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. (24/12/2016)

It's not really a return to Bourn(e)s roots, it's more of a new offshoot, which fortunately isn't as ordinary as people say it is. Bourne play an interesting role here of an involuntary puppet, whose strings are pulled by many people, and I'm glad that there was still a story to tell about him, and especially that Paul Greengrass is telling it again. Thanks to him and, of course, thanks to Matt Damon, amazing things are happening in movie theatres again - like the London chase or the final car chase (I probably won't see better on the big screen this year).___P.S. The Bourne Legacy, which was useless four years ago, now seems to be even more useless.___P.P.S. Unfortunately, Kateřina Hámová and her subtitles traditionally full of mistakes did not disappoint. Like when one character says, "Put everything on the table..." but the subtitles read "Everything's on the table." Or when the computer command "Run" according to the subtitles does not mean "launch" the program, but "browse". (06/08/2016)

The only reason Bourne continues is that he can't quit, and that the fans didn't want him to quit. Greengrass did not find the ideal motivation, and the film unexpectedly often works with the motif of chance or a somewhat desired twist. Not even the promised overlap is the brightest - it's more a bunch of obvious motifs (whenever Snowden is said aloud in a movie, a kitten dies). But Jason is still an interesting character, and the dilemma of whether it's better to adopt an artificial identity or to be someone I don't quite know is still cool. And the humanoid GPS Greengrass still finds delightful patterns in chaos. It's not at the level of the last two episodes of the trilogy, but it's still a pure techno thriller pleasure that only Paul can do. BTW, Alicia is great again and offers a dignified virtual counterpart to the contact killer Jason. His offensive stampede won't bore me. The adrenaline that I miss in the cinema is still here. (27/07/2016)

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% (28/07/2016)

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. (29/07/2016)