One of the few instances where the sequel is better - even with the action cinematography issues.

Rating: 7/10 (14 September 2004)

"Even killers have choices". An extension of the prequel and not an adaptation of the book, it is definitely one of the better assassin films.
The script was one reason for the film's improvement over the original, the direction was another (except for the action cinematography, discussed later). There are also good all-round performances, and it is a pity we have not seen Joan Allen in more "major features" lately. Though her acting will not garner any Oscars, it does bring a certain class we do not see too often in such films. Damon manages to depict Bourne's character successfully this time - convincing in both the assassin and human sides of the role's coin. So as Chris Cooper was the standout actor in the prequel, Allen and Damon share the plaudits this time - whilst the reliable Cox and Stiles do not let the production down in their respective roles.
Damon's Bourne films are not faithful to the books, and they do not need to be: the book would almost always look better in one's head than any film could hope to portray. But the author has been dead for a few years now, so I assume there is freedom to explore this film series' potential and take on the Bond films in the spy-action genre. That is, so long as the Bourne series does NOT become yet another Bond series, for we already HAVE a Bond series.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS: Where this fails over the prequel is not in the editing (which connects a film's sequences), but the choice for action cinematography. It fails to give the action sequences a proper perspective (ie. to see what's going on), because the camera was "too close" to properly capture (and frame) the action. This is easily seen in some of the unarmed-combat sequences, or the (Moscow) car chase which alluded to be superior over the prequel's (Paris) chase - but could hardly be judged from the camera's position relative to the action.
The choice is understandable, for this type of camera work gives more immediacy/intensity to the action. But it becomes useless when one has no perspective to place such immediacy within. After all, one of the prequel's most memorable scenes was the (Paris) car chase - and it was memorable because one could "see" the action and the chase, rather than JUST "feel" it.
There are times where this style does work, as in the director's previous film (BLOODY Sunday). Unfortunately, the action cinematography (and relevant handycam) approaches here fail more than gaining. Perhaps a marriage of the 2 styles would have succeeded to appease both director and audiences.
If this film had test audiences, one wonders why no executive picked up on the feedback from this critical issue. As most of this film's IMDb comments also found it a problem, how could test audiences possibly miss it? Isn't this why Hollywood executives are there - in addition to disrupting artistic visions whilst chasing lucrative box office $ through formulaic fare?