Jason Bourne | 7.29.2016 | One week IMAX release on August 26 thanks to Ben Hur flopping

[Plain Old Tele]

I liked SS more than this. Who'da thunk?

[Ethan Hunt]

1 minute ago, Tele the Jet Baller said:

I liked SS more than this. Who'da thunk?

You're evil

[The Futurist]

24 minutes ago, Tele the Jet Baller said:

I liked SS more than this. Who'da thunk?

 

Tele, I see you through your game.

 

You ain't fooling no one anymore.

 

 

[Plain Old Tele]

What?  

[The Futurist]

Just now, Tele the Jet Baller said:

What?  

 

You need to make your coming out.

 

 

[WrathOfHan]

2 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

 

You need to make your coming out.

 

 

 

[Blankments]

5 minutes ago, Blankments said:

Updated Jason Bourne projections:
 
Weekend 4: 8.5M (-37.3%) cum 141.1M
Weekend 5: 5.6M (-34%) cum 149.8M
Weekend 6 (3-Day): 4.9M (-13.6%)
Weekend 6 (4-Day): 6.3M (+11.6%) cum 158M
Weekend 7: 2.5M (-47.7%) cum 161.4M
Weekend 8: 1.7M (-32.1%) cum 164.1M
 
DOM: 166.922M (2.819x)

WW: 591.896M (71.8% foreign share)

 

[FallingSlowly]

Hi, I'm new here!...Signed up after I read through the discussion here.

 

I agree with those who have been disappointed with this new movie. I'm an enormous fan of the original trilogy and was beyond pumped and hyped for this new one.

 

My thoughts/problems with this movie (spoilers):
 

Spoiler

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 and lazily stitched together in an attempt to tell a coherent story. There is literally nothing new in "Jason Bourne", we've seen everything before.

The asset in this movie (total waste of Vincent Cassel's talent) suffered from poor writing. We learn that he wants revenge against Bourne because he was undercover on a mission when the Blackbriar files were leaked. Because of this, he was captured and tortured. I mean, 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 (wow, who is writing this). When Jason's father finds out that Jason has been recruited to be the first Treadstone agent, he panics and tries to expose the program. This leads to his assassination by...you guessed it...Vincent Cassel's Asset 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 tense and great. You get a sense of the technology the CIA has 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 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. 2.5/5.

 

Do you think they'll make another one after this...?

Edited August 19, 2016 by FallingSlowly

[ecstasy]

1 hour ago, FallingSlowly said:

Hi, I'm new here!...Signed up after I read through the discussion here.

 

I agree with those who have been disappointed with this new movie. I'm an enormous fan of the original trilogy and was beyond pumped and hyped for this new one.

 

My thoughts/problems with this movie (spoilers):
 

  Reveal hidden contents

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 and lazily stitched together in an attempt to tell a coherent story. There is literally nothing new in "Jason Bourne", we've seen everything before.

The asset in this movie (total waste of Vincent Cassel's talent) suffered from poor writing. We learn that he wants revenge against Bourne because he was undercover on a mission when the Blackbriar files were leaked. Because of this, he was captured and tortured. I mean, 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 (wow, who is writing this). When Jason's father finds out that Jason has been recruited to be the first Treadstone agent, he panics and tries to expose the program. This leads to his assassination by...you guessed it...Vincent Cassel's Asset 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 tense and great. You get a sense of the technology the CIA has 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 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. 2.5/5.

 

Do you think they'll make another one after this...?

Glad you put that in spoilers. I haven't seen it yet. And yes if they make enough money, they will make another one. They may as well do a team up with Cross. He's still out there somewhere.

[Macleod]

On 8/11/2016 at 5:25 PM, The Futurist said:

Jesus Christ, was a snooze fest this was.

 

It was like everything you saw in the first 4 (you read me correct) but less good : story, acting, action, shaky cam, fist fights.

 

The Renner one was better in every way.

 

The biggest disappointment of the summer for me.

 

9 years for this ?

 

 

Agreed on all.

 

1 hour ago, FallingSlowly said:

Hi, I'm new here!...Signed up after I read through the discussion here.

 

I agree with those who have been disappointed with this new movie. I'm an enormous fan of the original trilogy and was beyond pumped and hyped for this new one.

 

My thoughts/problems with this movie (spoilers):
 

  Reveal hidden contents

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 and lazily stitched together in an attempt to tell a coherent story. There is literally nothing new in "Jason Bourne", we've seen everything before.

The asset in this movie (total waste of Vincent Cassel's talent) suffered from poor writing. We learn that he wants revenge against Bourne because he was undercover on a mission when the Blackbriar files were leaked. Because of this, he was captured and tortured. I mean, 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 (wow, who is writing this). When Jason's father finds out that Jason has been recruited to be the first Treadstone agent, he panics and tries to expose the program. This leads to his assassination by...you guessed it...Vincent Cassel's Asset 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 tense and great. You get a sense of the technology the CIA has 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 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. 2.5/5.

 

Do you think they'll make another one after this...?

 

Agreed on all.  I couldn't believe they were lifting the 'ol 1989 Batman/Joker explanation: "I made you, but you made me first"

 

Plus, the overall message of this film is pretty insulting to both women and people of color.  Greengrass is a smart guy, so I have to believe that he knew the implications of the story he was telling.  The problem is, it doesn't come across as a cautionary tale...more like "This is the way the world is, so you'd better get used to it."

 

[trifle]

I enjoyed it a lot.  Granted, it was an intellectually 'guilty pleasure'  in that I had at least 10 times in the movie when I turned to the person I came with, who was also looking at me with the same incredulous expression, and gestured disbelief.  But it didn't matter, because in the end I had a really enjoyable experience.  I can't even remember the reasons I was incredulous watching it. 

