Jason Bourne

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)

Decent and magnificent in terms of craftsmanship, albeit ridiculously naive and dull (the current commentary is late by a few years), an action techno thriller trying to remark The Bourne Ultimatum too faithfully (and above all unsuccessfully) to its own detriment. It's not a bad movie in any way (except for the script, Gilroy is noticeably missing), it's just an unworthy and useless Bourne movie. (2016-07-27)

A proven director? Yes. A star from previous episodes? Yeah. Excited fans? After a not-so-good spin-off, they're just itching for a rematch. Perfect conditions for a hit. Perfect conditions for a good movie, but there is one thing they must not screw up, the story. And unfortunately Jason Bourne’s, the story grinds and quite a lot. I haven't read the script, so I won't say that it's bad, but the fact remains that the return of an agent who can't even rely on his own memory didn't turn out as I'd hoped. Matt Damon is still in form and the Greengrass action doesn't get old. The action scenes are properly long and build up nicely, transitioning seamlessly from silent stalking on the city streets to uncompromising chases. Just the way we like it. It's good to watch until someone starts talking. In fact, the film's plot is so trite and so B-movie that you might forgive it for Dolph Lundgren, but not for a thriller that aspires to be the thriller of the year. (2017-05-15)

The weakest Bourne and perhaps the biggest disappointment of the year. A lot of people complain about the weaker story, but I wouldn't mind it so much in the action genre, but it is so unbelievably bland, everybody is constantly dealing with something (from the past, present, future) and you don't really know what you're walking into and that's problem number one: grabbing attention and pulling you into the plot. I thought I would at least enjoy the actors and the action and unfortunately I was wrong there too. Matt Damon looks tired the whole movie and like he doesn't really enjoy the role, Tommy Lee Jones is an old dog and could be done with acting, he has nothing to offer, Vincent Cassel as the main bad guy is only in the movie for maybe 25 minutes, especially at the end, we don't learn his name and the only thing he says in the film is “Copy That”, a disappointment. The only bright spot is the beautiful and bright Alicia Vikander, who in two years has moved into the female acting elite. The action is a big stumbling block, too. On the one hand it is woefully short. two major action sequences and about three short ones, of which only the ending was worth mentioning, with a fabulous car chase and a decent final fight, otherwise everything else is cluttered, choppy, very unexciting and bloodless. Taking into account that I was bored for most of the film, because there can be no question of suspense and fast pace, I came out with one of the weakest cinema visits of the year. Unfortunately, this is a travesty that doesn't even offer a twist. 45% (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)