Jason Bourne

Actually reviews are not supposed to be based on wishful thinking.

Nonetheless for those members who gave this a high rating more out of frustration than anything else, I do feel your pain.

The original Bourne trilogy was not merely good, it was superb. As a top reviewer here with some 1200 reviews under my belt I said more than once that the original was the best spy trilogy I had ever seen and I am unashamed of the fact that I have seen each film in that series four or five times since original release. They are an adrenaline rush, the perfect mix of story, form, and effect.

Even 2012's Bourne Legacy -- a feature where it was ever so clear that Damon had been offered a fortune just to walk-on and smile at the camera, but refused anyway -- was a solid movie, great script, held the attention, and Renner did a great job.

However, now that I have seen Jason Bourne 2016, I cannot help but wish that Damon had agreed to participate in Legacy, rather than be lured back 4 years later for a part he clearly no longer likes, in a production he would rather not be in.

I tend toward "purist" reviews, that is to say, I don't really care WHY a film was made as much as I do about how entertaining is it to watch ...?

(That said, I have to "assume" that Damon broke his vow and came back simply for the cash. And Greengrass agreed to take hold of the camera one more time only if he could get a writing credit too. Ugh!)

So, speaking of entertainment, there is almost none in this movie. The script is a mess. Written by the director for the clear purpose of showcasing his action and camera-work skills, there is no attempt to build connection from the top.

The script is so bad that even viewers in love with the original trilogy -- like this one -- have to keep reminding themselves who Bourne is supposed to be, and what is supposed to motivate him.

(Not to mention major plot holes here and there. Am I the only one who noticed that the most WANTED MAN IN America attempted to enter customs under his own name with no advance certainty that the computer would be "fixed" in time? Remember, from the second film in the series, this is a man who "never guesses and never makes mistakes." Other than accepting to do this film, that is.)

A good film makes the viewer feel good. The scientists call it endorphin production. This 120 minute endless chase, from the top of the movie to the ending, merely produces a caffeine buzz and sets your nerves on edge. Yes, Greengrass can use this production in his own personal highlight reel to showcase his moving camera skills. But his writing skills? Not so much.

Tommy Lee Jones delivers possibly the most superficial performance of his excellent career and the money he was offered cannot begin to make up for the indignity of the closeups.

Newcomer Alicia Vikander acquits herself well. Then again, she is a newbie with a whole string of good movies ahead of her, career-wise, whereas the actors in this film seemed more interested in taking the money ... and running.

---------------ADDENDUM NOV 2017-------------

If you are curious to see the kind of film that JASON BOURNE (2016) should have been in a perfect world -- or a parallel universe, or whatever -- than have a quick peek at ATOMIC BLONDE 2017. Presumably when you read this review in the far future, you can snag it on streaming media or DVD or possibly even beamed directly into your cortex. Theron, for the first 2/3 of the film, is the Bourne of old. She is an agent with a mission and a purpose and a predisposition for removing obstacles from her path with the same ease a gardener pulls weeds from a flower bed. And the script is intelligent and purposeful. Yes, she has more estrogen than the Bourne we are used to (well, a LOT more, actually) but, other than that tiny discrepancy, ATOMIC BLONDE is more a Bourne sequel than this soppy entry.

---- ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))

So I'm a big fan of the Bourne trilogy so I did have high expectations going into this one. Just quickly this film is a 6.5/10, but as halves aren't a thing I've rounded up one to 7. I will say off the bat that you could do with watching the other films right before this one, I hadn't seen them for a while so especially in the first half I felt really out the loop. Considering how long it was between the third film and this one (not to mention the Jeremy Renner one in the middle), I expected to be in the loop more.

However, I did find it's a very good action film still. It had some really fun and exciting action scenes and it felt as high octane as you'd want a Bourne film to be. I did find it to be more of your run of the mill action movies and not your more in depth Bourne plots we know and love and that was one of the reasons I've opted for 6.5/10.

Matt Damon does a great job of recapturing the Bourne character I have to say and really impressed me with how he brought it back so well.

