Good film brought down by bad film-making decisions

Rating: Null/10 (25 July 2004)

I hope that someone who had a hand in the making of this film reads the comments here. It would be nice to know that feedback is important to them.
As many have already pointed out, the shaky camera-work and very quick editing of action sequences spoil what otherwise was a pretty good movie. There were many shots that were needlessly jumbled and jumpy, and made me feel I was drunk, like the one of Bourne running down the stairs to the public washroom at one point. Was the thinking behind this choice that we the viewer would be on edge like Bourne? Fine in theory, but the reality was that I could hardly watch the screen. There was so much shaky image, that even the static establishing shots of cities started to look shaky to me.
This choice made the first film seem even greater in comparison, with its tight, efficient film-making. I thought the story and acting were good, perhaps a bit predictable now that so many spy and action movies have been made, but enjoyable nonetheless. But please, Hollywood, enough with shakycam!