Bourne Ultimatum: why critics can't be trusted

Why does anyone read movie critics? Their opinions are completely their own, having no reflection on what our tastes might be.

Here's William Arnold of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

But, to my mind, Greengrass' effort to make his film the last word in tightly framed, nervous-camera action scenes is fairly disastrous. Most of the sequences are such a mess that we simply can't tell what's happening in them. The cumulative effect is boredom.

[...]

But it's not at all suited to an epic action blockbuster. The $100 million spent on "Bourne 3" seems a waste because most of the movie is just a blur on the screen. It cries out for a few long shots to orient us as to what the heck is going on.

And here's Claudia Puig of USA Today:

Let's just say it now: Paul Greengrass should direct every action thriller. The world of movies would be better for it.

His masterful direction of The Bourne Ultimatum (* * * * out of four) makes this third installment unequivocally the summer's best "threequel." It also is easily the best action thriller of the year.

[...]

Its palpable sense of urgency and rapid-fire pace is bolstered by an intricately plotted story and a strong ensemble cast. Matt Damon plays Jason Bourne, a former CIA operative trained as a killing machine, whose erased memories have come crashing down on him.

[...]

Forget those impressive chases you saw in Matrix 3 or Casino Royale— Greengrass' dazzling, adrenaline-surging pursuits rise above the rest. He has made two of the best recent films, his last being the captivating United 93. Wherever he takes his handheld camera next, audiences would be wise to follow.

One critic's disorienting "blur on the screen" is another's "palpable sense of urgency". If I was a betting man, I'd bet that Arnold is much older than Puig. Arnold's description of the hand-held camera work reminds me of all the morons who vomited while watching Blair Witch Project.

Bottom line: If it's not dwarf fetish porn, how good could it be?