The Bourne Supremacy

The perfect prototype of an action movie. Excellently thought-out action from beginning to end, with a wise lesson to be learned at the end. Perfect camerawork, amazing directing, Powell’s brilliant music, an excellent story... what more can I say? I hope Ultimatum will be at least as good, if not better. (31/05/2006)

Paul Greengrass delivers a spy thriller full of modern technology, fast cuts, and perfect handheld camera work. The plot is also very fast-paced, dynamic, and above all completely unpredictable. Matt Damon is a great action hero mainly because he doesn't look like a super secret agent at first glance, so you can relate to him much better. (11/02/2005)

Greengrass understood it better than Liman. The only thing his authentic Bourne loses is the choreography of one brawl, but otherwise, that which in the previous film looked like treading between a dynamic and rough thriller and a clean spy film ala M:I is replaced by Paul's typical elegance and a documentary maelstrom of images. The result is Bourne, who, in addition to his identity, finds above all integrity, the missing charisma appears where Bourne-man and Bourne-soldier become one body and one personality. Damon seems to have fully inhabited the character, meaning that Bourne is a tough guy with human features, without these things contradicting each other. Magnificent car chases, suspense even during peaceful scenes, a much more civil concept and, of course, the 24-carat final Moscow chase. I would only complain about the magnificent gesture of humanity in the finale, which is a bit exaggerated, and sometimes the predictability and the holes in the logic. But otherwise Jason Bourne is starting to win me over. (14/02/2008)

Paul Greengrass skillfully dismantles the idyllic ending that many criticized in the first installment, and he adds another genre label to the film – a revenge movie, along with its spy thriller elements. One cannot speak of pigeonholing when it comes to the form of this film, as it is a daring experiment in its own right, something that many established directors can only dream of achieving. Greengrass doesn't just use "handheld" cameras in action scenes, but he completely discards the use of a tripod. Thanks to his meticulous editing work, the storytelling takes on a completely different dimension compared to the first film. The gritty look of the entire film perfectly corresponds to the moods of the main protagonist, who fulfills his own tasks without a hint of emotion, tasks that his former employers, now his pursuers, are unable to comprehend. Where else can you see a positive hero beating an "innocent" girl against a wall and demanding a confession from her? Where else can the hero use a magazine to destroy not only the enemy but the entire house? The original filmmaker's experiment, which paid off multiple times for the producers, deserves one thing: To conclude the trilogy in spectacular style. (25/11/2004)

Unlike the first film, the second is faster, less polished, and filmed as if it were a "live broadcast." This makes it difficult for the viewer to orient themselves with what is going on on the screen at times because they know only slightly more than Bourne - and he knows nothing... Moreover, the handheld camera shakes like a black boy in front of a group of skinheads in tense action moments - which is especially evident in the final chase through the streets of Moscow. Some may appreciate it as being authentic, but I had a bit of a problem with it. The script and acting performances are on a high level, the music is excellent, and the pace is extremely fast. Karel Roden's smaller role as a Russian oligarch is pleasing. The film forms a narrative and creative whole with the third installment, so anyone who happened to see the third one earlier will intimately recognize the style. Overall impression: 85%. (20/10/2007)