FallingSlowly

I finally saw The Martian It was a very solid movie! I feel like Matt Damon was just playing himself but that wasn't a bad thing.

No, I agree with you that it's not that simple and that movies will morph throughout the production process. A good example would be Bourne Ultimatum, which had to be re-written while it was being shot. I was just also pointing out that some movies don't turn out so lucky and are pretty much doomed from the start - they're so hasty to rush the film out, they don't have a proper working script to start with or don't try to find assistance with improving it. I think I'm burnt out overall from this summer's disappointing movies and I'm scared/sad that the Jason Bourne movie was the result of the same studio greed.

I don't know what else to add then? You can continue to defend it and I will continue to criticize it.

I think if you actually watched the movie, you'll know where I'm coming from.

It's a nice sentiment but I have a very hard time believing that they actually thought the script was good simply because they both worked on the original trilogy and they understood that the story was integral to those movies' successes. They're smarter than that. I really don't believe that they ran this script past other people and everyone said, "Oh yeah, this is a great story." Haha, your last sentence is what I'm afraid of. Universal's CEO or director or someone said that they want to keep making Bourne films until it's physically not possible. They're going to run this franchise into the ground with their greed.

My bad, that's not what I meant. When I said Greengrass wrote the script, I meant he just wrote a mediocre one in a hurry to get the movie greenlit. He's a good director but the last film he wrote was in 2006 and he didn't write the script for the original Bourne trilogy. If he cared about the Jason Bourne movie, I imagine he would've called up Burns and Nolfi or another writer - ANYONE to call him out on his lazy writing. The surveillance theme was definitely shoehorned and Bourne didn't even interact with that storyline throughout the movie - why bother including it then?? It also makes no sense that Jason Bourne, the character, would care about something like that. He just wants to be left alone. Definitely agree with your last point.

Bourne movies now with 1000% more lens flare. And aliens.

Funny how things work out! I still need to see The Martian. All I've heard is good buzz. Did you like it?

Adjustment Bureau: 128 M Contagion: 135.5 M We Bought a Zoo: 120 M Promised Land: 8.1 M Elysium: 286.1 M The Monuments Men: 155 M Compared to Bourne Ultimatum: 443 M and The Martian's 600+ M. Box office numbers don't impact how much I like or dislike a movie but I'm just saying that his movies didn't do as well commercially after Ultimatum concluded. That was by choice though since his success from the Bourne series allowed him to take smaller projects. I obviously am not Matt Damon and I don't know him but I do chat with people who work in the industry. Since this is a forum discussing movie business, I don't think it's that big of a stretch to conclude that many movies, including this one, were made for purely financial reasons. You don't have to look further than 2016's terrible summer season to see that. If Greengrass cared about the movie, he would've at least hired a writer. I think Matt Damon's filmography also shows that he likes to star in movies that address social issues...but they usually come off a little preachy and put off audiences. See Green Zone, Elysium, The Promised Land, etc. Maybe he thought the social media/privacy aspect of Jason Bourne was interesting but who knows.

Matt Damon puts in effort for all of his roles even when the movie is bad. He's not a dumb guy so I'd be really surprised if he actually looked at this script and thought it was good. I really think he made it because he hasn't had a "hit" movie at the box office for a while and because Greengrass asked him. Greengrass didn't have his heart in this movie either though - as I wrote previously, the story was that Greengrass approached Universal to fund a movie and Universal said they'd only do it if Greengrass made another Bourne film first. This makes sense to me because I don't know how else you could explain the huge drop in story and character quality of this movie compared to the original trilogy. No one was invested.

I think that was Chewy's point though. This should be a lesson to the fans because in the end, the studios win.

Not negative at all. There were legitimate concerns about this movie, and almost entirely story-based. A movie being "fun" is only one of the factors that determine how good it is. I shake my head sometimes when I see people say that this movie was "Awesome! So fun! Had amazing action!" because I don't want to dismiss their enjoyment of it. But it's like the enjoyment you get after you watch a Michael Bay movie. I dunno, maybe that's what the majority of people expect nowadays when they go see an action movie

I agree, I don't think this one had anything new. Moby remix was nice though. It felt really jarring to hear all the old Bourne music throughout the movie because I felt like I was watching some generic action blockbuster that had somehow stolen the Bourne soundtrack lol

It is entirely personal, all the stories have been about him trying to find out more about himself. He was a patriot before Treadstone (he wouldn't have volunteered otherwise) but that's not him anymore. He doesn't care about serving/protecting the country and agency anymore. When he swam off at the end of Ultimatum, I imagine he finally found some peace with his past. Which is why his motivations in this movie (spoilers): And yeah, since Star Wars' "No, I'm your father", this whole father twist has been overused and cliched, I don't think anyone even has an emotional reaction to it anymore.