I do want to quickly mention that towards the end Jason is in a car crash, no joke you ain't surviving that! And yet he walks out relatively uninjured. That annoyed me a little bit I won't lie.

So yeah, it's a good film and I enjoyed my time watching this one. But I just didn't have that edge that the trilogy films had. For me it's a 6.5/10.

Lacklustre story line lacking intelligence, dialogue, and character development.

I am a big fan of the franchise and my expectations may have been too high for this sequel. Was hoping for same kind of substance and kept waiting for something impressively unexpected, like previous. Legacy was a better film. Even fight scenes and car chases from all previous had a different "feel" than typical action films, but formula made these redundant and confusing, not fun like others. The predictable plot had me thinking, hoping for intelligent twist that did not happen. It's a good rental I suppose.

The bad: this (final?) edition of the Bourne series is an inferior mashup of all the ingredients found in the much better original first movie.

They are using the exact same story, same situations, same music, same plot turns etc... I was contineously wondering when the "new" movie would start? It wouldnt though. This movie is simply nothing else but a100% COPY PASTE operation from older material. Bummer.

Surely not terribly bad as a movie on itself, but certainly the worst (or one of the worst) Bourne edition ever, because it is missing good creative writing. It is missing spark. It is missing real suspense.

Not any good at all? The leading actors (Tommy Lee Jones, Vincent Cassel and Alicia Vikander) all deliver solid acting performances. It is THEY who prevent this movie from becoming a dud.

The chase sequences are great as well. There are only 2 of them, which are both quite thrilling to watch though. So it's not all bad for sure...hence the 6 stars...

Many of the old fans have been yearning for a sequel for years...me included, but you cant always get what you want... because you cant always revive the glorious past.

Better watch the very first Bourne movie instead and you'll be surprised how strong that movie still stands till this very day!

Jason Bourne wants so hard to believe in its own supremacy, forces an ultimatum of thrills and spills, but ultimately lacks identity.

The original trilogy still stands out as one of the most intelligent post-Cold War spy action thrillers and it mostly succeeded in being the last word in the genre. Its huge success and relevance also gave the Bond franchise a big wake-up call. Amnesia-assassin Bourne is the real thang!

So 9 years later, Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon decided it is opportune time to inject a dose of Bourne-adrenaline and his extreme ways into us. The only problem is that instead of innovation and reinvention, it serves up last night's fried rice paradise. One shouldn't mess with paradise! Greengrass regurgitates out plot points from the three predecessors. From Operation Threadstone to Operation Blackbriar, we get yet another black-ops organisation called Ironhand that wants to stay hidden and will whack anyone to Kingdom Come to prevent its knowledge from getting out. It once again exploits Bourne's amnesia as he glimpses yet another piece of his jigsaw mind-puzzle. We get the same old CIA foggies uttering "Where's Bourne?" and everyone wearing pained expressions as Bourne evades everyone in Athens, Berlin, London and Las Vegas. We get yet again a woman who thinks she know best but Alicia Vikander has none of the gravitas of Joan Allen because she is too young to be convincing.

The screenplay does offer up an promising post-Snowden scenario but it still feels a little too familiar. These issues aside the movie is still a pulsating ride. The pace is relentless and Damon's taciturn Bourne still represents a driving force of reckoning. The spycraft and action set-pieces ooze uber-coolness and you will want to see it again just to catch how they did it. However I have one major complaint - I absolutely abhor the schizophrenic editing and jumpy hand-held shots. The camera never stays still for more than two seconds for you to marvel at the fight choreography and the vehicle mayhem-chases. In my book, hand-held shots coupled with split-second cuts are the cheapest type of cheat codes in action thrillers. With these type of cinematic trickery anybody can be a martial arts exponent and a world-class spy. No class.

This is a good dish of leftovers. It may harken you back to the days of the original trilogy but it never truly pushes the character to a new frontier re-examining his psychological state. In the end, a dish of leftovers will still serve its purpose, especially when you are famished.