Why Greengrass why? What's wrong with you?

Rating: 6/10 (13 September 2013)

I just watched and reviewed "Bourne identity" after updating my DVDs to blu-ray format, and I started watching this right after that. I'm on my second break and I'm not even halfway through with the film. Not to worry, I still remember the movie from my previous viewings.
Almost everything that made "Bourne identity" good is now...worse or just plain awful. No character-centric plot. Not enough breathers. Somewhat shallow. Terrible camera work. Cast is still good and the story itself is decent, and as a story alone this isn't that bad - but as a movie this is awful to watch. So let's get into the major letdown that is the camera work, editing and the overall visual style and quality Paul Greengrass brought into this movie.
The camera is always a) shaking b) too close c) zooming in the middle of shaking and being already too close to begin with. No, this doesn't just happen when there's an action scene - which would still be annoying - but it happens all the time. Needless zooming, panning, closeups one after another, endless amount of quick cuts and all of this happens through that certain filter that makes everything look green. My eyes are strained. My eyes hurt. I don't want movies to assault my body. This isn't a 10-hour long movie. I shouldn't have to take several breaks to survive this film..
Not only that, but because this movie isn't focused on Jason Bourne as much as it's focused on its CIA conspiracy plot, the viewer (me) has to concentrate more. Especially when there are no breathers like in the first one, you need to keep your focus up. That's very, VERY hard to do when the camera is raping your eyes. In a way, the movie is saying "pay attention!" and kicking you in the face at the same time. Good job, idiots.
One could argue that there is more personality, more expression and immersion in this kind of approach to shooting a movie. In this case, I call bullshit. I'm not saying you can't shoot a movie well with hand-held cameras, strange editing and weird colors. I'm only saying that Greengrass shot these movies with an overly aggressive "style over substance" mentality, when even the substance couldn't live up to the previous movie. I'm very disappointed he was the one who directed these Bourne sequels. It's not lazy film-making, it's just plain annoying film-making. What an awful decision to shoot a movie like this. I could deal with the fact that I can't see what's happening when there's an action scene (which would still be annoying) if it didn't strain my eyes to the point where I can't concentrate on the next non-action scene (which itself is shot in a same manner).
I gave this a very generous 6/10 because of the cast and overall story (Gilroy's script, as usual). Greengrass can handle drama and put the script on the screen, but he shouldn't be let near a camera. As a story, this would've deserved much more than this insufferable execution. No, it's not a particularly engaging story and probably has nothing to do with the books, but it makes a decent film in itself. In short: this movie is better than how it's made.
I understand there are people who can handle Greengrass' style, and I'm glad for them. They achieved something my eyes could not physically do. I couldn't help it, it wasn't in my power. I also understand people who can't watch this and give it a 1/10. It's just pure frustration. Who wouldn't get frustrated when a movie is trying anything in its power to make you not watch it? If you compare this to Kubrick's camera-work, you will explode.