Hard to look past this film's weaknesses

Rating: 6/10 (27 December 2004)

For the record: I really liked the first Bourne film. It was refreshing to see that Hollywood could make a relatively serious spy/action film without the usual shallow glib humor, formulaic buddy frivolity and general cheese that almost every other post-Roger Moore-does-James Bond spy film seems to have. Consistent with Identity, Supremacy is serious. It's also stylistically similar and features many of the same actors.
Unfortunately, the film really isn't that good at all. Because I wanted to like the film I found myself making excuses for it as I viewed it. But in the end I had to hold the film accountable for several significant flaws: 1 - The plot. The film picks up where Identity leaves off with Bourne traipsing around the globe with Marie. Luckily, Marie is killed off almost immediately after having the opportunity to utter some really bad dialogue. There is absolutely no resemblance, physical or otherwise, between this paper-thin character and the charming Marie of Identity. Marie's mercy-killer is a mercenary named Kirill who has been hired to frame Bourne for the murder of a couple of CIA guys then kill Bourne himself. Seems a reasonable enough premise for a spy film until it goes pretty much nowhere. What follows is a series of boring dot-commy office scenes - again featuring really bad dialogue - and some car chases. After all of the chaos is over I was left to wonder why Bourne had to be involved in any of this. Apparently, Bourne's old boss's boss, Ward Abbott (Brian Cox), wanted to erase evidence of his involvement in the murder of a reformist Russian politician some years earlier. So he hires Kirill to kill the CIA agents who possess the evidence, destroy the evidence and frame Bourne by leaving a conspicuous finger print at the scene. As it turns out, this fingerprint becomes the only lead in an otherwise perfect crime which leaves us to wonder . . . why? Why not just commit the perfect crime and leave it at that? Abbott's nemesis, Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) only becomes interested in Abbot when she learns that Bourne's fingerprint traces back to Treadstone. No fingerprint. No lead. No movie. Apparently most people can look past this but I can't. It's just dumb.
2 - Character development. There basically is none. The movie assumes that you have seen Identity and therefore you understand what is going on in Bourne's mind. We witness Bourne having typical garbled and gravelly nightmare sequences and flashbacks so we know he's having some kind of disturbing recall. But the film never really delivers on an emotional level like Identity did. Damon does his best but the script just doesn't offer anything for him to work with. It plays out with about as much emotion as 'Colonel Mustard in the living room with the candlestick' as Bourne systematically pieces together snippets of his past. Ultimately he learns that he was the assassin used by Abbot to kill the reformist Russian politician. Whereas Identity offered the moving moment where Bourne can't go through with his contract in the presence of his mark's children Supremacy offers no compelling reason to explain why this particular assignment keeps resurfacing. As a result, when you witness Bourne's apology to his victims' daughter at the end of the film you are left to wonder why he would go through all of the trouble. (Especially after having labored through a relentlessly long but well-done car chase scene). The motivation just isn't there and either is the payoff.
3 - The direction/editing. As noted by many others on this board, there is way too much jerky hand-held camera work here. There were scenes that felt like NYPD Blue at high-speed - the novelty long since worn off. Also, the editing was choppy and hard to follow - not like Mission Impossible levels of hard to follow - but difficult. I suspect that there are hours of film on the cutting room floor that would have been valuable in filling in some fairly noticeable leaps in the plot. For example, what exactly prompts Landy to visit Abbott in his hotel room after he murders Danny Zorn? Presumably there is some evidence that clearly points to Abbott but, unless I missed something, we don't know what it is. And, again, as with the initial Bourne fingerprint setup we have to ask why Abbott seems to intent on leaving incriminating evidence around? After all, which is more incriminating? Zorn's discovery that the fingerprint was planted? Or Zorn's lifeless body? Please. Also, why does Abbott kill Zorn and then blow his own brains out? Stupid.
Ultimately, Supremacy is a reasonably well-done chase scene. Because it retains at least some of the good qualities of Identity it stands above the usual Hollywood fare but not by much.