Please. Do you realize how rediculous it is to compare Altman's and Kubrick's films with the Bourne films and the rest of Greengrass's work? Altman is my favorite filmmaker of all time, and Kubrick is a master, but when did either of them helm an action movie or even a film comparable to Bloody Sunday or United 93? Never.

I will grant you that comparing the choreographed action sequences with a Fred Astaire dance sequence is an interesting one. However, where Fred Astaire's dance is graceful, smooth and obviously choreopraphed, the Bourne fights are disjointed and rough in their nature. Thus Greengrass decides to film them as such. Matter and manner. Present the art in such a way that reveals what the art is about.

You even say, "you can't tell who's fighting whom, who's chasing whom and all you can remember are short visual images that don't connect; which is an apt description of the movie itself." I believe that's exactly the point.

I love the constant whining against this so-called "MTV school of filmmaking." It seems its detractors are offended by a style, not by the many incompetent directors practicing the style. Let's remember the shower scene in Psycho. The shots are extremely short and the cuts are numerous yet it is still hailed as a masterpiece of film.

As a Republican (in the true sense, not in the crazy Conservative agenda sense), Salon can be a tough read sometimes.

But, I come here because the writing is great. And, I feel it's important to see another (often spot-on) perspective.

That said...

It's a MOVIE REVIEW. Did it really need to get the Salon We-Hate-Republicans treatment as early as the FIRST SENTENCE. A

Sheesh. At least wait a few paragraphs...

I love you, Stephanie. But, for shame!

You nailed it. Thanks for getting it right.

Somebody a few letters back compared Paul Greengrass's directing style unfavorably with Kubrick's and Altman's, as well as with a directing style favored in Fred Astaire movies.

I find fault with your logic because Greengrass is an entirely different type of director from Kubrick and Altman. I would describe Greengrass's style as "You are there." I've seen three of his movies -- "Bloody Sunday," "The Bourne Supremacy" and "United 93." In all of those movies, it's as if the audience is a character -- we're in the midst of that peace march massacre, we're careening through the streets of Moscow with Jason Bourne, we're fighting with the hijackers on United 93. Greengrass is trying to tear down that fourth wall altogether and put us in the middle of the action.

So I think comparisons with Astaire, Kubrick and Altman movies are unfair. It's apples and oranges. Compare with, say, Michael Bay, and I think you'll find that nobody does action better.

As someone who appreciates good writing in all its forms, I want to say that I find Zacharek to be the best film writer today. Regardless of whether I happen to agree with her ultimate assessment of a film, she is thoroughly descriptive, and one senses a real intelligence behind the reviews. I guess I find most film reviewers to be a film geeks who taught themselves to write; Zacharek strikes me as first a writer who happens to write film reviews. She has none of annoyingly self-referential and whiny aspects that I associate with current journalism; to me she comes across as well-researched, and, again, just plain smart. One of the best of Salon's regular contributors. I like good writing.

In my haste to post, I must add posthaste:

That aforementioned interview really led me to see Damon in a new light ... quite the intelligent, articulate and grounded guy, not to mention generous-hearted and in adoration of his wife and 1-yr old daughter. Luciana, you lucky gal!

Wow, because of a great interview with Matt Damon that I read in my local paper yesterday, I'm posting a rare letter to Salon.

Thought I'd share an insightful, intelligent analysis he did of the 3 Bourne movies, and how they've evolved from the themes of Paranoia, Atonement, and finally, Anger, paralleling those emotions with that of the collective psyche of the American public post-9/11. Not so sure about atonement though ... I think that was perhaps wishful thinking on his part about the Bush administration's criminal and unapologetic actions re Iraq et al.

And I quote:

"For Damon, the Bourne movies work on many different levels at once. They're popcorn pictures, but they're also reflections of the times in which they're made.

"The first one came out in 2002 and it's definitely a post-9/11 movie," he says. "All of the paranoia is there."

"The second one came out in 2004, when things were starting to turn in Iraq. Jason Bourne, this iconic American figure, is apologizing and atoning for his misdeeds, for things that he's done. He's taking responsibility."

"Now you have the 2007 movie and Bourne is pulling a gun and putting it to the head of the person who lied to him all these years. Bourne's saying, `I see now that you've led me into something under false pretenses.'"

The problem with the Jason Bourne character is that he is ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with movies about superheroes, but I would take the Bourne movies more seriously if they showed us a backstory where he was exposed to gamma radiation or bitten by a genetically enhanced dragonfly.

Which is actually known to have caused motion sickness in viewers. This is why I can't watch previews. They're all the same - flashing light and dark cuts less than a second, for 7 minutes.

I couldn't disagree with Ms. Zacharek more.

I loved "The Bourne Identity" but hate both sequels largely because of the Greengrass formula. The directing, editing and shooting are from the MTV school of film making. The result indicates a mediocre director trying to compensate by throwing in every music video trick in the book. Character development and plot are secondary to technique.

For example, in the first sequel by Greengrass, 75% or more of the film is comprised of cuts that are 1 second or less. There is no shot longer than 7 seconds. (I actually sat through it a second time with a stop watch.) This, combined with the excessive camera shake, persistent dim lighting and extreme closeups of action sequences, is disorienting, disconcerting and "motion" sickening.

The flashbacks include all of the above with the added annoyance of a distorted lens. Both sequels are very hard to watch in one sitting because of the mind numbing pace.

Imagine trying to watch Fred Astaire dance with the entire screen filled with a closeup of his pocket, in dim light, with a hand held, shaking camera, in one second bites, and no wide shots for context and you'll get an idea of how visually confusing both sequels are. One wouldn't even be able to know who Astair was dancing with. Likewise with Greengrass, you can't tell who's fighting whom, who's chasing whom and all you can remember are short visual images that don't connect; which is an apt description of the movie itself.

Within the first 10 minutes of this second effort, it becomes apparent that Greengrass sticks to the same formula, which is why I had to get out of the theater ASAP. I prefer digestion to heartburn. Give me Stanley Kubrick's or Robert Altman's long langourous scenes that encourage reflection rather than the adolescent, addictive adrenaline rush.

The fact that most critics are praising Greengrass' latest effort sadly indicates how the "nano-second attention span" has been fully integrated into our culture.

It's not only a sad commentary on the movie itself but our culture in general.