A good story and fine acting let down by director.

Rating: Null/10 (18 August 2004)

The good elements of this movie would be the acting and the story, while the negative would be the visuals. Most usually in an action film, these would be reversed. Spastic, shaky camera work is substituted for the excellent choreography of the action sequences in the first film. Contrast the scenes of Bourne in close quarter, hand to hand combat with an identically trained opponent, a scene found in both films. Probably the best moment of both movies is this scene in the first film. Its counterpart in the sequel is neutered by the drunken smears and blurs of the camera, which fails to convey exactly what happens. The same is true of the car chase, imitating all the worst elements of any early, jump-cut rock video. Indistinct, impressionistic blurs aggravate the viewer, and dispel any tension that would have been generated in such a run-for-your-life situation. How nice for a director: one doesn't need to accurately stage and film all the action as much as to capture the broadest of strokes just enough to suggest it.