Rating of
2.5/4
Good Action, Bad Plot, Bad Cameras
JayFilmCrave - wrote on 09/01/07
So this is the third movie in this really wonderfully done series, but I have to say that this was by far the most disappointing. They leave so many open ends in the film and it just seems all too "neat" at the end, and while I realize that this is the third film and they wanted to "wrap things up" they didn't need to do it in a way that was quite lack luster. The return of Julia Stiles as a "confidant" who wants to help Jason is fine, I can accept that, but the writers give her this psuedo-relationship status before Jason became "Jason Bourne." I thought it was "trying" too hard to make her fit into the role of the "confidant." Even Pamela Landy seemed to be placed in her position as a "forced" scape goat. The screenplay really does a poor job of making everything believable. The head of the CIA wouldn't want to know about all the black ops and there is absolutely no way in hell he would be running the damn thing, he needs to have plausible deniability. In comparison to the other Bourne films, this one really just doesn't stand up.
I also should add that I thought I was going to go through an epileptic fit in this movie. The incredible amount of "shaky" camera work was absolutely unbelievable. I cannot remember seeing a single shot that didn't seem like it was being done with a handheld vidocam. I realize that it makes the action more intense and that it is a fairly well used technique, but the shaking continues even when characters are sitting down and having a conversation. I had a hard time focusing on the actual shot. The movie was significantly less enjoyable because of the shaking.
Even with all these problems I still thought the film was ok. I wouldn't be enticed to watch it again though. If they could have eliminated the shaking, I definitely would have given this film a better rating.
