Jason Bourne (2016)

[Ethan Hunt]

Alright, here's my perspective on his motivations to come back. Of course your opinion is your opinion but one of the things that I took form the movie was that despite what he says at the end of Ultimatum he is still Jason Bourne. And He will always be Jason Bourne no matter how hard he tries to escape it. He'll reach his “tipping point" where he can be David Webb no longer and he must be Jason Bourne. In that's sense I really don't take much to get him to come out because deep down its what he needs and he'll latch on to any reason to come back out. 

[John Marston]

it's entertaining enough but it doesn't really add anything to the series. Pretty much just the same story again. 

 

 

the next Bourne needs to have a different type of story. Also, I think Matt Damon's Bourne can go back more to the way he was in the first one instead of the constantly angry guy he was in the last three. 

[Ezen Baklattan]

The whole time I watched this I imagined that Paul Greengrass didn't really want to make this movie. It tries pretty desperately to take what worked in the original Bourne trilogy and mash it up with some half-assed Snowden sympathy plotline (lol at something being stolen from Spectre) - it never feels very compelling beyond a few exciting moments of action, and not even the whole scenes: My god, what is with this movie and shaky cam? Honestly, I saw this on Monday and already forgot a lot of the details. It's not horrible nor impressive. Bourne is one of those movies that's just kind of there.

[darkelf]

When a movie doesn't make you care about its protagonist who had already been established in no less than 3 great movies beforehand, then there's something wrong with the movie. The whole thing seemed hastily slapped together by a bunch of people who didn't really want to come back to this universe. It's a re-hash of the original movies without any kind of hook to keep you invested. The action was good I guess, and there were a couple of moments when I thought it would pick up the pace but it never really manages to keep its momentum going.

 

I haven't been this disappointed in a very long time.

 

5/10

[somebody85]

Jason Bourne should have stayed retired because this was the worst story yet and the most cliche way to bring him back (yay they are bringing back the program...but get this it's worse this time! And your Dad was involved from the beginning! That's why you joined! And we killed him!).

Don't really feel like writing a lot but this movie is nothing compared to the original trilogy. Expected a lot more from Greengrass. The app thing was an interesting idea (Pokemon Go is actually funded by an arm in the CIA) but they didn't do enough with it. The maker of the app refuses to budge to Tommy Lee Jones (already forgot his characters name) demands in the diner and he has the lamest response possible that is supposed to make the app guy feel bad. 

Had no issue with the shaky cam until the Vegas car chase then it became hard to follow. Same with the final fight.

At least the Moby theme is still good. 

C

Edited August 9, 2016 by somebody85

[jb007]

Fast paced, well acted with great action. Exactly what I want in a Bourne movie. Matt Damon is excellent as usual. Alicia Vikander was very good. A worthy entry to the series though the The Bourne Legacy had tarnished this fine franchise a bit. Las Vegas car chase is fantastic.

 

A-

[Dementeleus]

Crowds of people scream and stampede. 

 

Tommy Lee Jones and Alicia Vikander stare at monitors. 

 

JESUS CHRIST IT'S JASON BOURNE

 

Vincent Cassel glowers. 

 

Repeat for two hours. 

 

C+

[The Futurist]

They should have continued the Renner-Weisz storyline.

That s how mundane it was.

 

D

[The Futurist]

On 11 août 2016 at 10:15 PM, Tele the Jet Baller said:

Crowds of people scream and stampede. 

 

Tommy Lee Jones and Alicia Vikander stare at monitors. 

 

JESUS CHRIST IT'S JASON BOURNE

 

Vincent Cassel glowers. 

 

Repeat for two hours. 

 

C+

 

Pretty much.

 

[Claire of Themyscira]

They should bring Weisz in for Damon. Love ha.

[FallingSlowly]

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.

Edited August 20, 2016 by FallingSlowly

[Jay Beezy]

On August 19, 2016 at 11:27 PM, FallingSlowly said:

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.

 

On top of that, the signature action sequences (big car chase and Bourne vs. Asset) felt shoehorned in this time. Why did the story need a car chase where the Asset stole a heavy duty police vehicles and rammed through cars with it?

[John Marston]

ok entertainment but adds nothing to the franchise. If there is another one please bring in a different director