 

I'd see it again.  And, honestly, there are VERY few movies this year about which I would say that.

[FallingSlowly]

1 hour ago, ecstasy said:

Glad you put that in spoilers. I haven't seen it yet. And yes if they make enough money, they will make another one. They may as well do a team up with Cross. He's still out there somewhere.

 

I'm half curious to see where this franchise will go...and half terrified to see where this franchise will go haha. I guess if he ever does encounter Cross, I will make myself watch Bourne Legacy.

 

1 hour ago, Macleod said:

 

Agreed on all.

 

 

Agreed on all.  I couldn't believe they were lifting the 'ol 1989 Batman/Joker explanation: "I made you, but you made me first"

 

Plus, the overall message of this film is pretty insulting to both women and people of color.  Greengrass is a smart guy, so I have to believe that he knew the implications of the story he was telling.  The problem is, it doesn't come across as a cautionary tale...more like "This is the way the world is, so you'd better get used to it."

 

 

Right? I was watching some interviews of Matt Damon for Jason Bourne and it really sounds like he and Paul Greengrass made this movie because 1) people keep asking for more Bourne and 2) their previous movies hadn't done well. And I don't blame them for taking easier projects! I'm just baffled that Matt Damon read this script and thought "Great!" when he has repeatedly said that he'd only come back if there was a good story to tell. In one interview, he says that they started brainstorming by comparing the current year to 2007, when Ultimatum took place, and that set them in the direction of writing about social media, privacy, etc. It sounds like it was doomed from the start - they wanted to write something that was topical, not something that was relevant to Bourne. (Why would Bourne give a shit about social media??)

[FallingSlowly]

1 hour ago, trifle said:

I enjoyed it a lot.  Granted, it was an intellectually 'guilty pleasure'  in that I had at least 10 times in the movie when I turned to the person I came with, who was also looking at me with the same incredulous expression, and gestured disbelief.  But it didn't matter, because in the end I had a really enjoyable experience.  I can't even remember the reasons I was incredulous watching it. 

 

I'd see it again.  And, honestly, there are VERY few movies this year about which I would say that.

 

I won't lie, the movie was certainly entertaining! From a pure action movie standpoint, I'd say Jason Bourne might be the best this year. I saw the movie with a friend too and we also turned to each other several times with disbelief during the movie. I think it was mostly during the hacking scenes.

 

I might see it again just to experience the new Extreme Ways remix in theaters =P That song always makes me smile.

Edited August 19, 2016 by FallingSlowly

[grim22]

Jason Bourne will get an Imax release August 26th thanks to Ben Hur lack of biz {nm}

 

Posted by: notfabio on Aug 19, 19:58

[WrathOfHan]

lmao why? It's not going to be ahead of SS. Who's going to care about IMAX for the movie this late? Why not Don't Breathe?

Edited August 20, 2016 by WrathOfHan

[filmlover]

8 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

lmao why? It's not going to be ahead of SS. Who's going to care about IMAX for the movie this late? Why not Don't Breathe?

Horror movies almost never get IMAX releases. 

[Macleod]

On 8/19/2016 at 1:33 AM, FallingSlowly said:

 

I'm half curious to see where this franchise will go...and half terrified to see where this franchise will go haha. I guess if he ever does encounter Cross, I will make myself watch Bourne Legacy.

 

 

Right? I was watching some interviews of Matt Damon for Jason Bourne and it really sounds like he and Paul Greengrass made this movie because 1) people keep asking for more Bourne and 2) their previous movies hadn't done well. And I don't blame them for taking easier projects! I'm just baffled that Matt Damon read this script and thought "Great!" when he has repeatedly said that he'd only come back if there was a good story to tell. In one interview, he says that they started brainstorming by comparing the current year to 2007, when Ultimatum took place, and that set them in the direction of writing about social media, privacy, etc. It sounds like it was doomed from the start - they wanted to write something that was topical, not something that was relevant to Bourne. (Why would Bourne give a shit about social media??)

 

Exactly.  The whole thing feels IN-organic, the two story strands, Bourne and the tiff between the CIA Director and the social media guru, are not tied together whatsoever.  Bourne DOESN'T seem to give a shit about any of that...for him, this is all personal.  And a pretty weak motivation...despite being -- can we do spoilers here? -- all about "the sins of the father."  There continues to be waaaay too much "Daddy issues" stuff with protagonists in Hollywood stuff lately...this made me think of Ang Lee's Hulk, with the father experimenting on his own sun.  Even though what's eventually revealed in Bourne is not this...they spend so much time making you *think* it is that the reveal doesn't really resonate when put out there... disappointing.

[Macleod]

The CIA people are in a 'safe room' that is able to basically monitor every element of communication in the world, hone in on specific events anywhere...and they don't catch when one of their own people in the room sends a text to Bourne warning him?  Equally...Vikander's character is somehow able to slip something into the pocket of the CIA Director while numerous bodyguards are standing close to him and all around them??  Stuff like this just made me question nearly every single scene...

[trifle]

2 hours ago, Macleod said:

The CIA people are in a 'safe room' that is able to basically monitor every element of communication in the world, hone in on specific events anywhere...and they don't catch when one of their own people in the room sends a text to Bourne warning him?  Equally...Vikander's character is somehow able to slip something into the pocket of the CIA Director while numerous bodyguards are standing close to him and all around them??  Stuff like this just made me question nearly every single scene...

 

 

I had a ton of those moments, but they didn't keep me from enjoying the movie, for some reason.  I'll see the next one, as long as it is Matt Damon.  He IS Bourne.

[ddddeeee]

This is one of the laziest scores I've ever heard.