|
 t's no secret that I dislike 2002's "The
Bourne Identity", which I feel is nothing more than the wanton
raping of Robert Ludlum's original novel. Imagine, if you will, an upstart
without any proven material tearing to pieces the works of a great master,
believing he can do better. That's what watching Doug Liman's version of
"The Bourne Identity" felt like. And so, it's without any
anticipation or expectations that I approach 2004's "The Bourne
Supremacy", which immediately, from the very first frame, alerts loyal
readers of Ludlum's "Bourne" novels that this sequel, much like
the original, intends to engage in more wanton raping of Ludlum's literary
works.
The man assigned to ravage
Ludlum's prodigious talent this time around is Paul Greengrass, a director
who believes the only way to frame a two-person conversation is to blot out
half of the screen with the back of someone's head, thereby giving the
appearance of furry tribbles having somehow made camp on the screen.
Greengrass' other bad vice is to make the action scenes so incomprehensible
that the audience will just give up and run to the bathroom to vomit from
seasickness. Matt Damon is once again back as Jason Bourne, the CIA assassin
with amnesia, who is now living in India with girlfriend Marie (Franka
Potente) after the events of the original. With his past still haunting him
in dreams, Bourne is forced out of retirement when dastardly Russian
criminals frame him for the murder of two CIA agents, and Bourne once again
becomes CIA target #1.
As Bourne rampages across Europe in search of answers
and a way to strike back at those dastardly CIA agents (led by Joan Allen
this time around, Chris Cooper having been killed off in the original),
the audience has to battle to keep from barfing because of Greengrass'
incredible ability to shake the camera every single millisecond of movie
time. Well, actually, calling what Bourne does "rampaging" isn't
really correct. Much of the film consists of Bourne fleeing from pursuers,
and occasionally getting into a fistfight or two, just to break the
monotony of all that pointless chasing, one presumes. It's all very
underwhelming, not to mention all very hard on the eyes and equilibrium,
thanks to Greengrass' erratic visuals.
Returning writer Tony Gilroy approaches
"Supremacy" almost exactly the way he approached
"Identity", with an A-plot that takes up most of the film, and a
B-plot that loiters about in the background, waiting to take affect
sometime toward the end, even though it holds no interest to anyone, the
filmmakers included. As such, the only real excitement the movie manages
to generate is when Bourne is trying to learn why the CIA is, once again,
after him. But since "Supremacy's" CIA is identical to
"Identity's", these people couldn't track a rodent unless the
rodent allowed them to. For an agency so obviously incompetent (at least
shown in movies such as these), one has to wonder why filmmakers insist on
making the CIA the omnipresent international bogeyman.
The script itself is rather amazing in its ability to
be randomly contrived. One moment Bourne is a master spy, able to elude
and entrap anyone and everyone, and the next moment he showcases the super
spy skills of Don Knotts. Of course we all know why Bourne "slips
up" periodically -- because the movie had gone on for much too long
without any action, so Bourne does something careless that ends with him
surrounded and chased and shot at as a result. Repeat process as needed.
In this case, it's needed a lot, making Jason Bourne one very inconsistent
spy.
One of the movie's better moments, when Bourne turns
the tables on the CIA by showing up with a sniper rifle in the building
across from them, has already been spoiled by the trailers. Without that
excellent "gotcha" moment, "Supremacy" feels like a
retread of the original, with Bourne once again running and hiding while EEEE-vil
CIA agents work in the shadows to corner, kill, or silence him. Why, it
almost feels as if the filmmakers, having trashed the premise of Ludlum's
trilogy with "Identity", had nowhere else to go. To wit: the
sequel offers almost no resemblance to Ludlum's novel beyond the most
basic of premise (i.e. Bourne is framed), which bodes poorly for the third
volume (should there be one). As a fan of the novels, the squandering of
Ludlum's talents by his cinematic counterparts almost make you wish they
would just give Bourne a new name and stop naming the sequels after
Ludlum's works.
The one thing "Supremacy" has going for it
is Bostonian Matt Damon, who remains quite good as master assassin Jason
Bourne. Damon has that hard, focused energy that makes him a superior
actor, unlike his fellow "Good Will Hunting" co-star Ben
Affleck. The other familiar faces from "Identity" are Brian Cox
("X-Men 2")
as duplicitous CIA chief Ward Abbot, Julia Stiles as Bourne's former
handler, and Franka Potente, who has what amounts to a glorified cameo as
Marie, Bourne's lover. Joan Allen steps into the Chris Cooper role as the
CIA boss in charge of hunting down Bourne, while Karl Urban ("The
Chronicles of Riddick") is barely onscreen long enough for us to
even register his character's name.
"The Bourne Supremacy" is certainly not a
bad film, but it's strapped with a muddled and uninteresting script, and
the direction by Paul Greengrass makes one appreciate Doug Liman even
more. The film gets 3 stars for slightly exceeding my expectations, but
loses a half star for hiring Paul "shake it like a Polaroid
picture" Greengrass. If you could keep from getting dizzy, or
throwing up while watching "Supremacy" (especially during that
long and very much incoherent car chase toward the end, where Greengrass
showcases about 5 billion fast cuts in the space of 10 minutes), you are a
tougher man than I.
|
