mouth, the struggles some more, then blows MORE air into her mouth, then lets more air bubbles out of his mouth, then struggles some more, then lets more air bubbles out of his mouth, then stares at the girl knowing he didn't save her while he lets more air bubbles out of his mouth, then lets more air bubbles out of his mouth as he makes his way to the surface? That scene??? Yeah, it was lame and completely unbelieveable. Nobody has lungs that big.  |  IP: Logged Joshua Lott Expert Film Handler Posts: 246 From: Fairbanks, AK, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 07-25-2004 08:17 PM                        Saw this movie last night.... UHHHHH the camera bouncing around like that was BAD. One of the better things about the first Bourne movie was that you could actually enjoy the fight scenes.  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 07-26-2004 12:05 AM                        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!  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 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... Does Berlin always shake like that? Or only when this dumbass director is filming there? I agree we need a seizure-cam thread.  |  IP: Logged Zarth Bertsch Film Handler Posts: 1 From: Iowa City, IA Registered: Mar 2004 posted 07-26-2004 05:01 PM                     I watched the film yesterday... yes, the hand-held was definitely a bit much. Personally, my greatest disappointment was that they killed off Franka Potente so quickly!  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.