Given its reputation as one of the better sequels out there, and given its director Paul Greengrass’s pedigree, I'm surprised to say I liked The Bourne Supremacy rather less than its predecessor.
The Bourne Supremacy feels like it spent a lot of time on the explication of its plot and on the choreography of action sequences (some of which are, admittedly, nifty) without bothering to build on any of the ideas from the previous film. This isn’t to say that The Bourne Identity was perfect—Bourne’s moral about-face was awfully convenient, as you noted in your review—but it had an absurdist take on the typical spy premise and a political acuity that set it apart from other Hollywood run-shoot-fight exercises.
The weaknesses in Identity should have given Supremacy room to expand and flesh itself out. Mostly, though, Jason Bourne runs around, reacts—albeit stoically—to assorted bits of bad news, and blows up a house for good measure. In between is the fallout from the assassination of a Russian reformer which could have had contemporary relevance if the movie had any more sophisticated an attitude about it than IT WAS BAD. The first movie understood that international powers interact with each other in complicated ways, guided variously by national self-interest, moral necessity, and just plain bureaucratic incompetence. For example, it implicitly asked, is it ever justified to eliminate a foreign dictator—for political or moral reasons? This movie, while it gets the bureaucratic inefficiency right, seems to think that political snafus can be probably traced to the mercenary impulses of a few crooked officials.
Also disappointing is the treatment of Bourne’s girlfriend Marie, a holdover from the last movie who is quickly dispatched in Supremacy’s first act. Sure, Bourne sheds a few obligatory tears for her, but it’s pretty clear that the movie is primarily interested in 1) drumming up some easy sympathy for Bourne, and 2) streamlining the narrative so that Bourne can conquer bad guys without having to drag along any Franka Potente-sized baggage.
All that said, there’s a lot to appreciate in this movie, especially the acting, which is something I don’t always feel generous enough toward actors to comment on. Special kudos go to Matt Damon and Brian Cox for bringing commitment, professionalism, and verisimilitude to roles which otherwise could have been expensive filler. Damon embodies a basic decency that is essential to grounding the film in some emotional reality, even when he’s bouncing around Eastern European streets riddled with bullets. Cox, meanwhile, shades his performance with a weary pathos that makes his character seem like more than just a stock villain. With his fraying hair and eyebrows that look permanently furrowed, he’s the corrupt cop and the thirty-year lifer with one more to go before retirement, all rolled up into one. Joan Allen, whom I usually enjoy, fares less well, relegated as she is to barking generic boss lady orders like, “If you want to go home, FIND JASON BOURNE!”
Also, there are those previously mentioned nifty action sequences that are in fact pretty nifty, serving to more or less justify, as they say, the price of admission. My favorite is a loopy little getaway involving a boat, a crowbar, a bridge, and a train. There’s also a hand-to-hand fight sequence that fulfills this movie’s quota for the fetishized destruction of stylishly chilly European interior design. The climactic car chase, however, runs far too long and monotonously.
All told, I’m still looking forward to The Bourne Ultimatum, which will hopefully not wear out my tolerance for shaky-cam.
No comments:
Post a Comment