What the hell were they thinking?

Rating: Null/10 (23 July 2004)

I went to this movie with great anticipation of seeing another thrilling spy drama. But instead, I was shocked and appalled from the first shot. I sat in disbelief that this movie was going to be presented entirely by hand-held cameras.
Why would any studio allow someone to ruin a multi-million dollar action adventure by shooting with the bullshit indy hand-held camera technique. All this ever does is make the viewer conscious of the camera, it doesn't help the viewer enjoy the story, which is why they're there in the first place.
Hand-held camera alleges to simulate real life more and therefore draws the audience more into the film. But in real life a person is able to focus on any object until they are comfortable to look away. This horrible movie gives you 1 second to see something and then it's on to the next shaky whipped shot.
The car chase at the end of the movie could have been one of the most real and exciting chases ever presented in a movie, but it was made a visual mess by the shaky shots. I believe if it had been shot and edited in a more traditional style, it would joined the ranks of the great chases. But this will not, because no one is going to want to rewatch this, because it is an unpleasant experience.
Directors who like to shoot movies in this manner, are so bored with classic cinema, that they choose to "shake things up" by turning out crap like this. Forgive me if I'm one of the huddled masses who still likes classic story telling, where the technique doesn't get in the way of my enjoyment.
I hope, someday, someone remakes this movie. It deserves a better chance. If there is a Bourne 3, dear God please, don't hire this absurd director.
I hope the producers lose their asses on this picture, for allowing it to get so out of hand. This was a waste of money and talent. Shame on you.