User Score
8.2

Universal acclaim- based on 357 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 18 out of 357
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. R.D.
    Aug 2, 2004
    2
    As plot goes, it's a good summer action flick. What spoiled it for me was the photography. The constant shaking of the camera gave me a headache. In the car chases all you saw was a series of blurs. Instead of catching you up in the action--as was the case in the first film--it kept you trying to figure out what was happening. All too often it just seemed muddled and confused. A big As plot goes, it's a good summer action flick. What spoiled it for me was the photography. The constant shaking of the camera gave me a headache. In the car chases all you saw was a series of blurs. Instead of catching you up in the action--as was the case in the first film--it kept you trying to figure out what was happening. All too often it just seemed muddled and confused. A big let-down after the excellent camera work in the first film! Expand
  2. RonR.
    Aug 28, 2004
    1
    Definitely one of the three WORST movies I've ever seen. The camera is shaking, shaking- ALWAYS shaking. There is hardly a still moment in the film. After 45 minutes I had such a headache I had to leave for awhile. Coming back awhile later didn't help. The camera was still shaking. For much of the last 45minutes I had to close my eyes so as not to get motion sickness. The Definitely one of the three WORST movies I've ever seen. The camera is shaking, shaking- ALWAYS shaking. There is hardly a still moment in the film. After 45 minutes I had such a headache I had to leave for awhile. Coming back awhile later didn't help. The camera was still shaking. For much of the last 45minutes I had to close my eyes so as not to get motion sickness. The director is a blooming idiot! Expand
  3. RandyH.
    Aug 13, 2007
    2
    Seemed like a great movie. I'm not really sure, because I had to look away through much of it or squint one eye shut to try and stem the nausea that the shaking, frentetic camera views inspired. Who thought this was a good way to film a movie? This artsy-fartsy director should be banned from any future filmmaking. Even the quiet moments in the movie when two people were just talking, Seemed like a great movie. I'm not really sure, because I had to look away through much of it or squint one eye shut to try and stem the nausea that the shaking, frentetic camera views inspired. Who thought this was a good way to film a movie? This artsy-fartsy director should be banned from any future filmmaking. Even the quiet moments in the movie when two people were just talking, the camera was moving and zooming in and out like the cameraman was smoking crack. I was looking forward to this third installment of the Bourne series, but by the end of the film I was looking forward to some Pepto Bismol. Complete waste of time and money, in my opinion. Expand
  4. JoeyK.
    May 7, 2006
    0
    This movie is absolutely horrible. The first one was great. This one was an insult. Frankly, I'm downright outraged that this one got a better metcritic score, because it is utter garbage. There is very little actual action. 3/4 of the movie is just footage of Matt Damon walking really fast and looking beihind him. Seriously. And when ther actually IS something that SHOULD be This movie is absolutely horrible. The first one was great. This one was an insult. Frankly, I'm downright outraged that this one got a better metcritic score, because it is utter garbage. There is very little actual action. 3/4 of the movie is just footage of Matt Damon walking really fast and looking beihind him. Seriously. And when ther actually IS something that SHOULD be interesting, you can't see it because whenever there's a fight, the first thing they do is kick the epileptic camera man in the balls. If you like faked, boring "suspense," see this movie. If you like action movies, or liked the first one, for the love of God stay away from this crap. Expand
  5. Aug 7, 2012
    3
    The movie had an average plot to it, OK twist, nothing mind-blowing, and acting was OK as well. The problem I have with this movie is the camera. The camera angles changes almost every 3 or less seconds, and the action scenes I just had to look away from, they didn't have any steady shots, and a major problem with holding the camera still. To be honest i almost made me sick of watching.
  6. JeremyG
    Dec 28, 2004
    3
    I have to agree with the other negative reviews here - I found it to be a string of pointless action scenes. And the camerawork makes it nearly unwatchable. I wouldn't be surprised if they filmed the entire thing without a single camera mounting device. I wasn't a big fan of the original "Bourne Identity", but I would have given it at least two points more than this score.
