I don't understand why this movie was made.

Rating: Null/10 (7 September 2004)

Generally the sequel to a successful movie is made to capitalize on the popularity of the original. However, in the case of The Bourne Supremacy, the screenwriters and director seemed to have the sole purpose of emotionally eviscerating the first movie's fans with the second installment.
To "kill-off" 3 of the 4 main characters, from the first movie, within the storyline of the second is not only emotionally unsatisfactory it is counter-intuitive to producing a successful sequel. Where is the motivation to see a 3rd movie, if 1 is made? A series of movies needs more than 1 common thread (Jason Bourne) to hold interest and be satisfying. To have only 1 character that an audience can really care about survive the second movie seems to mean, to me at least, that the perpetrators of this film believe that unrelenting violence is enough to tie these movies together. Forget about human relationships, humor, character development, plot twists, a satisfying ending, etc. and just give the audience blood, bullets, and chases. It is far easier to script and cast a movie based on those principles. The "shaky" camera didn't bother me nearly as much as the uninspiring script and the pedestrian direction of this film. If Universal wants this movie and any sequels to reap profits at the box office and in DVD sales, it had better resurrect Marie and make her part of the 3rd movie.