Jason Bourne (2016) Reviews

• Lacks intelligence of all previous

  franciscote-909932016-07-29

  Lacklustre story line lacking intelligence, dialogue, and character development. I am a big fan of the franchise and my expectations may have been too high for this sequel. Was hoping for same kind of substance and kept waiting for something impressively unexpected, like previous. Legacy was a better film. Even fight scenes and car chases from all previous had a different "feel" than typical action films, but formula made these redundant and confusing, not fun like others. The predictable plot had me thinking, hoping for intelligent twist that did not happen. It's a good rental I suppose.

  More

• Jason Bourne walks for 2 hours

  gigs15412016-07-30

  This movie made me want to leave after one hour, and kill myself after 2 hours. I am a huge Bourne fan I was very exited for Matt Damons return to the Bourne franchise. Also there was fresh face of Alicia Vikander and not so fresh face of Tommy Lee Jones and Vincent Cassel as the bad guy so what can go wrong? Well it turns out if you have a horrible script, plot that only a person who wears helmet indoors can consider exiting you are left with the biggest disappointment in the cinema this year. Spoiler alert everybody! Jason Bourne walks for 2 hours, sometimes he remembers things sometimes he doesn't - the end. So to conclude : Do not see this movie! I had to watch the trilogy the next morning just to get over the disappointment of the new Jason Bourne.

  More

• What a shame, Just plain boring. (my review doesn't give any plot away)

  elboy2016-07-30

  How do you make Bourne boring? The original film is probably one of my favourite films. This one however, I just found myself rolling my eyes every few minutes especially during the first 30 minutes. After about 1.5 hours I had given up and was just waiting for it to finish. When are these film makers going to stop it with the totally unbelievable computer hacking rubbish? In one scene they execute a program by typing "run predictive algorithm". In another scene, they spot someone on a surveillance camera and the female character actually says "enhance". Come on! How cliché. What is this, the 1980's?? It isn't total and utter crap. It is as well made as the other Bourne films, except for that annoying, erratic fight scene camera work that seems to be in every action film at the moment, So you can't actually see what is going on. It has some OK action scenes but they do nothing to make it interesting. Nothing really happens. The plot is weak and the film is just plain boring. And I'm a fan of the trilogy! (Not the odd number 4 film which incidentally is better than this) Matt Damon is as good as he can be I suppose. Tommy Lee Jones, who I like as an actor, doesn't really bring anything to the film because his character is boring as well. I just can't help but feel they cashed in and made another one without really caring if it was any good or not as they knew everyone (me included) would go and watch it because all the others are so good!

  More

• More "Where's Waldo" than Jason Bourne

  A_Different_Drummer2016-07-29

  Actually reviews are not supposed to be based on wishful thinking. Nonetheless for those members who gave this a high rating more out of frustration than anything else, I do feel your pain. The original Bourne trilogy was not merely good, it was superb. As a top reviewer here with some 1200 reviews under my belt I said more than once that the original was the best spy trilogy I had ever seen and I am unashamed of the fact that I have seen each film in that series four or five times since original release. They are an adrenaline rush, the perfect mix of story, form, and effect. Even 2012's Bourne Legacy -- a feature where it was ever so clear that Damon had been offered a fortune just to walk-on and smile at the camera, but refused anyway -- was a solid movie, great script, held the attention, and Renner did a great job. However, now that I have seen Jason Bourne 2016, I cannot help but wish that Damon had agreed to participate in Legacy, rather than be lured back 4 years later for a part he clearly no longer likes, in a production he would rather not be in. I tend toward "purist" reviews, that is to say, I don't really care WHY a film was made as much as I do about how entertaining is it to watch ...? (That said, I have to "assume" that Damon broke his vow and came back simply for the cash. And Greengrass agreed to take hold of the camera one more time only if he could get a writing credit too. Ugh!) So, speaking of entertainment, there is almost none in this movie. The script is a mess. Written by the director for the clear purpose of showcasing his action and camera-work skills, there is no attempt to build connection from the top. The script is so bad that even viewers in love with the original trilogy -- like this one -- have to keep reminding themselves who Bourne is supposed to be, and what is supposed to motivate him. (Not to mention major plot holes here and there. Am I the only one who noticed that the most WANTED MAN IN America attempted to enter customs under his own name with no advance certainty that the computer would be "fixed" in time? Remember, from the second film in the series, this is a man who "never guesses and never makes mistakes." Other than accepting to do this film, that is.) A good film makes the viewer feel good. The scientists call it endorphin production. This 120 minute endless chase, from the top of the movie to the ending, merely produces a caffeine buzz and sets your nerves on edge. Yes, Greengrass can use this production in his own personal highlight reel to showcase his moving camera skills. But his writing skills? Not so much. Tommy Lee Jones delivers possibly the most superficial performance of his excellent career and the money he was offered cannot begin to make up for the indignity of the closeups. Newcomer Alicia Vikander acquits herself well. Then again, she is a newbie with a whole string of good movies ahead of her, career-wise, whereas the actors in this film seemed more interested in taking the money ... and running. ---------------ADDENDUM NOV 2017------------- If you are curious to see the kind of film that JASON BOURNE (2016) should have been in a perfect world -- or a parallel universe, or whatever -- than have a quick peek at ATOMIC BLONDE 2017. Presumably when you read this review in the far future, you can snag it on streaming media or DVD or possibly even beamed directly into your cortex. Theron, for the first 2/3 of the film, is the Bourne of old. She is an agent with a mission and a purpose and a predisposition for removing obstacles from her path with the same ease a gardener pulls weeds from a flower bed. And the script is intelligent and purposeful. Yes, she has more estrogen than the Bourne we are used to (well, a LOT more, actually) but, other than that tiny discrepancy, ATOMIC BLONDE is more a Bourne sequel than this soppy entry.

  More

• Poor story and even worse directing

  iliyanyankov2016-07-30

  I've seen the other reviews of Jason Bourne and I am starting to question my own judgement, maybe I am too biased to write a review for this title. But I can't help it as I absolutely hated the movie. And I hated it after I had low expectations for the latest title, since I heard Tony Gilroy wasn't involved in the script. The story is atrocious, I realize that it is supposed to set the basics for another 15 Bourne movies, but the story is so bad that they decided to overcompensate for it with prolonged action scenes, which are just terrible. It reeks of desperation to watch nothing happens for so long periods, just throwing dust in the eyes of the viewers with effects and low quality action. I realize that this goes beyond Ludlum books, but Greengrass is pretty much willing to do anything to fill the movie, other than to continue with the traditions of the original Bourne series known for Ludlum's excellent story-telling and spy- craft realism. The fight scenes, they're just terrible. Too fast camera shifting, even more than previous Bourne series, leaves you thinking that those actors are good for nothing amateurs who can't act a fight scene, so you need to make sure the viewer never really sees it. I loved the first 3 movies, even liked the Bourne legacy, and I adore the books. But this movie is so bad, that it shouldn't be even put anywhere near them. The acting is good, the story is bad and the directing is just painful. And btw, when you're doing realism spy thrillers, don't make hacking look like a freaking Pokemon hunt. It's just pathetic and unbelievable. Go watch Mr. Robot and think again how hard would be to present the "hacking" with at least proper interfaces instead of embarrassing yourself.

  More