  7. PatrickS.
    Jul 29, 2004
    0
    Geez. What went wrong here?! The first movie was a thrill a minute action adventure with many memorable moments (who can forget the jet ski chase?). The sequel, however, is far far from it. Matt Damon, seeming more and more like he isnt sure if he's still acting in Good Will Hunting or not, reprises his role as Jasoun Bourne, a secret agent with a lost memory. Strangely, the wit and Geez. What went wrong here?! The first movie was a thrill a minute action adventure with many memorable moments (who can forget the jet ski chase?). The sequel, however, is far far from it. Matt Damon, seeming more and more like he isnt sure if he's still acting in Good Will Hunting or not, reprises his role as Jasoun Bourne, a secret agent with a lost memory. Strangely, the wit and assuredness that made his character so much fun in the first seems gone here, replaced by a strangely blank stare in almost every scene in the movie. The strange thing is, is that through all the action in the movie, all the sudden and inexplicable shoot outs, all the cop chases, all the car races, there never seems to be the adrenaline you would expect from such a movie. Many scenes seem very unlikely as well, as when he is shot in the arm and leg and still is able to jump over train tracks, over bridges, onto boats, and up buildings. Overall, I would recommend seeing an action classic like Road House or Next of Kin instead of this, you'll save yourself the money of a ticket and you can stay home. One tacky action piece. Expand
  8. Arthur
    Dec 28, 2004
    2
    What was good about the first movie is completely absent here: good action, great suspense, and solid plot. Resist the urge even if you liked the first.
  9. MikeG.
    Dec 4, 2004
    2
    What a mess. It's the kind of movie that just throws plot twists at you without any explanation, figures that a fast moving scene will make up for any kind of exposition and hopes for the best. It's a nice looking movie, but it definitely left me wanting a little more thrill in my thriller.
  10. RobinH
    Aug 31, 2004
    1
    Shaky, grainy, loud, boring, pointless waste of a number of strong supporting actors' talents, as well as two hours of my leisure time -- hopefully the next installment will use modern camera and film technology to create an enjoyable, complex story supported by viewable images -- not relying on extended, overwrought car chase and fight scenes interspersed with slow, drawn out Shaky, grainy, loud, boring, pointless waste of a number of strong supporting actors' talents, as well as two hours of my leisure time -- hopefully the next installment will use modern camera and film technology to create an enjoyable, complex story supported by viewable images -- not relying on extended, overwrought car chase and fight scenes interspersed with slow, drawn out "dramatic" scenes that don't add up to an interesting plot. Expand
  11. DanielH
    Mar 29, 2005
    0
    I went to see the Bourne Supremacy because I liked the Bourne Identity. That was a mistake. The Bourne Supremacy is the worst movie I saw in 2004. One chase after another and nothing else. Such a thin plot and cardboard characters don't equal to anything. It is just like watching someone else playing a video game.
  12. BradJ.
    Dec 14, 2004
    2
    Not very good at all. The director tried to use fast, choppy, action in the style of Gladiator but failed to realize that a) he isn't Ridly Scott, and b) you can't film an entire movie that way. The result is a movie that is actually painful to watch. The plot is OK, the acting is good enough, but the way the movie is shot makes all that irrelivant. If you saw Gladiator and Not very good at all. The director tried to use fast, choppy, action in the style of Gladiator but failed to realize that a) he isn't Ridly Scott, and b) you can't film an entire movie that way. The result is a movie that is actually painful to watch. The plot is OK, the acting is good enough, but the way the movie is shot makes all that irrelivant. If you saw Gladiator and thought "why didn't they film the whole movie the way they filmed the first fight" then this movie was made for you. Otherwise, spare your eyes and don't bother. Expand
  13. EvanD.
    Jul 24, 2004
    0
    Absolutely horrible. Poorly written, badly paced, and incorporating awful cinematography, this 2 hour bore barely passes for a movie at all.
  14. DonR.
    Jul 24, 2004
    0
    How could they follow up The Bourne Identity with this trash? The movie has no plot at all. It is an insult to good spy movies.
  15. AnonymousAgent#2
    Jan 22, 2005
    2
    Horrible, like one long shaky car chase the only reason it didn't get a 0 is because Matt Damon happend to be in it, by the end of the movie you'll have a headache from watching the picture shake so much......however the first movie was much better.
Metascore
73

Generally favorable reviews - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 30 out of 39
  2. Negative: 0 out of 39
  1. Like its various post-Cold War European locations, the film remains chilly and distant. Every time you feel like you're finally grabbing hold of something involving, the picture once again spins frustratingly out of reach.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    70
    The action is confusing at first and the hyperventilated editing style at times goes beyond the pale, so pic ultimately emerges as an erratic but not unworthy sequel to its gritty, genre-invigorating predecessor.
  3. The loss of the first film's hurtling who-am-I? story engine is keenly felt, and too much time is spent observing the characters get on and off planes, trains, and automobiles.