BigDave Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 (edited) Saw it last evening on vacation. Gets moving almost immediately and never really lulls. The car chase sceen was worth the price of admission. Best I've seen since Ronin. Good, straight-up spy flick. edited: b/c my dumba$$ can't spell Edited August 9, 2004 by BigDave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Yup! Pretty good for a sequel. Actually pretty good period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 I really liked it! I wish a certain character had not been eliminated, but that kind of thing happens in sequels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 My only complaint was the editing. It suffered from what I call the "Mtv-ization" of movies: the fight scenes were so quickly edited you were hard-pressed to see what was going on. For an extreme, and really suck-y sight of this in action, see any of Steven Segals later flicks. The fight scene in the first movie, where the hitman shows up at the apartment, is a great example of a properly-edited fight scene. In "Supremacy" the editor was trying so hard for the dark, noir-ish look, there were times I wished I could turn up the bightness and contrast controls. But other than that, good flick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriggerT Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 I liked the movie, but HATED the camera work. I get the idea that there is all kinds of action going on, now hold the F*^@ing camera still for more than 2 secounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Am I the only person that see irony in that Matt Damon is rabidly anti-gun yet has no problems waving them around for money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriggerT Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Am I the only person that see irony in that Matt Damon is rabidly anti-gun yet has no problems waving them around for money? That applies to about 85% or more of ALL movie stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeper Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 The camera work was really horrible. HOLD IT STILL!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dv8 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 I didn't feel that there was anything wrong with the camera work - but that's just me, I kind of like this stuff moving fast. I think there was some special taste to the fighting scenes there. (Again - just my .02) What surprised me is how realistic was the Moscow part. First of all it really was Moscow. Second - Russian language was good for the most part - unlike in some other movies I've seen. But most importantly - the Russian characters, especially the police and taxi drivers. The slang and the facial expressions were so real, they had to be of actual people, not actors. It felt like I actually spent a few minutes in Moscow... and man do I NOT miss it! Any way, great movie, I think I'll get a DVD when it comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 I actually liked the camera work, editing, and overall pace of the film. It did push the limits on pace, though, and any faster would have ruined it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajarrel Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 I'm sure it was a good movie....well, it sounded like a good movie. After about half of the movie, I was so screwed up with the "running camera work" I had to close my eyes. I saw several people get up and leave. My Dad once told me that the characters provide the action in a movie so "HOLD THE CAMERA STILL ." Anyway, I think I'll rent/buy it when it comes out on DVD, I really would like to see the chase scene and I think the motion won't be as bad on the small screen (i hope). Just call me a wuss, dj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dv8 Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 ...Just call me a wuss, dj Nuh, I'm not gonna call you a wuss... unless you insist of course It's just a matter of perception. And with visual arts the variations are endless, so that one man's garbage can indeed be another man's treasure, right? What I liked in those scenes, was that the pace of the camera somewhat reflected what a fighter sees or feels when fighting in close distance. This of course can also be debated, but it doesn't have to, as long as it is true at least for some people. I think that some people would like to see more of the story and meaning in a movie, while others may appreciate the visual aspects more than the story. There are many different genres in the modern cinematography, and a lot of movies are more or less successfully crossing the boundaries all over the place - go figure... I also think that there were so many absolutely incredible car chase and fighting scenes in American cinematography that it must be really tough to come up with something new and noteworthy. That's why I have a lot of respect for those who experiment and try totally new things, and baldly go where no movies have gone before... like the "Tetsuo, the Iron Man", right?... nuh, just kidding That's the movie that I had to close my eyes too, and it didn't even sound that good either... Regards. Vlad (The Other Vlad) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 "the pace of the movie reflects what a fighter sees or feels when fighting at close range"...? We spent a lot of time learning to "defocus" and see everything we needed to see (sound familiar?) when sparring. When I'm fighting (correctly) I see things a lot more like the fight scenes in the first Bourne movie, not the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dv8 Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 "the pace of the movie reflects what a fighter sees or feels when fighting at close range"...?We spent a lot of time learning to "defocus" and see everything we needed to see (sound familiar?) when sparring. When I'm fighting (correctly) I see things a lot more like the fight scenes in the first Bourne movie, not the second. Patrick, The word "(correctly)" is the key, I think. There is probably always a difference between what one should see vs. what he does actually see. Just like the difference between a plan and an execution of a COF. Well, in my experience, any way. When one executes correctly, thing may look differently. But when you are a movie maker, and you are making a movie for the widest possible audience, I think you probably will want to make sense to the most of the people, not to a few that might know how certain things are really done. And from point of view of most (or some) untrained in martial arts viewers, the fighting scenes may feel quite realistic. And that IMO, was the intent - make it feel like something, rather than look like something. Coming back to actual sparring, you are probably right - If all you see when sparring is something like that in the movie - you're probably screwed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidwiz Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 I was watching the first Bourne film (which I didn't care for) the other night, and noticed that most of the fight secquences were edited in such a way that you really couldn't see what was going on. That just made it all the more annoying. It's the mtv effect, as someone pointed out above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now