Forums

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Okay. Saw Bourne Supremacy this weekend. Not a bad flick. Good story line. Matt Damon wasn't bad. A little predictable, but not annoyingly so.

Here's my major complaint: Why did they change directors?

In the first movie, the fight scenes were crisp and well-thought out. To make Damon seem like he really knew what he was doing, they edited fight scenese so that the parts where he wasn't as skilled or quick were sped up. This made it seem like he was moving incredibly fast with unbelievable precision. A great camera view/angle also helped.

Now, all directors seem to have attended the same fight scene class. They think they're pulling one over on us by zooming so close to the two combatants in a fight scene. You can't tell who is doing what to whom. There are a bunch of quick movements and some grunting, but the scene is really just pointless -- they might as well have shot it in the dark.

I think it started in Gross Pointe Blank. Now you see it in everything (including the Chronicles of Riddick) and it just comes off as the director being too fucking lazy to choreograph and shoot a good fight scene.

TM

I saw it last night. My assessment of the movie parallels yours. I give a B/B-


Spoiler:

One problem I had with the movie was that Bourne had his rifle aimed at the Deputy Director's head when he found them first in Berlin. Why? He was never going to shoot her. He needed her for answers. He never let her know that he had a scope on her head. Couldn't he have done the same thing w/binoculars?