Already shared my thoughts on a separate discussion thread but might as well post it in this review thread for completeness. What made the original trilogy brilliant was the writing. It wasn't just some mindless Hollywood action flick that you forgot about after. The writing made for great storylines and interesting characters and NONE of that made it into this new one. This new movie was literally a mish-mash of scenes/ideas that happened in the original trilogy lazily stitched together in an attempt to tell a coherent story. The asset in this movie (total waste of Vincent Cassel's talent) made no sense. We learn that he wants revenge against Bourne. The revenge component makes sense but why would the CIA be dumb enough to send someone with a personal connection to Bourne to hunt down Bourne?? These assets are trained to be emotionless and unfeeling for a reason. Treadstone, which as been dead since the first movie, is dragged out from its grave yet again. Introducing cliched plot point #2: it is revealed that Jason Bourne's FATHER was the creator of Treadstone, tried to expose it when he learned Jason was being recruited and ends up assassinated by...you guessed it...Vincent Cassel's character. WHO WROTE THIS? This completely nullifies the revenge plot of the Asset - you murdered Bourne's dad but you're now allowed to be pissed at Bourne? The behind-the-scenes CIA moments in the original trilogy were great. You got a sense of the technology the CIA had access to without getting too many details that made it seem unrealistic. This new movie was completely the opposite. It was just hacking, hacking, hacking. Unrealistic, laughable hacking. I think Vikander's character was this movie's way of trying to connect with this generation's tech-savvy youth. The character even says at one point that Tommy Lee Jones' character was something of the past/old-school and that her generation is the future of the agency - I rolled my eyes so hard. Nicky's death was so so pointless. They tried to rip off the scene where Marie dies from Supremacy but it had nowhere near the same emotional depth because Bourne barely had a reaction to her dying. What was the point of the scene then?? The writers can't expect a reaction from the audience when Bourne himself didn't even look that broken up over it. Total and utter waste of Nicky's character. She was the only character that appeared in all 3 of the original movies. It would've been very interesting for this movie to explore their implied past relationship from Ultimatum - it doesn't have to be romantic or anything crazy but Ultimatum clearly seemed to suggest that Nicky had a piece of Bourne's past. But instead of developing that, they tossed the idea in the trash to make way for some extremely contrived plot to bring Bourne out of hiding. A part of me wonders if this was some decision influenced by the studios i.e. kill off Nicky to make way for the "younger, and hotter" Vikander character to capitalize on her rising popularity in order to sell more tickets. I would not be surprised at all if that was the reason but it's still dumb. If the original trilogy didn't exist, this movie would've been a decent action flick. But this really felt like watching someone trying to make a Bourne film and failing. Grade: C Afterthought: I decided to watch a few interviews Matt Damon when he was promoting this movie. I've always loved Matt Damon and the effort he puts into his roles no matter how good or bad the movie. In one interview he says, "People kept asking us to make another one and it was great to know there was an audience out there because I've made a few movies recently that didn't find an audience." I think Paul and Matt decided to finally make this movie because it was a "safe" choice and pretty much a guaranteed hit at the box office. I don't blame either of them for taking easier movies and roles. However, I am baffled as to why Paul was the one who penned the script and how everyone was on board with it. The only reason I can think of is that...no one cared lol Universal probably just handed them huge paychecks, they were pressed time so Paul and his editor just pulled a terrible story out of their asses. And that just makes me sad. In the same interview, he mentions that when they were trying to come up with a story, they tried to see what was different in 2016 compared to 2007 (Ultimatum). That lead them in the direction of Snowden, social media, privacy concerns, etc. So I think the ideas for the movie were doomed from the start. Damon seems to love drawing attention to social issues and that's a great thing! Problem is he ends up starring in movies like Green Zone and Elysium, which end up being preachy and ham-fisted. I feel like something similar might have happened in Jason Bourne since it tried to comment on topical issues but at the expense of a plot.