Too much Action film spoils the Spy film

Rating: Null/10 (16 June 2002)

Exciting and grimly real as the film seems in comparison to the pun-in-cheek James Bond films, this film ultimately defeats it's own "reality": sort of a redo of Tom Cruise' first Mission Impossible movie but with over-the-top violence and plot inconsistencies. In the plot-oriented spy genre, inconsistency is rather unforgivable. Why is Bourne being hunted down by his boss who admits he's a "$30 million weapon"? For that price, TV's old cyborg "The $6 million man" is looking pretty affordable. Why is Prince Scoobydo assassinated when Bourne's boss admits this will implicate the USA since the Prince already made public the first attempt? Wouldn't airport metal detectors be set off by Bourne's bank account "bullet"? Why surgically put it in his body when it's a visible lump? And why does he even NEED it when he memorizes everything - in case he gets amnesia?! The same question applies to for his fellow spy (who unaccountably committs suicide - another 30 million lost) who keeps Bourne's photo when he should have destroyed it. And if Bourne is a walking weapon, would anyone really trust living with him if he retired? Would you trust your child with him? Mighten he even suffer some post-trauma like a war vet?
Like most contemporary "action" films, the director substitutes "style" for reality: using a hand-held camera and rapid edits in "dull" scenes to create false excitement, flashing bright lights or icons at the camera when switching scenes, an unbelievable car-chase that noone sweats during, or the ridiculously unending, loud "pow" fist fights. On the positive side, in contrast, this modern style makes older spy films like "Ipcress File" or "Eiger Sanction" look even better. Think I'll go rent them.