Jason Bourne

The purest and most classic action film of the four-part series, which once again expertly mixes elements of hi-tech espionage and typically thriller-like, escalating plots, including an over-the-top finale where a police car dismembers dozens of cars in Las Vegas. All that was missing was a bald John Malkovich with an plane and we could have had Con Air 2. Apart from that, the film is not without quite a lot of scripted filler, a somewhat artificial plot and a rather visible aspect of coincidences. On the other hand, it's still the camera-volatile and uncompromising Paul Greengrass, in whose rendition all those CIA spy tricks are terribly entertaining, engrossing and hard to tear yourself away from. Alicia Vikander and Vincent Cassel are also refreshing change. The trilogy is phenomenal and consistent, with the fourth part following close behind. Still exceptional filmmaking, though. (2016-07-31)

That Greengrass made a remake of the 'best of' moments from the past doesn't bother me. It bothers me that he did it in the worst possible way, perhaps having Universal using F&F dramaturgists because Jason Bourne is one long action scene lacking any semblance of a meaningful plot. Last time, Gilroy delivered a simple but striking story based on the ambiguous past of an agent with amnesia. This time, it’s a primitive plot with the cheapest overlaps (Snowden, social networks), relegating the protagonist to a field of uninteresting and unnecessary figures who simply happen to pass through scenes, and yet we know that everything will be resolved in an effective way, without any frills or embellishments. This was supposed to keep us, the fans, who were a bit hesitant about the meaningfulness of the sequel, in our seats and massaging the first signal for two hours. But this is wherein the film ultimately loses the most. Yes, Greengrass keeps serving up epic action outpourings, but what's the point of them when Ackroyd, unlike Wood, doesn't know how to work the shaky cam? Those half-second shots, which the viewer processed somewhere in the depths of his brain and only with a slight delay appreciated their informational value, don't work this time. As a whole, they lack the flexibility and momentum that the head of the second staff, Dan Bradley, added last time. The result is desperate and predictable... and boring. Quite possibly because Bourne isn't being pursued by a crucial pursuer this time, and the intoxication of his tactical evasion, where he's a step or two ahead of the pursuer, is there. The aging Tommy and the pretty naive girl Alicia are both not up to the task, and Cassel seems to have dropped out of a 1990s B-movie (some of the flashbacks should be punishable). In short, I didn't leave the movie theater this year more pissed off. (2016-07-29)

As if Jason Bourneʼs stories had become routine. And not only his stories but also the action. And on top of it all, the action starts to have some balls only at the end of the movie, at the moment that is unBourne-like set in the USA. However, it is true that I am quite critical of the movie. On the other hand, I think that the first and second installments had at least some story while this one is only a series of escape – find – kill. Even though the Paul Greengrass’ filmmaking craft is still pretty on point. I just need something enlivening and Alicia Vikander isn’t going to salvage it, because you get exactly what you would expect from her in a spy thriller. Nothing more, nothing less. (2016-12-24)

When the series about the tough guy with gaps in his memory grew with a fourth installment, I decided to ignore it in the movie theater, even though I consider myself a Bourne fan. The third movie hinted that the conspiratorial world of the secret services of the United States and their manipulation of the human psyche is evolving in a way that I don't like. What the third movie suggested, the fourth confirmed completely. The form remained and what fans liked about the Bourne series, namely adrenaline overdose, dynamics, and handheld camera, can reliably be found here. Even Matt Damon confirms that he continues to visit the gym intensively. The problem, however, is the content. Greengrass clearly holds the opinion that it is enough for the film to be wildly thrilling, not giving the viewer time to breathe, and God forbid, start thinking about the plot, motivations, and actions of his characters. In that case, the viewer would quickly realize that the quality of the screenplay has fallen somewhere to the bottom of the ocean abyss. A lot of action stupidity has been filmed over the years, and this movie fits right into that category. It is a pity because poor Jason did not deserve such an ending... Overall impression: 40%. (2020-01-06)

A continuation I had resisted and wished for a long time that it would never happen, because the original trilogy works as a perfect action-spy diamond that doesn't need further polishing. And as The Bourne Legacy has already shown, continuing from elsewhere is not the best idea. Nevertheless, here we are and as expected, it reminds me so much of Paul Greengrass's previous contributions that it almost feels like a quote. I see the myth in specific scenes or twists, and the plot paraphrases The Bourne Ultimatum, and before all the flashbacks and assumptions settle in, I didn't have a very light feeling, especially when one of the targets is the surprisingly terrible Tommy Lee Jones. But it's still there in Matt Damon's bulldog face, and even though the action this time already slightly steps out of its established boundaries and flirts with (by previous standards) a surprising lack of realism, the physicality and uncompromising nature of it still raise my adrenaline level so much that it stayed high the whole way home from the cinema. Along with Nicky's return, the unreadable Heather, and the incomparable atmosphere, it is indeed an unnecessary digging into something already resolved, but the personal subplot ultimately fulfills its purpose perfectly. 75% (2016-07-28)